Sitting of 25 June 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sean Francis Hughes Esquire, Member for Knowsley, South, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Gas Turbines
    Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the number and location of gas turbine projects for the production of electricity in England and Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): There is substantial interest in using gas both by existing generators and by those wishing to enter the generating market. I will arrange for the list to be published in the Official Report.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that because of the low growth in electricity consumption, many of the 10,000 MW projects will not be required, unless there is a massive closure of coal-fired power
    2
    stations? Is he further aware that a gas generator producing 350 MW will emit 1 million tonnes of CO2 per annum and that coal is even worse? Is not that a good argument why we should now have a further nuclear power station, as nuclear power is the cleanest of the lot and will keep the industry together?
    Mr. Wakeham: I listen to my hon. Friend with considerable interest because of his expertise. In the new regime, it will be for the owners of power stations to determine what they see as the market. Electricity demand is forecast to rise over the next 10 years. All commentators seem to agree on that, although they differ on the rate of increase. The current surplus of capacity is likely to come to an end within the next few years. Net capacity needs to be ordered soon if it is to meet the forecast increase in demand. Capacity is also needed to replace existing capacity. Power stations may come to the end of their life, they may be less efficient or more costly than new power stations, or the cost of reducing emissions may be too high compared with the cost of a nuclear plant.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Secretary of State agree that to follow the line of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), which is to sterilise millions of tonnes of coal by closures in the coal industry, would be a short-sighted medium-term policy? Once gas was not available and the millions of tonnes of coal were sterilised, we should have to rely on competitors. Would that be a wise policy?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government's policy is to encourage a diversity of fuels, but combined cycle gas turbine power stations are friendly to the environment. For every unit of CO2 emitted from a coal-fired station, just over half a unit is emitted from a CCGT station.
    Following is the information:
    The following combined cycle gas turbine generating (CCGT) stations have been given planning consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989:

    3

    National Power plc

    Killingholme, South Humberside

    PowerGen plc

    Killingholme, South Humberside

    The following applications for consent for CCGT generating stations are still being considered:

    National Power plc

    Little Barford, Bedfordshire

    PowerGen plc

    Rye House, Hertfordshire

    I have also been notified by Deeside Power Development Co. Ltd. of its intention to submit an application for consent for a CCGT generating station at Shotton, north Wales.
    The following projects have been given approval under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976, that is, to establish an electricity generating station to be fuelled by natural gas, or for the conversion of an electricity generating station with a view to its being so fuelled:

    Berisford Bristar plc

    Brigg, South Humberside

    Hawker Siddley/ Eastern Electricity plc

    Peterborough

    John Brown Engineering Ltd.

    Rugby, Warwickshire

    Midlands Electricity plc

    Hereford

    National Power plc

    Killingholme, South Humberside

    National Power plc

    Little Barford, Bedfordshire

    Nat West Bank plc

    London

    PowerGen plc

    Rye House, Hertfordshire

    Ranger Oil/PowerGen

    South Denes, Great Yarmouth

    Shell UK Exploration and Production

    Shellhaven, Essex

    Thames Power

    Barking, London

    The following projects have received approval under both sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Energy Act 1976, that is, to establish an electricity generating station fuelled by natural gas and to enter into contractual arrangements for obtaining a supply of natural gas as fuel for an electricity generating station, or to extend any such arrangements:

    British Sugar Ltd.

    Bury St. Edmunds

    British Sugar plc

    Wissington, Suffolk

    BP Chemicals Ltd.

    Baglan Bay, West Glamorgan

    The Boots Company plc

    Beeston, Nottingham

    Hawker Siddley

    Corby, South Humberside

    ICI plc

    Winnington, Cheshire

    ICI plc

    Wilton, Cleveland

    Kodak Ltd.

    Wealdstone, London

    Lakeland Power

    Roosecote, Cumbria

    Leicester Energy

    Leicester

    London Transport Executive

    Lots road, Chelsea

    London Transport Executive

    Greenwich generating station

    PowerGen plc

    Killingholme, South Humberside

    Slough Estates

    Slough

    Thames Board Ltd.

    Workington

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairmen of the area electricity distribution companies to discuss privatisation.
    Mr. Wakeham: I meet regional electricity company chairmen regularly to discuss a range of matters.
    Mr. Mullin: In the light of recent precedents, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that, should he in the near future find himself out of a job, neither he nor any senior members of his Department will go running to take places on the boards of any distribution companies?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have two answers to that question, neither of which will be satisfactory to the hon.
    4
    Gentleman. First, it is a hypothetical question, and secondly, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said on the subject.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of East Midlands Electricity, will he ask him how the new project at Bilsthorpe colliery in my constituency for a high-efficiency, mini power station is getting on and when East Midlands Electricity, together with British Coal, will be able to announce a starting date with Government help?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have met the chairman of that regional electricity company on several occasions, and I have no doubt that he will raise that subject when I next meet him. We are looking at the figures, and it is important to examine the economics in particular.
    Mr. Skinner: When the right hon. Gentleman meets electricity company chairmen in the east midlands and elsewhere, will he point out that there is serious concern about the high cost of nuclear power and about the revelation today that Sizewell will cost another £1 billion, making the total cost £2.6 billion? Will the right hon. Gentleman also point out that it would be better to use coal because it is very difficult to get rid of nuclear waste? That is especially true of low-level nuclear waste, as the right hon. Gentleman experienced when he was Patronage Secretary and had to get Tory Members to stand up in protest about nuclear waste being dumped in his own constituency.
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's recollection of history is not very accurate. Nor should he believe everything that he reads in the newspapers, even the headlines of some of our better-known journals. I suspect that the question of nuclear costs will come before the House before long.
    Mr. Moss: Does my right hon. Friend accept that privatisation has been a success for many industrial users because it has introduced price competition between distributors and generators? Does he agree that the only reason why Labour opposes privatisation is that it would like to see industrial users pay more for their electricity?
    Mr. Wakeham: I hope that better reasons will be given in this afternoon's debate for the Opposition being against privatisation, but we shall be able to deal with all that they have to say.
    Mr. Morgan: I suppose that the Secretary of State realises that one electricity-rated company now in the state sector from which he cannot expect a job offer is Nirex. Does he agree that if the privatised area distribution boards are compelled to abide by normal stock exchange rules, which say that a company's audited accounts must be available going back five years or more, and which, with restructuring, the new companies do not have, it will be impossible to flog those companies? The only way of persuading the "Sids" to buy shares in them would be by a mass advertising campaign that would make the Albanian dictatorship at its Stalinist height or even Lord Young when at the Manpower Services Commission blush.
    Mr. Wakeham: There were a lot of words in that question, but getting down to their fundamentals, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the stock exchange rules

    5
    necessary for the flotation of the regional electricity companies will be obeyed to the satisfaction of the people who have responsibility for those matters. Of course, there will be an element of advertising, as there has been in all privatisations. That will be beneficial in ensuring that the taxpayer gets value for money.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Marshall. I call the hon. Member because I thought that I saw him rising to his feet. If he does not want to ask a question, we shall move on.
    Mr. John Marshall: I am always happy to oblige, Mr. Speaker, by asking a question. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that previous privatisations have been followed by increased investment and effective control of prices than before, and that electricity consumers can look forward to a good future under privatisation of that industry?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. Not only will customers benefit from privatisation but so will taxpayers and those employed in the industry.
    Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) if he was merely taking his place.

    Global Warming
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last discussed with his colleagues in the European Community the implications of global warming for energy policy.
    Mr. Wakeham: I last discussed with Community colleagues the implications of global warming for energy policy at the Energy Council on 21 May.
    Dr. Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree with the statements made last week by Mr. Jim Smith, chairman of Eastern Electricity, the largest of the distribution companies soon to be privatised, that the industry should concentrate less on cutting back and conserving and far more on winning markets from British Gas? Is that any way to contribute to attempts to reduce global warming? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that statement as an example of the initiative that is needed in modern Britain?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am in favour of the chairman of Eastern Electricity looking after the interests of his employees, his customers and his shareholders—
    Mr. Dobson: You are the only shareholder.
    Mr. Wakeham: At the moment it happens to be me, as the hon. Gentleman points out, although shortly there will be a lot of shareholders. I approve of the chairman—he is a first-class person.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will doubtless be aware that a fortnight ago the House was well represented at a conference in Ottawa of 23 Council of Europe countries, the Soviet Union and Poland, about global warming. However, he is probably not aware that that conference took the decision that the subject is so important and it is so essential to reach a global solution, that every Parliament represented there should, if possible, hold a two-day debate on the papers discussed at the conference with a view to reporting back to a further
    6
    conference to be organised by the Council of Europe. Will my right hon. Friend lend his considerable influence to support such a request when he receives it?
    Mr. Wakeham: For a long time I had some responsibility for organising debates in the House. I no longer have it, but I shall pass on my hon. Friend's request to those who do. I agree with my hon. Friend this far—the conference in Ottawa and the conferences that seem to be taking place regularly in all sorts of places around the world at the moment are important if we are to deal with global warming. He is also right to say that it is necessary for us to have international agreement if we are to deal effectively with those problems. That is why the Prime Minister announced on 25 May that, in the context of international agreements, the United Kingdom is prepared to stabilise CO2 emissions at the present level by the year 2005. That target depends on other countries being able to play a full part in an international response.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Secretary of State embarrassed when he meets his European colleagues that we are so half-hearted about our commitment to dealing with the problems of global warming? Why do our Government always say that we shall act if others act first? Is not the reality that we have a problem that we share with the world, which is so urgent that the target of doing a little by 2005 is too little far too late? Is not he embarrassed, and does not he want to be more effective as our Energy Minister?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am very far from being embarrassed. The Prime Minister has taken the lead, with a demanding target. It is easy for those without responsibility here or in other countries with different problems to make forecasts and targets that they probably will not be able to meet. Our target is realistic, and if we can get international agreement on that level, we shall have done well.

    Sizewell B
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the most up-to-date estimate of the final construction cost of the Sizewell B nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: Nuclear Electric has undertaken a thorough review of progress with the Sizewell B project, including the estimated cost to completion. The outcome of the review will be announced soon.
    Mr. Illsley: The Secretary of State must be aware that recent estimates have put the final cost of Sizewell B at about £3.8 billion, taking into account the cost overruns, delays and lack of economies of scale due to the cancellation of the pressurised water reactor programme. It was also calculated that £2 billion can be saved by cancelling the project now. Does the Secretary of State agree that the time to cancel Sizewell B is right now?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am not prepared to comment on speculation about the costs of Sizewell B. Nuclear Electric has recently reviewed the cost of Sizewell B, and I understand that it will publish its figure tomorrow. However, I shall seek to give the House an idea of the Government's consideration of Nuclear Electric's review during this afternoon's debate, if I should catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
    Dr. Michael Clark: If it is true that Sizewell B is costing considerably more than first envisaged, does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the nuclear industry, like so many others, cannot get construction costs right? Does he concede that Sizewell B is more than merely one additional power station? It is the forerunner of a series of power stations that are environmentally desirable, and an insurance policy for the future. When fossil fuel declines we shall still need electricity.
    Mr. Wakeham: I am not prepared to confirm the speculative figures that I read about this morning.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that every penny of the overrun will have to be paid by the taxpayer and that it amounts to a subsidy to nuclear power on a scale that the Government have never accepted in respect of the mining industry? Has the Commissioner with responsibility for energy in the European Community, which has taken an interest in the sweeteners that were paid for the purchase of Rover, asked the Government to make a full disclosure in this case?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have clear responsibility for taxpayers' money, of which I am well aware. That is why I am not prepared to comment on or to accept the speculative figures that appeared in this morning's newspapers. We shall make our comments at the proper time and in the proper way. That will be after Nuclear Electric has published its review. As for the coal industry, the right hon. Gentleman once had the honour to hold the position that I now hold. The financial assistance and grants that have been made available to British Coal under this Administration exceed, in real terms, the total assistance from all previous Governments since the industry was nationalised.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that behind Sizewell B is a nuclear industry that must not be allowed to disintegrate? Will he also bear in mind the long-term view that the nuclear industry will be essential to the United Kingdom when coal and natural gas run out?
    Mr. Wakeham: Those are some of the many considerations that I have to take properly into account when considering those matters.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State make a statement after Nuclear Electric has published its figures and will he confirm now that the figures that he says Nuclear Electric is to publish tomorrow will cover the whole of the extra costs, including those that must fall on Sizewell as a result of the cancellation of the other three pressurised water reactors? Will he also confirm that the costs of the £200 million nuclear research write-off will fall on Sizewell? Finally, can he confirm that if Sizewell is to continue, electricity users will have to pay at least twice as much for their electricity from Sizewell as from any other electricity generating station?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman would have been well advised to accept my advice not to press his questions at this time. I do not believe that the answers that he will receive a little later will be entirely to his liking. The best plan is to allow Nuclear Electric to publish its report and then decide what is the best thing to do.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to review the 90 per cent. upper limit on the grant available under the homes energy efficiency scheme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): A number of representations have been received about the 90 per cent. limit as part of the consultation process. They are being considered.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the 10 per cent. shortfall is a formidable disincentive to the most needy families in Britain to take up this environmentally and socially valuable scheme? How can the Government be so miserly with those people and yet so profligate? Is not it true that there would be enough fuel efficiency grants for almost the entire population if Sizewell B were cancelled? Is not it acknowledged now that Sizewell B and the whole PWR programme was the worst, the most futile and the most wasteful civil investment decision since the Pharaohs decided to build the pyramids?
    Mr. Baldry: The 90 per cent. grant is a continuation of the home insulation project. However, the levels of individual grant will be determined in the light of the comments received by means of consultation. I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are taken into account as part of the consultation process. The principal aim of the new scheme is to bring about a further increase in the uptake of home insulation measures among low-income households. The scheme will, I believe, be successful in doing just that.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that loft insulation is the most cost-effective way of reducing energy consumption, so, when the Government are willing to give low-income households a 90 per cent. grant, that is an extremely good deal, which they should be encouraged to take up?
    Mr. Baldry: Energy efficiency in the home extends beyond that scheme, and the promotion of energy efficiency in buildings generally is extremely important. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently presented the first national home energy rating certificate in support of the methodology and principles of energy labelling as endorsed by the Building Research Establishment. It is a welcome step in the development of the voluntary energy labelling of homes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently spoke at the opening of the one millionth new home to be built with mineral wool cavity wall slab insulation. Such initiatives will greatly help promote energy efficiency and energy savings in Britain's households.

    British Coal
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future of the coal industry.
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Wakeham: I meet the chairman of the British Coal Corporation regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Patchett: After meeting the chairman of British Coal, will the Minister be prepared to issue a joint statement with him assuring redundant and retired mineworkers that their concessionary fuel rights will be guaranteed unless they choose another option in future?
    Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter before with me and certainly with British Coal. It is a matter for British Coal, but I shall certainly ensure that any further representations that he wants to make are put to the chairman of British Coal.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Secretary of State aware that currently nods and winks suggest that even if the country had the unlikely misfortune to have a Conservative Government after the next general election, they would not privatise the coal industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss the matter with Lord Haslam and explain to him whether that change of heart is because the Government are to maintain the policy of contraction so that there will be nothing left to privatise, or because wiser counsels have prevailed?
    Mr. Wakeham: I think that the whole House would wish me to congratulate Sir Robert Haslam on his recent peerage. He has been a distinguished leader of industry for many years and is a distinguished chairman of British Coal. Certainly I discuss many things with Sir Robert Haslam, but he does not seek to interfere with what is essentially a political decision. The Government's position is clear: we intend to bring proposals before the House for the privatisation of British Coal after the next election.
    Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to secure a long-term future for the British coal industry is for its prices to be competitive and for it to develop the technologies to burn coal cleanly? Flue gas desulphurisation does not reduce, but increase, greenhouse gases. The development of new technology such as the fluidised bed and coal gasification will alow us to burn coal in the long term and reduce CO2.
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the long term, the development of new clean coal technologies will be the future of the British coal industry into the next century, but in the meantime the considerable improvement in productivity and performance in recent years must be maintained for many years to come.
    Mr. Holt: When my right hon. Friend speaks to the chairman of British Coal, will he take up with him the matter of dumping waste on the beaches of the north-east of England? It may be cost effective for the coal industry, but it is extremely expensive on the environment and ultimately will have to be cleaned up. Will my right hon. Friend give notice that licensing for such disposal will cease quickly?
    Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that there are strong feelings about this matter, for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible. I know that he is currently considering it.
    Mr. Hood: Considering the overrun in the cost of nuclear power at Sizewell B, when the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he suggest
    10
    that a fraction of the expenditure on nuclear power should be invested in the Scottish coalfield to reopen the Francis and Monkton Hall collieries? Scottish coal is consumer friendly; it is the green coal of the future. Will he give a lead to the chairman of British Coal by supporting the redevelopment of the Scottish coalfield?
    Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman says, several matters in relation to Scottish coal are encouraging. Scotland has a considerable amount of low-sulphur coal, which is likely to become increasingly valuable, and its quality advantage will provide good opportunities for the future. I was pleased that Monkton Hall and Francis pits were mothballed rather than closed, because it shows that, in the right circumstances, mothballing is a feasible option. I am pleased that British Coal and Scottish Power are close to agreement about coal supplies to Longannet power station. It is not all doom and gloom.
    Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most miners now own their homes and wish to be able to own shares in the industry in which they work? Why, therefore, did he say that the Bill to privatise the coal industry will be introduced only after the next election? Will he please introduce it in November? It could be quite a short Bill and it would be welcomed, particularly by miners.
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has a formidable reputation for cutting through red tape and getting to the heart of matters, but the Bill to privatise British Coal will be complex, because under the licensing arrangements in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 a privatised British Coal could not retain responsibility for licensing our national reserves.
    Mr. Barron: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the coal board will he discuss the most urgent matter in the coal industry—its low morale? Will he join Labour Members in supporting the chairman's efforts to win some long-term contracts for supplying electricity generators? Last year, British Coal was offering 10-year contracts to the new generators but it was stopped by the politics of Whitehall. Will he support the efforts of the chairman of the coal board to get talks going immediately to ensure future stability for the British coal industry after these short-term contracts?
    Mr. Wakeham: In the friendliest possible way, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that part of the cause for the low morale, which is not as widespread as he suggested, may be some of the statements that he and his hon. Friends have made. British Coal secured a three-year contract with the generators which was benefical to both parties. Negotiations for a further long-term contract are continuing and I hope that satisfactory arrangements will be made.

    Flue Gas Desulphurisation
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the flue gas desulphurisation programme.
    Mr. Wakeham: Work on retrofitting FGD to the 4 GW Drax power station is proceeding well. In addition, I am considering applications from PowerGen for my consent to it retrofitting FGD to Ratcliffe and Ferrybridge C power stations.
    Mr. Butler: Although Fiddler's Ferry power station was originally considered for flue gas desulphurisation, what progress has been made in reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by burning low-sulphur coal, and does it represent a saving to the ultimate consumer?
    Mr. Wakeham: The fitting of FGD equipment in general adds to the costs of producing electricity; it does not reduce them. How the power station at Fiddler's Ferry will be run is a matter not for me but for the company. I recognise my hon. Friend's legitimate interest in these matters.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency of installing this equipment at Ferrybridge C power station, where a number of my constituents are employed? Is he aware that any greater delay in agreeing that the equipment should be fitted will mean a significant danger of more coal mines in the area being closed? Will the right hon. Gentleman urgently consider the application from Ferrybridge C power station, so that we can get on with the job and assure the people who work in the mining industry that at least their jobs will be made secure?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's question. There certainly will be no delay on my part. If the initial 8 GW of retrofitting is completed, as we hope, it will be sufficient to enable British Coal to produce about 70 million tonnes of coal for the generators. That will meet the provisions of the European directive until, I think, 1998. At the moment, there is a commitment only to 8 GW of retrofitting. It will be some time before we must deal with the problem of extra retrofitting.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable caution is justified in approaching the FGD programme? Does he agree that the plant is large, the cost is great and the efficiency of the burning system is diminished by it? Could not FGD turn out to be an expensive cul-de-sac? Does he agree that it might be more productive to consider more efficient burning systems?
    Mr. Wakeham: We have told the generators, "You must bring forward your plans"—they are not the Government's plans—"on what you believe to be the most efficient and effective way of dealing with the European directive." The generators must deal with that directive, and that is why we have reached the present position. My hon. Friend is right: it is an expensive and, in some ways, retrograde technology. I believe that it will play an important part in achieving the reductions that are called for, but other measures will be needed too.

    National Power
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of National Power to discuss changes in conditions of employment.
    Mr. Baldry: Conditions of employment are a matter for National Power's management.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that part of the terms and conditions of employment in the old electricity industry involved a concessionary purchase scheme whereby members of staff could purchase items sold by the boards? Is he aware that on the Saturday before privatisation, National Power sent a letter to all staff and ex-staff telling them that on the following Monday the
    12
    scheme would be cancelled? Was not that a deplorable action by National Power? When the hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of National Power, will he find out when the scheme, which existed for many years, will be reintroduced?
    Mr. Baldry: Concessionary sales for National Power staff are not part of the conditions of employment; they are a matter for management. I understand that National Power is investigating alternative arrangements and has undertaken to inform staff, pensioners and trade unions in July about progress.

    Offshore Installations
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to improve safety in the handling of dangerous substances on offshore installations.
    Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend is currently studying the possible extension of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 to offshore installations.
    Dr. Moonie: I appreciate that this matter is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but I am sure that the Minister of State is well aware of the concerns that have been expressed, especially by my constituents who work on offshore installations. Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee to take careful heed of the views that have been expressed by trade unions on the importance of any changes?
    Mr. Baldry: Offshore safety is of paramount importance and we have consistently stressed that we will not allow standards to be compromised for any reason. We have been reviewing the important contribution that the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have made in improving safety onshore, and it will now be for the Health and Safety Commission to advise my right hon. Friend the Minister of State whether such regulations should be extended offshore. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will also have regard to comments and representations made to him by the trade unions and others concerned with safety in the North sea.

    Community Insulation
    Mr. Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many homes have been insulated by community insulation projects since 1982.
    Mr. Baldry: More than 750,000 homes have been treated by the projects since their work began in 1982.
    Mr. Burt: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him and the Government on the good work that has been done through the scheme. May I bring to his attention the problems caused in certain areas by the change in benefit regulations? May I also seek his assurance that the work on the scheme will continue and that his Department will pursue that good work as far as it possibly can and encourage its growth and development? The scheme has assisted a number of homes in my constituency, and I should like its benefits to the rest of the country to continue and prosper in the years to come.
    Mr. Baldry: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. We are keen to ensure, wherever possible, that

    13
    work undertaken by the community insulation projects is not constrained in the run-up to the new home energy efficiency scheme. That new scheme will have about £12 million available in its first half-year of operation, and I am confident that there will be a substantial increase in the rate at which the work is done.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Official Visits
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to pay an official visit to the Duchy; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I have no plans to visit the Duchy estates in the immediate future.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that several of his tenants have expressed concern to me at the suggestion that one in 15 of them who are standard rate taxpayers may be called upon to pay more tax. They have also said that they might like to hear about the matter in an impartial manner on Independent Television News. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that those tenants will not be called upon to pay more tax and that they will be able to hear impartial reports about the matter on ITN?
    Mr. Baker: To those of my hon. Friend's constituents who are concerned about the possibility of paying more tax, I have to say that it will not be a question of one in 15, two in 15 or even three in 15 paying more: all 15 will pay more tax under the Opposition's proposals. When the Leader of the Opposition talks on television about tax increases, it is a question of, "Watch my slips". I hope that ITN will not be browbeaten by a harassed and embarrassed Labour party.
    Mr. Alan Williams: When the Chancellor visits the Duchy, will he confirm—as I am sure he will—that he meticulously differentiates between his role as a Minister and his fund-raising and publicity roles as chairman of the Conservative party? If he can give that assurance, why did not he observe the same rule when he visited Armenia recently? The Prime Minister told us that he went in his official role as a Minister but, in a response to me, he said that he travelled privately with Sir Jeffrey Sterling, who happens to be the second largest contributor to the Conservative party.
    Mr. Baker: I was invited by a sponsor of the school in Armenia. The right hon. Gentleman cavils too much. Had he seen the school, he would know of the outstanding contribution that the Government and the individual sponsors have made in an area that has suffered a grave tragedy. Moreover, the school is a great tribute to the British workmen who completed the work on time, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman cannot take more pride in that.

    Environment
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what environmental responsibilities his chancellorship involves.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: As a member of Her Majesty's Government, I am closely involved in the development of future policy towards the environment.
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend will no doubt remember with pleasure his days in Southport and the times that he played on the beach and made sand castles. He will therefore understand the enormous strength of feeling among Duchy residents in Lancashire about coastal pollution. Can he reassure those left in the county, and some who are still left on the beaches, that the beaches will soon be clean and that the Government are four-square behind those efforts?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend reminds me of my youth which I spent in Southport. That was some time ago. The amount being spent on environmental improvement in Lancashire and the Mersey basin constitutes one of our largest programmes. The Mersey basin programme will involve £4 billion over the next 25 years. North West Water will be investing £400 million next year and £100 million is being dedicated to cleaning beaches in Southport and Blackpool.
    Dr. Cunningham: Why is it that for millions of people, including holidaymakers as well as residents in the north-west and the Duchy, it is unsafe for them and their children to bathe in coastal waters because the concentrations of coliforms, pathogenic micro-organisms and other harmful entero-viruses in the water present a serious risk to people? Is not it obvious that the Government's timetable for resolving the problems is hopelessly inadequate?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Labour Government who presided over a cut of 40 per cent. in capital investment for water authorities. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we are spending about £3 billion to improve and clean water throughout the country and specifically in the north-west. The Labour Government ran the country so badly that they could not provide the funds for such important infrastructure developments.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that beaches in the north-west are cleaner now than they have ever been? When he next visits the Duchy, will he take the opportunity to suggest to the Labour leader of Lancashire county council that she joins other local authorities and pressure groups in the north-west in getting together with North West Water to make the beaches even cleaner?
    Mr. Baker: If I believed that the Labour leader of Lancashire county council would listen to me, I would willingly pass on that advise. However, all the evidence is that she listens to no one, least of all to the Labour party. Lancashire county council is one of the biggest overspenders in the country. Last year its overspending was 17.5 per cent., which amounted to £123 million. That is why the community charge in Lancashire was so high. I re-emphasise what I said earlier. The Government's commitment to cleaning up the estuaries, rivers and beaches in the north-west is absolutely clear. More money will be spent on that over the next few years than has been spent in recent years.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many written parliamentary questions he has answered since last replying to oral questions in the House.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have answered two written parliamentary questions since last replying to oral questions in the House.
    Mr. Winnick: No doubt that gives the right hon. Gentleman even more time to write those endless letters to some of my hon. Friends. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy have any responsibility for the articles that appeared in yesterday's Conservative newspapers to the effect that the deputy Prime Minister is to be dumped, or do those stories originate from No. 10? It seems odd. Perhaps the Chancellor will wish to come to the defence of his right hon. and learned Friend, who seems to be the victim of a vendetta.
    Mr. Baker: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who asks me questions of this nature at every opportunity—he asked similar questions of my predecessor—that the last time he asked me a question, we were about 25 points behind in the opinion polls and now we are about 11 points behind. The passage of time has seen an unprecedented decline in support for the Opposition.
    Mr. Burns: My right hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the fact that, at the time of the previous oral questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Conservative party was 28 points behind in the opinion polls, whereas now it is only 11 points behind. Does my right hon. Friend think that, when he next answers oral questions, the Labour party will be decent enough to congratulate him and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on putting us ahead in the opinion polls?
    Mr. Baker: I would not like to suggest that the improvement in Conservative party fortunes is entirely due to my appearance at the Dispatch Box. In the past few weeks, the Labour party has been rumbled. When it talks of spending, the country now realises that that means increasing taxes. The great launch of its new manifesto has gone off like a damp squib.

    Official Duties
    Mr.Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his official duties for 25 June.
    Mr. Baker: Earlier today I met Duchy of Lancaster officials; later, I shall spend time attending to Duchy business.
    Mr. Skinner: When I took over as chairman of the Labour party, it was six points behind in the opinion polls; When I left, it was 15 points in front. You can do anything with statistics.
    As part of his official duties, does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster watch "Spitting Image"? Is he aware that the only puppet that is not human is him and that he is portrayed as a big fat slug? Is he sending a letter of protest or congratulation to the programme makers?
    Mr. Baker: I am indifferent to the various caricatures of me: I find that the more significant one becomes, the more trenchant they become.
    16
    When the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was leader, or rather chairman—he was never leader—of the Labour party, it was doing better than it is now. I think that he should be chairman again. The Labour party is waiting for Dennis, and I hope that it will welcome him back as its chairman.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    New Parliamentary Building
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has made to London Regional Transport concerning finance for the proposed development of phase II of the new parliamentary buildings over Westminster underground station.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Consultations on this subject with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have been taken as far as they can be at this stage.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Lord President agree that every hon. Member who wants one should have an office of his own, with adequate space for staff and adequate office facilities—even Conservative Members who turn up only occasionally, and have other jobs in the City and the law courts? Will he re-examine the question of further office space for hon. Members and their staff in phase 2 of the new development? Will he also tell the House what the financial arrangements will be between the Government and London Regional Transport, and explain who will pay what percentage of costs to ensure that those much-needed facilities are made available to all hon. Members?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: In answer to the second question, discussions between my ministerial colleagues and London Regional Transport will bear in mind what the Services Committee said about the share that was originally suggested. It remains the objective of the Committee that every hon. Member who so wishes should have an office by 1995.

    Snuff
    79. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council how much snuff was administered to hon. Members by the doorkeepers in (a) 1969, (b) 1979, and (c) 1989; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: In 1989 about 1.5 oz of snuff was consumed at a cost of 99p; figures for the earlier years are unknown. Only one hon. and learned Member regularly uses snuff; other hon. Members and Officers of the House do so only occasionally.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that snuff clears the brain and improves the health of those who take it? Will he name the hon. and learned Member who takes snuff from the principal doorkeeper, so that all hon. Members can judge the efficacy of the product that is available to us all?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would be quite improper for me to disclose the private habits of even an hon. and learned Member in that way. Equally, it would be unwise for me

    17
    to commend the taking of snuff for any reason. I am advised that, on the whole, its effects are deleterious to health.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the hon. and learned Member is a male Member of the House and that no hon. Ladies have participated in the taking of snuff over those years? In recognising that the taking of snuff is a male habit, will the Leader of the House say what proposals he has to improve the lives of the hon. Ladies in the House?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is an ingenious and attractive line of argument. I confirm that the hon. and learned Member is a male Member. I cannot absolutely exclude the possibility that female Members may occasionally partake, but I have no evidence to support it. I am always interested in considering and advancing proposals put forward by Lady Members of the House.

    European Parliament
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any proposals to improve liaison between the House and the European Parliament.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government agree with the Procedure Committee that there are benefits to be gained from building up informal links between the two Parliaments. The House should be able to discuss this subject later this week. Meanwhile, the Services Committee is investigating the scope for improving Members' telephone and postal contacts with Community institutions.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to consider the systems that apply in other national Parliaments, such as the Folketing, to encourage liaison between Members of this House and British Members of the European Parliament who, after all, are fighting the same battle as we are?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am certainly willing to consider any proposals identified by my hon. Friend. He will recall that the Procedure Committee concluded that there was no strong case for the introduction of legislation to establish formal contacts. I am sure that it is in the interests of the House and of the European Parliament to encourage in as many ways as possible the development of informal contacts.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that liaison between individual Members of both Parliaments is often very good, not least between the three Labour Members for the city of Leicester and the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Leicestershire, and not least concerning travesties such as the closure of Bewcastle house and De Montfort house old people's homes in our joint constituencies, without informing any of us in advance and without telling the old people, who had to find out for themselves? Is not that a disgrace in either Parliament?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even for the sake of finding something to say, I shall not commend the constituency interest that was so skilfully and characteristically advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say a bit more about telephone call facilities to institutions including the Parliament in Brussels? I know that it means phoning wicked foreigners, which is an inherently dangerous activity, but, as we raised the matter about 18 months ago, it really is time that we made progress, like other Parliaments.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I said in my earlier answer, that proposal is being considered by the Services Committee. Clearly it makes sense to establish workable arrangements for hon. Members to have ready contact with European institutions. I hope that the Services Committee will report on that matter as soon as possible.

    Postage
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to extend the Speaker's warrant to cover postage of correspondence with overseas electors.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Mr. Speaker's frank used on some correspondence originating from the House is valid within the United Kingdom only. A proposal to assist hon. Members in sending official correspondence overseas is shortly to be considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that we have recently extended the franchise abroad to those who left this country up to 20 years ago? We are now receiving a good deal of correspondence from abroad, and that facility would be very much welcomed.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that that extension of the franchise was undertaken with the support of the Labour party. It may raise the matter suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Rees: Should not we be careful? Whatever the intention of this question, we are not allowed to use free postage to deal with home electors. We are allowed to deal with constituency matters, but we are not allowed to write with stamped envelopes to electors in our constituencies on the basis of the electoral register. What can be done abroad should be no different from what is done at home.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety. I do not think that the matter is defined precisely along the lines that he suggests. One is entitled to use the free postage for parliamentary or constituency duties, but not for party purposes. As that is the position at home, it will be the position overseas, too.
    Mr. Latham: When will something be done about communications with, for example, European Commissioners, which I understand are not covered by the pre-postage arrangement? As we have to write to them on behalf of our constituents from time to time, surely that should be treated in the same way as writing to a constituent or a Minister.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The range of the postal facilities proposed for communications with European institutions may extend that far. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point.
    Dr. Cunningham: Is not it not just curious, but unacceptable, that the Government are spending more taxpayers' money on advertising to encourage people living abroad to register to vote—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour supported it."] Welcome though it is, is not it unacceptable that more money is being spent on encouraging a small number of people living abroad to register to vote than is being spent on the programme for all the electors in Great Britain? It is the wrong way round and should be changed.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must understand that most electors already resident in the United Kingdom are registered, and have been for many years. The point about the change is that overseas voters are a new category, so it is perfectly sensible that the information should be brought to their attention as a special innovation. I emphasise that the measure to enfranchise overseas voters was introduced with the support of the Opposition, and it should be commended to voters on that basis.

    New Parliamentary Building
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects offices to become available for hon. Members' use in the new parliamentary building.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The latest forecast is that hon. Members and their staff will be able to occupy the offices on their return from the 1991 summer Adjournment.
    Mr. Banks: I think that I will still be here.
    May I, through the right hon. and learned Gentleman, compliment the architect and the workers who have constructed a most agreeable building on the other side of the road? I think that it will be a good example to other architects in London. As I believe in honesty and in open government, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me an assurance that I will have an office in that building?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer any long-term assurances on the hon. Gentleman's electoral position in the House.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the 20 years that I have been here there have been extensive improvements in office accommodation, but I have noticed no improvements in parliamentary performance? I wonder whether more offices will lead to the Chamber and, above all, the Smoking Room being emptier.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that hon. Members have different views about the importance of office accommodation. I note what my hon. Friend says.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that the subject of tomorrow's debate is aid to developing countries, but has the Minister for Overseas Development asked to make a statement on the horrific events in Iran? There are millions of people in this country who, whatever they think about the regime in Iran, are deeply concerned about and horrified by what has occurred, and they want the maximum amount of relief to he given. There was a passing statement by a Minister last Friday, but I and many other hon. Members would wish an oral statement to be made by the appropriate Minister.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no indication that the Government propose to make a statement on this matter today. However, as the hon. Gentleman has correctly stated, there will be a debate tomorrow, when these matters will be relevant.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday there was a near miss between two aircraft over mid-Wales when a British Midland aircraft and a Dan Air aircraft came within four seconds of a collision. It is 'a very serious matter, because there have been a number of near misses over mid-Wales in recent years. Has the Secretary of State for Transport made an application to make a statement to the House because of the serious nature of the incident? If not, what can be done to prevail upon him to do so?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I have had no request for a statement, or any indication that the Government propose to make one, on that serious matter.
Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this matter with some difficulty, because the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was sheer magic and none of us would have missed it for the world. However, in the past, you have declined to take the supplementary questions worded in that way, referring to departmental Minister's duties for a specific day. Is that policy now to be changed because, if so, it may affect the behaviour of other hon. Members when we table our questions?
Mr. Speaker: Normally, matters of that kind would be brought to me by the Table Office. What was the question?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It was Question 74, about official duties.
Mr. Speaker: That was passed as in order by the Table Office.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to Question 79, which was tabled to the Lord President of the Council by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)? Do you agree that such questions, which cost probably 40 or 50 times more than the snuff in question, are a complete waste of money and of precious parliamentary time?
Mr. Speaker: I had better not give my views publicly about some of the questions on the Order Paper.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Opposition Day
[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.36 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the privatisation of the electricity industry, which will cost every family in Britain over £1,000, damage the environment and undermine the balance of payments; and believes this too high a price to impose upon the British people.
  First, we object to the electricity privatisation because the industry will be sold off for a third of its proper value. Secondly, we believe that measures to prevent acid rain have been reduced and put back. We also believe that the structure of the industry hinders investment in energy efficiency and energy saving. Thirdly, there is a danger of over-rapid depletion of our fuel reserves, especially natural gas. Fourthly, we believe that electricity privatisation is increasing coal imports, thus threatening the balance of payments. Fifthly, we object to the enormous sums of money that are being poured out on advice from City advisers and public relations advertising companies that are intimately involved with the Tory party. Sixthly, we believe that people are being expected to pay a scandalous price for nuclear power under the privatisation arrangements and it is about time that the Government came clean. For all those reasons, we believe that the electricity privatisation amounts to a bad deal for taxpayers and electricity customers.
  The Secretary of State has been praised for sorting out the mess that he inherited from his right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson). Although we recognise that it was a terrible mess, and to the extent that it is possible to sort out such a mess, the Secretary of State has sorted it out, I am nevertheless reminded of the dung beetle. We admire the skill and persistence with which the dung beetle moves it ball of dung, but our fascination with the process should not distract us from recognising that, at the end the substance being moved remains a ball of dung—and so it is, with the structure of electricity privatisation.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The big fat slug will have to gobble it up.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend should not refer to slugs and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the same breath.
  The distribution, transmission and generating parts of the electricity industry in England and those parts of the Scottish boards that are to be sold off are worth at least £38 billion. There are a number of ways of calculating those assets, but the lowest reasonable figure is about £35 billion. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is prepared to challenge that figure. When I asked him whether he could tell me the values of the various boards that were to be sold, he told me:
  "Asset values are contained in the relevant annual report and accounts."—[Official Report, 12 February 1990; Vol. 1511 c. 92.]
  24
  I checked carefully through those reports and accounts and the highest estimate that I came upon was £38 billion for the industry or £35 billion. That is the net asset value, using current cost accounting. It does not include the merits of taking over an industry with highly trained, highly skilled and highly educated staff who have gone about their job efficiently in the past and who a new owner can reasonably expect will go about it efficiently in future. All we are talking about is the fixed assets.
  I take as an example the generating board's last annual report. Peat, Marwick, McLintock, the distinguished city accountants, said:
  "We have audited the accounts in accordance with approved Auditing Standards. In our opinion the accounts which have been prepared under the current cost convention give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the board and its subsidiaries."
  The auditors of the other boards signed similar certificates. Pear, Marwick, McLintock also said that the fixed assets of the generating board alone amounted to £26 billion. If we take an average estimate of the total assets of the industry, we can reckon that it is worth £35 billion. Then we must ask: what price are the companies to be sold for? James Capel, the Government broker, is advising energy correspondents that they will be sold for about £10 billion. That is £5 billion for the distribution companies, £4 billion for the generating companies and just £1 billion for all the assets of the electricity boards in Scotland.
  In a parliamentary answer, the Minister denied that James Capel is saying that. Because I usually believe the Minister and we expect honesty in parliamentary answers, I checked with the journalists who produced those articles. At my request, they have gone through their shorthand notes of the briefings from James Capel, and in some cases they cross-checked with the other broker, Warburg, and both brokers said that £10 billion is the sum for which they expect the industry to be sold.
  If the industry is to be sold for only £10 billion, that is a shortfall of £28 billion or £25 billion, which works out at more than £1,000 per family. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the chairman of the Tory party, last week had the brass-faced cheek to talk about Labour spending and Labour waste. There will be no Labour waste like this. This is Tory waste with a vengeance. The sum of £1,000 per family—£20 a week per family for a whole year—is too much to lose on this shabby transaction.
  British people and our European partners will be asked to pay a big price by way of increased or not reduced environmental damage. Measures against acid rain will be postponed and reduced. Until the Prime Minister made her speech at the United Nations, which the Evening Standard modestly described as
  "Maggie's plan to save the world",
  we were going to have flue gas desulphurisation equipment on 12,000 MW of coal-fired plant. Now that figure has suddenly been reduced to 8,000 MW, and there is no real commitment to it—there is a firm commitment only to 4,000 MW.
  The reason is that the Secretary of State has been informed by his fancy-pants City advisers that, if he goes through with flue gas desulphurisation on this scale, it will be hard to sell the electricity industry. In other words, his friends in the City are interested not in an environmentally friendly industry but only in a dirty one.
  So, if right hon. and hon. Members will excuse the expression, flue gas desulphurisation has been put on the back burner and the Government have gone for cheap

  25
  options. They say that there will be a big increase instead in the burning of natural gas, but even British Gas has doubts that there are sufficient reserves on the British continental shelf to meet the demand for gas from the electricity generating sector on the scale envisaged. In any case, there are better uses for that gas. It should be used for direct heating or industrial purposes, or for chemical feedstocks, long before it is used for generating electricity.
  Mr. John Marshall: What would the Opposition do about flue gas desulphurisation? Would they meet the cost from higher electricity prices or by a higher subvention from the taxpayer?
  Mr. Dobson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has attended previous debates, when we have made our view clear. We believe that Britain is under an obligation to meet its international agreements, which currently means fitting 12,000 MW of plants with flue gas desulphurisation equipment. We have also said that in so far as the generating companies persuaded the Government to postpone implementing that obligation, so that they will incur additional costs when it is eventually installed, the companies themselves—not their customers—will have to meet that cost. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] They will have to meet that cost out of the money that they would otherwise have paid their shareholders. It is entirely up to them.
  If we do not have sufficient supplies of British natural gas to feed all the gas-fired power stations that are envisaged, the question arises of natural gas imports. We import too much of it already, which damages our balance of payments, and it would be absurd to harm it further. In any case, what would be the source of any additional supplies? The Soviet Union is entering a period of instability, as is the middle east. In the past, Algeria has been one of our major suppliers, but the recent local elections there can scarcely make anyone feel that there will be stability in that country in future and that it will be a continuing stable source of natural gas. We might find ourselves in the lunatic situation in which our gas supplies were vulnerable and we had no influence on their cost. Instead of going for flue gas desulphurisation, the Government are going for depletion of gas reserves and reliance on insecure foreign sources. We believe that that is too high a price to pay for electricity privatisation.
  The Government propose switching instead to burning low-sulphur coal. It is a pity that they did not think of that over the past 10 years, when they permitted British Coal to close no fewer than 49 low-sulphur pits. That wiped out the Kent coalfield and, reduced the Scottish coalfields to one pit and the Welsh coalfields to five—and they were the coalfields that produced low-sulphur coal.
  What will be the effect on our balance of payments if we have to import low-sulphur coal? I imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a few views about that. A very cavalier attitude is taken by the Department of Energy and the big generating companies. What about the security of coal supplies and their price? We have been told that Department officials and the generating companies believe that supplies of low-sulphur coal will be secure and that the price will be all right. They are the very people who said in the past that we could rely on imported oil from the middle east, but then OPEC hit them and they were taken by surprise.
  26
  They are the self-same people—they continue in the same manner—who said that nuclear electricity would provide us all with cheap power, that it might be so cheap that it would be given away. The only giveaway now is that the truth is out at last about the cost of nuclear power, and it is costing electricity consumers a fortune. We believe that all that would be too high a price to pay for electricity privatisation.
  One of our major objectives at the moment should be energy saving. Everything we do should be geared to promote that, but the new structure of the electricity industry will hinder energy saving, because it has been set up to promote sales. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) pointed out, the chairman of the biggest electricity board in the country was talking in grandiose terms last week in Scotland about the job of the electricity industry being to compete with British Gas and to get as big a share of the market as possible. There was no talk about restriction, energy conservation or anything else. All he wants is more sales and more profit from them.
  The problem is that, due to the ramshackle Parkinsonian regime that the Secretary of State has inherited, there is an unnatural break between electricity distribution and generation. If there were all-purpose electricity boards in various parts of the country, they could face an easy question. They could ask themselves how to cope with an extra 1,000 MW of demand, and could calculate whether it was better to invest money in reducing demand by 1,000 MW by improving energy conservation, or whether it would be cheaper to build new generating capacity.
  In the present circumstances, we all know that the boards would opt to invest money in energy conservation, because it would be cheaper than buying new generating plant. However, under the new separated regime that the Government are wishing on the country, the decision would not be reached in such a way, because generating and distributing companies would make more money the more electricity they sell. That is why we are saying that, when Labour comes to power, we will impose an obligation on distributing companies to invest money in energy conservation and efficiency.
  Dr. Michael Clark: While it is true that energy companies will make more money the more electricity they sell, is it not also true that consumers will want to buy less electricity because the less they buy the less money they will pay? Therefore, consumers will be interested in energy conservation.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman's logic is that we should double the price of electricity and so double the consumer's interest in energy conservation. That seems to be a perverse way to go about things.
  Another enormous cost that the Government are imposing on the taxpayer and the electricity user is the cost of advice on privatisation which they are obtaining from the City, allegedly to the benefit of all. Unless the score has increased—I rather think it has and he has got his 50—at the moment, according to official figures, the Secretary of State has 47 companies advising him on privatisation, including 13 estate agents—which is unlucky for some, or indeed for all of us, as they are estate agents—and 10 firms of accountants. The electricity boards are employing many

  27
  more companies. More than 130 City companies are employed by the Secretary of State and the electricity boards to advise them on electricity privatisation.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Any MPs?
  Mr. Dobson: There is probably the odd MP here and there—I am not sure—but I trust that they are not Opposition Members.
  The Secretary of State is spending more than £50 million on those 47 companies, but the boards say that they will not tell me how much they are spending, and I have written to all of them. Two boards told local newspapers who inquired that they did not know how much they were spending on City advisers. I got the journalists to ring back and ask how the boards were going to pass the cost on to the customer. They said, "We are working it out and it will probably be set out in our annual reports."
  Mr. Skinner: They could be friends of the family.
  Mr. Dobson: Yes, they could. I was struck by the thought the other day that the Tory party was once going on about a famous book called "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin." On the Tory side now, it is "Nigel lives with Barclays and Money" and "David lives with Cable and Wireless." There are quite a few of them around. It is a pity that the Secretary of State has not said that he will not take a job with any of these privatised companies. My hon. Friends are not given to cynicism, but we do not need to be cynics to ask whether the Secretary of State is fixing himself up with a cushy number in Eastern Electricity, or whether he is trying to protect the interests of the electricity consumer. We know what the answer to that question is.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: My hon. Friend has probably read in the press, as I have, that the Secretary of State for Energy may be the Prime Minister's adviser on the date of the next election. When the Tory party loses the next election, perhaps the cause of our cynicism will be confirmed when the Secretary of State for Energy takes up a job with a privatised company, just as the Secretary of State for Wales took a job with British Gas.
  Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State for Wales did not just take a job with British Gas; he took a job with two firms of City advisers that advised on the sale of British Gas, both of which are also giving advice to this Secretary of State. It is a question of "double your money". I cannot understand why the electricity boards will not tell their customers how much they are paying for their advisers. What do they have to hide?
  A more basic question is whether the Secretary of State needs all this advice. He proposes to sell the electricity industry for a third of its real value—for what, in a street market, might be described as two thirds off the list price. At that price, the shares could be sold on a stall in Petticoat lane. The Secretary of State should remember the old slogan, derived from the founder of Tesco: "Pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap." That is what the Secretary of State intends to do. He does not need 50 million quid's worth of advice to tell him how to do it.
  As for the question whether the advisers are giving value for money, I commend all hon. Members to look at
  28
  the evidence, when the full details are published on Wednesday, that Kleinwort Benson gave to the Select Committee on Energy about its advice on the privatisation of the nuclear part of the electricity industry. During that public session, the company made it crystal clear, in answer to questions from my hon. Friends and, to be fair from Conservative Members that it did not have the faintest idea about anything to do with nuclear power. It said that all the information on which it had based its advice came from the Central Electricity Generating Board and that, if the CEGB's advice was wrong, there was nothing that Kleinwort's could do about it, because it did not know enough about the industry to challenge and question that information. What contribution did Kleinwort's make to the proceedings? It continued to advise the previous Secretary of State for Energy that it could sell off the industry, which proved to be impossible.
  I have made inquiries as to whether Kleinwort's received its fee in full. By and large, the Government are in favour of payment by results. I gather that Kleinwort's got every penny of the fee that was due to it—not every penny of what it deserved, because in that event, it would have had to pay us. On the only occasion when evidence has been given about the question of this advice, those people gave bum advice that has damaged the interests of the country and even the interests of Conservative Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Max Madden: Before my hon. Friend leaves that interesting line of inquiry and revelation, has he discovered whether any of these well-paid advisers are contributing to Tory party funds, thereby squaring the circle?
  Mr. Dobson: I have not had time to go through them, but suspicions occasionally spring to mind, and I shall come to them in a moment.
  The way in which the public relations firms are involved is best described by several American political phrases such as "gravy train", "pork barrel", "sleaze bucket"—you name it, they are in it. Let us consider first the public relations and marketing advisers.
  The Secretary of State is not usually portrayed as an arrogant or puffed up person, but apparently he is not content with one public relations and marketing adviser to the Energy Department and the electricity supply industry, so he has appointed two—one from the Energy Department and the electricity supply industry and one for himself. Dewe Rogerson has been appointed public relations and marketing adviser to the Energy Department and Lowe Bell Communications has been appointed special public relations and marketing adviser to the Secretary of State. A director of Dewe Rogerson is a Tory Member of Parliament and Lowe Bell Communications is chaired by Tim Bell who, if rumour is correct, is scarcely ever out of 10 Downing street.
  How were those people appointed? Another company called Valin Pollen International previously had the job of advising the Department and the industry. Tenders were then invited for the new separate jobs. I am told that three companies applied for each job and that Valin Pollen did not proceed with its application. Dewe Rogerson got one contract and Lowe Bell got the other. So I inquired a bit further and asked who was the unsuccessful applicant for the Dewe Rogerson job—and lo and behold, it was Lowe

  29
  Bell, and when I asked who the unsuccessful applicant was for the Lowe Bell job, lo and behold it was Dewe Rogerson.
  In theory, there are rules governing such appointments, laid down and reinforced by the Prime Minister. Those appointments break four rules. There was no proper tendering procedure. Appointing a personal public relations adviser is contrary to those rules which also lay down that no public relations advisers may have direct contact with the press or the news media. We now know that Lowe Bell and Dewe Rogerson have contacts with the news media. The appointments involved intimate friends of the Tory party. The whole thing stinks, and the Secretary of State knows it.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that almost every major company in the country has direct interests in the Conservative party, because they are determined to keep the Labour party out.
  Mr. Dobson: I should have thought that the last way to commend the propriety of those appointments was to say that the people concerned were determined to seek a return of a Tory Government rather than a Labour Government. That is not usually a basic criterion on which public contracts are awarded. The hon. Gentleman, who is an old Etonian, has let the cat out of the bag.
  Mr. Allen: May I correct the record in one particular? The biggest contributor to the Tory party, British and Commonwealth Holdings, no longer contributes to the Conservative party as it went bust a fortnight ago.
  Mr. Dobson: That organisation was probably doing something useful, whereas these people just have their snouts in the trough.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend realise that he is raising very serious issues which have real implications for the quality and integrity of British public life? Does he recognise that, if those in local government—the Prime Minister and her colleagues are always calling for prudence and good behaviour in local government—conducted themselves in the way in which my hon. Friend is describing to the House, any qualified and respectable chief executive of a local authority would tell those local representatives that, if they maintained that course, or if it could be proven that they had pursued such a course, they could look forward to a considerable period of imprisonment?
  Mr. Dobson: I follow my hon. Friend's point. Indeed, because of my concern about the propriety of these appointments, I wrote to the person responsible for judging the propriety of anything done by the civil service—its head, Sir Robin Butler. After immense delay, I received a reply from the Secretary of State saying that he took responsibility. At least Sir Robin Butler did not say that he agreed with it.
  Another aspect of the privatisation was still to come—the award of the privatisation advertising contract. A panel was established to choose who should receive that lucrative contract. One member of it was—surprise, surprise—Mr. Tim Bell. Hon. Members will be aware that he was one of the three Tory party PR friends that the chairman of the Tory party wanted to appoint as special advisers to the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for
  30
  Education and Science and Secretary of State for Health, on the grounds that they were boring or were damaging the Conservative party's interest. That idea was so improper that even Mr. Bernard Ingham—a man not noted for his fastidiousness about the propriety of public behaviour—objected to it.
  Who did the panel, including Mr. Tim Bell, choose for the advertising contract? It chose the firm Wight, Collins, Rutherford, Scott, Mathews, Marcantionio, whose chairman is Mr. Robin Wight, the man originally selected by the chairman of the Tory party to provide personal public relations advice to the Secretary of State for Education. What a racket! All those friends of the Tory party scrambled to get their snouts in the trough of electricity privatisation. The people of this country are paying a high price for those people.
  I am not being unfair; I am not raising new standards of behaviour that are required of Governments. I shall judge the Government by the standards that they set, not for themselves, of course, but for local government. The new national code of conduct for councillors says:
  "It is not enough to avoid actual impropriety. You should at all times avoid any occasion for suspicion"
  The Government are guilty on all counts. They are guilty of double standards: others must live up to those standards, but not the Government. What is the result of all this?—National Power adverts in between the halves of world cup matches. I was going to say that, if that is a good use of public money, I am a Dutchman, but as Holland did not do too well last night, perhaps I am not.
  I have had passed to me proposals for electric privatisation road shows. I have the document submitted by the people who won the contract. They will receive over £2 million for giving presentations to opinion leaders in Britain, North America, Japan and Europe. It is a good sign of Government priorities that they are prepared to spend £2 million on that, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said earlier, less than £500,000 on urging people to register to vote. Registering to buy cheap shares in electricity is a top priority, but registering to exercise democratic rights is a low priority. That has always been the Tory way.
  That programme, which has been drawn up by Imagination Design and Communications, will lay on 41 road shows—26 in Britain and 13 abroad, in north America, Europe and Japan—at a cost of more than £2 million. That excludes the cost of the time of people in the electricity industry who will be taking part in it or helping to prepare it. The proposal will give presentations in major cities, and we have some wonderful sample menus of these events. People in Bristol will get lamb kebab, and in Paris they will get rack of lamb, if the French farmers will allow it in. In the United States one does not do too well; one gets spinach salad. In Japan, one gets an amazing concoction called roast duckling chipolata.
  The document refers to "all-important institutional lunches". The company promises attention to detail, so much so that it will prescribe the folds that are to be made in the table napkins at these lunches. The Government proposed having a presentation in Northampton, but the company thinks that the Northampton presentation should be transferred to Leicester because there are more "high net worth individuals" in Leicester. I do not know what the people of Northampton will think of the idea that they are low net worth individuals. The company promises that there will be an "Executive Mothercare" service for

  31
  people doing the presentations. As those people go around the country, they will all get "Executive King Size bedrooms". The company further proposes to cater for all their "personal idiosyncrasies"—the mind boggles.
  I was going to talk about the chaos over nuclear power, but it is impossible to make a sensible contribution until we know the estimates of the costs of Sizewell B. The Secretary of State said that he will talk about them. There is not much that we can say about them until we hear him. The right hon. Gentleman should come clean on the figures now and for the future. He should come clean also on something that he has refused to do and disclose the price that the electricity companies will pay Nuclear Electric for the electricity that they are buying from the existing nuclear power stations.
  The Secretary of State will be praised, rightly, by the Energy Select Committee for letting it all hang out on the old nuclear costs, but I am afraid that, if he let the information out on the old nuclear costs and will not do so on the new nuclear costs, people will just think that he had got it in for Cecil. I cannot believe, even from the right hon. Gentleman's smile, that that could possibly have been his main motivation. People are entitled to know as much about the costs of nuclear power as the Cabinet. We are all entitled to know those figures, so that rational discussion can take place and rational decisions can be reached.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State might find himself in some difficulty in providing the costs? Every expert witness, without exception, who appeared before the Energy Select Committee conceded that it was not possible to calculate the true costs of nuclear power. The fact that the Government are shoving forward with their non-fossil fuel requirement—a percentage being for nuclear—shows that they are going ahead with that programme whatever the costs. No one knows those costs.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is right to caution anyone about making guesstimates about the long-term costs and the time taken to construct nuclear power stations. Remember Dungeness B—construction started in 1965; it is still not working properly; and it is costing between eight and 10 times as much as was originally intended. I do not want to become involved in guesswork, and no one else should. The facts should come out, and we should have a debate in due course, with all the facts before us.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: For a number of years, we have known that the cost of nuclear electricity generation has increased. Would it not be reasonable to suggest that Nuclear Power should sell some of its land assets to pay for some of the highly expensive electricity from nuclear power—for example, the site at Druridge bay in Northumberland?
  Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. So long as either the electricity industry or the nuclear industry possesses land at Druridge bay, at Denver in Norfolk or in Pembroke in south Wales, there is always a danger that someone will want to build a nuclear power station on one of those sites. It will not be a Labour Government, but it would be better if the sites were sold or used for some other purpose.
  32
  Electricity privatisation will cost the people of Britain a fortune. It will damage the environment, it is damaging the reputation of the conduct of public business by the sleazy nature of the public relations exercise and advertising contracts connected with it, and it ought to be stopped.
  4.14 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the privatisation of the electricity industry and the internationally recognised benefits which the Government's policies are already achieving through the introduction of real competition, the introduction of new and enhanced rights for the consumer, the emergence of new, cleaner, more efficient and cost-effective generating plant, through the Government's commitment to the protection of the environment and by ensuring that the needs of the customers drive the decisions of the electricity industry.'.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has had his fun and I hope to deal with the matters that he has raised. But there is one point with which I should deal straight away. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments about the book value of the electricity industry's assets. His assertion that the cost of privatisation would be more than £1,000 per family does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
  The historic net value of the industry's fixed assets in its last audited accounts—leaving aside nuclear assets—was 10 billion. The economic value of any particular company is derived not from the asset value that may appear in its book but from a calculation of what the assets are capable of earning. The current cost balance sheets of each electricity company seek to reflect individual assets at their net replacement cost and hence involve a considerable number of subjective judgments. Net replacement cost is not the same as the net cost of the asset to the taxpayer—the actual amount paid, less the amounts written off to date. The latter cost is reflected in the historic cost balance sheets of the companies, which, as I said, amount to about £10 billion.
  There appears to be another mistake in the hon. Gentleman's calculations. He appears to have included the current cost of nuclear fixed assets—some £9 billion in the current cost accounts—even though the nuclear stations are to remain in the public sector. But what is £9 billion between friends? We know that to the Labour party it is an insignificant sum.
  Mr. Dobson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the historic cost method of valuation is absurd in relation to the electricity industry? And he is surely not suggesting that the grid companies' assets, which will all be necessary, could be replaced at the historic costs at which they were bought. They would have to be replaced at current costs. That is why the assets are given that value.
  I included nuclear assets deliberately. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that the nuclear assets were in fact liabilities. If one takes from the industry the nuclear assets and the nuclear liabilities, its value must increase. It was because the nuclear assets were liabilities that they could not be sold.
  Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that historic values are not the only values to bear in mind, but nor are current cost balance sheets. My point was that the

  33
  asset values represent the values that those assets are capable of earning. On that basis, we shall see to it that the industry is sold at its proper value.
  It is a little over four months ago that I stood here listening to the Opposition voicing their misconceptions about privatisation. From what has been said today, it is clear that they have learnt little since then. Once again, I am pleased to have the opportunity to put the record straight.
  The Labour party talks about the price of privatisation; the rest of the world talks about its benefits. While the eastern bloc moves to privatise whole economies and we advise them how to do it, the Labour party talks about central planning and state intervention. For all the Labour party's glossy pamphlets, it still lives in the past.
  It is now more than 50 years since Herbert Morrison set out what he saw as the major benefits that would result from nationalisation. They were as follows:
  "The quality of service will tend to advance and the prices charged will tend to fall … The industries would be more efficiently and economically conducted and their boards and officers would regard themselves as the high custodians of the public interest."
  That all sounded far too good to be true then, and so it has proved. Few of the anticipated economies of scale have materialised, and major new bureaucracies developed. Without competition, the state sector monopolies quickly became inefficient and overmanned, with low productivity, dissatisfied customers and frequent financial losses.
  Privatisation is one of the great success stories. During the past 10 years, no fewer than 29 major businesses have been returned to the private sector. British Airways, British Gas, British Telecom, British Aerospace, British Steel, the water companies and many others have been exposed to new commercial and regulatory disciplines and they have thrived. Profits, investment and productivity have risen and customer service has improved.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conditions for those working in those industries have improved materially, to their great advantage?
  Mr. Wakeham: I quite agree: my hon. Friend adds to the list of successes in the privatised industries.
  Because of those successes, politicians, officials, business men and others from around the world come to London to talk to us and to learn how to privatise their industries. Only at the end of March was the electricity industry reconstructed, when the new statutory and regulatory regimes came into force. However, we have already seen the effects of our policies on the electricity industry. The past few months have seen the emergence of fierce competition to sign up large industrial customers; that is competition not just between the generators and the generators and the regional electricity companies, but also between the regional electricity companies themselves.
  New entrants are emerging into the generation market. The Lakeland Power project is a fine example of that, and 22 other projects have sought consents of one kind or another from the Department. In turn, National Power and PowerGen are responding by reviewing their plans and cutting their costs. As a result, the proposals coming forward for new generating plant are increasingly focusing on the development of new, cleaner and more efficient technologies. That will benefit the consumer by lowering costs. It will also minimise the impact on the environment.
  34
  The special provision that we have made for power from renewable energy sources as part of the non-fossil fuel obligation has given renewable technology the greatest boost that it has ever received in this country.
  There is also competition in supply. Large customers now have real choice. They can enter negotiations not just with their regional electricity company but with any regional electricity company or any generator connected to the system. They are also showing interest in generating their own electricity. The benefits can be clearly seen in the lower prices that have resulted from those fierce negotiations. For the longer term, the regional electricity companies and generators are responding to that competition by actively promoting schemes tailored to customers' needs—schemes such as co-generation and combined heat and power.
  We have introduced a spot market for trade in electricity, which determines the price of about £15 million-worth of electricity every day. We are the only country with a market that sets a price for electricity every half an hour, and that has real advantages. It puts pressure on generators to be cost-effective, because they must bid prices to be called on to run and it gives suppliers and customers the right signals about the cost of electricity. They can then plan much more effectively to meet their requirements at the least cost. Our policy is working. Competition has started and it is already having an effect on prices and efficiency.
  What is the Opposition's policy? Well, it is rather difficult to answer that. As usual, their policy is full of contradictions, because half the Opposition Members believe in central planning and state intervention while the others realise that privatisation, competition and free markets are popular, even if they do not believe in them.
  The first contradiction that I want to highlight in the Opposition's policy is a perfect example of that. The Opposition say that they want a single organisation to be responsible for ensuring security of supply. At the same time, they say that they want more competition. That is a complete contradiction. A single organisation responsible for supply is what I call a monopoly. Generators and suppliers cannot compete if they are controlled by one organisation. Clearly the Labour party does not know what it wants. It thinks that competition is popular, and it cannot give up the desire to interfere and plan the economy.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why, if it is such a contradiction to have security of supply as an objective, that was the Government's objective for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry throughout the progress of the White Paper and the legislation, and our proceedings in the House? It was dropped only when they were advised by merchant banks that it would make the area distribution companies far more difficult to sell.
  Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the Government have maintained a better security of supply through the position that they have created. By virtue of their licence, the regional electricity companies will have to contract for sufficient electricity to meet the demands of their areas. That will be a matter for the regulator to settle. How those demands are satisfied within a competitive position is for them to determine, by competition. We believe that we have improved the position by providing a licence system

  35
  and a competitive market with substantial financial penalties for any company that does not contract for enough supply in the market.
  The second contradiction is evident in the Labour party's policies for coal and the environment. It wants to be green; it also wants to be clean. However, it cannot face up to what that might mean for British Coal. Flue gas desulphurisation is not the simple answer. Although it reduces acid rain, it increases carbon dioxide emissions, whereas combined cycle gas turbine plant tackles both problems. Let me point out again that that is exactly the type of plant that is coming forward as a result of our policies.
  Of course we need to make British Coal competitive in the new world, and that is why we are restructuring its finances. FGD is not the simple answer, however, and the Opposition cannot avoid the problems.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that, if FGD is not the whole answer, it is certainly the main answer to the problem of reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide from power stations?
  Mr. Wakeham: It is certainly an important part of the answer for coal-burning power stations. I welcome the fact that, under the present plans, 8 GW are likely to be fitted as a minimum; that will enable the industry to compete in the market for a substantial volume of coal up to 1988. From then onwards—and it is a good few years away yet it must be competitive. In that case, the generators will no doubt fit further FGD by choice.
  That is not the end of the list of contradictions in Labour party thinking. Labour is muddled on the question of nuclear power: it wants to close nuclear power stations, but it is outraged that privatisation should have shown the true costs and benefits. Nationalisation buried the costs of generation. Monopolies ensure that customers are paid. The Opposition may complain, but privatisation has now helped to bring into the open some of the issues surrounding nuclear costs. The need to assess nuclear power in terms acceptable to the market obliged all concerned—including the Government—to take a long hard look at the costs of the business.
  In the end, it proved impossible to privatise nuclear power without giving the private sector unprecedented guarantees. The increased fuel diversity available from other sources also meant that it was right to postpone the three PWRs beyond Sizewell. Obviously, those decisions had an impact on the Sizewell project. Immediately after my decision on nuclear power last November, I asked Nuclear Electric, the public-sector company set up to operate our nuclear stations, to institute a thorough review of the costs of Sizewell B. A number of questions needed to be addressed.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: If one of the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Labour party is that it does not quantify the cost of nuclear power
  —I accept that it was hidden under a nationalised industry
  —why does he not allow the cost of nuclear power to be separately quantified for the consumer? The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been asked to ensure that that be done, but they have refused.
  Mr. Wakeham: Under the privatisation proposals, when Nuclear Electric becomes a plc, although the shares will remain in Government hands, unprecedented amounts of information about the cost of nuclear power will be available as a result of our proposals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that as a move in the right direction.
  As I was saying, a number of questions needed to be addressed. First, what direct effect did our decision have on the capital costs of the station? I recognise that some programme costs that would have been spread over the follow-on stations would have to fall on Sizewell alone and that a single station project faced an increased risk of delay and contractual difficulties. Secondly, could Nuclear Electric still keep to the CEGB's timetable?
  Thirdly, given that the capital cost was expected to rise, was the station still a worthwhile public investment? How much would it cost, in terms of pence per unit, to produce Sizewell electricity? In answering that point, it is necessary to take account of the avoidable costs of power from Sizewell. It would be ridiculous to revisit the economics of the station as though no concrete had been laid on the site over the past three years.
  Those, then, are the questions. As to the answers, I can confirm that Nuclear Electric's report is a comprehensive piece of work that deals with all the searching briefs of last year. It is for Nuclear Electric to announce the results of its review, and I understand that it will do so tomorrow. However, it has told me that the selective misquotation of some figure is highly misleading. Presumably that is what was intended. I shall therefore arrange for the published material to be made available in the Library of the House.
  It may be helpful if I indicate the conclusions of the report that I am likely to make. First, the project is not behind schedule. Rather, it is well in advance of the announced 72-month timetable. Secondly, all the new extra costs revealed by the report are attributed to the decision of 9 November and, in particular, the decision on the remaining three PWRs, which resulted in a saving of public expenditure of about £5 billion. They are not due to cost overruns at Sizewell B.
  Thirdly, at the time of the original decision to proceed with Sizewell B, and using the rate of return then applicable, the cost of nuclear-generated electricity was comparable with that from newly constructed coal-fired stations. The new costs do not undermine the original comparison. Fourthly, the important investment decision now, however, is to compare the avoidable costs of completing Sizewell B with the costs of obtaining the same amount of electricity with the most cost-effective alternative, gas. The economics of the two are broadly comparable on the basis of the 8 per cent. public sector rate of return, and there are, of course, other benefits from completing Sizewell in terms of its contribution to the reduction of fossil fuel emissions and diversity.
  Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the completion of Sizewell B is vital if we are to retain the option of having power in the future that will be more environmentally desirable, and also that we have power stations in future that give us insurance against declining fossil fuels?
  Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I confirm that the Government attach the greatest importance to the timely completion of Sizewell B, as a

  37
  direct contribution to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and as an essential part of maintaining the nuclear option in the United Kingdom.
  I say to my hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Select Committee, that, as well as putting the Nuclear Electric report into the Library of the House tomorrow, I shall write to him with an amplification of the points that I have just made.
  Mr. John McAllion: If the Minister is prepared to accept strategic arguments for the retention of the nuclear industry in Britain, why were not the Government prepared to accept strategic arguments for the retention of the coal industry in 1984, when they took only a very short-term view on whether pits were economic or uneconomic at that time?
  Mr. Wakeham: Of course we want a thriving coal industry in this country. The Government's strategic view is that there should be a diversity of supply of fuels. That diversity means a thriving coal industry and a quantity of electricity generated by gas, by nuclear and by oil. It is a question of creating the right environment in which those different competing fuels can find their place. I believe that all of them can.
  Mr. Dobson: As Nuclear Elecric is publishing its figures tomorrow, will the Secretary of State publish the figures for alternative sources of the same supply? Will he give us the gas and coal figures, or will we still be whistling in the dark on the comparisons?
  Mr. Wakeham: I shall give the hon. Gentleman all the figures I can. I recognise that I must give him sufficient figures. Initially, I shall give details of the figures in my response to the Select Committee. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to study the information also.
  Contradictions again appear when the Opposition consider the costs of privatisation. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is addicted to sensationalism, and uses phrases such as "rip-offs" and "scandalous rip-offs". He makes misleading or misconceived comments about estate agents and "friends in the City".
  Almost in the same breath, he accuses the Government of giving away the industry. He also accuses us of raising prices to the consumers. Most people recognise that that would enhance the value of the industry. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that, in the market, the scope for manipulating prices at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats is less than in the centrally planned world of the Labour party. What does he mean? Surely he accepts that, to gain proper value for the assests, advice is needed on their value and how to market them. The Labour Government used advisers for similar reasons when the were in power. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is bringing forward another new policy for the Labour party—that it will seek to buy and sell public assets, if it should ever have the chance, without proper professional advice.
  The estate agents that the hon. Gentleman derides are property valuers, whose task is to ensure that the industry's land and buildings are properly valued when the companies are sold. Imagination—a stolen copy of whose presentation document the hon. Gentleman seems to have received—is responsible for staging the presentation of the
  38
  companies to investors in Britain and overseas. The budget for that has not been finalised, but my Department and the industry will ensure that we get value for money.
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman says that the cost has not been decided. Can he confirm that the contract has been let? If so, why is he letting a contract when he does not know how much it will cost?
  Mr. Wakeham: The budget has not been finalised. We know that the firm is doing some work for us. It is riot the practice of the Government—or, indeed, of a Labour Government—to give individual details of individual contracts. I shall go no further than that, except to say that we shall get value for money.
  It is clearly essential that the presentations are made; otherwise, the effort of marketing the industry will be weakened, with clear consequences for the price that the Government will get for it. Opposition Members seem to have their own friends in the City. If, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has suggested, we did not market the industry, we would risk selling it for less than its proper value.
  The hon. Gentleman made much of the accountants who are employed by the Government and the industry. Is it too much to expect him to understand that reporting acountants are a legal and regulatory requirement for a public flotation? I fear that it is.
  Perhaps that is another example of the contradictions that appear in everything that the Opposition say. I suppose that I should not be surprised at the Opposition, because their policies are full of contradictions. They make lots of commitments, while claiming that they would cost no money. They want lots of competition in electricity, but they also want central planning by a monopoly. They want lots of coal, but no carbon dioxide. Their only consistency is to say what they think people want, and to hope that no one notices the contradiction.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, of the 47 firms advising him on the sale, costing the taxpayer £52 million, I believe, not one is advising him on the interests of the consumers?
  Mr. Wakeham: If he understood these things, the hon. Gentleman would recognise that, through the Electricity Act 1989, the Government have given the consumer the strongest ever protection. We have set up a regulator to look after consumers' interests. We have given him statutory powers with which to conduct his work. That is infinitely better protection than has ever existed before. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would give us credit for that, rather than criticism.
  The Labour party talks about the price of privatisation. The rest of the world talks about its benefits. What about the price of nationalisation, the price of state control? the eastern bloc knows the price. It is difficult to quantify just how much Great Britain has lost in terms of skills, profits and opportunities for industries in the public sector. Being divorced from the disciplines of the free market weakens incentives. It means a loss of the necessity to control costs, to relate earnings to productivity and to remain competitive.
  I shall give a simple example. Under the last Labour Government, the price of electricity to domestic consumers rose to 22 per cent., whereas, in five years of this Government, it fell by 7 per cent. The competitive

  39
  pressures that we have placed on the industry are designed to ensure that prices continue to fall. The Labour party says that it has cost £1,000 per family to privatise the industry. That is nonsense—
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Money for the boys.
  Mr. Wakeham: That is nonsense. The industry is worth what it can earn—not necessarily the book value of the assets or some number that has been dreamt up by the Labour party. On the contrary, it is clear that privatisation has brought benefits, and it will go on bringing benefits. The rest of the world knows that. Central planning is discredited everywhere, except by the Labour party. It is well known that the Opposition have no policies. Our policies are sound and successful. I urge the House to reject a return to the past, and to vote for our amendment.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Having listened to the Secretary of State, spent many hours in the Select Committee on Energy investigating the privatisation of the electricity supply industry, and read the subsequent reports, one thing is obvious to me. If all the members of the Select Committee could agree with me openly, I am sure that they would when I say that the Secretary of State and his Department have refused to take note of some excellent advice. I refer to the Select Committee's report of July 1988 on the privatisation of electricity. That excellent report advised—I shall not say that it warned—that the Secretary of State and his Department were moving far too rapidly if they were hoping to produce legislation that would be worth while and efficient and would ultimately benefit the British taxpayer.
  The Government stand charged with refusing to take the advice of their own Select Committee on Energy, on which their own supporters formed the majority. I believe that I have advised the House before that it is worth noting that that document saw the light of day only because—unfortunately for some people—Conservative Members formed the minority at one Committee sitting, at which we were to decide whether to investigate the privatisation. It was rumoured—I put it no stronger than that—that the then Secretary of State was not very keen on the investigation taking place and that pressure had been put on certain hon. Members.
  Mr. Peter Rost: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all the Conservative Members who served on the Select Committee were opposed to the inquiry?
  Mr. Lofthouse: I am certainly not suggesting that. I am simply saying that, if the Conservative members of the Committee had been present in force that day, it is doubtful whether the investigation would have taken place. However, it did, and the Committee produced an excellent document, which was eventually ignored.
  Although the debate is about the price of electricity privatisation, I am sure that the House will not be surprised if I highlight the effect of the electricity privatisation on the mining industry. I have spoken on this subject many times, without having achieved much, but I am as convinced as I always have been of the devastating
  40
  effect that it will have on the mining industry. I hope that I shall also expose the folly of coal imports, as I have repeatedly done in the House over many years.
  Britain has traditionally been self-sufficient in the supply of coal to power stations. However, in the run-up to the privatisation, the electricity generators, backed by the Government, are planning to import large quantities of coal. All current evidence is that that will not only lead to massive job losses in the coal industry, but will increase the trade deficit by up to £1,500 million per year.
  A recent report by the Oxford economist, Dr. Terry O'Shaughnessy, for the Coalfield Communities Campaign, shows that, because of balance of payments constraints, every 10 jobs lost in the coal industry could lead to a loss of 30 jobs in the United Kingdom economy as a whole. The question is, should the United Kingdom retain sufficient capacity in its coal industry to meet the needs of the electricity generators, or should it switch to relying on imported coal?
  I noticed that, at Question Time this afternoon, the Secretary of State said that maintaining 8 GW of flue gas desulphurisation would be equivalent to 70 million tonnes of coal. If that is the case, and the coal industry is to be run down even to the extent that Sir Robert Haslam has mentioned—I believe that it will be far worse than that—by the time the FGD plants are available and working, this country's coal industry will be unable to meet demand, because we will have closed the pits and sterilised millions of tonnes of coal.
  Mr. Wakeham: I know of the hon. Gentleman's deep interest in this matter, and I want to be sure that his recollection of what I said is correct. I said that my understanding is that, with 8 GW of FGD fitted, the coal industry would be enabled to sell up to a maximum of 70 million tonnes of coal per year and to meet the terms of the European directive, which would enable the industry do so for years to come. That does not deal with the CO2 question or with that of competitive prices, but on the straightforward question of acid rain, 8 GW would, with other measures, enable a target to be achieved. That is what I said.
  Mr. Lofthouse: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Is it not a fact that, if the coal industry is run down, even to the extent suggested by Sir Robert Haslam, by the time the flue gas desulphurisation plants are available for British Coal, our mining capacity will not be sufficient to meet the demand? That will cause a major problem. If, in the short term, we import coal at the expense of the British coal industry, we shall run down our industry to the extent that we cannot meet demand. We shall sterilise millions of tonnes of coal which we shall never be able to mine.
  Short-term price considerations suggest a switch to imports. At present, foreign coal at United Kingdom ports costs about £35 a tonne, compared with £42 a tonne for British coal. Only about half of British pits can compete with imports at today's prices. However, there are wider micro-economic considerations.
  In his report, Dr. O'Shaughnessy draws on his exhaustive study of the current account balance rate of unemployment, or CABRU as it is referred to. That is the trade-off between the balance of payments deficit and the levels of income and employment. The report shows that, during the past 30 years, there has been a marked deterioration in the United Kindom CABRU. That means

  41
  that, to eliminate the trade deficit, unemployment must be much higher than before. The scrapping of capacity in an industry which produces a tradeable commodity, such as coal, has an adverse effect on the country's ability to pay its way internationally. In the long run, Britain can afford to import goods only to the extent that it can sell home-produced goods abroad. If we import coal, it means that we must import fewer other goods and, in turn, domestic demand must be kept in check.
  Unless there is a corresponding expansion in capacity in some sectors producing tradeables, the impact of additional coal imports is that unemployment through the economy must be maintained at a higher level than previously. The United Kingdom surplus from trade in energy is already disappearing fast because of a decline in North sea oil and an increase in gas imports Additional coal imports would worsen the position significantly. So far, manufacturing exports have singularly failed to plug the gap.
  Dr. O'Shaughnessy examines four scenarios, involving coal imports to power stations of 10 million, 20 million, 30 million, and 43 million tonnes a year. The last is the level to which imports might rise if United Kingdom coal was forced to compete on price alone. The scenario shows that 43 million tonnes of coal a year would lead to 47,000 redundancies in British Coal, a £1,500 million increase in the United Kingdom's annual import bill and an £85,000 increase in CABRU—the increase in unemployment necessary to hold back the trade deficit. Those calculations are based on current coal prices and exchange rates. If, after scrapping United Kingdom capacity, world coal prices rise or the exchange rate weakens, the unemployment cost to the economy as a whole could be 30 jobs for every 10 jobs lost in the coal industry.
  The main technical barrier to increasing coal imports is the limited capacity of the ports suitable for use by the power generators—I am sure that we shall hear more about that later in the debate—although proposals for new facilities on the Humber, Tees and Thames and at Milford Haven are at various stages. The report argues that the Government should take advantage of the temporary limits on ports capacity. If Britain is faced with paying more for energy imports, it will be difficult to resist a fall in the exchange rate and further inflationary pressures. The sensible step is to reassess the consequences of the headlong rush into coal imports.
  References have been made to the flue gas desulphurisation programme. FGD is a process by which sulphur dioxide is removed from the waste gases produced by burning fossil fuels. Unless it is removed, large quantities of SO2 cause acid rain. The United Kingdom is the largest emitter of SO2 in western Europe and one of the largest exporters of SO2 emissions to other countries. In 1987, 86 per cent. of the United Kingdom's SO2 emissions resulted from electricity generation. FGD removes about 90 per cent. of the sulphur from the waste gases.
  Under the European Community large combustion plants directive, which was agreed in June 1988, the United Kingdom is committed to reducing its SO2 emissions from existing plants by 20, 40 and 60 per cent. of its 1980 emissions by 1993, 1998 and 2003 respectively. The CEGB estimated that compliance with the directive would require a 12 GW programme of FGD retrofits, costing £1.8 billion at 1989 prices. If we are to get anywhere near meeting the directive by the agreed years, we need a programme of 12 GW. If we fail to do that and if we are to meet our
  42
  electricity demands, we cannot avoid importing a large amount of low-sulphur coal. That is the decision facing the Government.
  Are the Government prepared not to further encourage investment in FGD by the private electricity companies? The chief executives of both National Power and PowerGen told the Energy Select Committee that they will make a purely commercial judgment, whatever the effect on our own natural energy resources. They suggest that it will be necessary for British Coal to reduce its prices by £5 or £6 a tonne less than imported coal to finance the retrofitting. That is an impossible task for British Coal. Despite all its recent achievements, it could never achieve that.
  The Government must make the decision. Are they prepared to extend their programme to run down the natural resources of coal to the extent that millions of tonnes of coal will never be mined, so that eventually we have to rely on our foreign competitors to meet our demands? That is not a wise policy.
  On 7 June 1990, the Energy Select Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve, produced a report entitled, "The Flue Gas Desulphurisation Programme". I do not want to detain the House too long, but the report is up to date and the House should have it brought to its attention. Paragraph 56 of that report, headed "The Coal Industry" says:
  "The major issue arising from this Report is clearly the impact of the generators' plans on British Coal and the coalfield communities. Even if, as the Government states, it is entirely a matter for the generators how much British coal they use, a substantial decline in their purchases would have important consequences which would be matters for Government, including both the financial costs and the social costs of pit closures and the future security of energy supplies."
  Paragraph 57 states:
  "A balance will need to be struck between, on the one hand, the interest of consumers in cheap electricity prices and of the Treasury in the maximum possible proceeds from privatising the ESI and, on the other hand, the long-term interests of the coal industry and the coalfield communities. In particular, private sector generators cannot be expected to take account of national interests, and pit closures are irreversible: deep-mined coal capacity cannot be turned on and off like a tap. We are not convinced that the Government has yet faced up to the dilemma which confronts it over the future of Britain's coal industry."
  Emphasised in bold is the observation:
  "It is essential that these issues are not side-stepped. As a priority the percentage of electricity that will be generated using British coal in 2003 should be appraised. In the light of this, of the increased use of gas and of the freeze in the nuclear programme, the effect of limiting FGD to the 8 GW proposed should be evaluated with regard to the possibility of tightening up limits on emissions; the restrictions it will place on British coal in the absence of other clean-burn technology."
  I hope that the Secretary of State will, unlike his predecessor, give serious consideration to that report.
  The Government should reassess their policy on the production of electricity by nuclear power. The privatisation of electricity has highlighted the unknown costs of nuclear power. No one who has given the matter recent study would disagree. We know that research and development expenditure on the fast breeder reactor programme alone totalled £4 billion at 1988 prices. The disastrous decision was made to order four different AGR devices from different consortia when there was scarely sufficient expertise to justify one.

  43
  For many years, the public have been told that the cheapest form of electricity generation is nuclear power, but we all know that that claim has gone out of the window. Either there has been a disastrous mistake or it is deliberate policy to market nuclear. I hope that it is the second, and that, in making the case for nuclear, the Government have kept its true cost from the public and from the House.
  All the expert evidence given to the Energy Select Committee's recent inquiry confirmed that the true cost of muclear, including decommissioning, is unknown. I believe that no one can honestly come along and say—no one has yet—"Yes, including decommissioning costs, this is what electricity generation by nuclear power will cost."
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman follows such matters very closely. He always presses the case for the coal industry with great conviction, but can he really sustain his argument about the non-availability of information on nuclear costs? I have a copy of a document entitled, "Projected Costs of Generating Electricity from Power Stations for Commissioning in the Period 1995–2000" published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, based on 18 countries in the OECD. The report contains a mass of information on nuclear generating costs.
  Although it does not necesarily come out unequivocally in favour of nuclear power, its most significant conclusion is:
  "The nuclear advantage in the reference case persists, for most countries, at common load factors for coal-fired and nuclear plants well below those assumed. However, the expectation which was shared by a number of countries in 1985, that the total cost of nuclear generation would be less than the fuel costs of coal-fired generation, no longer exists in any country covered in this study."
  The report concludes that assumptions about nuclear and conventional generating costs depend entirely on predictions made about load factors, discount rates and fuel costs. As the report points out, it is difficult to arrive at any general conclusions on that issue.
  Mr. Lofthouse: That was the point I was making—that no one really knows the true costs. I notice that the report does not mention decommissioning costs.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: It does.
  Mr. Lofthouse: If so, I apologise. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman's points do not differ in any way from those that I made. The experts who presented evidence to the Select Committee all agree that it was not possible to estimate the true costs.
  If the Government fail to take action on flue gas desulphurisation and to support the British coal industry over the next few years while FGD plants are installed—which I believe should be to the extent of 12 GW—a further 41 collieries, employing more than 35,000 men, will be lost. If one adds others involved, such as those in workshops and administration, total job losses could reach 50,000. If one then allows for the knock-on effect on other industries and services, the final job losses in coalfield areas could number 100,000 between 1995 and 2003. If mining communities are to be destroyed in that
  44
  way, the Government will have a major obligation to prepare and encourage alternative industries in those communities, before they are wiped out.
  5.7 pm
  Dr. Michael Clark: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), because he always defends the coal industry sincerely and effectively. I agree with much of what he said, but I shall take a different tack on another aspect of energy in the few words that I say.
  The Government have a proud record on privatisation, starting with that of council houses. Although that was opposed when first suggested by the Government, it is now accepted by the majority of people and is now the official policy of Opposition parties.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government also privatised British Airways and the British Airports Authority, both of which subsequently expanded. The Government privatised British Steel, British Telecom and British Gas, and all three have become more profitable and found more money for investment. Those industries have grown, offer more secure jobs, and are in a better state than they were in public ownership.
  Despite all the controversy surrounding the privatisation of the water industry, it too is gearing itself up for the investment that is demanded by those having an interest in the environment. Those and many more privatised industries will not be returned to social ownership under a Labour Government, if there should be one, because the Opposition know that to return them to public sector ownership would be neither desirable, popular nor economic good sense. Nor would it win votes or elections.
  In all the areas that have been privatised, there has been initial opposition, yet as soon as the privatisation process is over and the arguments have settled down, in every case private companies have been accepted and it has also been accepted that they are more effective and efficient than before. The same will be true of electricity privatisation when it is completed.
  We know that privatised industries work better. The staff are better motivated, they have better rewards, and they are more ambitious for the success of their industry that they were before. The privatisation of electricity is a major undertaking. It is a strategic industry—the base for so many other industries. If we do not have a proper power industry, we cannot have manufacturing and many of the other industries on which we rely.
  Electricity will be the largest of all the privatisations and the most complex. It has many constituent parts, all of which have to go into the private sector. So far, progress has been remarkable. Staff have been allocated to their now companies. Assets have been divided and allocated and new plcs have been created and are working: generators, a grid company and distribution companies.
  Most remarkable of all, the privatisation programme is going ahead on schedule. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the other Ministers and staff at the Department of Energy for keeping to a tight schedule, despite the many squalls that would attempt to blow them off course.
  The morale of staff in the electricity industry is high, contrary to predictions and expectations, and I know from my personal contacts with them that they are looking forward to having greater freedom to operate the

  45
  companies and the industry in a way that they can predetermine. I have confidence that when the stock of the privatised electricity companies is sold off, there will be a successful launch. I am sure that most, if not all, Conservative Members will become shareholders, and I have a shrewd suspicion that many Opposition Members will become shareholders, too.
  What about the benefits of privatisation? We should pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) for the way in which he contrived to bring competition into the privatisation of the electricity industry in a variety of ways. Competition was the catchword, and he was determined not to privatise the electricity industry as one giant monolith, as had been done with gas. It is a credit to him that the electricity industry was broken down into so many constituent parts, and that competition was encouraged in that way.
  There will be many alternative sources of supply. There will be a non-fossil fuel quota, which will admittedly be protective for the nuclear industry, but it will also encourage alternative energy sources—renewable and benign—to generate and put their share of electricity into the grid.
  I believe that the greatest benefit of privatisation is cost transparency, which the Secretary of State and the hon. Members for Pontefract and Castleford and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned. As a known supporter of nuclear industry, I still welcome cost transparency, which has shown that nuclear costs are high. I support the nuclear industry, not only because I used to think that it was a form of cheap electricity, but because I thought that we had—and I still think this—an obligation to find sources of electricity for future generations, apart from burning fossil fuels, which are declining every year and some of which will be needed in years to come as premium fuel for aviation and road transport.
  Therefore, as a scientist, I saw the need to develop a new energy source, and I thought that nuclear electricity was that new source. Twenty years ago—and until 20 months ago—we were told that nuclear energy was cheap and we believed it. I do not think that I am making myself appear to be the only gullible person in the House or in the country by saying that I believed it. There was so much propaganda telling us that nuclear was cheap, from so many different sources, that many people thought that it must be true. Now we know that nuclear is not cheap, but I am delighted—I share equal delight with the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford—to find out a cost that is closer to the truth, even though we do not know the 100 per cent. truth. The cost that we are now being given is closer to the truth.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford and other hon. Members in the so-called coal lobby that it is not appropriate for them to rejoice at the nuclear industry's discomfort and to complain that the effects of privatisation on the coal industry are unfair or undesirable. We must have not only equality of cost transparency, but equality of consequence.
  What are the effects of privatisation on costs? We know that in the nuclear industry high costs are associated with decommissioning and the back end of the fuel cycle. The inclusion of such costs in the prospectus for the sale of the nuclear industry, along with other generating stations, under the umbrella of National Power, was known to depress the price of that grouping, and was thought to make it unsaleable at a price that would benefit the
  46
  taxpayer. Therefore, the Secretary of State made the right decision to withdraw nuclear electricity from National Power.
  Of course, there were consequences for the nuclear industry. It meant that the family of PWRs that were to be built would no longer be built, because the nuclear industry stayed in the public sector and public funds were not available for that development. For the sake of the taxpayer it was right that the nuclear element was taken out of National Power, because that way we shall get the best price for National Power and we shall satisfy the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras by ensuring that taxpayers get a good deal.
  The coal industry will suffer under privatisation to some extent, but it will suffer anyway for environmental reasons. The suffering caused to the coal industry by the present environmental regime is exacerbated by the fact that privatisation is taking place at the same time. Privatisation will put pressure on costs. As the electricity industry is privatised and competition introduced, the generators will want to buy coal at cheaper prices and obtain contracts at keen prices. The price will be forced down, as the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford said. One consequence of trying to buy coal at cheap prices may well be the importation of coal. I do not welcome that any more than the hon. Gentleman did, but there has been a massive increase in productivity within the coal industry in the past four years and there is every reason to believe that during the next three or four years productivity will continue to increase until British coal can compete quite effectively with imported coal.
  As regards sulphur dioxide, of course, burning British coal, which has a higher sulphur content than some imported coals, means that sulphur dioxide will go into the atmosphere, and flue gas desulphurisation is essential to bring that under control. If the electricity industry had not been privatised, the nationalised industry mught have put in more flue gas desulphurisation and might have put in the 12 GW that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford called for. It seems that the privatised industry will put in only 8 GW, which will have an adverse effect on burning British coal.
  As the Secretary of State mentioned, while it has been decided to burn more gas and while coal/gas price ratios remain at the preset level, the use of coal will probably decline at the expense of gas. Gas, however, will not stay at its present volume or price for long. Gas prices will rise and gas reserves will be depleted. We shall need to burn more coal. At that time coal will be cheaper. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford that if we are to see a dip in the demand for coal now and if we are to anticipate a rise in the demand for coal in future, it is essential not to allow our coal reserves to be sterilised so that we cannot get at them when we need them.
  As for carbon dioxide—the greenhouse gas that creates the blanket in the upper atmosphere that is responsible for global warming—we cannot get rid of it, whatever we do. We could scrub it out in the flues, but the cost would be enormous. We have to accept that coal produces greenhouse gases. If we are to burn more coal, we must try to get the maximum amount of energy out of the coal that we burn, thus producing less carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. To do so, we have to continue to invest in coal-burn technology and in combined cycles. We must also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash

  47
  (Mr. Rost) constantly tells us, invest more in combined heat and power. If we want to burn more British coal yet stay within the European directives on acid rain, we must have coal-burn technology—perhaps fluidised bed, or the process that is being developed at Grimethorpe.
  For the sake of both the British coal industry and the environment, I call upon the Secretary of State for Energy and his Ministers to consider carefully how much money should be expended on coal-burn technology. It would be a two-sided reward. We could protect both our indigenous coal industry and our environment by investing in coal-burn technology.
  In due course I shall propose—I believe that my proposal will be well received—that the Select Committee on Energy holds an inquiry into coal-burning technology and recommends what technology should receive priority and the type and volume of funding that would be necessary. I have every reason to believe that the Select Committee will agree unanimously to hold such an inquiry.
  As gas volumes decline and as gas finds in the North sea become rarer, market forces will push up the price of gas. Eventually, coal and nuclear will come back into their own. The market forces that will allow the nuclear industry to make a comeback in due course will, before then, give a boost to indigenous British coal. Both fuels have a future, but it is right that both fuels should determine their own future within a proper financial environment that takes account of price, markets and competition.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), given his professional background and his present responsibilities. I pause to reflect on the link between a pair of his statements. The hon. Gentleman said that he was a late convert to the view that the nuclear industry was expensive, both relatively and absolutely. He knows that my colleagues and I have advanced that argument for a long time and that one of the industry's greatest defects is that practical one, as well as the other ethical defects.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect whether he might similarly be wrong about his present absolutist view that privatisation will benefit industry. An issue that most appeared to affect his constituents in recent years was the sale of local authority homes in Rochford. The proposal that they should be moved out of local authority control met great opposition from his constituents when his Conservative colleagues on Rochford district council put it forward. I wonder whether in time the hon. Gentleman may come to realise that some of the Government's privatisation measures are not as popular or as justified as he may now think.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intention to ask the Energy Select Committee to examine the implications of coal-burn technology. Such a report will be well worth while. I also share his view that we are likely to invest far too little in flue gas desulphurisation. One consequence of the direction that the electricity industry is taking is that we may do too little about FGD, which is greatly to be regretted.
  48
  The hon. Gentleman knows that my colleagues and I have approached previous debates on this subject from the point of view that we do not oppose privatisation per se. We do not oppose the change of ownership, but question the practice of it and the motivation for it. We have consistently argued that the Government's intention to privatise the electricity industry was more for dogmatic reasons than for benefit to customer reasons—more for private good than because it was publicly bad. As we watch the advertisements on our television screens, aimed in particular at peak time viewing during the World Cup, but also at other times, we see that the Government have created a new industry in the private sector that already appears to spend money in a most unjustified way which undermines many of the Government's arguments that the industry will be more effective in the private sector.
  This is an odd debate because it takes place in the knowledge that tomorrow Nuclear Electric will make an announcement about the cost of Sizewell B. I intend nonetheless to spend a few moments now on the nuclear industry in the context of the privatisation of electricity, since more important questions will have to be answered about the nuclear industry in the near future. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Energy tell the House when he winds up the debate whether the Secretary of State is to make a statement on behalf of the Government in response to Nuclear Electric's announcement tomorrow? Will he also ask his colleagues, in particular the Secretary of State, whether there is to be a formal request from his Department for a debate on the cost of Sizewell B to be held in Government time? It is a matter of significant public expenditure, on which there should be a proper debate.
  We do not need to debate the matter this week; I should prefer the debate to be held after we have had an opportunity to consider the report. I welcome the announcement that the report will be made public. However, the Government should make a statement tomorrow, announcing that there will be a debate in Government time about Sizewell B and the implications for the nuclear industry.
  The nuclear industry was the only matter that was allowed to interfere with the privatisation of the electricity industry. Originally, all the stations were to be privatised; then it was decided to keep the Magnox reactors in the public sector. That decision was attacked at the time by the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority as "terribly, terribly messy". When nuclear plants were withdrawn from the privatisation programme, it became possible that we might see the real cost of nuclear power. Nuclear plants were withdrawn from the privatisation proposals when it was realised that they would become a financial albatross round the neck of an industry that the Government wished to privatise.
  My colleagues and I argued in Committee and at the time of the announcement that it would have been better if the Government had said, "For heaven's sake, stop now," rather than commit the mistake that Governments of both parties have made since the war, on various issues, of continuing to spend and spend instead of being brave and pulling the plug early on. Nuclear plants are essentially uneconomic, as the French are now discovering. To build one plant of one type is even worse madness, because economies of scale are lost. We know all about the delays at Dungeness. There may be costs of delay at Sizewell, too. If the figures are right, in 1987 the cost of

  49
  Sizewell B was £1,691 million. Now we could be talking about £2.5 billion. Some estimates put the cost of Sizewell B at well over £3.5 billion.
  There will be additional costs. The loss of the rest of the family of four reactors which was originally proposed is calculated to add about £350 million. Although I have not read it extensively, the clear evidence of people such as the chief executive of the PWR project group of Nuclear Electric at the Hinkley inquiry was that, if the company did not proceed with building a family of PWRs, the investment in Sizewell B would become extremely doubtful.
  The hon. Member for Rochford will confirm that the Select Committee has been extremely critical of the Department of Energy for allowing the cost of the nuclear industry to get out of control. There is no cross-party dispute about that. The already sharply increased costs call into question whether construction is any more justified.
  Only last month the Secretary of State said two things about Sizewell B—that the future of nuclear power in Britain depended on Sizewell B being completed "successfully" and "on time". No doubt tomorrow he will respond more particularly as to whether it will be on time. He said that, so far, his understanding is that it will be. We shall see. But I wonder whether it is not already possible to say whether it will be completed successfully, and, more importantly, I wonder whether it will not be an increasing and haemorrhaging cost on the public sector which makes it economically unjustifiable by any criterion.
  It almost goes without saying that if Sizewell B has failed economically, it is continuing to fail environmentally. The environmental danger and criticisms, in addition to the economic criticisms, are making Sizewell B a public sector white elephant the like of which we have not seen for a long time.
  The other questions which the Government must answer concern the new structure of the area boards. They have been given the duty of keeping the lights on—a front-line responsibility but it appears that PowerGen and National Power are now negotiating with big customers behind their backs and behind the scenes. It is quite clear that the area boards are under pressure to sell as much as possible instead of encouraging energy efficiency.
  One of our underlying criticisms of Government policy is that it is all geared to selling energy. Why else are we sitting at home and seeing on our television screens adverts for electricity in between World Cup matches? Why is there so much promotion of the use of something that we should be trying to conserve? If we are aiming for across-Government environmental policy, we should consider whether it is justifiable to spend so much money on advertising, in addition to the money that is being spent on other matters outlined by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
  The Minister may remember that in Committee my colleagues tabled an amendment calling for least cost planning, but it was rejected. It is still perfectly proper to suggest that generators should have to show that extra demand could not be met through efficiency measures before they should be allowed to expand.
  Much more recent press cuttings from only last month show that National Power has failed to satisfy a Department of Energy investigation into complaints from the distribution companies that it has engaged in unfair pricing tactics to win industrial power business. I wonder
  50
  whether the area electricity boards' complaints should not be dealt with much more properly by the Government, not simply by being investigated by the Department of Energy but by the Department saying what it proposes to do about those entirely justified complaints.
  I am not sure whether the Government can yet be satisfied that National Power and PowerGen will be able to resist the threatened Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry. They are at risk because, had the Government been committed to really privatising them they would not have been allowed to achieve such a dominant position. The privatisation of electricity is not a real privatisation; it is an expensive privatisation, but it is also a falsified and distorted one and no one should try to delude the public about that.
  We have a substantial concern that the Government are directing energy at the expansion of one sector of the industry rather than taking measures to which they are publicly committed but on which we have seen no action.
  Last year the Secretary of State told the world energy conference:
  "Energy efficiency is the single most cost-effective response to the efforts to limit carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.".
  Although the Government's evidence to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that it is possible to reduce spending by 60 per cent. through cuts in fuel use, in written answers they still quote a reduction of only 20 per cent. Energy efficiency is still not a sufficiently high priority.
  When one compares the money spent on research and development in the nuclear industry with that spent on renewables, the proportions are incredibly distorted. More than 80 per cent. of money spent on energy research and development is spent on the nuclear industry and less than 10 per cent. is spent on renewables. One consequence of that distortion is that we are developing inadequate use of the most environmentally acceptable energy opportunities.
  The victims of the privatised electricity industry will be those who are most vulnerable and find it most difficult to pay. People who live in rural areas will lose all protection after five years and it looks as though the costs will then escalate so as to discriminate against and harm many of our most remote and threatened communities.
  Finally, a large proportion of our elderly citizens rely most on electricity. They are threatened with ever-increasing electricity prices. The Minister will know that I regularly table questions reflecting the concern of many peope about the difficulties encountered by elderly people in paying for protection from cold and illness in the winter. We have to assess privatisation by its benefits or disbenefits to the consumer. It seems that a great deal of money is being spent on feather-bedding the nuclear industry which is no longer economic and giving big profits to the private sector in a distorted free market without any great benefit to the consumer. It is an enormously wasted opportunity.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Rost: I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) because I suspect that he may agree with much of what I have to say.
  Although I welcome the debate, I am rather surprised that the Opposition seem too eager to shoot themselves in the foot yet again. I declare an interest as an energy

  51
  consultant. Those of us who are aware of what is happening in the real world can report two particularly exciting developments in recent weeks. Even during the transitional period when the electricity industry has not yet been privatised, these two major events are evolving before our eyes—at least for those of us who wish to see.
  First, real competition has broken out and is resulting in lower-price contracts for those who need them most—the large energy users. For too many years, our industries have been penalised with far too high electricity prices compared with our competitors abroad. Competition is working. Lower-price contracts are being signed and all the fears that were expressed by Opposition Members, industry and the CBI only a few months ago have disappeared. We are not hearing a word about the suggestion that energy prices to large users would rise; on the contrary, the silence is deafening. Some of us know that the first contracts in the competitive market have resulted in lower energy prices for heavy energy users, who will benefit most and whose lower energy costs will benefit the British economy most.
  The second exciting development is that, for the first time, our electricity industry has suddenly become aware of the new technologies that are available, which produce electricity not only more cheaply but more cleanly and more efficiently, with less environmental destruction.
  Those are two most significant changes. I am disappointed that the Labour party still appears to be stuck in a socialist rut with the dogma of nationalisation, whereas the contrast is already emerging. Instead of trying to pretend that it is not happening, Labour Members should have the courage to admit that the state monopoly of electricity led to the high-cost nuclear option. They tried to hide that high cost and only privatisation brought it to the surface. The state monopoly of electricity led to wasteful planning, the mismanagement of national assets and dirty, inefficient coal burn. Flue gas desulphurisation was fitted not by the nationalised CEGB but because of privatisation. It may not be enough for Labour Members, but it is happening now, whereas it did not happen before.
  The national electricity monopoly rejected energy efficiency options such as combined heat and power. It rejected the combined cycle and the gas turbine, which at least would have given diversity of supply, cleaner energy production and lower-cost electricity. It rejected the fluidised bed, which would allow us to burn British coal cleanly. The private sector, preparing for privatisation, and the distribution companies such as East Midlands Electricity are proposing to build smaller coal-fired power stations, which will burn coal more cleanly and efficiently.
  The nationalised industry was not interested in that. It did not start promoting renewable energy such as wind power. That is now happening thanks to the Government's renewable energy tranche, to which they are giving special encouragement, and partly thanks to the distribution companies and the producers, PowerGen and National Power, which are interested in investing in and promoting renewable energy. It certainly did not happen before.
  The nationalised industry did not lead to lower and more competitive prices to British industry, but prices are lower now. It certainly did not do much to provide
  52
  consumer protection. That is the contrast. We are now beginning to see the increased application of energy efficiency in the production of electricity.
  I return to the important contribution that cogeneration, combined heat and power, can make. The nationalised CEGB rejected that option. In a few days' time, I shall visit yet another of the new combined heat and power installations at Heathrow airport. It is saving a huge amount of energy for the BAA and is therefore helping the environment. That installation will have a good rate of return. I have visited other industrial combined heat and power installations, as has my hon. Friend the Minister, at British Sugar and Tunnel Refineries. There has been a surge in interest in co-generation in industry. Every day, one reads in the technical press announcements of new plants being constructed by industry, which will save energy, reduce fuel costs and save the environment. If he has not already done so, my hon. Friend the Minister should visit Trust House Forte, which is installing small combined heat and power plants at its motorway service stations and hotels. It is getting a three-year pay back on its investment and halving the amount of fuel consumed. That is all happening under privatisation; it certainly did not happen before.
  The increased use of municipal waste in energy production will improve energy efficiency and reduce environmental pollution. The House may be aware that we are still bottom of the league for turning waste into useful energy. We still dump our waste in holes, pollute the water supply and create the risk of pollution and danger from methane explosions instead of doing what other European countries have done for many years—using municipal refuse as a valuable and cheap fuel. We convert only 3 per cent. of our huge volume of industrial and municipal waste into useful energy. France converts 25 per cent. and Denmark, the Netherlands and West Germany convert 30 per cent. at clean incineration plants, which produce electricity and hot water for district heating. In Sweden, the figure is 40 per cent. The figure in Britain is still 3 per cent., but projects are coming forward, thanks to privatisation and to the Government making refuse a renewable energy source. Those projects will produce useful energy such as electricity and hot water from refuse instead of polluting the environment with it.
  I remind my hon. Friend the Minister—I am sure that he is aware of this—that converting refuse into energy is the only technology that produces a net reduction in global greenhouse gases. Although burning refuse produces carbon dioxide, it also burns the methane—a far more damaging greenhouse gas—that would otherwise be released from landfill for the next 20 or 30 years. Even if the methane from landfill is tapped for energy production, as it is on some sites, only 10 per cent. of it can be used. The remainder goes into the atmosphere, and it is a far more damaging greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. If that refuse is burnt, other fossil fuels are displaced that would otherwise have to be burnt to create that electricity.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's view about the environmental importance of burning refuse to create energy, but does he accept that one of the problems is that we have not converted the public to the view that that process is not environmentally harmful? Work must be done to win the argument so that we can change the balance of resource use.
  Mr. Rost: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that intervention, because it helps me to make my next point. My colleagues in the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment have an important role to play. A helpful new clause in the Environmental Protection Bill obliges local authorities to find sensible ways of disposing of their refuse, rather than dumping it in holes, and to promote waste recycling. I hope that we shall ensure that that happens. I look forward to seeing progress in that important direction.
  I have referred to the way in which more efficient energy production is taking over. Of course, we can meet our global greenhouse targets by the year 2005, and freeze the amount of emissions that will be released, but we can do much more. We can bring about a net reduction of global greenhouse gases by encouraging greater efficiency of use and of energy production. By increasing thermal efficiency in the way in which fuel is used in our power stations, we can make a much bigger contribution than in any other way to reducing global greenhouse gases. To meet, as we must, the targets that the world will demand—they are stricter than the targets so far announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—we shall have to do more than just encourage energy efficiency. We shall have to encourage greater improvements in the efficiency with which we convert energy.
  The fact that this is not a costly option does not seem to have got across to many people. Blood, sweat and tears are not involved. It will not be a penalising technology. On the contrary, as I said, industries are to have a pay-back period of two or three years. Energy savings of 25 to 30 per cent. a year will result from combined heat and power. It will reduce our national energy bill, thereby improving competitiveness and productivity. Rather than being a costly option, it will result in savings.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Energy will accept that, although industrial co-generation is cost-effective and taking off, the big contribution can come only when there is more city combined heat and power and when the waste heat from power stations is used to displace the fossil fuels that we now burn to provide space heating. City combined heat and power is marginally economic at present, but it needs a stronger market signal. I hope that progress will be made—we have started in Sheffield—to get more core city schemes going. They will be a major contribution to energy savings and to reducing global greenhouse gases. If that can happen in many towns and cities in Europe, it is time that we got on with it. In due course, it must happen.
  I should like my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Energy to give an annual tranche of expenditure to city combined heat and power, just as they do for renewable energy, and to get one or two cities a year to apply that system. By accepting that combined heat and power will displace the fossil fuels that would otherwise have to be burnt, thereby creating pollution, and giving that tranche, we shall give a slightly stronger marketing signal to the consortiums of local authorities, private enterprise and distribution companies—such as those in Leicester—which are keen to proceed.
  The Government have taken a major initiative in giving renewable energy an opportunity to get into the marketplace, even though it is not competitive when compared with gas and other fossil fuels. The Government believe that it is important to have diversity of supply and that that initiative will result in less pollution because
  54
  carbon dioxide will not be released. The 300-odd projects about which information has flooded into the Department of Energy, overwhelming my right hon. and hon. Friends—I do not think that they expected such an enormous response—show the potential for the production of 2,000 to 3,000 MW in the next few years. They should be allowed to go ahead, provided that they can produce cheaper electricity than nuclear power.
  It would be difficult for the Government to justify rejecting projects involving renewable energy sources if they offered cheaper electricity than nuclear electricity. Nuclear energy has been given a special, continuing role on environmental and diversification grounds. The same should apply to renewables.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Energy will plead with the other European Energy Ministers and the European Commission to ensure that an eight-year cut-off point does not apply to subsidising non-fossil fuels. That cut-off point is intended to stop us subsidising the nuclear industry for more than eight years, but the baby has been thrown out with the bath-water, because renewable energy projects have been undermined.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take a tough line in Europe and persuade our colleagues that it is not in the long-term interests of a global energy strategy to discourage renewable energy production. There should be a European policy that allows each member state to develop a tranche of renewables, which could be subsidised if we wished, in the interests of environmental protection and diversity of supply. That would be exempt from the 1992 competitive rules, which are the reasons why the Commission allowed us to subsidise renewable energy only over an eight-year cycle.
  Mr. George T. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman praised market forces in the privatisation of electricity, but he now suggests that renewable energy should be given a subsidy. I wish that the Government would make up their mind whether they believe that the operation of market forces will result in cheaper electricity. The hon. Gentleman said that the contracts that are being negotiated for major consumers prove the benefits of privatisation. Will he assure the House that the domestic consumer will also look forward to a substantial price reduction?
  Mr. Rost: The hon. Gentleman raised two points. I shall concentrate on the first because that is what I have been talking about. I have not suggested for renewables anything new that has not already been agreed, promoted or proposed by the Government. The Government have provided for a tranche for renewable electricity, which obviously will need to be subsidised, just as with nuclear power and the coal industry. I have not suggested anything that will extend that subsidy. I have merely suggested that, if we give a subsidy to encourage renewables, we should ensure that it goes ahead. If the European Commission imposes an eight-year limit on such subsidies, there will he many projects that will not be bankable for private sector investors.
  The European Community should make it a part of its energy policy to do what the British Government have done. It should allow a small proportion of every member state's electricity generation to come from renewables. If member states wish to promote renewables through a form

  55
  of subsidy, they should be allowed to do so. I am not suggesting anything new; I merely propose an extension of what the Government are already doing.
  Of course I accept that we want a competitive market in electricity, but we also want to save the environment, and that aim must be an equally important part of our energy strategy. If global warming becomes a serious threat, as scientists are now beginning to argue it will, we may have to do many things, some of which will be far more costly than providing limited support for a marginal amount of electricity generated by wave, wind and tidal sources. I believe that the cost of renewable energy will fall as the technology develops and that it will become competitive. I wholeheartedly support the strategy which, as a result of electricity privatisation, is now going ahead. For that reason alone—leaving aside the other reasons that I have mentioned, such as the promotion of greater energy efficiency—the Government's privatisation of the elec-tricity industry will be seen as one of the most important policy measures that they have introduced in their 12 years in office.
  6 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: The speech of the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) improved as it went along, and given the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, there was no alternative to such an improvement. If the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the superiority of a privatised industry over a planned approach to energy policy proved anything, it was that it is the hon. Gentleman who does not know what is going on in the real world. He made accusations about the mismanagement of national assets, and laid that at the door of socialism and the nationalised industry; in fact, it is a key characteristic of the Government's madcap privatisation schemes, as we have seen from the electricity privatisation proposals.
  I shall concentrate on the consequences of privatisation for Scotland, and particularly for the Scottish coal industry. Given the Government's original intention to privatise nuclear capacity, and as 60 per cent. of Scotland's electricity is nuclear-generated, the future for the Scottish coal industry under private ownership originally appeared bleak. There were so many cheaper alternatives to which the private sector could turn.
  There was the nuclear industry itself, which had been subsidised by the Government and the taxpayer for the previous four decades and which the private sector clearly expected to continue to be subsidised on into a privatised future. There was gas-fired generation. There were plentiful supplies of gas from the North sea and elsewhere and the new combined cycle gas turbine plants offered an alternative to coall generation that was not only cheaper but environmentally sound. Then there were the imports of cheap low-sulphur coal from South Africa, Venezuela and Colombia.
  In addition, in the private sector's view there were so many problems associated with coal. There were the carbon dioxide and sulphur emissions created by coal generation, and a European directive had set national targets for reductions in such emissions. Expensive technologies were required to clean up coal generation. We are not talking just about flue gas desulphurisation, which, in any case, applies mainly to pits and plants outside
  56
  Scotland. We are talking about fluidised bed combustion technology, which, if it was applied to the refurbishment of the Kincardine power station, would help to secure the future of the Monktonhall and Frances collieries, at present mothballed by British Coal.
  It is against the background of the investment needs of the coal industry and of the cheaper alternatives available to the private sector that the key attitudes to the coal industry have been struck in recent years. It is against that background, too, that the Scottish industry has all but been betrayed by the Government in their privatisation policies.
  A report issued by George Kerovan and Richard Saville at the time of the last general election warned that, if the privatisation of the electricity industry went ahead, all the mines in Scotland, with the exception of Longannet, would be closed down and that the number of miners in Scotland would be reduced to 2,000 or less. At the time of its publication, Ministers dismissed the report as scaremongering and criticised its authors as left-wingers who could not be trusted and who were in any case likely to criticise the Government's privatisation policies. Three years on, the authors have been proved exactly right: Longannet is now the only deep-mined pit surviving in Scotland and there are now fewer than 2,000 miners in my country. The authors have been proved right partly because of the drive toward privatisation by the Government and the electricity industry.
  Like many others, I welcome the recent news that Scottish Power has at last made a five-year deal with British Coal that helps to secure the future of the Longannet complex. But I ask the House to examine the timing of that agreement. It came not before but after the decision to pull nuclear plants out of the privatisation. The question has to be asked: would a privatised Scottish Power that still owned Torness and Hunterston B have struck such a deal with British Coal? If Scottish Power had continued to own a massive generating capacity provided by those nuclear stations, would it still have felt it necessary to enter into new agreements with British Coal? I fear that the answer to those questions is no. So long as Scottish Power enjoyed a nuclear alternative, it did not need Scottish coal and, as a private operator, what it did not need it was not prepared to pay for.
  Only when Scottish Power was brought face to face with the reality that nuclear generation was uneconomic and could not be privatised, and only when it had to face a future in the free market without Torness and Hunterston B, did it rediscover the value of coal in generating electricity. That explains the five years deal on Longannet struck between British Coal and Scottish Power. It also explains Scottish Power's new willingness to negotiate on the Cockenzie power station, with the possibility of reopening Monktonhall. It is as simple as that. Scottish Power's private need to secure new sources of generation after the nuclear alternative was taken away from it explains the different attitude that it has now brought to its negotiations with British Coal.
  What was in the interests of Scotland and the Scottish people or of the United Kingdom as a whole never entered into the equation, which was dominated by the private interests of Scottish Power. That explains Scottish Power's different attitude before and after the nuclear capacity was removed from the privatisation process. That has been the greatest price to be paid for the privatisation of the electricity industry—the loss of any consideration of what

  57
  is in the strategic interests of the country as a whole. It used to be called planning, which the Secretary of State told us today belongs to the past.
  Private interests have come to predominate. That is why the tremendous potential of the Scottish coalfield has been sadly neglected by a Government bent on privatising and by an industry intent upon lining its own pockets and those of its shareholders. Make no mistake about it: a priceless national asset has been neglected in the privatisation process. The Scottish coalfield has massive resources. In the Musselburgh basin alone, we have workings capable of sustaining 100 years worth of production. Monktonhall could work for 20 years from its current workings. With the appropriate development, both Monktonhall and Frances at Dysart have another 50 years worth of workable coal. Those pits, along with large unexploited coal stocks at Harpendon in Lanarkshire and at Canonbie in Dumfriesshire represent a tremendous national resource which ought to be exploited economically in the national interest—all the more so because Scottish coal is green, environmentally friendly coal with a very low sulphur content. So why is it not being exploited? Why is it being wantonly neglected by the Government and the industry?
  The pathetic excuses for the failure to use Scottish coal simply cannot be sustained. We were told that it would cost too much to transport coal from Frances colliery in Fife to elsewhere on the United Kingdom mainland. Yet, in the same breath, the Government tell us that it is not too expensive to transport similar coal from other continents on the other side of the world. We are expected to believe that moving coal more than 3,000 miles is economically more efficient than moving it 300 miles. No one in their right senses would believe such a preposterous proposition. However, that is the present position because of the Government's plan to privatise the electricity industry. The hon. Member for Erewash referred to the waste of national assets, but Scotland's national assets are being wasted as a direct result of the Government's free-market privatisation policy.
  One of the great ironies of the whole business of privatisation had been the stark contrast between the Government's attitude in 1984 and their attitude today. In 1984, the iron law of the market was rigidly applied to the coal industry. Uneconomic pits which could not show short-term profitability had to go. The Government came close to waging a civil war with the National Union of Mineworkers to drive that lesson home—and drive it home with a vengeance they did. More than 100 pits were closed, and more than 100,000 miners have gone to the wall. Yet just five years later, the Government have run away from applying the same iron market laws to their beloved nuclear industry.
  Nuclear power stations are uneconomic, and they are not profitable. The private sector would not touch them with a bargepole, as everyone is aware. Are those nuclear power stations to close? Is that industry to be decimated? No. Those stations are to be withdrawn from the privatisation process and they are to be propped up, like the economic lame ducks they are, within the public sector.
  We can only marvel at a Government who happily write off £1,400 million of debt which nuclear power had cast around the neck of the electricity industry in Scotland, but who baulk at a fraction of that investment in new clean coal technologies that would secure the future of economic exploitation of the massive strategic reserves of Scottish
  58
  coal. That behaviour is beyond rational explanation, but increasingly the same accusation can be levelled against a range of Government policy. Because of that, the people of Scotland, England and Wales are turning away from the Government and their wasteful polices. The people are turning towards the Labour party—the party which will put the national interests before private interests and the party which will win the next general election.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will forgive me if I do not refer to Scotland as he did. I want to begin by referring to the Social and Liberal Democrats. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has disappeared from the Chamber, together with his colleagues. There is not one SLD Member present in the Chamber now. However, I am afraid that that will not stop me saying a few words about the SLD and its policies.
  It is one of the SLD's more endearing characteristics that that party shows a degree of muddle and confusion. If ever one day the SLD showed itself to be sharp and incisive, we would all wonder what on earth had gone wrong.
  Opposition to the Government's proposals on privatisation was expressed by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) when he was SLD energy spokesman. In a press statement on 25 February 1988, he claimed, among other things, that privatisation of electricity would be
  "a repeat performance of British Telecom and British Gas in that there will be no protection for the consumer … and the only result of privatisation so far has been an increase in electricity prices … The Government has yet to convince that privatisation on these terms will benefit anyone but the get-rich-quick privateers."
  Those views are in sharp contrast to those of his successor as energy spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). In an article entitled "Why I'm buying electricity shares", which appeard in Liberal News, the hon. Member for Gordon wrote:
  "It is impossible to defend the status quo in the electricity industry. The Central Electricity Generating Board has become a centralised monopoly which is closed, secretive and accountable to no one. The economics of generation and conservation are neither being properly examined or subjuted to market forces."
  The hon. Member for Gordon said that on 7 October
  1987.
  However—this is yet another element of muddle—the SLD green paper "Privatising Electricity", which appeared in August 1988, states openly:
  "Social and Liberal Democrats oppose the Government's privatisation plans for the electricity supply industry because they are irrelevant to the problems facing the industry … because they will not lead to any significant degree of competition."
  As I have said, it is one of the SLD's more endearing characteristics that its members are muddled, and I am only sorry that there is not one SLD Member present to add to that muddle and confusion now.
  I want now to consider the Central Electricity Generating Board. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were to ask the ordinary man or woman in the street what the CEGB was, most of them would not have a clue. They would probably think that it was a foreign football team. However, the CEGB, which was of course one of the most important bodies in this country, displayed poor accountability and a lack of market discipline and was also

  59
  susceptible to Government interference. It led to enormous over-capacity, as a result of which British consumers have been paying for years for mothballed power stations.
  Under privatisation, there will be greater democracy and greater accountability, particularly through the Secretary of State and the director general's office. It might also be worth-while to consider the attitude of some of the trade unions. I beleve that in today's Times Mr. John Lyons states that he wanted 10 per cent. of the shares in the industry to be allocated for his members on favourable terms. That shows that Mr. Lyons is very wise. Similarly, Mr. Eric Hammond said:
  "There is scepticism, to say the least, among our members about the moral and practical effects of nationalisation that is ignored by our composites … Our members reveal an enthusiasm for the market system and its values that infuriate the sherry party revolutionaries with their model resolutions and conference hall rhetoric."
  Those are wise words once again.
  When the electricity industry was a nationalised industry, there were difficulties in planning before and after 1974. Reference has already been made to the nuclear industry. In the mid-1960s, a Labour Government commissioned different types of advanced gas-cooled reactor power stations. As a result, those power stations have had many difficulties. As has already been said, 20 years on, one of those stations is running at about 1.1 per cent capacity. That is a poor record.
  I want now to consider the concept of business and profit alongside service. The other day I had the misfortune to catch my foot in my telephone cord, which caused the telephone to fall to the floor and burst open. I rang British Telecom and a man came round the next day. I must say that that was very efficient. He put my telephone right in no time. He told me that British Telecom operates as a business today, not as a service.
  I thought that that was significant because, apart from anything else, I had to pay for that service. I did not mind doing so, because I had been careless enough to break the telephone and it was right and proper that I should pay to have it mended. However, I can remember that, before the industry was nationalised, if I had done the same thing, it would have taken three weeks for an engineer to appear. It would have been little consolation for me to discover that I would not have been charged directly, but that the charge would have been added to everyone's bill.
  I am afraid that time is fast running out, but I want to refer briefly to pollution and the environment. We have heard about alternative sources of energy and about wind farms, tidal barrages and the generation of hydro-electricity. However, all those have their own costs in terms of the environment.
  A wind farm is incredibly noisy. No one can live within miles of one. Once the wind speed rises above 30 or 35 mph, the windmills must be stopped to prevent the vanes from blowing off. A barrage across the Severn estuary would have an appalling effect on the wildlife in the estuary and the life forms that depend on the tide going up and down. The Scottish people know the environmental cost of installing hydro-electricity. The River Garry in Perthshire is now almost permanently dry because its water was taken years ago for hydro-electric schemes.
  60
  The latest technology—combined cycle gas turbines—is far more efficient than coal-fired power stations. Instead of requiring the hundreds of acres that are needed for the latter, they require only about 15 acres, and have a far shorter lead time. There is no doubt that that is the way forward. If the technology had been adopted some years ago, we would not now be wrestling with all the problems of FGD, which is immensely costly: £700 million is to be spent on the Drax power station.
  Nearly 50 per cent. of Sweden's electricity is generated through nuclear schemes. Sweden is now in serious trouble, because the people have recently said that they do not want nuclear power any more, and that it must be phased out by 2005. The Swedish authorities are at their wits' end to know how to produce that amount of electricity without using nuclear power.
  There is no doubt that the privatisation of the electricity industry will bring great benefits to consumers and the British public. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the Labour party's motion.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Unlike the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson)—I am sure that he will forgive me—I wish to refer to the texts before the House, and especially to the Government amendment. The amendment refers to
  "internationally recognised benefits … rights for the consumer … the Government's commitment to the protection of the environment".
  Although "internationally recognised benefits" will accrue, they will not benefit the people of Britain, who will see an asset being sold off for far less than it is worth to help an appalling balance-of-payments problem. Government policy—and certainly electricity privatization—make no contribution to resolving that problem. As for the reference to "rights for the consumer", the Minister cannot deny that consumers are already paying 20 per cent. more for electricity as a result of the Government's privatisation policy than they would otherwise have paid: Opposition Members made that clear in our last debate on this subject.
  The Government say that they are committed to the environment. I have long been committed to the environment, and I could spend a long time listing the Government's abject and appalling environmental failures. Sites of special scientific interest have been damaged, international conventions have been ignored and, a mile from my home, an enormous quantity of toxic waste—which should never have come into this country—has been dumped. It has been there for over a year. If the Government allow such poisons to enter the country, they are not fit to be in charge of the environment, and it is a disgrace for them to refer to it.
  I detect the stench of corruption to which some of my hon. Friends have referred. I do not need to spell out the details, but let me describe a debate in Budapest in which I took part three weeks ago. It took place in the Hungarian Parliament, and was attended by Prime Ministers and Finance Ministers from eastern Europe. They were educated by the assorted bodies of the European right.
  There was a substantial delegation of Conservative Members, who presented a paper advocating privatisation in eastern Europe. To support their argument, they produced a list of all the privatisations that had taken

  61
  place in Britain since the Prime Minister took office, in chronological order. At the side, in the same order, was a list of the net proceeds that the Government had received.
  I examined the list with great interest. It is not a list that Conservative Members would like to see published in the Official Report; it showed, for example, that the net receipts from the sale of the royal ordnance factories was about one tenth of the amount involved in the land fiddles that followed that privatisation, and that the net proceeds from the sale of British Gas amounted to £1.74 billion. That—as my hon. Friends who served on the Committee examining the Gas Bill will recall—is about 10 per cent. of the worth of the industry before it was privatised. When public assets are sold for one tenth of their actual worth, the stench of corruption is strong.
  Mr. Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hardy: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman made an appallingly long speech: he spoke for half an hour, although many other hon. Members wanted to make important contributions. To the best of my knowledge, he has already made that speech three times.
  Mr. Rost: For the record, my speech may have been appalling and long, but it did not go on for half an hour: it was 21 minutes.
  Mr. Hardy: It seemed like half an hour.
  Ministers are carrying out their normal task and saying that we do not need to bother about asset value or what anything is worth, but should merely sell for what we can get in a market where Britain is increasingly less valued. The countries that may provide the purchases know that we have a balance of payments deficit of appalling proportions, and that beggars cannot be choosers. The Government have brought Britain to beggary, and the privatisation of the electricity industry is one example of that.
  At the debate in Budapest, I made sure that the assembled gathering was made aware—although I do not like to criticise Britain abroad, and do not do it often—that assets had been disposed of at knockdown value. I also provided a response to the choruses of demands and advice that had been forthcoming from Conservative Members who told eastern Europe: "Dismantle your controls, get rid of regulations, leave your economies to the market force and let our entrepreneurs come and help you."
  I suggest that eastern Europeans would be well advised to resist the greedy, salivating entrepreneurs who want their snouts in everyone's gravy trough. I advised them to bear in mind that in any civilised country there must be regulation to protect the community, the consumer, the worker and the environment. The Conservative Members who advised people in Budapest to sell of their assets cheaply and to scrap all their rules would not say that on the hustings in Britain. However, what they said in Budapest they believed, and that belief smells of corruption.
  Conservative Members have echoed the cheers in support of the dismantling of a large part of the British coal industry. In my area, there is a blight: hundreds of acres of land have been rendered derelict as a result of the pursuit of greed. Yet, despite the economic blows that the Government have inflicted on that area—despite the ravaging of public sector assets—we are now told by this
  62
  corrupt Government that my area is one of the least deprived, most fortunate and well-furnished, in a civic sense, and least necessitous areas of Britain.
  Coalfield areas that have been robbed blind by the Government are now seeing their prospects being further reduced by this sort of dogmatic privatisation. At the same time, Departments of State are saying that our areas need less help than others. Let us think about those other areas. They include Purpeck, the Isle of Wight, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Dorset, Wiltshire and parts of the most salubrious areas of outer London, such as Royal Tunbridge Wells and Richmond on Thames. All those areas are now regarded as deprived.
  When the shares are sold at knockdown prices, they will not be bought by people in areas such as mine, because they cannot afford them; they will be bought by people in areas that the Government are assisting. That is why we are entitled to say that there is a stench of corruption. That is also why I hope that my hon. Friends will ensure that we maintain our opposition to the Government's disgraceful policy.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Prime Minister, in her third term of office, has at last started to take some interest in environmental matters. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy, which perhaps has the most to contribute to environmental protection, is preoccupied with this privatisation rather than devoting its time to what it could contribute to protect the environment.
  We know that acid rain is a major problem for industrialised countries throughout Europe. Despite being in office for more than a decade, the Government have so far achieved nothing in tackling the problem. Britain is by far the largest producer of sulphur dioxide in Europe. We were about the last to reach an agreement with our European partners on progressive cuts of 20 per cent., 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. by the year 2003. We are way behind other countries in terms of doing something. West Germany has already fitted flue gas desulphurisation units to 40,000 MW of generating capacity—that is, 116 separate units—yet, when the Government leave office, not one of our power stations will have been desulphurised. That speaks volumes for the Government's and the Prime Minister's commitment to the environment.
  On global warming, the Prime Minister made a major speech to the Meteorological Office on 25 May and impressively recognised that a major problem confronts the planet. Higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere pose the threat that sea levels will rise and, much more important, climatic change across the globe. Having accepted that there is a major problem, the Government's policy is simply stabilisation of carbon dioxide levels by 2003. That implies that, if the Government were returned to office, they would allow carbon dioxide levels to continue to rise—business as usual—and would then leave it to a successor Government towards the end of the century or early next century to try to effect those difficult cuts.
  West Germany has a target of 25 per cent. cuts by 2005. The Labour party is committed to stabilisation by the year 2000, which is the policy for most of the European Community. With the privatisation measure, there was an opportunity to do something constructive and substantial

  63
  to tackle problems such as global warming. The answers lie in energy efficiency and in the development of renewable sources of energy. However, we know the record of the Energy Efficiency Office and the cuts in its budget. When the privatisation measure was considered in Committee and on the Floor of the House, many amendments were tabled by the Liberal Democrats and by Labour Members, but the Government voted them all down. A major amendment on energy efficiency and the idea of least cost planning was tabled in the other House, but it was voted down.
  It is clear that, rather than invest £2 billion, or whatever is the figure now, for Sizewell nuclear power station, a much better use of the nation's resources would be to put that £2 billion towards improving home insulation, district heating schemes and so on. Investment in energy efficiency creates jobs and makes the economy more efficient. Last week, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made some powerful remarks to that effect. If we invested to save energy use, the whole economy would be more productive and competitive. Energy would be saved and goods would be cheaper. That is the Japanese record, and it is self-evident common sense.
  The other way of tackling global warming, which is one of the most intractable environmental problems—by stabilisation of carbon dioxide levels—is not enough. We need drastic cuts during the next century. If drastic cuts are ever to be possible, we must develop renewable sources of energy. According to what I hear from organisations and from what I read in the newspapers, far from encouraging renewable sources of energy, this privatisation measure is faulty.
  As the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) mentioned, when the Department of Energy asked for projects to take the renewable tranche within the privatisation, it was embarrassed by the hundreds of replies that it received. Having got 600 or so projects lined up, it moved the goal posts and changed the 15-year payback to an eight-year payback. If we want renewable sources to make the major contribution that they could to our energy supplies in the next century, we must invest in the same way as we are willing to invest in nuclear power.
  The only good thing that has come out of the privatisation measure is the fact that it has introduced transparency to nuclear costs. When people in the City started to examine the costs of decommissioning and the costs of treating nuclear waste and possibly disposing of it, they were horrified. I am relieved and pleased that that aspect has been taken out of the privatisation measure. A 20 per cent. cost escalation at the Sizewell nuclear power station during the past two years has been mentioned. There is no question but that that power station, along with the other three, should be scrapped now.
  Hon. Members have heard several contributions about economics and cost of the privatisation—selling £20 billion or £30 billion of assets at knockdown prices. The consumer will have to pay for that. It is my strong belief that the consumer cannot afford this privatisation. Because of imports implications, the country cannot afford it either, and nor can the environment.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: In the light of the limited time available, I must dispense with some of the customary niceties in sweeping up at the end of the debate and get straight into the remarks that are necessary for Opposition Members to explain what we find so unsatisfactory about the Government's privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
  This privatisation is different from other privatisations in that the industry is being dismantled and reassembled at the same time as it is being privatised. That poses entirely new problems for those guiding the industry not just into the private sector, as on 1 April, but on to the stock exchange and being sold off somehow or other over the next 12 months or two years.
  Usually, when selling a company on the stock exchange, five years of audited accounts must be produced as a guide for anyone buying shares. What animal are they buying? Is it fish, fowl, chalk, cheese or whatever? Buyers will not have the benefit of that procedure with this flotation. Anyone wishing to buy shares in an area distribution company will find that it is not the same as the distribution board that existed until 31 March. It is without some of its previous operations, but it has many others. It has the power to generate, but it does not have a monopoly over distribution. When a new housing estate is built in the area, a generating company—or any Tom, Dick or Harry—could bid to put in the wires. There is no automatic monopoly; the company has lost that guaranteed income.
  Similarly, when buying a share in a generating company, that will not be the same as simply buying the 70 per cent. coal-fired and oil-fired generating sets that belong to the Central Electricity Generating Board, because the electricity distribution companies can operate in generating and the generating companies can operate in distribution. It is a complete mish-mash of an industry.
  Conservative Members may say, "That's fine; that is what we want. We want a mish-mash. We want distributors to be able to generate and generators to be able to distribute. We want distributors to be able to pinch business from each other in the borders or, for example, the North of Scotland Hydro Board to take contracts in south Wales, and so on." That is exactly what they want. What does that mean for the small shareholder who might be inveigled into buying shares? Stockbrokers can no longer say, "Here are the audited accounts for the previous five years. It appears that there will be a gently rising path into the future, which means that we can expect so much capital growth and so much dividend income." Now a new company, of a new kind, is being floated. What sort of protection will be offered to the small shareholder?
  The Government could say, "Well, that does not really matter, because we are converting the company not merely into shares but into a sort of granny-bond operation. Whatever the results this year, we can project forward through the inclusion of the retail price index plus x minus y formula." Apart from the fact that that builds inflation into the formula, it is no real protection for the small shareholder because he cannot find any independent advice about new shares that he wants to buy.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a large number of people in my constituency work in this most important industry.

  65
  apologise for not having been present for the whole of the debate; I have been in my constituency. Is he aware that the main question asked by people in the industry in my constituency is when will they get their shares? They have complete confidence in the industry and in the privatisation.
  Mr. Morgan: The trouble is that that assumes that the shares will be given away at a very low price by writing off two thirds of their book value—and if that can happen once, it can happen again. Where will they get advice on what is the proper and fair arbitration of the current value of the shares as they belong to the taxpayer, and the appropriate value for selling them to the private shareholder? Who will provide that?
  A recent heavyweight article in The Times Business News stated:
  "A few weeks back, a highly-placed executive at one of the country's 12 electricity distribution companies was threatened with court action by the Department of Energy.
  His alleged crime was giving an honest review of the prospects for his business, a breach, in the department's eyes, of the Financial Services Act … Nothing better reflects the paranoia and uncertainty surrounding electricity privatisation …
  It was a feature of the water floatation that the FSA was used as an extension of the Official Secrets Act, to plug unwanted—as opposed to Whitehall-sanctioned—leaks."
  The problem with this privatisation—it is worse than with any previous privatization—is that we cannot put a proper value on the industry unless we allow independent comment. The Government are putting a blanket ban on any independent comments that could help small shareholders to decide what is the right price and whether they want to go into the industry as investors.
  As far as I am aware, the Government have not yet decided whether to sell any shares in the generating companies to the Sids. Perhaps the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who has joined the debate at the last minute, has views on that which she may want to make to the Secretary of State. I understand that it might be done by replacement or by tender. The Secretary of State may have views on that which he could express to the House tonight—it is a suitable opportunity—because it is very important to the way that public expenditure on this industry is being thrown around.
  We have heard several times tonight about the way in which the generating companies are presenting themselves as the wonderful folks who bring us the world cup and the weather forecast. The world cup sponsorship slots are not just advertisements, they are included in the commentator's references. He might say, "This game is brought to you by National Power," as though the world cup would not be on television were it not for electricity privatisation. Bob Phillips, a sports commentator on my local newspaper in Cardiff, said that it was the most unwanted electricity plug of all time, and I agree.
  The blurring of the distinction between what is sponsorship and what is advertising is absolutely appalling. It is part of the drift into sleaze to which we have referred several times. It is impossible to obtain a contract in anything to do with privatisation unless Tim Bell is one's public relations adviser—
  Mr. Barry Jones: Ireland beat Romania 5:4 on penalties.
  Mr. Morgan: I am glad to hear that.
  66
  I am anxious that we should know just how much money is being spent on advertising. It appears that, this year alone, the corporate advertising of National Power, PowerGen, the 12 area distribution companies and the Government in presenting the companies for sale will be well above £50 million. That is creating a whole new class of privatisation junkies—advertising agencies that cannot do without the full-page advertising and newspapers which, in the downturn in commercial advertising, cannot really afford to keep on their journalists unless they take privatisation advertising.
  The stockbrokers and merchant bankers—the Kleinwort Bensons, the Warburgs, the Capels and the Cazenoves—are now completely dependent on privatisation proceeds to keep them going during a period of slack business in the stock market and in merchant banking.
  What we now need to know is the real purpose and the real priority of privatisation of the electricity supply industry. Will it meet the priorities of the industry? Will it convert the industry into the shape that it should be so that it can answer the real problems that it will face over the next 10 or 12 years—as perceived by Conservative Members, let alone by Labour Members? Will the electricity industry's top priority be competition?
  Some Conservative Members probably think that everything should be subject to competition—even, as we heard last week, the very currencies in which we deal. They believe that hard and soft currencies should be the subject of competition when one buys groceries or uses a travel agent. We believe that there are more important priorities in the energy industry—and when it comes to attending international conferences, even the Prime Minister thinks that there are more important priorities than merely competition.
  I know that the Prime Minister suffers from her own version of BSE—Boadicea syndrome encephalopathy. She likes to grab hold of the nearest chariot wheels in the conference game. If there is a conference, especially in this country where she can organise it and make sure that she has a starring role, she is in there, fighting for a leading role. She is one of those recognisable types of person who boss their way into being secretary of the best-kept-planetin-the-galaxy committee. When it comes to global warming, yes, the Prime Minister wants to be there, as long as everybody does what she says. If everybody did what she says, not what she does, we might have a healthier environment for our planet, but we certainly will not have that if we follow what she does.
  The Prime Minister has refused to put conservation at the top of the energy industry's agenda, while talking up her role as the person who can solve global warming and acid rain. Having seen that wonderful headline in the Evening Standard,
  "Maggie's plan to save the world",
  the Prime Minister cut the acid rain reduction programme from 12,000 MW to 8,000 MW. However, the Evening Standard did not run a headline stating, "Maggie's plan to save two thirds of the world", although it should have.
  With all the advertising and the creation of an entirely new class of privatisation junkie, now is the time for the Government to giving serious thought to the real needs of the next 10 years. Is it rational to plan our use of energy and the way in which we sell energy, with a view to the global environment, or is it simply a question of selling off our energy industry to create a new class of small shareholder?

  67
  If global warming turns out to be a big problem, and if in 10 years' time the Secretary of State's successor is sitting on the Terrace with the successor to Sir Humphrey as the Thames water from the rising sea level comes over the parapet on to the Terrace, we do not want the Secretary of State to say to Sir Humphrey, "Well, global warming is here to stay; what is our policy response?", and Sir Humphrey to reply, "I suppose that we could always try breast stroke."
  6.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. It has enabled the Government, once again, to set out the success of our privatisation proposals. We have heard interesting speeches from hon. Members of all parties, all of whom take a close interest in energy policy. In the eight minutes left to me, I shall try to respond to some of their points.
  The first point that the Opposition sought to make was about the price of the privatisation. I wish to make it clear that, via the supplementary estimates, the Government have obtained parliamentary approval for the preliminary spending. The other spending will be netted against the proceeds of the sale, and has been provided for with a token vote, as is the established practice. The final cost will be presented to the House as soon as possible after the privatisation sale—again, following the established practice. That is all perfectly proper.
  It is clearly too early to make any estimate of the final costs because numerous factors may affect them. However, we are seeking to keep the cost to the minimum commensurate with maximising the proceeds of sale because that will obviously be to the benefit of the taxpayer. In all this, we are seeking to ensure value for money. That is why we have awarded contracts by competitive tender, and are therefore getting competitive rates.
  Electricity privatisation is an extremely complex exercise, but advisers are appointed only where a clear need for expert advice can be demonstrated and where that advice is not available within the Department. Therefore, the appointment of advisers is the most cost-effective way of obtaining expertise. The bulk of that advice is on accounting and legal matters.
  We are seeking to ensure not only that the privatisation of the electricity industry is a success, but that the taxpayer and the community as a whole benefit from that success. We have always sought to make what we are doing clear to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and he, of course, has been given ample information, including a list of the advisers appointed by the Department, a list of the advisers appointed by National Power and PowerGen and the area boards, and our estimated costs up to the end of 1989–90, together with our estimates for this year. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has sought further information from the regional electricity companies.
  Mr. Dobson rose—
  Mr. Baldry: No, I shall not give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] With respect, I have very little time.
  68
  In every privatisation, the total cost of the privatisation as a percentage of the sale proceeds has been small. In Britoil, it was 5.5 per cent; for British Gas, it was 3.4 per cent; and for the water privatisation it was 2.5 per cent. Those costs, as a percentage of the sales proceeds, were spent in ensuring the maximised return from the proceeds to the benefit of the taxpayer. As I said, we are seeking to ensure the minimum cost commensurate with the maximum proceeds.
  Opposition Members seem to scowl at both marketing and advertising. The marketing of the industry is necessary to ensure that we have maximum wider share ownership, including among employees. Marketing is designed to ensure that we achieve value for money and that there is proper information that can lead to the formation of a proper share price, which again leads to the maximum proceeds. Similarly with advertising: it is too early to estimate the costs of an advertising campaign, but it is intended to ensure maximum proceeds for the taxpayer. It is surprising that Opposition Members, who are quick to criticise when they feel that the Government have not secured the maximum proceeds for an industry, should be so derisory when we take all proper efforts to ensure that we achieve the maximum proceeds.
  All the advisers who have been retained by the Department of Energy punctiliously meet the conventions governing the appointment of such advisers. All those appointments have been made in accordance with the proper proprieties and to ensure value for money. There has been no breach of any rules. Every appointment has been made in accordance with the clear criteria set out by the Cabinet Office.
  Mr. Dobson: If all the proprieties have been followed, why were not many of those advisers appointed by competitive tender? That point was confirmed by the Secretary of State in an answer to me.
  Mr. Baldry: With respect, all the advisers have been appointed by a proper competitive process, to ensure proper competitive forces—
  Mr. Dobson: The Minister should ask the Secretary of State about that.
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman's mathematics leaves a lot to be desired.
  Not only is his mathematics wrong—he was incapable of deducting the £9 billion of Nuclear Electric from the value of the electricity assets—but so is his methodology. The current cost accounting method is not an appropriate basis for valuing the industry because it seeks to measure replacement value, which is not the same as what the taxpayer has paid for the assets. One must therefore look at the written down costs, which are estimated at £10 billion.
  Estimates of the sale proceeds are at present somewhat speculative. However, the benefits of the privatisation are not only the money that it realises, but the benefits of competition; of downward pressure on prices; of wider share ownership; and of removing the burden of interest costs from the public to the private sector. Competition and market forces are already producing real benefits in the price reductions that have been achieved for large industrial users. Our prices are good news for customers, industry and the environment.

  69
  The opposition has been based on a complete misunderstanding of the position and on ignorance of the progress being made. The benefits already secured in privatising the industry are considerable. The Opposition say that they want to get proper value for the industry, yet they criticise the valuation and marketing exercise which the Government are undertaking and which will ensure that we realise a proper return for the public.
  This debate—
  Mr. Frank Haynes rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 298.

  Division No. 259]

  [7.2 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Allen, Graham

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Alton, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Anderson, Donald

  Faulds, Andrew

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fearn, Ronald

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fisher, Mark

  Ashton, Joe

  Flannery, Martin

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Flynn, Paul

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Derek

  Beckett, Margaret

  Foulkes, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Fraser, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Galloway, George

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

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  George, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blair, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Blunkett, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boyes, Roland

  Gould, Bryan

  Bradley, Keith

  Graham, Thomas

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buckley, George J.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caborn, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Haynes, Frank

  Carr, Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clay, Bob

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Janner, Greville

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dewar, Donald

  Kilfedder, James

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Lambie, David

  Doran, Frank

  Lamond, James

  Douglas, Dick

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Leighton, Ron

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lewis, Terry

  70

  Litherland, Robert

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Randall, Stuart

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Redmond, Martin

  McAllion, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reid, Dr John

  McCartney, Ian

  Richardson, Jo

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Robertson, George

  McKelvey, William

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Short, Clare

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morley, Elliot

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Nellist, Dave

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  O'Brien, William

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Parry, Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Patchett, Terry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pendry, Tom

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Question accordingly negatived
  Question, That the Proposed words be added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 187.

  Division No. 259]

  [7.2 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Allen, Graham

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Alton, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Anderson, Donald

  Faulds, Andrew

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fearn, Ronald

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fisher, Mark

  Ashton, Joe

  Flannery, Martin

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Flynn, Paul

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Derek

  Beckett, Margaret

  Foulkes, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Fraser, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Galloway, George

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

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  George, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blair, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Blunkett, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boyes, Roland

  Gould, Bryan

  Bradley, Keith

  Graham, Thomas

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buckley, George J.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caborn, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Haynes, Frank

  Carr, Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clay, Bob

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Janner, Greville

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dewar, Donald

  Kilfedder, James

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Lambie, David

  Doran, Frank

  Lamond, James

  Douglas, Dick

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Leighton, Ron

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lewis, Terry

  70

  Litherland, Robert

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Randall, Stuart

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Redmond, Martin

  McAllion, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reid, Dr John

  McCartney, Ian

  Richardson, Jo

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Robertson, George

  McKelvey, William

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Short, Clare

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morley, Elliot

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Nellist, Dave

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  O'Brien, William

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Parry, Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Patchett, Terry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pendry, Tom

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carrington, Matthew

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Allason, Rupert

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Amess, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Atkins, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkinson, David

  Conway, Derek

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bendall, Vivian

  Couchman, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cran, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Critchley, Julian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowis, John

  Dover, Den

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dunn, Bob

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evennett, David

  Bright, Graham

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

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

  Fallon, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Favell, Tony

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Burns, Simon

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Burt, Alistair

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Butler, Chris

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  71

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McCrindle, Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  French, Douglas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gardiner, George

  Maclean, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Madel, David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, John

  Maples, John

  Gow, Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gregory, Conal

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Grist, Ian

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Ground, Patrick

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grylls, Michael

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hague, William

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hannam, John

  Moate, Roger

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

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Harris, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hayward, Robert

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Neubert, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Norris, Steve

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Page, Richard

  Irvine, Michael

  Paice, James

  Jack, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Jackson, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Janman, Tim

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Pawsey, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Key, Robert

  Portillo, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Price, Sir David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Raffan, Keith

  Knapman, Roger

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knox, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Latham, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rost, Peter

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lilley, Peter

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  72

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Ward, John

  Squire, Robin

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Whitney, Ray

  Stern, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wilshire, David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Sumberg, David

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Summerson, Hugo

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Division No. 260]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butler, Chris

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Allason, Rupert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ashby, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkinson, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baldry, Tony

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Conway, Derek

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Couchman, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Critchley, Julian

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dunn, Bob

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bright, Graham

  Evennett, David

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

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fallon, Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Favell, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  73

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lightbown, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lilley, Peter

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  McCrindle, Robert

  French, Douglas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gale, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, George

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maclean, David

  Gill, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Madel, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gorst, John

  Mans, Keith

  Gow, Ian

  Maples, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gregory, Conal

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Grist, Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Ground, Patrick

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grylls, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hague, William

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hannam, John

  Mitchell, Sir David

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

  Moate, Roger

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hayward, Robert

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hill, James

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Neubert, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Norris, Steve

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Page, Richard

  Irvine, Michael

  Paice, James

  Jack, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Jackson, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Janman, Tim

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Pawsey, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Price, Sir David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Raffan, Keith

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Knapman, Roger

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knowles, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Knox, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lang, Ian

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Latham, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  74

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sims, Roger

  Viggers, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walden, George

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stern, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wilshire, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Sumberg, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mr. Tony Durant and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the privatisation of the electricity industry and the internationally recognised benefits which the Government's policies are already achieving through the introduction of real competition, the introduction of new and enhanced rights for the consumer, the emergence of new, cleaner, more efficient and cost-effective generating plant, through the Government's commitment to the protection of the environment and by ensuring that the needs of customers drive the decisions of the electricity industry.

Orders of the Day

  Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill (By Order)
  Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that since the last time this subject was brought before the House, when the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was debated on Third Reading, there have been some important developments on private Bill procedure. The first was the publication of the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, 1987–1988, House of Lords paper 97, and House of Commons paper 625. That report contained several important recommendations covering the matters before the House tonight. In particular, recommendation 9 dealt with ports and harbours.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I find it difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman says to the Lords amendments to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. I cannot see that a consultation paper is relevant.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: See? My hon. Friend is a lawyer.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his help. My point of order to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is specific; I have not lost track of it. I referred to recommendation 9 dealing with harbours and ports. Procedural amendments were also made that touch upon proceedings: the deposit and advertising of private Bills that are now before the House. I draw to your attention a further development: the publication by the Lord President of the Council of the document that I hold in my hand. Last Thursday, I asked the Lord President of the Council whether he would make clear the Government's position on the private Bill procedure. At 3.30 pm, he said that a written answer and a document would be placed in the Library. This document is a consultation paper. It may be a Green Paper, or it may be a White Paper—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to procedural changes that may or may not take place some time in the future. Under the existing procedure, we are about to deal with Lords amendments to a particular Bill. Any point of order must be directly related to the existing procedure.
  Mr. Bell: I now approach the point of order that I have for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the latest edition of "Erskine May", page 861 states:
  "If any stage of a Bill is proceeded with when the notice has not been duly given, or the proper interval allowed, or if notice is taken of any other formality, the proceeding will be null and void, and the stage must be repeated."
  My point of order for you is that important and serious changes have been made to the private Bill procedure since the House last met on the issue. The Government have said that they intend to change the law of the land in relation to the private Bill procedure. That is clearly stated in the document issued by the Lord President of the Council.

  77
  Have the Government, either through their business managers or through the usual channels, intimated to you that as a consequence of the proposed changes to the law they wish to defer the private Bill that is before the House? I draw your attention to the quotation from "Erskine May". I ask you to be kind enough to suspend the sitting until you have taken the advice of the Clerks and ascertained whether the situation has changed. If it has, I ask you to rule that we cannot proceed with consideration of the Lords amendments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: What we are about to do is perfectly in order. I emphasise yet again to the hon. Gentleman and to the whole House that we are now working under our existing procedures and that what has been set down for debate today is perfectly in order. The sooner we get on with it the better. Mr. Michael Brown.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That the Lords amendments be now considered.
  Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall hear the point of order of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond).
  Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) ought to keep quiet and pay attention. It is an important matter. You will recollect that when the Bill began its passage through the House we said that it was a hybrid, not a private Bill. At that time the Chair ruled, and has ruled on several occasions since, that it is not a hybrid Bill, so the procedure is correct. Would you consider suspending the sitting until you have had time to reflect on the fact that the Government have been involved in the various stages of the Bill? In view of the Government's involvement and connivance, I ask you to suspend the sitting and then to rule that this is a hybrid Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing further for the Chair to reflect on. The Chair has reflected over a good many months on the Bill and on the procedures that we are following. They are wholly correct.
  Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take points of order, but it would be very much tidier if the hon. Member who is sponsoring the Bill, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), were able to move the motion. Then I should be prepared to take points of order.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That the Lords amendments be now considered.
  Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall hear the point of order of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
  Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to clarify the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). When the Bill received its Third Reading in the House, there was a good attendance by Opposition Members. The amendments that were made in the other
  78
  place could have been made in Committee in the House of Commons. Was the Bill in its correct form when it received its Third Reading in this House? It could have been amended in this place but it was not. The Bill was introduced in 1988 and received its Third Reading in 1989. We believe that amendments were made in the other place to prevent the Opposition from tabling further amendments to the Bill here and scrutinising it properly.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can make points of that kind when we debate whether the amendments should be considered. It is not a point of order for me. It is a genuine point that could be made in the debate. That is why I suggest that it would be much more sensible if the Question were proposed so that these points could be raised legitimately on the Question whether the Lords amendments should be considered.
  Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take the point of order of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse).
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I shall be able to persuade you that consideration of the Bill should not continue and that the sitting should be suspended. Paragraph 26 of the special Committee report recommended that
  "In our view it is the Government's duty to take whatever steps are necessary, in the overall national interest, to protect the indigenous coal-mining industry."
  The Select Committee of the House of Lords supported that view in paragraph 23. I ask you to bear it in mind that the Government have responded to neither of those reports, which recommend that special protection should be granted to the coal industry. I ask you to suspend the debate until we receive such an assurance from the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to do that. I have dealt with that point. These are not matters for me. There may be changes to the procedure in due course, but until it is changed I am bound to observe the rules of the House and the existing procedure. What has been set down for debate today is perfectly in order. I suggest that it would be wise to get on with it.
  Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take the point of order of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
  Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have two points of order for you. I shall deal first with the slighter one. On Thursday afternoon, during questions to the Leader of the House, I made the point that I had tried to obtain copies of the amendments the day before and also at 3 o'clock on Thursday afternoon before I came into the Chamber. I was accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) and for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett). I was assured that the Lords amendments were not available. One hour later, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) vigorously waved in the House a document that I think he hoped that we would

  79
  accept. It was a copy of the amendments. He implied that what I had said to the House was untrue. That is unacceptable.
  I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman to make it clear that in no way does he deny that inquiries at the Vote Office in pursuit of copies of the amendments resulted in information being given to me that they were not available. I accept that they became available some time before 4 o'clock, but they were not available at 3 o'clock. It is unreasonable that the amendments were not available until such a short time before the debate. I ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to make it absolutely clear that he was not suggesting that my hon. Friends and I had misled the House.
  My second point of order is much more serious. I have never been an expert in the bureaucratic aspects of parliamentary life, nor do I have a detailed knowledge of parliamentary procedures, but it appears to me that the way in which the Bill has been managed, throughout the long period in which it has been under consideration, means that we are now treated as if the House of Commons is an inferior part of the legislature to the other place. We have an obligation to maintain the importance of our democratically elected Government and to make it clear that the House of Lords cannot override or disregard the rights and powers of the House of Commons. Those rights and powers are being challenged by the way in which the Bill is being presented tonight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: First, I understand that the amendments are available and have been available for some time, and I made specific inquiries about that. As I have told other hon. Members, the other points that the hon. Member has made are legitimate points to raise in the debate that we are about to have. As a specific point was directed at the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, if that hon. Member has anything to say on that point, of course I shall call him.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Are you calling me to make my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am very happy to respond—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At the moment, I am calling the hon. Gentleman further to the point of order, if he wishes to comment on the points that were specifically made about him.
  Mr. Brown: If it will assist the House, I am willing to respond to the point of order made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). In no way would I ever accuse him of midleading the House, and if he took what I said as an implication that I was making such an accusation, I withdraw any such suggestion.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to Standing Order No. 186, dealing with private business. It states that the Chairman of Ways and Means, who governs the procedures of private business in the House, may give directions for the printing of any amendments,
  "including a requirement that the clause as amended shall be printed in extenso with every addition or substitution in distinctive type, and the omissions included in brackets and underlined."
  80
  That has not been done. We have a single sheet of typescript with no clear relationship to the clause. The first two amendments alter clause 3 and the remaining four amendments alter clause 18, which is a short clause that alters the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 by substituting a further provision. I should have thought that the four alterations to a clause that is about 10 lines long, the extent of the alterations and the fairly radical changes involved are sufficient to suggest that the Chairman of Ways and Means should have carried out Standing Order No. 186.
  This is a controversial measure, which has been going through the House for some time. I should have thought that, out of consideration for all hon. Members who are interested in the Bill, at least Standing Order No. 186 should have been carried out. It may be Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you wish to consult the Chairman of Ways and Means, and some of us would be very happy for you to suspend the proceedings while that consultation takes place.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has very largely answered his own point. He said that the reference that he read out is permissive. I am satisfied that the amendments as printed and the Bill as available make it quite clear to what the amendments refer and that nothing further is needed.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that, when your office looked at the amendments from another place a week or a fortnight ago, they were in order, but as a result of an incident that occurred only a week ago——the Spanish trawler case, which called into question certain legislation passed by the House as it is affected by EC directives——it has been brought to my attention that complaints have been made to the European Commission concerning the failure to carry out an environmental assessment of the Immingham project.
  If that is so——I have no reason to believe that it is not—whether or not we debate it tonight, we are discussing the Bill in the certain knowledge that it will be challenged in the courts immediately. That challenge will come from either the European Commission or an individual. As the matter has arisen only in the past week, I should have thought that it cannot have been taken into account by Mr. Speaker in considering the Lords amendments. Perhaps there is a legitimate reason for saying that we should not debate the Bill tonight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion sounds to me pretty remote from what we are likely to have before the House, but when we debate whether the Lords amendments should be considered, if he catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair, he can have a go at finding out whether he is in order.
  Mr. William O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on an issue that has generated some confusion because of the history of the Bill as it has progressed through the House. Everyone knows that there have been many hours of discussion on the Bill. Amendments have been tabled in the House of Lords so that they can come to this House unopposed. The Lord President of the Council, in a written reply on 21 June, stated:
  "The procedure for those matters which would remain to be dealt with by private Bills will be reformed along the lines

  81
  suggested by the Joint Committee and as broadly accepted by the Government in the debate on the report. The Government believe that those proposals, taken as a whole, will provide a more appropriate way to deal with infrastructure projects in the modern age by protecting the interests of all those involved.—[Official Report, 21 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 628.]
  Many people in my constituency could be affected by the legislation, so if the Lord President of the Council's reply on 21 June is as I interpret it, I assume that there is no further cause to discuss the Bill tonight. As it is confusing, I ask you to suspend the proceedings and get the Lord President of the Council to come here and give an interpretation of his reply on 21 June.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may be ingenious, but it has nothing to do with the debate that we are about to have. I suggest to the House that it would be sensible to move the motion now so that we can debate in a proper manner whether the Lords amendments should be considered.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Michael Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like your guidance on an important issue. My constituents may suffer tremendously as a result of the legislation. I draw to your attention the fact that, according to European legislation, an environmental assessment should have been made. As no such assessment was made, the number of lorries that will come through my constituency——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That cannot possibly be a point of order, but if the hon. Gentleman succeeds in catching the Chair's eye when we reach the debate, he can have a go then.
  Mr. Terry Patchett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On local television which covers the constituency of Brigg and Cleethorpes, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said quite clearly that he was dissatisfied with the procedures of the House for dealing with the Bill. He said that he intended to challenge or to question the procedures of the House. Is not it unfair to proceed with the Bill until the sponsor has explained his position? He has challenged the procedures of the House, and I hope that we shall give him a fair hearing.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a most helpful point of order. The hon. Gentleman reinforces the point that I made: it would be much more sensible if we allowed the sponsor of the Bill to speak to the amendments. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the House will soon feel that it would be sensible to follow him.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During his point of order, I heard a disgraceful smear on the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). He shouted across the Benches that his hon. Friend was grovelling only to save his small majority in Nottingham. I have been criticised in the past for making that comment, but it is a bit much that his hon. Friend is smearing him so disgracefully. Will you come to the rescue of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South and ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to withdraw his disgraceful attack?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am trying to come to the rescue of the House so that we can get on with the business.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have sat in the Chair many a time on private Bills and watched them being steered through. No doubt you are aware that on such occasions there are no Whips. I must draw to your attention the fact that a breach of that convention has taken place. I have the Labour Whip here, which says, "Opposed Private Business"; there are no lines, nothing. That means that no direction whatever is being given to my hon. Friends. I received a Whip from the other side, which I picked up.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Where did that come from?
  Mr. Skinner: Some research assistant let it slip through. It says, "Dear Norman"——presumably that is Tebbit——
  "Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, Lords amendments, Monday 25 June 1990 7 pm to 10 pm. I am delighted to report that this Bill has now received its Third Reading in the House of Lords"——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This may be a very interesting, but whipping has nothing to do with me. What is the point of order for the Chair?
  Mr. Skinner: It is quite simple: private business is not whipped. The Chairman of Ways and Means finds a suitable time for the Bill. There is no collusion between the Whips to decide what the agenda will be for the parliamentary week. The Chairman of Ways and Means decides because it is a private Bill, which means that there are no Whips on it. The Tory Whip says:
  "Unfortunately the Lords have made several minor technical amendments which will he heavily contested in the Commons on Monday 25 June."
  I have only——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have told the hon. Gentleman more than once, this may be very interesting and revealing but whipping has nothing to do with the Chair. We have had a good run on points of order. We really should get on with the debate before the House.
  Mr. Skinner: I should like to believe that that is true, but the Whip goes on to advise Conservative Members
  "to be in their places between 7 and 10".
  and talks about the Bill
  "having gone for two and a half years. We must assist to reach the finishing post. The Brown legislative programme invites your continued support once again,
  Yours ever"——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is clearly not a point of order—
  Mr. Skinner: "Michael Brown, the Member for"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is an experienced parliamentarian. I have told him three times that what he is raising is not a point of order and I am sure that he knows that that is correct.
  Mr. George Galloway: I hope that this is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I take you back to the written answer given by the Lord President of the Council? It seems to many hon. Members that it is germane to consideration of this business. Have you read that written answer? If not, will you suspend the House for five minutes so that you can do so and properly apprise yourself of its import?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot possibly see that that written answer has anything to do with the business before the House.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: Further to that point of order of the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), a former constituent of mine whose vote I was sorry to lose. I should like to take up his point about the scurrilous remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) about my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) trying to save his seat. We are trying to save the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes because his rural constituents will turn him out at the next election if this goes through.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I thank you for at last seeing me behind my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)? I was panicking that points of order were exclusively for hon. Members taller than 5 ft 1 in.
  I wish to draw your attention to the Official Journal of the European Community, published in 1985, on articles of the convention relating to environmental assessment studies. Paragraph 8, which has been adopted by the Government refers to
  "Trading ports and also inland waterways and ports for inland-waterway traffic which permit the passage of vessels of over 1,350 tonnes."
  Parts of the Bill are covered by that European Community document, so it should have been taken into consideration before the Bill was brought before the House, but it is clear that it was not.
  Therefore, the Bill should return to the other place so that that procedure can be carried out. Without it, the European Court can challenge the procedures of the House. It is important that the procedures on the article are not put aside. The article was introduced to protect petitioners against the misuse of the private Bill procedure in places such as the United Kingdom, particularly on Bills that relate to huge industrial developments such as this port. I implore you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as someone who has looked after the interests of hon. Members, to take into account the article, stop this procedure and return the Bill to the other place.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the House once more that the motion and the amendments are in order. We should now get on with the business before the House.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Lords amendments are not numbered and do not give us full details, but there appear to be six of them. Will the House take them in order? Will the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) speak initially to the first Lords amendment? I have a second point of order to raise as well, Sir.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a fair point. It would be better to proceed first with the debate, if we are to have one, on whether the Lords amendments should be considered. When that is out of the way, it will be perfectly legitimate for the hon. Members to raise that point again. We shall deal with it at the more appropriate time.
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose——
  Mr. Cryer rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Bradford, South once already and I have dealt with his point.
  Mr. Cryer: It is a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has had one go. I have called every hon. Member who wished to put a point of order and have dealt with those points of order. I hope that the hon. Member will feel, either now or once he has raised his point of order, that it is appropriate to proceed with the debate.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we deal with the Adelphi Estate Bill, reference was made to several 19th century Acts of Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker pointed out that it was difficult to get elderly Acts of Parliament from the Library, because they were unique and precious. The first group of Lords amendments refers to changes from section 85 to section 85E of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. I imagine that this Bill falls into the same category as the Adelphi Estate Bill.
  Have the Bill's promoters troubled to produce extracts from the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, just as the promoters of the Adelphi Estate Bill took the trouble to do after this point was brought to their attention? That leglisation was circulated to Members, rather than have Members in the Chamber handle heavy and fragile bits of legislation, dug out of the Library shelves. As we are talking about the application of a different section of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you have any information about the provision of copies of the legislation to hon. Members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: My impression is that all the relevant information is available. It would be better if the hon. Member were to raise those points when we consider the Lords amendments.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That the Lords amendments be now considered.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Brown: I should like first to make it clear that I certainly did not wish to impugn the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). If I did so, I withdraw any such suggestion unreservedly.
  Clauses, 3 and 18 were amended in Committee in the other place. The amendments to clause 3 are necessary to clarify and specify the application of the clause. The amendments to clause 18 are necessary because of a change in the general law since the Bill was deposited before Parliament.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) chose his words carefully and said that the Lords amendments had been tabled because of changes made since the Bill was laid before the House. We all know that the Bill was introduced in the House years ago. As I said on a point of order, these amendments could not have been tabled during the Bill's passage through the House of Commons. Consequently, they

  85
  should have been tabled in Committee. The legislation to which the amendments refer was implemented more than 12 months before the Bill completed the Committee stage.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I happen to have a copy of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. I glanced through it, looking for a reference to the date on which the amendments could have been put forward. The date has been revised to 31 October 1979. Therefore, surely the Lords amendments could have been made properly to the Bill during the past 10 years.
  Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend's assessment is correct. I can do no more than agree with him.
  A motion has been tabled to the effect that the Lords amendments be considered upon this day in six months' time. I support that motion. The Bill has had a long history, and we have had many debates on it. It has been scrutinised by a Committee and was passed on the Chairman's casting vote. The amendments laid were not accepted because of the Chairman's casting vote. We have had many debates about the Bill's implications for the coal industry. The amendments which were not accepted in the House of Commons or in the other place in Committee related specifically to that point.
  My opposition to the Bill, because of its possible effect on the coal industry, has not wavered since the Bill was introduced.
  Mr. Michael Welsh: It is obvious to everyone that great damage will be caused to the industry. Is not the Bill also important in terms of the great damage that it could do to the environment?
  Mr. Barron: I am sure that that is true. I was about to say that that was a principal reason why I support the motion that consideration should be adjourned for six months. We are not saying that the Bill should be defeated, as we have done in the past—although, given the opportunity, I certainly would. We are asking the House to delay considering the Lords amendments for six months.
  Our arguments on the Floor of the House and in Committee were as one in terms of the effect on the coal industry. Over the past five years, the industry has done remarkably well because of a massive improvement in productivity. Sadly, about 30,000 jobs a year had been lost over the past five years—150,000 jobs overall. This is hardly an industry that should be penalised for what it has done over the past five years, but we know what the Bill will do.
  Some of those in the other place who had presented petitions against the Bill changed their minds. They argued strongly in Committee and on the Floor of the House that there should be environmental assessments of what will happen if the terminal goes ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) made that point.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern expressed in the other place about the increased transport that would result from the extension of the ports—5 million or 6 million tonnes of bulk cargo a year? An attempt was made to table an amendment, but Sir Frank Layfield advised the Committee on behalf of the petitioners that there were sufficient powers in local government legislation to control that traffic. Expert witnesses speaking on behalf of Doncaster council,
  86
  including the research officer——who was an agent for the Coalfield Communities Campaign in the other place——the director of planning and the director of the public works directorate, have suggested that there is no such power in that legislation. That being so, should not we delay our debate so that Sir Frank Layfield's evidence can be examined in the other place?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is painting the background to the debate and to the amendments that may eventually be considered. But before he answers that point, may I remind the House that this is a comparatively narrow debate? We are discussing whether the Lords amendments should be considered, and we should remember that those Lords amendments are limited and technical. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind in his comments.
  Mr. Barron rose——
  Mr. Illsley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clause 18(2) says that certain things may apply,
  "subject to the provisions of subsection (3) below, in its application to development authorised by this Act".
  I seek your interpretation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do the words "this Act" refer to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill or to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate, and if the hon. Gentleman catches my eye he may be able to make his points. The matter that he has raised is not a point of order.
  Mr. Barron: I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). But, of course, my hon. Friend was quite right that the evidence given in Committee in the other place suggested that the lack of an environmental assessment study would not prejudice events away from the ports. We have discovered since that more relevance was attached to lorries having access to the main motorway network than to their coming out of the ports or arriving at their destination. The local authorities have discovered that, in those circumstances, they do not have the powers that the Committee in another place suggested.
  Mr. Alan Meale: I accept the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh). However, we are talking about not only the environment but jobs. In the past few days, there has been another pit closure in my constituency. British Coal has argued to the unions that closures have resulted from the fall in value of coal because of the availability of cheap foreign coal which is already coming into Britain. Much more cheap foreign coal will come in through our ports if the Bill is passed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will stay in order in responding to that intervention. I remind the House once more that we are debating a comparatively narrow motion——whether the Lords amendments should be considered.
  Mr. Barron: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for

  87
  Mansfield, (Mr. Meale) have been debated when we have considered the Bill in the past, and I do not intend to cover old ground tonight.
  Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend accept that the House should act consistently? You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that less than an hour ago the House voted in favour of the Government amendment to the previous motion, which was highly relevant because it referred to the Government's commitment to the protection of the environment. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley is in order if he argues that we should not proceed to consider the Bill because the Government's commitment to the environment is imperilled by the Bills' progress.
  My hon. Friend should continue to press for a delay in further consideration of the Bill so that the environmental impact assessment that has already been mentioned can be carried out. If that is not done, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will have to speak in terms that we can hear and understand, as we were unable to hear or understand him when he opened the debate. He must be able to convince us and to persuade those who voted less than an hour ago for the Government's commitment to the environment that the environmental impact assessment should not proceed.
  The European authorities and everyone else take the view that no such proposal should be enacted until there is a guarantee that a thorough environmental impact assessment will be made.
  Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for rising on a point of order once again but since my original point of order I have listened carefully to hon. Members' interventions and to your views, Sir, concerning the narrow nature of the debate.
  It has come to my notice that the Commission in Brussels has corresponded with a number of bodies on the subject of the Bill. I should like to quote from a letter from the Commission to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds earlier this year:
  "It is the opinion of the Commission that for a project to be exempted from the scope of the Directive it is necessary that an environmental impact assessment similar to that requested by the Directive is made in the process of adopting the new legislation."
  That was the view of the Commission——
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That cannot possibly have anything to do with the motion before the House.
  Mr. Barron rose——
  Mr. McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. Mr. Barron.
  Mr. Barron: I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) went somewhat wide and I accept your judgment on these matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although what my hon. Friend said about the EEC directive was relevant.
  88
  I was questioning the arguments about the environment advanced in the other place, both in Committee and on Third Reading.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is developing his argument well and cogently. Will he remind the House of the effect that a further 10 million tonnes of imported coal and the lorry movements that it will entail will have on the local environment? The 10 million tonnes of coal will mean 500,000 juggernauts travelling through the Humberside and Nottinghamshire villages, not on motorways but on unclassified roads.
  Mr. Barron: I do not wish to go too wide of the motion, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a likelihood of that. I can only refer briefly to a letter from PowerGen to the chairman of Associated British Ports. One person whose constituency will certainly be threatened by the movements of lorries is the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who is the sponsor of the Bill.
  Mr. Meale: Is my hon. Friend aware of the damage that may be caused to roads by the movement of coal? Nottinghamshire county council recently had to take the CEGB to court because of such problems and Nottinghamshire ratepayers ended up having to pay millions of pounds to repair the damage. That is an important factor.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will ignore irrelevant comments, from whichever side of the House they may come.
  Mr. Barron: I thank you, once again, for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I should like to move on——
  Mr. Cryer: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will not omit to consider the argument that we should delay our consideration of the Lords amendments——that is the subject of the procedural motion before us——because of the sweeping changes that are taking place in South Africa. The Bill is designed to facilitate the importation of South African coal and the motion suggests that we should delay our consideration of the Lords' amendments for six months. Is it not possible that, in six months' time, the South Africans, under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, will refuse to export coal to Britain in the interests of preserving and securing jobs and in the name of international brotherhood? My hon. Friend should consider that.
  Mr. Barron: I do not want to follow that line of argument too far, because I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would call me to order if I did. However, it is interesting to think about what would happen if the changes, which we all want, occurred in South Africa. We would then have to consider our attitudes to imports of coal from South Africa. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, the price of that coal might rise if the South Africans began to pay decent wages in their coal mines. But as you said earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should not digress on that point.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is arguing for delay. We are all aware that the Bill has been progressing through the House for two and a half years. It has been subject to a

  89
  modicum of delay already. What has delay provided us with? We have had an opportunity to say that, when the Bill began its progress two and a half years ago, this country had a balance of payments surplus. Two and a half years later, it has a massive balance of payments deficit of £20 billion and rising.
  I do not want anyone from any quarter of the House to tell me that my hon. Friend cannot refer to delay in terms of what impact the Bill might have on the economy or the environment. There has been a two-and-a-half-year delay, during which time Britain's economic position has been turned on its head. I hope that my hon. Friend will expand on the argument for delay so that the impact on the environment and on the economy can be examined. The Opposition are trying to delay the Bill because we have already learnt, during its passage, that it will make our balance of payments position even worse.
  The delay in consideration of this Bill is important. It is also important that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and others can extend the debate so that we can prove to the country that we are doing a good job by delaying the Bill. It can already be argued that 10 million tonnes of coal—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is good enough for an intervention.
  Mr. Barron: I thought that that was a very good intervention as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorely tempted to continue along those lines, but I am sure that you would call me to order if I were to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is aware that energy imports have gone into deficit in this country over the past 12 months. As people look round the country and see that we are rich in energy, they must be shaking their heads and saying what fools we are for importing more than we are exporting.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is aware that it is more than 12 months since a cargo of extremely dangerous poison reached my constituency and was close to his. That stuff came into this country through a port. It could have come in through the port that we are discussing in the Bill. This country still lacks adequate legislation to control properly the import of such toxic materials. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that no new port facility or private Bill which facilitates such a development should be allowed to pass through the House until we have adequate regulations to prevent other people from suffering the anxiety, risk and severe disadvantage that beset my constituency. The Government have been powerless to do anything about that for the past 12 months.
  Mr. Barron: I really do not want to pursue that line, although I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I have received many letters about recycling which I can pass on to my hon. Friend. The port to which my hon. Friend refers is not many miles from my home, which is almost on the doorstep of my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Mr. McCartney: Far be it from me to take my hon. Friend down a road along which he does not wish to travel, but it is important to be clear that no attempt is being made through the Standing Orders to legitimise the gagging of hon. Members on either side of the House to prevent them from debating the issue.
  90
  On 6 June this year, the markers that we had attempted to raise about environmental impact assessments and others matters, were properly debated in another place. For the life of me I cannot understand why, if unelected Members in another place could on 6 June consider those matters to be relevant to the Bill and reach a decision upon them, we should be prevented from doing the same this evening. Who is in charge of legislative procedures? Is it those in another place or the elected Members of this place? It is vital to make it absolutely clear that hon. Members will not be gagged and prevented from discussing the consequences of the Bill and the inability of the sponsor to bring forward environmental impact assessments as required by the European Commission.
  Mr. Barron: I am grateful for that intervention. I shall refer later to comments made in another place about those points.
  Mr. Redmond: As for the problems with imports, I do not recollect that we were given any guarantee by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) about nuclear fuel being imported or exported via the new facility. The hon. Gentleman might want to give that guarantee now, but I do not recollect such a guarantee being made before.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes appeared on television several times saying that there would be no nuclear dump in his constituency. Given that the new port could import nuclear fuel, has the hon. Gentleman had a change of heart? Is he satisfied that nuclear waste could pass to and fro through the new port?
  Mr. Barron: If I was to comment on that point in any detail you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rightly call me to order. However, it makes me smile wryly to wonder, if the Bill had been promoted by British Nuclear Fuels plc or Nirex, whether the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes would be its in-house sponsor. Perhaps he would not. He might cause a by-election if he did so.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: As a sober-minded citizen, as everyone knows, I believe that the motion that we are considering is, to say the least, absolutely reasonable. Six months is not a long time in the light of what is happening in the world. When the Bill first appeared, the political shape of the world was different from what it is today. Eastern Europe has changed massively. None of us thought that the miners in the Soviet Union could possibly strike, and suddenly we were alarmed when the miners went on strike in the Soviet Union.
  Let us consider South Africa, where the situation is even more fluid than it was in the Soviet Union. The right wing was out in South Africa the other day and its supporters had their badges on their arms. I believe that they are fascists. The situation in South Africa——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech within a speech. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has got the drift, and that he will resist the temptation to get out of order.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Barron: I shall indeed resist that temptation, although I was quite enjoying the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)——
  Mr. Flannery: I had not finished my sentence. I was saying that, in the past six months, the position in South Africa has been fluid. Certain people have attempted to overthrow the state and threatened to kill President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela. I think that, as patient people, we should wait another six months before we discuss this matter.
  Mr. Barron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his ingenuity in asking for the six-month delay in this motion, which involves eastern Europe and South Africa. I shall be even more grateful if it makes hon. Members vote with the Opposition tonight.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield touched on an important point when he referred to the constitutional aspects of the Bill and the amendments, which all relate to planning matters. If the EC directive were implemented by another country, or by an individual or group of individuals in this country, we could be passing legislation knowing full well that we are supporters of that directive.
  I shall tell the House briefly what is in the EC directive——
  Mr. Skinner: Some of us are not too keen about that.
  Mr. Barron: I understand my hon. Friend's keenness on the question of European Community directives. I shall refer to directive 185/337/EEC. Article 4(1) of directive 185/337/EEC says:
  "Subject to Article 2(3), projects of the classes listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10."
  I shall resist the temptation to waste the time of the House by reading out all of it——
  Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has rightly quoted from a number of important articles. However, unless he gives us clear indications of the precise nature of the subsections, Opposition Members will not be able to follow his argument as well as we would like. I implore you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to insist that my hon. Friend reads out the appropriate article.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be better to let the hon. Member for Rother Valley make his own speech in his own way.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An interesting issue arises here. During debate on Government Bills, if a Minister quotes from any document, he is required by Standing Orders to place a copy of that document on the Table. I would be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would tell the House what the position is with regard to these documents, copies of which have not been placed on the Table. As my hon. Friend is quoting, will he have to place a copy of the directive on the Table?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must protect the hon. Member for Rother Valley, who is being put off by all these bogus points of order.
  Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to be bordering on a contempt of the House for such an important document to be quoted without any hon. Members having access to it, without its being placed on the Table and without my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) giving the House the benefit of reading it. I implore him to do that, as it is absolutely germane to the debate.
  Mr. Barron: I do not wish to upset my hon. Friends; I may need their support in the Lobby later. If hon. Members would like to see a copy of the directive, I could put it through a photocopier later, and perhaps they could read it before they go to sleep.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend could move the Adjournment of the House until appropriate copies of the regulations have been made available, so that hon. Members can consider them in detail. It would be more appropriate for hon. Members to see them now, rather than after the Division.
  Mr. Barron: May I take my lead from the Chair, and say that the Adjournment of the House is not a matter for me? I was quoting from the EC directive, and explaining what article 4(1) meant. Annexe 1, which is mentioned in article 4, relates to planning matters that should have an environmental assessment, according to the directive. I am sure that all hon. Members know that Britain is a signatory to that directive. It refers to
  "Trading ports and also inland waterways and ports for inland-waterway traffic which permit the passage of vessels of over 1,350 tonnes."
  In those circumstances, it is relevant that the Bill fits the EC directive. I question whether it is right for the House to pass the Bill now, and not to wait the six months proposed in the motion so that an environmental assessment can be made.
  All hon. Members know that the proposed terminal would make this facility the largest bulk terminal in the United Kingdom, other than ports used exclusively for the use of British Steel. It cannot be considered a mere extension of the existing facility, as it would scrap the existing facility.
  The terminal is aimed primarily at a new market—those needing steam coal for power stations——rather than intended as an extension for existing customers. In those circumstances, it fits the directive.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I support the point that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is making.
  It is almost unnecessary even to debate whether this is a modification or not. Associated British Ports has already argued that it wants the new facility to compete with Antwerp, Rotterdam and Amsterdam. If the port authority is seeking to compete with ports of that size, there cannot be a shadow of a doubt that the directive is relevant. Therefore, the environmental considerations have to be taken into account. We are wasting our time debating the matter until that question is resolved.
  Mr. Barron: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. More to the point, because direct competition with European ports is involved, it is more likely that there will be a challenge on the ground that the Bill is against the EC directive. If the Bill is passed, Britain could end up in the European

  93
  Court. Consequently, as legislators, we would all be made to look fools because we did not take the right course when the Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend mentioned the European Court. The decision on Spanish trawling rights is even more serious, as it has meant that legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament can now be suspended, for the first time. The precedent has been established that legislation approved by the House can be suspended pending the outcome of the final hearing. It is even more serious than my hon. Friend has suggested. Because there is an EC directive, any other organisation, port authority, port, shipper or transport organisation can go to a British court and ask for an injunction suspending the legislation. In view of that, it behoves us to defer any consideration of Lords amendments until the position is clarified.
  Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I feel that it would be hasty at this stage for us not to take heed and have a six-month break. Article 1.5 of the EC directive appears to provide an exemption from having to conduct an environmental assessment. It is an exemption relating to
  "projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation, since the objectives of this directive, including that of supply and information are achieved through the legislative process."
  No information was supplied by the developers. Therefore, the exemption should not apply.
  I have a note on environmental assessment. I am sure that hon. Members will be more than pleased to hear this as well. I have a list of projects that are going through parliamentary procedures and which have conducted environmental procedures. They include the King's Cross redevelopment by British Rail and London Underground, the light rapid transit project in the west midlands and the Jubilee line extension by London Underground, which will shove its head out somwhere near the House. Other Bills include measures in respect of the port of Hull and Associated British Ports. An environmental assessment of more than 200 pages has been published since that Bill was published. We have not had one sentence on this Bill.
  Mr. Hardy: Hon. Members will recall—I hope that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will attend to this point—that we have had several debates, and all that the hon. Gentleman has wanted to do is formally move the Bill and get it through. The hon. Gentleman is again trying to pull a fast one by gabbling his introductory words when no one could hear them. I do not know whether he was trying to give information. I hope that the authorities of the House will take the view that was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)—that the exemption cannot apply in respect of this legislation because at no stage has the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes provided necessary details of the environmental assessment.
  Mr. Barron: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have a small list of projects in accordance with annexe 1 of the directive. They include the Isle of Grain gas importation and the other was the Isle of Grain container port with Highland Participants plc. Another was the Pittenween development by Fife regional council and another was the Hayle harbour development by the Hayle harbour company. All those projects involved inland ports and waterways that needed environmental assessments.
  94
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth is quite right. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and Associated British Ports have not given one detail about environmental assessment.
  Mr. Redmond: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) willingly give way to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) if he wishes to clarify that matter and perhaps explain why he has not done so previously? May I have an assurance that my hon. Friend would give way to the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Barron: I am quite prepared to do that.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I take a strong view on matters of this kind. I was one of those hon. Members——probably in the minority, but we were joined by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)——who voted against our entry in to the EC. I did so because I believe that this House, and this House alone, is the determining factor in the government of this country. I am not impressed by any impost that is forced upon this House or any legislation that it chooses to pass. I have a low opinion of anything that the European Commission might be inclined to do to contravene legislation passed by this honourable House and the other honourable House. I have a low opinion of any European legislation that would override decisions taken in this House.
  Mr. Barron: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not recall that he has opposed every European issue that has come before the House. I do not want to be distracted from the points that I am trying to make. This matter is about the environment and the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The hon. Gentleman should have made sure that the environmental impact of the development was taken into account before it was forced on to his constituents.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) cannot get away with that anti-Europeanism. In 1988, the House passed two set of country planning and environmental assessment regulations. Local authorities are now required to act on assessment studies under the regulations, which are not precisely based on European regulations. The House has passed legislation that the company and the hon. Gentleman should take into account.
  Mr. Barron: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will realise that people in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire travel to that area for their summer holidays. I refer to the Camping and Caravan Club. Many hon. Members, particularly those from Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, have caravans and they go to Brigg and Cleethorpes. I have heard rumblings about what they would think if the development went ahead. I should have thought that it was in the hon. Gentleman's interests and those of his constituents to withdraw the Bill right now.
  Mr. Barron: I shall certainly pass on that offer to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. The correspondence that I have had from people in the hon. Gentleman's

  95
  constituency is more concerned about proposed changes in a caravan site. For example, I have had correspondence with the clerk to the hon. Gentleman's council.
  Mr. Redmond: I also have had many letters from people in that area. It has not been made clear that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is supporting alterations to the caravan site. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would make it clear to people who go to that area that he does not support them and that, as far as he is concerned, they can go elsewhere.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must get back to the motion.
  Mr. Barron: Getting back to the point, we discussed the situation——
  Mr. McCartney: Before my hon. Friend leaves that subject, I invite him to deal with environmental assessment procedures published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I hope that the Minister is listening, just in case he might like to respond to my hon. Friend. Page 23 of a document on projects approved by a private Act of Parliament states:
  "an environmental statement which can be considered by the select committee and standing committees of each House on the Bill"
  should be paraded by the promoter. That has not been done. If that is not a flagrant attack on parliamentary procedures, I do not know what is.
  Mr. Flannery: A breach.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. The Minister owes it to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) to make the Government's position clear on the failure to follow the procedures that were set down by the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is again moving away from the matter before the House. I remind hon. Members that the subject is relatively narrow—it is whether or not the Lords amendments should be considered.
  Mr. Barron: I want to explain why I believe that we should support the amendments when we consider them in six months' time. There have been several interventions——
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I am about the question of environmental assessment, as it links in with the amendments? There is to be a change in clause 18, which shows the difference between using the Town and Country Planning General Development Orders 1977 and 1988. I do not think that there is a conflict of interest between the environmental assessment argument and the use of the General Development Order. I have some experience of planning matters, and they all involve environmental issues. There is no conflict.
  Mr. Barron: Whether or not there is a conflict is not a matter for me, but I take my hon. Friend's point. He had many years' experience of planning matters before he came to this House.
  96
  There is a lack of information, because there has been no consultation either in this House or in the other place——
  Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just received an urgent message that two prisoners have died at Hindley remand centre in Greater Manchester. Could arrangements be made for the appropriate Home Office Minister to come to the House at 11 pm to make an urgent statement about the conditions in that remand centre and the background to the appalling deaths that occurred this evening?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot deal with that sad matter at the moment, but I am sure that his comments have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Barron: I am sorry to hear the news that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has just given the House.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has just informed me that a bomb has exploded at St. James's, so there should be a statement on that important matter. Indeed, I wonder whether we should continue with the debate. There should be discussions between the appropriate people about an urgent statement by the responsible Minister.
  Although we are discussing the important subject of the environment, I am not sure that we should continue, because we need statements on other important matters. Prisoners have been killed and bombs have exploded, yet we are discussing a matter that we all know can be discussed later. The Minister——he is the only Minister present——has good reason to speak to the Government Whip about urgent statements. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could quite easily facilitate that by suspending our discussions——even if only for a relatively short time—while arrangements are made for those urgent statements.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those are serious matters, if they are correct. Again, what has been said has been noted by those on the Government Front Bench. One of the great glories of the House of Commons is that our proceedings are not interrupted by any incident outside.
  Mr. Barron: I was talking about the lack of consultation on environmental assessment. Simply because no information has been supplied does not mean that there has been an exemption in the operation of the EEC directive. Indeed, in a letter dated 14 February 1990, Mrs. Elizabeth Dissing of the European Commission wrote to Mr. Standaring of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, and said:
  "For a project to be exempted from the scope of the directive, it is necessary that an environmental impact assessment, similar to that requested by the directive, is made in the process of adopting new legislation. If an environmental impact assessment is not made through the legislation process, the project is not exempted from the scope of the directive."
  If that is the case, it is probable that it can be challenged under the European laws——
  Mr. Meale: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has mentioned that point. The Bill must not be passed without an environmental impact survey, and not just because the

  97
  damage that will be done to roads in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and elsewhere. The Government are discussing with the European Community the planting of a national forest—a new Sherwood forest. My understanding is that the main area that it will cover will be part of Nottinghamshire, through Leicestershire and up to Yorkshire. It will envelop the area through which all the lorries will be trundling. The survey is essential before the Bill is passed.
  Mr. Barron rose——
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is doing a good job. I am having difficulty in following the debate because the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is continually engaged in conversation with Conservative Members who are coming into the Chamber to ask him what time there will be a vote, what time he is fixing for a vote, and so on. That is interrupting our concentration. It is yet a further sign that there is a plot and that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to gag many Opposition Members who want to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Barron: I have briefly read what was said by the European Commission about the operation of the directive in relation to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
  Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and assure him that this intervention is relevant, given his reference to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Indeed, my point illustrates the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing. Last week, an extremely rare bird, the night heron, arrived and can currently be found in the Denaby nature reserve in Don Valley. Its arrival has been well reported and many people have descended on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond).
  At the moment, that bird is protected because it is in one of the reserves of the Yorkshire Wildfowl Trust, of which I am proud to be patron, and several people are supervising its welfare. But, if in a little while the bird decides to fly away, to tell other night herons of the splendid security, welcome and hospitality that can be found in Don Valley, it might fly east, and if it does, it will fly down the Humber——
  Mr. Skinner: Is it a little plover?
  Mr. Hardy: No, it is a night heron.
  It might fly east, down the Humber, However, all the disturbances could prevent that bird either from reaching its home or from returning to my hon. Friend's constituency. That fact fully strengthens the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley.
  9 pm
  Mr. Barron: Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for an intervention. Indeed, my hon. Friend is a scholar on the birdlife of Britain. I am more than interested to know that the night heron is currently residing within a few miles of my constituency. I may be tempted to go to see it at some stage, provided that I do not have to go out at night.
  Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of my constituency are concerned about environmental matters and make generous provision to
  98
  enable visits from not only wildlife but the constituents of other hon. Members, who come to enjoy our quality of life? Yet it is that quality of life which the Bill and the Lords amendments are seeking to destroy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should leave the night heron to itself and get back to our business.
  Mr. Barron: I agree entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not be dragged further into a debate about the night heron at Denaby or anywhere else.
  I referred to the Commission's letter to the RSPB merely to point out that we should not ignore the fact that we, as legislators, should ensure that an environmental impact assessment has been carried out. We should instigate an environmental assessment as part and parcel of our legislation. However, most hon. Members—of all parties—agree that that has not taken place in relation to this Bill.
  Mr. Meale: I should like to refer my hon. Frind back to our discussions a short time ago about a new national forest for Britain which, as I said, would cover Nottinghamshire, parts of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Leicestershire. It will involve about £1 billion of European and British taxpayers' money. It is outrageous that any measure that could inflict such damage on the environment could proceed without an environmental survey of its effects being considered, if not carried out. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
  Mr. Barron: Although I do not want to go too wide of the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that the new forest that might be planted would cover part of my constituency. Like many other coal miners, I greatly appreciate long-term planning for the coal industry and planting a new Nottingham forest will help us in a few million years.
  Just as you took the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was referring to our position as legislators and to the fact that we shall ignore at our peril the EC directive on the environmental assessment that should be carried out by legislators in the different EC countries, or in some other form, and to the lack of it——
  Mr. Michael Welsh: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Barron: I shall give way in a moment, but I should like to carry on for a little while, to get over the page.
  Complaints have already been made to the Commission about the failure to cary out any environmental assessment of the Immingham project. However, I shall give way now to my hon. Friend before outlining the principle complaints.
  Mr. Michael Welsh: I shall be brief. The promoters of the Bill say that this is a private Bill, so they do not need an environmental statement or assessment, although it has been pointed out that the Government believe that the promoters of the Bill should provide an environmental statement. Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if they are right, 61 Tory Members, 18 Cabinet Ministers and 10 Whips voted for the Bill on Third Reading? Therefore, is this not also a Government Bill?
  Mr. Barron: My opinion about whether this is a Government Bill is on the record. I do not for a minute disagree with my hon. Friend's figures, but if I commented

  99
  I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would rightly call me to order because I would be going wide of the debate.
  I have mentioned the possibility of likely complainants if the Bill proceeds in its present form. I hope that in the distant future the Lords amendments will be accepted by the House.
  I have with me a letter sent by one of the original petitioners to the legal services department of the European Community about directive 85/337/EEC and the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. It comes from Greg Kayser of the European relations sector of the Coalfield Communities Campaign secretariat. I shall not read the whole letter——[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I know that some of my hon. Friends will be disappointed; perhaps somebody else can do so. I shall read the relevant parts. It states:
  "I write as a matter of urgency following a complaint by the Coalfield Communities Campaign that directive 85/337/ EEC has been breached in the United Kingdom."
  The breach relates specifically to the passage of the Bill through this House and the other place. The last paragraph of the letter states:
  "The Coalfield Communities Campaign urges you to give this matter your immediate attention and to apply pressure on the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords to recommit the Bill. The Coalfield Communities Campaign will be available to discuss the case either by telephone or in Brussels at any time."
  The Coalfield Communities Campaign, which is one of the original petitioners against the Bill, is not taking lightly the absence of the EEC directive with regard to this legislation. The legislation is likely to be challenged in the European Court, and certainly in the British courts, if the House does not recognise what has been said and change its mind to provide a breathing space of six months.
  To discuss the Bill further now would pre-empt the outcome of the complaints. We can hazard a guess now that the CCC will be one such complainant, but we must remember that when the Bill started its passage, more than nine petitioners were against it. I understand one or two of them have direct interests in the particular area of Immingham. They continue to oppose the Bill in the other place and are likely to oppose it in any way that they can. One of the nine is likely to secure a judgment against the Bill because it is outwith the EEC directive. In those circumstances we should slow the Bill's passage and stop proceedings now, so that we do not make a fool of the House which is our principal legislature.
  Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall that the difficulties of Nottinghamshire county council arose because of damage caused and that the Trent area, where the power stations are situated, is about 70 miles from Immingham. But that council, which is part of the Coalfield Communities Campaign, said that it would have to go to appeal because of the likely environmental damage and because an environmental impact survey will not be undertaken before the Bill is passed.
  In a letter from that council to the CCC stressing its reluctance to support the Bill, it gives as one reason the fact that being a highway authority, which it is, it cannot restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles on primary road networks. Another is that the power of the council as
  100
  a highway authority is limited to the immediate access road to a power station, so it is unlikely that access could be prevented for more than eight hours in any one day.
  Those are both important factors. Millions of pounds of damage will be done to the environment and to the road network throughout Nottinghamshire with no environmental survey in sight before a Bill that will affect the county so badly is passed.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you took the chair, I raised on a point of order with the previous occupant of the Chair the need for a statement on the explosion just down the road at St. James's. It seems more than a little, not odd, but out of place and insensitive, for the Government not to make a statement before 10 o'clock on that incident purely because they want this debate concluded. I raised that point of order at least a quarter of an hour ago, and I thought that the Minister for Public Transport would convey that request to one of his ministerial colleagues and would manage to get one of them to give the House a report on that explosion. It seems to me that the Government are in a conspiracy with the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and that they are refusing to make a statement because it might interrupt the debate, with the result that we would not conclude the business before the House. If that is the case, the Government are playing a very dangerous game.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order when he raised it some time ago. The then occupant of the Chair gave the hon. Gentleman the correct response, that there has been no request at this stage for a statement by any Minister. But of course members of the Treasury Bench are fully aware of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  Mr. Barron: Before returning to my arguments, I will reply briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, who raised the important issue of an environmental assessment. I have a letter from the chief executive of PowerGen, Mr. Ed Wallace, to Mr. Stuart Bradley, managing director of Associated British Ports, the promoters of the Bill, on 21 March. It is a short letter, but its contents are important in terms of the environmental impact of the proposal on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, and of neighbouring constituencies, including that of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. Mr. Wallace wrote:
  "Following our recent conversation, PowerGen has given consideration to the various methods of transport which are available to take coal from the port of Immingham to PowerGen's various generating stations. We have looked at both the commercial and environmental issues involved"——
  hardly an environmental assessment. He continued:
  "I am pleased to be able to confirm that we view the use of rail transport by British Rail to be an acceptable means of transport having a minimal environmental impact."
  I am sure all the right hon. and hon. Members agree with that. He goes on:
  "Clearly, the use of such a mode of transport by PowerGen would not preclude the use of any other method if PowerGen so determine it to be desirable for commercial reasons."
  That letter was relevant to my hon. Friend's question, and I read it out because any hon. Members with coal mines in their constituencies——there are a considerable number in mine——will know that when British Coal or anyone else, such as the CEGB, moves coal and the load

  101
  is not sizeable enough to fill a train, it goes by road. That creates havoc in my constituency and in many others, and we do not want that to spread.
  We have changed the nature of buying coal for electricity generation. The industry is now considering buying coal in small amounts on the spot market at set times to make a quick buck. It is not importing coal as it used to do, under a 12-month contract, at a set price. With the changed circumstances, the coal may be imported in small ships, and it will not go by train because the shipload is meant for diverse locations and the amounts will be smaller than a train load. Therefore, we will have lorries running round the countryside.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the environmental impact assessment. In Committee, it was suggested that coal could be transferred to rail, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and to barges. That was rejected. It is important for me to mention that point because other Opposition Members and one Conservative Member are also concerned about the issue and because there are no canals in and around the north Nottinghamshire area which could be used to take coal to power stations—it has to come by road.
  Because of the Beeching cuts, only limited use of the rail network is possible from Retford works to Nottingham city and on to the Trent Valley power stations. If any coal is transferred from the Humberside-Immingham area to my part of the country it has to go by road, and the local authority—Nottinghamshire county council—has to bear the financial burden, because there is no alternative.
  Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend makes his point very well and understands the dangers involved.
  Mr. O'Brien: Will my hon Friend consider examples of areas where coal is transported by road to power stations? If he goes to Ferrybridge C power station he will find that the grass verges and the road are black with coal dust from the wagons which transport the fuel into the power station. There are canals and rail services, but because the Government in many instances oppose British Rail and British waterways they encourage transport by road, which creates tremendous problems.
  The environmental issues are significant, and my hon. Friend is right to mention that the Bill will cause more transportation of coal by road. The examples are there and if anyone wants to see them I invite them to my hon. Friend's constituency, where I live. There is evidence of environmental blight caused by extensive use of road transport to carry coal. I hope that Conservative Members will listen attentively to what my hon. Friend is saying.
  Mr. Barron: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The problem affects his constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned the bomb explosion not far away from here. I understand that there are a number of trapped and injured people at St. James's. Could you tell the House whether the Home Secretary will be dealing with the police regulations which follows this business, in which case it would clearly be convenient for him to make a statement at 10 o'clock about the explosion? If you have
  102
  received no information, can you tell the Home Secretary that the House expects a statement at that time because of his presence here?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have received no information, but I am sure—as I said earlier and as Mr. Deputy Speaker said earlier—that it has been noted by the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. McCartney: On a separate point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. About 30 minutes ago I rose on a point of order concerning Henley remand centre. Since then I have been informed that two 19-year-olds, who had not been found guilty of any offence, have hanged themselves in their cells. To my certain knowledge, there have been four deaths at the remand centre in the past 24 months. The position is becoming intolerable, due to the closing of Risley remand centre because of the conditions there and the need to transfer its inmates to other centres in the north-west. This amounts to a crisis for the families. They know that deaths have occurred at the centre. Moreover, on three occasions during the past 12 months industrial action has been taken by the staff because of conditions that affect both the staff and those on remand.
  There is to be a debate later on the police regulations. I hope that the usual channels will refer this matter back as a matter of urgency. All hon. Members want information as soon as possible from the Home Office about both incidents. One is very much more serious than the other, but the deaths at the remand centre amount to a tragedy for all the families concerned.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Both incidents are seriously to be regretted. I have received no information about the matter, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted it. It is not, however, a matter for this debate.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Compared with the previous two points of order, this is a minor, technical and procedural matter that relates to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Before you came to the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggested that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the promoters had provided us with the relevant sections of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. This may be an even more serious matter than that which was raised by my hon. Friend. The only copy of that Act in the Chamber is held by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley).
  The first Lords amendments seems to be minor and technical: that the reference to section 85 should be changed to a reference to section 85E. The sections of the 1985 legislation that are relevant to this measure are sections 77 to 85. Section 85 is now to be referred to as section 85E. The 1845 Act consisted of only nine sections that occupied two and a half pages——
  Mr. Michael Brown rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard the original point of order. [Interruption.] Order. The Chair must occasionally be allowed to say a word. The matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised will be an important matter to debate as soon as we reach the amendments. Mr. Michael Brown.
  Mr. Michael Brown rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 145.

  Division No. 260]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butler, Chris

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Allason, Rupert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ashby, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkinson, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baldry, Tony

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Conway, Derek

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Couchman, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Critchley, Julian

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dunn, Bob

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bright, Graham

  Evennett, David

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

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fallon, Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Favell, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  73

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lightbown, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lilley, Peter

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  McCrindle, Robert

  French, Douglas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gale, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, George

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maclean, David

  Gill, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Madel, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gorst, John

  Mans, Keith

  Gow, Ian

  Maples, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gregory, Conal

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Grist, Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Ground, Patrick

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grylls, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hague, William

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hannam, John

  Mitchell, Sir David

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

  Moate, Roger

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hayward, Robert

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hill, James

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Neubert, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Norris, Steve

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Page, Richard

  Irvine, Michael

  Paice, James

  Jack, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Jackson, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Janman, Tim

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Pawsey, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Price, Sir David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Raffan, Keith

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Knapman, Roger

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knowles, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Knox, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lang, Ian

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Latham, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  74

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sims, Roger

  Viggers, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walden, George

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stern, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wilshire, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Sumberg, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mr. Tony Durant and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

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

  Allen, Graham

  Dewar, Donald

  Alton, David

  Dixon, Don

  Anderson, Donald

  Dobson, Frank

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Doran, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Douglas, Dick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Barron, Kevin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Faulds, Andrew

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

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

  Blair, Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, David

  Flannery, Martin

  Boyes, Roland

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Keith

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Foster, Derek

  Buckley, George J.

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fraser, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  George, Bruce

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Carr, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clay, Bob

  Graham, Thomas

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Coleman, Donald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Corbett, Robin

  Hardy, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cox, Tom

  Haynes, Frank

  Cryer, Bob

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cummings, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Henderson, Doug

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  75

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Brien, William

  Hoyle, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Patchett, Terry

  Illsley, Eric

  Pendry, Tom

  Janner, Greville

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Charles

  Randall, Stuart

  Kilfedder, James

  Redmond, Martin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lambie, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Lamond, James

  Richardson, Jo

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, George

  Leighton, Ron

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Short, Clare

  McAllion, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Madden, Max

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stott, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Turner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Vaz, Keith

  Maxton, John

  Wallace, James

  Meacher, Michael

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Meale, Alan

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Michael, Alun

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Winnick, David

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wolfson, Mark

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Worthington, Tony

  Morley, Elliot

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mullin, Chris

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Nellist, Dave

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Division No. 261]

  [9.24 pm

  AYES

  Allason, Rupert

  Holt, Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Ashby, David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Atkinson, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Irvine, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Jack, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Janman, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Benyon, W.

  Kennedy, Charles

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Key, Robert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Boswell, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Brazier, Julian

  Lee, John (Pendle)

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

  Lightbown, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Lilley, Peter

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Cash, William

  Major, Rt Hon John

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

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Mans, Keith

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Maples, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Marlow, Tony

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Couchman, James

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Cran, James

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Curry, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Devlin, Tim

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Dover, Den

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dunn, Bob

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Durant, Tony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Evennett, David

  Norris, Steve

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Fearn, Ronald

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Page, Richard

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Paice, James

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Patnick, Irvine

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Pawsey, James

  Franks, Cecil

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Freeman, Roger

  Raffan, Keith

  Gale, Roger

  Rathbone, Tim

  Gardiner, George

  Redwood, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Gill, Christopher

  Riddick, Graham

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Gow, Ian

  Rost, Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Ground, Patrick

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Hague, William

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hayward, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hill, James

  Shersby, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Sims, Roger

  104

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wallace, James

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Wilshire, David

  Stokes, Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sumberg, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wood, Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Edward Leigh.

  Walden, George

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Lords amendments be now considered:—
  The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 156.

  Division No. 261]

  [9.24 pm

  AYES

  Allason, Rupert

  Holt, Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Ashby, David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Atkinson, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Irvine, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Jack, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Janman, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Benyon, W.

  Kennedy, Charles

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Key, Robert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Boswell, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Brazier, Julian

  Lee, John (Pendle)

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

  Lightbown, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Lilley, Peter

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Cash, William

  Major, Rt Hon John

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

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Mans, Keith

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Maples, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Marlow, Tony

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Couchman, James

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Cran, James

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Curry, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Devlin, Tim

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Dover, Den

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dunn, Bob

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Durant, Tony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Evennett, David

  Norris, Steve

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Fearn, Ronald

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Page, Richard

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Paice, James

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Patnick, Irvine

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Pawsey, James

  Franks, Cecil

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Freeman, Roger

  Raffan, Keith

  Gale, Roger

  Rathbone, Tim

  Gardiner, George

  Redwood, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Gill, Christopher

  Riddick, Graham

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Gow, Ian

  Rost, Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Ground, Patrick

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Hague, William

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hayward, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hill, James

  Shersby, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Sims, Roger

  104

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wallace, James

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Wilshire, David

  Stokes, Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sumberg, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wood, Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Edward Leigh.

  Walden, George

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Allen, Graham

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Alton, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Anderson, Donald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Ashton, Joe

  Haynes, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Beckett, Margaret

  Henderson, Doug

  Bell, Stuart

  Hinchliffe, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hood, Jimmy

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

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Boateng, Paul

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Buckley, George J.

  Janner, Greville

  Caborn, Richard

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Carr, Michael

  Kilfedder, James

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Knowles, Michael

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lamond, James

  Clay, Bob

  Latham, Michael

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cohen, Harry

  Leighton, Ron

  Coleman, Donald

  Lewis, Terry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Litherland, Robert

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cryer, Bob

  McCartney, Ian

  Cummings, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Madden, Max

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Darling, Alistair

  Marek, Dr John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meale, Alan

  Dewar, Donald

  Michael, Alun

  Dixon, Don

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dobson, Frank

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Douglas, Dick

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Eastham, Ken

  Nellist, Dave

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  O'Brien, William

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Parry, Robert

  Faulds, Andrew

  Patchett, Terry

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Pike, Peter L.

  Flannery, Martin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Flynn, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Foulkes, George

  Randall, Stuart

  Galloway, George

  Redmond, Martin

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  George, Bruce

  Reid, Dr John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Richardson, Jo

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Robertson, George

  Graham, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  105

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dennis

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Short, Clare

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Michael Welsh.

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Division No. 262]

  [9.37 pm

  AYES

  Allason, Rupert

  Gill, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, James

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Atkinson, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Baldry, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gow, Ian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gregory, Conal

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Benyon, W.

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Ground, Patrick

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hague, William

  Body, Sir Richard

  Harris, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayward, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hill, James

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Brazier, Julian

  Holt, Richard

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

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunter, Andrew

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Irvine, Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Jack, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Janman, Tim

  Cash, William

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

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

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Key, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Couchman, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Cran, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Curry, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Devlin, Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Dover, Den

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Durant, Tony

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Evennett, David

  Mans, Keith

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Maples, John

  Fearn, Ronald

  Marlow, Tony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Franks, Cecil

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Freeman, Roger

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Gardiner, George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  106

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Norris, Steve

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Page, Richard

  Stokes, Sir John

  Paice, James

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Sumberg, David

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Raffan, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Redwood, John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Riddick, Graham

  Walden, George

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wallace, James

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Ward, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rost, Peter

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wilshire, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Shersby, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Edward Leigh.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.
  Several Hon. Members:rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: On a point of order——Mr. Hardy.
  Mr. Hardy: I thought that I was merely intervening.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: No, on a point of order, Mr. Hardy.
  Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If an hon. Member rises to respond to your suggestion that we debate the proposition that we agree with the Lords in the said amendments, is it appropriate for you to decide that I am making a point of order?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If an hon. Member rises and seeks to catch my eye, I decide whether to bestow my favour on him.
  Mr. Hardy: I am exceedingly grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take it that we are dealing with all the Lords amendments in the one debate, but that, at the end of that debate——if it ends——we shall proceed to divide the House on each amendment in turn. I should be grateful if you would clarify that point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, the procedure is that we debate the amendments en bloc, but any hon. Member may call a Division on any one amendment.
  Mr. Hardy: I am most grateful. That means that we are in difficulty, and that the debate may not be as concise and simple to follow at it would have been if we were taking each amendment separately. Inevitably, we shall be jumping from one amendment to another. If that is the rule of the House, hon. Members will have to be more
  108
  patient and accept that the debate will inevitably be more convoluted and complex than if we were debating each amendment separately.
  A number of Conservative Members——not least the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)——may take the view that the amendments are completely trivial, and perhaps rather technical. However, Opposition Members do not accept that they are trivial, and—obviously——we are critical of the proposition that because they are relatively technical the House should not consider them at all. We could not possibly subscribe to such an illogical and unreasonable approach. Each amendment deserves careful scrutiny and detailed consideration.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you were in the Chair I referred to Standing Order No. 186 on private Bills. The Chairman of Ways and Means may require the promoters to set out amendments and to print clauses fully with the amendments in brackets and in bold print to help the House. As the debate is to finish shortly, it would be helpful if you could ask the Chairman of Ways and Means to arrange for that printing to be done. As you have made the point that we are dealing with the first two amendments together——I hope that we shall take the last four amendments separately——it would help the House if there were a requirement under Standing Order No. 186 to produce the information for the House. I hope that you will agree to request the Chairman of Ways and Means to do that.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chairman of Ways and Means has made his decision on that matter. He may or may not print the amendments as he wishes. The amendments are by no means substantive.

Clause 3

  INTERPRETATION OF GENERAL ENACTMENTS
  Lords amendment: in page 3, line 10, leave out '85' and insert '85E'.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. There are two amendments to page 3——
  Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order this time.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I have a point of order from the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
  Mr. Hardy: My point of order follows on from the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). You have decided, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the six amendments should be taken together, even though we shall divide separately on them. That would make for a complex and convoluted debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has properly pointed out that, although the Chairman of Ways and Means regards the amendments as slight and technical, nevertheless they are sufficiently important to merit the

  109
  attention and attendance of a substantial number of right hon. and hon. Members. In view of that, it is reasonable for my hon. Friend to require a full presentation of the amendments. I see no reason why the amendments should not be specifically spelt out. If one looks at the first amendment——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order. [Interruption.] Order. I am sure that I am entitled to give the hon. Gentleman an answer. I have answered the points of order. I refer the hon. Gentleman and the House to recent precedents on the Isle of Wight and the International Westminster Bank Bills. All the Lords amendments were taken together. We are following a precedent of the House.
  Mr. O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling, but may I ask your guidance on how we are to proceed with the amendments? Do I take it that we shall debate them in the pendulum manner that was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), so that we shall move from one amendment to the other, with the whole lot being voted on at the end of the debate? Is it possible to deal with the amendments individually and not consider them in their proper order?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The amendments will be taken en bloc. Hon. Members will debate the amendments collectively. At the end of the debate, any hon. Member who wishes to divide the House on any of the amendments——and I will go through them individually——will have the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not quite hear everything that you said, for the very good reason that Liberal Democrat Members were discussing why they vote with Conservative Members. The drift of what I heard you say was that precedence suggests that all the amendments should be taken together and then votes taken separately, if required. You used arguments about the Isle of Wight Bill and so on——
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday next.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House knows very well that there is a great deal of disquiet in all parts of the House about reports of an explosion in central London. I think he shares my view that it might help the House to progress and help to allay some of the disquiet if he made a brief statement on the subject.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was close to the scene of the explosion a little over an hour ago. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and I went as close as was judged prudent. We could not get a view of the scene, nor is it possible——I have consulted subsequently my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary——to give any definite information about the scale of the damage, its cause or the number of casualties. I am afraid that I cannot give any more information to the House tonight. Obviously, my right hon. and learned Friend will, in the light of further information as it becomes available, consider whether he should make a statement to the House tomorrow in the usual way.

  Police
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
  That the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 401), dated 1st March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be revoked.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss the next two motions on the Order Paper:
  That the Police (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 469), dated 4th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be revoked.
  That the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1990 (S.R.(N.I.), 1990, No. 82), dated 26th February 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be revoked.
  Mr. Hattersley: With the agreement of the House, I intend to concentrate almost all of my remarks specifically on our prayer concerning the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990, as the new regulations affect England and Wales. Others of my right hon. and hon. Friends will, if they catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, refer to the two other sets of regulations covering police arrangements for Scotland and Northern Ireland. In any event, the principle that we are discussing tonight is the same in each of the sets of regulations, and hon. Members who share my view on the way that the principle of this affair has been dealt with will share my view about the unacceptability of each of the three sets of regulations and will wish to vote against them.
  I shall deal principally with the position affecting England and Wales, and I shall begin by briefly setting out the background to the sorry story on which the House must pass judgment this afternoon. The story begins with a claim by the Police Federation—I should more properly say, the employee side of the joint negotiating machinery—for an increase in housing allowance. An increase was, in its view, made necessary by the replacement of rates by poll tax, which for most policemen, as is the case with most other members of society, resulted in a substantially higher payment. It is no secret that the Government then advised the employers' side of the joint negotiating machinery—that is, the police committees of England and Wales, meeting together from time to time in London—on how they should respond to the federation's claim.
  The Government said that the poll tax was a personal and individual tax and, unlike the rates that it replaced, was not appropriate for reimbursement by employers to employees. The employers—I repeat, basically local authorities, themselves basically short of income—accepted the argument and made a counter-proposal. That was to replace rent allowance with a new housing allowance which would be simply based on a rent calculation containing no element which would compensate what had previously been reimbursement of rates charges. The reimbursement of rates charges was previously part of the rent arrangement and, until then, had been an integral part of the rent allowance.
  The employers' proposal would have left most—perhaps all—police officers substantially worse off. Not surprisingly, it was rejected by the Police Federation, which put the claim to arbitration. As is the case with most arbitrations, it was a compromise between two positions. However, it is important to understand that the arbitrators
  112
  accepted what for the sake of this evening's argument, I shall call "the underlying principle of the poll tax"—that it was regarded as a personal tax, not appropriate for reimbursement. I hope that we shall hear nothing more this evening about the police wishing, and demanding that they particularly, individually, and uniquely should have their poll tax reimbursed when nurses and others do not enjoy that privilege.
  The arbitration award said specifically that it was the police officer's individual responsibility to pay what the Government insisted was an individual tax. In consequence, the arbitration award fell far short of the Police Federation's initial claim. However, it was based on the equitable principle that the arbitrators set out in paragraph 49 of the award, which stated:
  "Except for our treatment of the Community Charge"—
  as some people call the poll tax—
  "we emphasise that nothing that we have proposed is intended to leave the police officers, as viewed generally, either better or worse off than before".
  Many police officers would regard the phrase
  "except for the incidence of the poll tax"
  as a large exception, but
  "except for the incidence of the poll tax",
  the arbitrators wished to leave police officers no worse off and no better off than before. To most reasonable people, I am sure that that would sound a reasonable answer.
  On that basis, the employers—the local authorities—accepted the arbitration award. The employees—the Police Federation—also accepted the award, despite their strong reservations; they believed that, having asked for arbitration, it was their duty to accept what the arbitrators put to them. I have yet to meet a policeman who regards the award as reasonable, let alone generous, but the employees took the view that, having put the matter to arbitration, they had an obligation in honour to accept what the arbitrators proposed.
  However, that was not the Government's view. The Government vetoed the arbitration, despite their professed support for the Edmund-Davies pay formula. As we all know, because this has been repeated in the House almost every year since the Edmund-Davies committee reported 12 years ago, Edmund-Davies explicitly stated that arbitration awards should be overturned only when such arbitrary action was justified on the grounds of the "utmost" or "grave" national emergency. Perhaps the Home Secretary will describe the "utmost" national emergency and the "grave" national emergency that justifies him overturning the arbitration award for the first time, or perhaps he will simply admit that he no longer honours and respects the Edmund-Davies proposal.
  Mr. James Couchman: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, in the unlikely event of a Labour Government being returned, he, as a potential future Home Secretary, will promise now to honour the Edmund-Davies formula?
  Mr. Hattersley: I fully accept that, without qualification. Indeed, I have seen the rather silly letter that the Home Secretary sent to Conservative Back Benchers which deals with exactly that point. I propose to come to that in a moment, but so that the hon. Gentleman should not be over-anxious in quoting the Home Secretary's misquotation of me, let me assure him that we would honour the Edmund-Davies formula. Indeed, we set up the Edmund-Davies committee. The Edmund-Davies pay formula is the result of a Labour initiative. I say a third

  113
  time and I shall say again towards the end of my brief speech that we would certainly honour the Edmund-Davies proposals.
  Will the Home Secretary tell us whether he regards the national emergency as so grave that it justifies vetoing the proposal, or is he simply saying that he no longer respects at least that part of the proposal? The veto of the award puts in their proper place all the Conservative platitudes about supporting the police. This is not a policy for cutting crime. Everything that was said about supporting the police was cheap party propaganda, to be abandoned and forgotten when it was convenient. I hope that, as a result of this, at least in future we shall be spared the pretence that the police forces are the property of the Conservative party. That myth was shattered when the Home Secretary visited Scarborough last month.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: What will the right hon. Gentleman do?
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall deal with that. One of the flattering things about the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)—I use the word "learned" in inverted commas, as one properly should—is that he always intervenes on the assumption that I am soon to be Home Secretary. It is a wholly proper assumption for him to make, and I propose to respond in exactly those terms.
  The scheme which the present Home Secretary proposed in place of arbitration has been twice amended since it was originally announced, and it now has four basic elements. Officers presently receiving rent allowance will receive it, but will have it frozen at present levels. New recruits will receive a new housing allowance based on the old rent allowance, but excluding the rate element; thus, it will be considerably smaller than it would have been. The smaller allowance for new recruits will be updated annually on the basis of the retail prices index. When the new recruits' allowance catches up with the level paid to officers already receiving allowance this year, those officers will begin to receive an additional increase calculated on the RPI.
  What that means in hard terms can easily be described: it is a substantial immediate loss of earnings for this year's recruits. They will earn substantially less than they would have earned had the Home Secretary not vetoed their award. In Norfolk, they will lose £1,674 a year, in Greater Manchester £1,245, in Surrey £1,109 and in Warwickshire £811 a year.
  Officers serving this year whose housing and rent allowance is to be frozen will certainly receive no less money next year than now, but their rent allowance may well be frozen for 10 years or more, until the reduced allowance now being paid to new recruits catches up with what they are presently receiving. Serving officers are to face a decline in the real level of their rent allowance, because the money level is to be frozen for 10 years or more.
  That is our first reason for praying against the regulations tonight. The principle that arbitration should be upheld is dear to this side of the House, but related to the principle is the practice. All reasonable people will take exception to the proposition that an employer can arbitrarily tell his employees that over the next 10 years they are, in effect, to receive a reduction in the pay which they legitimately expected and which was granted to them according to their terms and conditions of service.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to me how I can justify to my Derbyshire constituents that police officers receive £4,800 in rent allowance tax-free, which is over £90 a week, when many of my constituents do not even get that in total salary before tax?
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Lady may not find the argument particularly attractive, but the way to justify it is to say that she believes in keeping her promises. This is an arrangement between the Government and the police, and until the Government want to negotiate another arrangement, it is dishonourable for them arbitrarily to abandon the existing one. The hon. Lady will find that her constituents are greatly more attracted to the idea of the Government keeping their promises than she believes, and she will find my case proven at the next general election.
  Our second objection is that, as a result of the Home Secretary's action, many thousands of police officers will receive less than it was reasonable for them to expect and which was specified for them under the Edmund-Davies formula. When the Home Secretary speaks, he will doubtless say again that no serving officer will be worse off next year, and that is true. But the year after next, and for year after year subsequently, while the new recruits' rent allowance catches up with the level enjoyed by serving officers, those officers' real level of rent allowance will be cut.
  Our third objection is the effect that it must have and will have on police morale, to a disastrous extent. There was never a time when a boost to the morale of the police force was more necessary than now. Policemen say openly and frankly that their morale has been damaged by the Government's privatisation of police services—by the use of private security services in areas that the police believe are proper only for them to deal with.
  Police morale has been damaged also by a shortage of manpower, the facts of which are constantly obscured. Figures announced in one White Paper are repeated the following year as if they were new. No allowance is ever made for the reduction in police hours that comes from a reduction in overtime—although that reduction is often made to finance extra recruits. Most important of all, the number of new recruits is never compared with the extra duties now imposed on policemen.
  Police officers are now required to perform tasks on the beat and in the station which would have been unthinkable before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In the judgment of chief officers and members of the Police Federation, the police are more overstretched today than in 1980. Add to that the fact that, according to all informed predictions, we are about to see an unprecedented rise in crime rates to record levels, and this is clearly a lunatic time to assault police morale, yet that is exactly what the Government are doing. The intriguing question is why they are doing it.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Given the history of many Labour local authorities, from which the right hon. Gentleman might quite properly wish to dissociate himself, of doing all they can to undermine their local police services, is he saying that he is setting forth among his other commitments one to increase the size of the police force? If so, by how much does he wish to increase its size, and what will it cost?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course I am setting forth that commitment. There are vast amounts of money to be saved in the Home Secretary's budget in the area in which it is most profligately spent, in sending to prison men and women who should not be sent there and who could be punished outside prison in ways better for the community and much cheaper for the Exchequer.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington)rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary is about to intervene—I shall gladly give way—to say that he published a White Paper on punishment by sentencing in the community. When he does that, I shall welcome a sinner come late to repentance, because he is adopting a policy which the Opposition have been advocating for 10 years.
  Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman does not lack cheek. He waits until we publish a White Paper which advises more punishment in the community, and he then gets to his feet and pretends that it is Labour policy, when, throughout the whole time that it was in office, Labour carried out entirely contrary policies. I have never heard such nonsense in all my life.
  Mr. Hattersley: With respect, the Home Secretary is a little confused about the facts. As the police know, if he does not, we published a document on that issue three months before he did and—what is more important—we have been advocating that policy for 10 years longer than he has.
  Before I deal with my next point, I wish to answer the matter raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about Labour local authorities. There was a time when we were accused of failing to support neighbourhood watch schemes. At present, Labour local authorities are virtually unanimous in their support of neighbourhood watch. I notice the chairman of Crime Concern nodding in his place on the Tory Back Benches. No doubt he will nod again, as he is nodding now, when I say that the problem with neighbourhood watch now—as he has identified—is that the Government are not providing enough money to enable it to be extended and improved.
  I want to return to the subject of police morale, because all informed predictions suggest that we are about to see an unprecedented rise in the crime rate. It is impossible to imagine a worse moment to strike such a severe blow at poice morale. Once again, I ask why the Government choose to do so at this time.
  A reason of sorts was given by the Home Secretary in a letter which he sent to Tory Back Benchers—I am not sure whether he sent it to all Back Benchers or to hand-picked Back Benchers—on 19 June.
  Mr. Marlow: He did not send one to me.
  Mr. Hattersley: Well, no one would choose the hon. Member.
  The letter included the following sentence, saying that the Home Secretary
  "could not accept a recommendation which would have meant rent allowances continuing to rise at a rate which bore no relationship whatsoever to the actual cost of running a home."
  What the Home Secretary did not tell his colleagues, and what the letter did not say, was that the independent
  116
  arbitrators, picked in part by the Home Secretary for their independence and wisdom, had made an exact and specific judgment on whether housing and rents allowance was rising at an unacceptable speed. They said:
  "We were given no compelling evidence that the level of rent allowance is out of control. The level is fixed by established criteria and, whilst it is not suggested that these should not, from time to time, be reviewed, those currently in use appear to confirm the logic of previous accepted criteria."
  No evidence that the rise was running out of control was given, which is the excuse provided by the Home Secretary, in the hope that a few more supine Back Benchers would go into his Lobby this evening. The Home Secretary knew, as he has always known, how weak his case for vetoing the award is. Indeed, I give him credit, as a blunt, practical man, that, had he been in charge when the award was veteod, it would have gone ahead. The poisoned chalice has been passed to him and, if I may scandalously mix my metaphors, he must defend it as best he can. That is why he made two extraordinary sets of wholly cosmetic adjustments to the original awards.
  I shall take one example from each group. The first adjustments were made on 15 March—the day of the police national rally in Preston. It belatedly agreed to the re-evaluation of those rent allowances—about half the total—which were due for bi-annual review this year, but for which no review was to be allowed. As the meeting was taking place in Preston, the Home Secretary belatedly agreed to a re-evaluation being carried out, but only on the basis of the retail prices index, and not, as is usually the case, on housing costs. Thus, he left many thousands of police officers disadvantaged as compared with other officers.
  Last week he made a series of adjustments, which were even more bizarre and wholly cosmetic. One was the announcement that, if one officer was married to another officer and one of them took unpaid maternity leave, the officer who remained at work would no longer receive only half rent allowance but would receive the whole rent allowance. Of course, the officer who remained at work would have qualified for the whole allowance anyway, since the other officer was no longer being paid by the police service, and did not qualify for any rent allowance. The Home Secretary should be driven into—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Waddington: Opposition Members may think that these are funny matters, but all three of them arrived on my desk as a result of representations made by the Police Federation. Surely I am entitled to some credit for listening to their concerns and for trying to do something about them.
  Mr. Hattersley: I make no secret of the fact that my party consults the Police Federation. The proposal was described to me at 3 o'clock this afternoon by the Police Federation as absurd. If, however, the Home Secretary wants to apply his fine and clear mind to the logic of promising to pay somebody something to which they are already entitled, we shall be delighted to hear his explanation.
  No one who considers these matters can doubt that these cosmetic changes reflect the absurdity of the position in which the Home Secretary finds himself. Therefore, I want to suggest to him how he could get himself out of the mess—a mess so obvious, even to him, that the Government have run away from debating the subject for

  117
  the last four months. The prayer should have been debated soon after the regulations were laid. It is a scandal—a legitimate scandal, in terms of the House of Commons' rules, but a scandal nevertheless—that we are debating the regulations months after they came into operation.
  I have no doubt that the Home Secretary thinks that, by playing for time, he has sapped the resolve of some of his Back Benchers who at one time intended to vote against him this evening. As the night wears on, we shall see the sort of metal they are made of. The fact that the Home Secretary has—I repeat—run away from the debate for four months suggests that he at least is beginning to understand the problems that he faces. I hope that he has the grace to welcome some advice about how to get out of them.
  First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should honour the arbitration. That is the basic principle of good industrial relations—certainly for a Government who prefer compromise to consultation and for a Government who understand the special position of the police force, which is unable, quite rightly, to take sterner action in its own interests. Secondly, when the Home Secretary has honoured the arbitration, he should think about the long term. If he agrees, as I do, specifically and explicitly with the arbitrators who say that police pay contains too many anomalies and inconsistencies, he should set out to negotiate—I emphasise, negotiate—a new deal with the Police Federation.
  In his letter to Tory Back Benchers, the Home Secretary was kind enough to quote part of my speech to the Police Federation conference. Working from the written text, he correctly quoted the following words:
  "The time has come for a general re-examination of the structure of wages within your service."
  Then there was a line of dots in the Home Secretary's text. He then quoted me as saying:
  "If the structure of police pay is to be changed, it must be changed by negotiation."
  That is my view and opinion. However, the Home Secretary then thought it right to put his own gloss on my view and opinion. He said:
  "Labour have not bound themselves to honour the Edmund-Davies formula."
  Some of the Home Secretary's Back Benchers fell for that sentence. Even on the evidence that the Home Secretary quoted, that is a strange proposition. Since the Labour party is committed to a negotiated settlement, the proposition assumes that the Police Federation would be prepared to negotiate away Edmund-Davies, which is unlikely. Moreover, there was an addition to my speech that the Home Secretary will be pleased to hear when I send him the tape recording of what I said. It was added because I was advised on the morning that I made the speech that
  "Some malicious idiot might try to interpret your offer as something different from Edmund-Davies."
  I do not know to whom that referred, but I thought it right to insert the words
  "Of course, until the negotiations are completed, Edmund-Davies will be honoured."
  The truth of the matter is that Edmund-Davies is not being honoured now by the Government. Edmund-Davies is inherently a proposition on wages and conditions, and conditions relate to housing and rent allowance. The arbitrators said in their award that, if the Government interfered with the proposition on housing and rent
  118
  allowance, they would be disturbing the pattern of the Edmund-Davies formula. The Government have certainly done that.
  I repeat to the Home Secretary that it is bad not only for the individual police officers who will lose over the years but for the country because of the effect that it will have on police morale. Police morale will suffer not only because the officers will lose money but because the arbitrary, unthinking way in which it was done will convince them that the Government are prepared to sacrifice their interests for a comparatively small amount of money.
  Many hon. Members will stand up for their interests tonight. Some of them will be Conservative Members and the police will be comforted by that, but I believe that they will be more comforted to know that, sooner or later, they will get the pay award that they deserve.
  10.30 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has constructed his case on an entirely false basis, as will become clear to him after the first few minutes of my speech.
  First, I remind the House that we are debating three separate sets of amending regulations relating to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. The arrangements for payment of rent or housing allowance have long been due for an overhaul. Rent allowance was intended to place officers who live in their own homes on a broadly equal footing with those who live in a police house or quarters, but there has long ceased to be a credible relationship between the two.
  Much has been made by the right hon. Gentleman of the decision to set aside certain conclusions of the police arbitration tribunal. There were, however, very strong, grounds for doing that, as I shall explain—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will listen, they will learn something which they obviously do not yet know.
  In any case I must make it clear that the tribunal is there to enable the two sides of the police negotiating board to arrive at recommendations when negotiations break down. These recommendations are then put to me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. But tribunal recommendations are not binding on the Secretaries of State, as is absolutely clear from the Police Negotiating Act 1980. If the right hon. Gentleman would do me the courtesy in future of reading the legislation before he makes his speech, he would know that is the case.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am not suggesting for a moment that the Home Secretary behaved illegally. Had he behaved illegally, we should have pursued him in a different fashion. I am suggesting that he behaved wrongly. That is the case that he has to answer rather than some spurious suggestion as to whether he behaved within the law. We took that for granted.
  Mr. Waddington: That is the usual waffle we hear from the right hon. Gentleman. The Police Negotiating Act 1980 went through the House long after Edmund-Davies. If he looks carefully at the Police Negotiating Act, he will see that the function of the police arbitration tribunal is to

  119
  try to reconcile the two sides on the police negotiating board, but when eventually a recommendation is made to me, it is for the Secretaries of State to decide whether to accept those recommendations. That has been so since Edmund-Davies reported, as the right hon. Gentleman must know full well. It is therefore complete balderdash to speak of a breach of an agreement with the police, because no agreement is involved. The award that was made by Edmund-Davies was finally implemented by the Government, and the 1980 Act reaffirmed that eventually it is for the Secretaries of State to decide whether to accept an arbitration decision.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the Home Secretary is right that it is complete balderdash, will he explain why level-headed members of the police force in Scotland are so angry about what has happened? Why should they be so angry if it is complete balderdash?
  Mr. Waddington: I am addressing my remarks to the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that an arbitration decision by the police arbitration tribunal is binding on the Government.
  Mr. Hattersley: In honour, if not in law.
  Mr. Waddington: In honour, if not in law; that is what the right hon. Gentleman says. I do not suggest for a moment that if a person who is receiving a large allowance is told that it will not be increased year after year he will not be unhappy; of course he will.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Home Secretary accept that we are talking not merely about new recruits but about existing members of the force being severely affected by the regulations? Does he also agree that because police forces do not resort to industrial action they have always relied on the arbitration service to reach an appropriate deal? Does he feel no moral responsibility to members of the police forces?
  Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Lady will let me get on with my speech, she will find that we have made special provisions for existing officers. The original provisions made for them were made more generous as a result of representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and the Police Federation. We must make our own decisions on these matters, on the merits of the recommendations, regardless of whether they are made after recourse to arbitration.
  Every four or five years, police pay and allowances are reviewed by the police negotiating board, and they were so reviewed in 1988. After a reference to the tribunal by the official side and an award subject to further negotiations in the board on a variety of detailed matters, things moved slowly and further recourse to the tribunal seemed likely.
  Meanwhile, the then Secretaries of State were worried that any outcome based on the tribunal's award was likely to give rise to problems, and it seemed wrong that the two sides of the police negotiating board should continue to talk without being made aware of those difficulties. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who was then Home Secretary, wrote to the independent chairman of the police negotiating board on 23 October last year, pointing out, among other things, the difficulty of a formula that involved reimbursement of
  120
  rates, when they no longer existed, and giving notice to the board that the Secretaries of State could not commit themselves to meeting the recommendations of the board solely because they were supported by an award of the police arbitration tribunal.
  Last autumn, my predecessor made it abundantly plain that it would be very difficult to achieve a formula which resulted in rent allowance being paid on the basis that rates, which were no longer payable, should be included in the total which was then divided into rent allowance.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: That has nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman should know—I am sure that he does—that that was the reasoning of the police negotiating board.
  Despite the letter, the negotiations proceeded on their original basis. Disagreements about the remaining issues were resolved by a further application to the tribunal in November, and as a result of this second major award by the tribunal a police negotiating board agreement was finally delivered to the Secretaries of State on 20 December. On 4 January, the board was informed that the agreement was unacceptable to me and was asked to comment on draft regulations incorporating what we believed to be the right approach.
  On 17 January, I met the chairman and secretary of the staff side together with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and, as a result of representations made, I agreed to make major changes. But there were certain key recommendations of the board which I could not possibly accept. For example, the old allowance was based on the supposed open market rent of a typical police house plus rates, and I could not possibly agree that into the pool out of which the new allowance was to be paid should go an amount to cover rates when they no longer existed; nor could I accept the recommendation that police officers in police houses should receive the new allowance and pay rent.
  The payment of rent would have meant giving the occupants the right to buy, and police houses are badly needed—[Laughter.] I do not see what is particularly funny about that. It would not have been wise of a Secretary of State to accept a recommendation by the police negotiating board which would have resulted in people in police houses paying rent having the right to buy and therefore the stock of police houses gradually diminishing. [Laughter.]
  I assume from the hilarity that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook agrees that that would have been absurd. If so, where does his argument that one must accept all the decisions of the arbitration tribunal stand? It is as plain as a pikestaff that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that that is one recommendation of the arbitration tribunal that could not possibly have been accepted by any responsible Secretary of State.
  Moreover, serious difficulties could have been caused to individual officers in the not unlikely event in some areas that the rent they were charged would exceed the new allowance. Some officers would almost certainly have lost heavily.
  The new allowance, still based on what is assessed to be the open market rent of a typical police house now in a particular force area, will have to be revalued from time to time, and the board proposed that it should be increased

  121
  every two years by a combination of two indices. The first was the index of regional house price movements compiled by the Building Societies Association. The second was the housing element of the retail prices index. The logic of basing an index on house prices, which represent a potential capital gain to the house owner, is, to say the least, highly questionable. Such an index would almost certainly lead to steep increases over time and a return to the craziness of the old system from which most people would say we had to escape. It led to completely bizarre increases, which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has not faced up to, such as the 57.5 per cent. increase for the Metropolitan police in 1989 and 67.2 per cent. for Warwickshire in 1989—in other words, the increases did not bear the slightest relationship to the true increase in the housing costs of the officers concerned and their absurdity could not possibly be justified on the basis that they were necessary to maintain recruitment.
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Who authorised the increase for the Metropolitan police of 57.5 per cent?
  Mr. Waddington: The amount awarded to the Metropolitan police was the amount calculated on the regulations approved by the House. The new allowance will therefore be increased every two years in line with movements in the general index of retail prices, an index which, of course, includes mortgage repayment costs.
  There is then an odd thing called the compensatory grant—the repayment by the police authority of tax paid on rent allowance—which is a considerable benefit in itself. Here the tribunal came up with a very strange suggestion. It wanted everyone to lose compensatory grant from now, those in service before 1 April and new recruits alike, but recommended that the money saved as a result should be used to make part of the new rent allowance pensionable. It seemed to us that it would be difficult to devise any fair or logical scheme on those lines, and in any event police pension arrangements are already generous and it is difficult to see any justification for further improvement in them.
  Therefore we decided that serving officers should keep the compensatory grant as part of crucial transitional provisions to protect them. In short, those officers receiving rent allowance on 31 March will continue to receive the same level of allowance, including the rates element, despite no rates being payable by them. They will continue to be paid compensatory grant until the new housing allowance, which as I have said is based on the rent of a typical police house in the force area uprated by the RPI, reaches the same level.
  Mr. Marlow: It has been explained to me, although I do not know whether the explanation was accurate, that some police forces had their rent allowances uprated last year according to housing costs and other forces are having the rent allowances uprated this year according to the RPI. It is suggested that similar police forces in similar parts of the country with similar housing costs are getting different allowances. Is that correct? If it is, how does my right hon. and learned Friend justify it?
  Mr. Waddington: I shall come to that in a moment. I can tell my hon. Friend now that rent allowance always differed from force to force because it was based on different housing costs in the sense that it was based on the typical value of a police house in one area compared with
  122
  another. Some police forces have always had their rent allowances updated in an even year while some have had them updated in an odd year. Simply as a result of that, representations were made to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and Police Federation officers. As a result of their representations I made an important concession. Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear with me and I shall deal with that.
  Mr. Hattersley: May we have the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) cleared up? As he said, the uprating is done on a different basis from the previous uprating, thus leaving, let us say, Thames Valley and the Metropolitan police unequal in that one force does not benefit to the same degree as the other. That is a simple fact and I do not understand why the Home Secretary does not agree with his hon. Friend.
  Mr. Waddington: That was always the case and if the right hon. Gentleman had been listening he would have heard me say that. Housing allowances and costs differ from area to area. If one takes a 10-year period for one force and compares it with a 10-year period for another, one will find that sometimes the even-year force does better and sometimes the odd-year force does better.
  Mr. Marlow: May I put my point again? Is it possible that in two areas where housing costs are the same or similar the rent allowances now available to police forces are different?
  Mr. Waddington: Under the existing system, the allowance differs according to housing costs. Under the new system it will differ in the same way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question. The only difficulty arises because 33 forces are updated in an even year and 20 are reviewed in an odd year.
  When I announced my proposals in January I received representations from colleagues about the alleged unfairness to the 1988 officers of continuing to pay them an allowance assessed in that year and not uprated to take account of changes since. As I said, I had representations from a number of people, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the chairman and secretary of the Police Federation.
  Because I was impressed by the strength of the pleas made to me, on 15 March I announced a significant change in the original proposals. In effect, officers in the forces last reviewed in 1988 will have their red circled amounts, as they are called, uprated by the retail price index for the period between the date of their last review and 1 April 1990. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge will mind if I say that that was twice as good as the proposal that he put to me. He suggested that the grievance could be met by an uprating for the 1988 forces which would increase those allowances by one year according to the RPI. We actually decided to uprate them by two years.
  Mr. David Alton: Does the Home Secretary accept that one grievance felt by many police officers is that, while the review is taking place, it would have been better to resolve some of the other anomalies? Bearing in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), there will be a £2,000 discrepancy between the Merseyside force

  123
  and the Cheshire force as a result of the Home Secretary's announcement about rent allowances. Does he accept that that will cause considerable anguish among serving police officers in difficult areas like Merseyside?
  Mr. Waddington: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's figures are correct. In any event, the anomaly, as the hon. Gentleman was generous enough to admit, has always existed. We have tried to correct what was perceived to be an injustice by not freezing the 1988 forces at the valuation then placed on their rent allowances, but by having an uprating according to the RPI.
  Mr. Shersby: If my right hon. and learned Friend will reflect on what he has just said, he will recall that I pressed him originally to bring those forces on the 1988 revaluation up to the same level as those that were revalued in 1989. I went on to say that if that proved impossible, at the very least I expected and hoped that he would bring those officers on the 1988 revaluation up to the 1989–90 level through the movement in the RPI over those two years, not one year.
  Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is in error in his last point. However, the basic fact remains that my hon. Friend made a proposition to me and I readily accepted his suggestion.
  Mr. John Ward: While my right hon. and learned Friend is dealing with that point, will he reflect on the fact that despite the concession that he made or negotiated with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), a Dorset policeman will be £856 a year worse off than a Hampshire policeman under the new arrangement? Would it not be sensible, as was suggested, to share the misery and ensure that at least in each region everyone gets roughly the same allowance? Otherwise, recruitment will be badly affected.
  Mr. Waddington: It will not affect recruiting. The anomalies always existed and it would have been even more anomalous if we had paid the same rent allowance to all officers irrespective of the area in which they live when we all know perfectly well that the cost of renting a house differs greatly in different parts of the country. The allowance was always based on the difference in the market rent of a typical police house in a particular part of the country. Because that differed so much, rent allowances always differed greatly between one part of the country and another.
  Following discussions with the Police Federation and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, I made a further change to help officers living in free accommodation provided by the police authority. It was represented to me that such officers were at a disadvantage compared with officers in receipt of rent allowance, the latter having their former levels of rent allowance including the rates element, protected as I have described on a mark-time basis. It was suggested that something needed to be done to help those officers who lived in police houses or quarters and who, up to 31 March, were living there free of rates.
  Here again, I am glad to have been able to do something to meet the representations that were made to me. Hon. Members will see that the amended regulations provide for the payment of a transitional allowance of
  124
  £300 a year for three years to officers in a police house or police quarters who were living in provided accommodation on 31 March 1990. The Scottish regulations make similar provision from 31 March 1989. The allowance does not apply in Northern Ireland, because there is no community charge, and police officers therefore continue to occupy police houses or quarters free of rates.
  Even that is not the last of the concessions that I have been prepared to make. As the police authorities came to implement the new arrangements, various other matters were drawn to my attention—much mocked, I might say, by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, but obviously considered important by those who mentioned them to me—I thought that they should be put right, and I have proposed three further changes that will benefit serving officers.
  First, it appears that some officers serving on 31 March would have been due to receive compensatory grant on not only their previous year's rent allowance, but the tax paid on compensatory grant itself in years before 1989–90. Although struck by the infinite complexity of the arrangements, I am content that those amounts should also be included in their red circling. Not only do those officers continue to get tax back on the rent allowance; they continue to get tax back on the tax back! It is as complicated as that.
  Secondly, I have decided that, where police officers were married to each other and receiving flat rate rent allowance on 31 March, the husband should move up to full rate if his wife goes on unpaid maternity leave. Finally, if a similar married couple were living in a police house or quarters on 31 March and the wife goes on unpaid maternity leave, it seems to me right that when she returns she should resume her entitlement to provided accommodation allowance.
  Draft regulations on all those matters have been sent to the police negotiating board for comment and, subject to that, will be laid before the House as soon as possible. They cover forces in England and Wales; similar drafts for Scotland and Northern Ireland will follow as soon as possible. I am sure that the arrangements are fair and reasonable.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: There is a widespread belief among policemen that the real reason for the anomalies to which the Home Secretary has referred—and to which other hon. Members have drawn attention—is that the cost of implementing the tribunal's findings would have been extremely heavy. What calculation have the Home Secretary and the Government made of that cost?
  Mr. Waddington: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that rent allowances now take up 13 per cent. of total police remuneration. I can also tell him that, if more and more is spent on rent allowances, less and less will be available for other parts of the police service.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend: he has been very patient with interventions.
  The problem is, I think, one of recruitment rather than anguish. Those of us whose local authorities are next to comparable authorities—in cost terms—are very worried about police moving from one authority to another. I am informed that, in Hertfordshire, 40 police officers have asked for transfers to other authorities in the past two

  125
  months. If there are recruitment problems as a result of the regulations, will my right hon. and learned Friend have another look at this and other aspects of them?
  Mr. Waddington: Obviously, it is my duty to ensure that recruitment is maintained at a proper level for the sake of efficiency, and I can therefore give my hon. Friend the undertaking for which he asks. I must add, however, that I see no evidence of a fall in police recruitment; in fact, I think that we are about 0.2 per cent. below establishment at present. That is contrary to the position back in 1977, when people rushed out of the police force because of the paltry wages that they were getting under the Labour Government. No Government could have allowed a system under which rent allowances continued to roar out of control in the way that I have described. All of us would have wished to protect serving officers by ensuring that they did not lose anything in cash terms. That is what we have done.
  I must stress that the new allowance still represents a most substantial addition to police pay—police pay which, under the Edmund-Davies formula, has increased well ahead of inflation since 1979. Let there be no doubt about it—we reaffirm our commitment to Edmund-Davies.
  I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I am bound to say that no reasonable person could have read what he said at the Police Federation conference and think that it was a reaffirmation of Edmund-Davies, so the right hon. Gentleman has had to do some pretty swift thinking since then. As he has now said that a Labour Government would be committed to Edmund-Davies, perhaps, some time before the end of the debate, he will tell hon. Members what additional amount an incoming Labour Government would be prepared to dedicate to rent
  126
  allowance over and above what we are prepared to spend. In other words, let him tell us precisely what is the financial commitment of a future Labour Government. Of course, he has not said one word about that.
  In view of some of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, there is only one motto for the police service to remember—"Never trust Labour". I say to the police, "Labour let you down in the 1970s when officers were leaving the service in their tens of thousands because of such poor pay, by the standards of your fellow workers, and they will let you down again." When, during the miners' strike and at Wapping, the police were protecting the right of every man and woman to work and to get to his or her place of work free of molestation, they got no support at all from the right hon. Gentleman.
  I remember the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), with his usual weasel words, condemning violence from wherever it came—by which he meant action taken by the police to contain violence, as much as the mob violence making that action necessary.
  Not so long ago, too, the Opposition reaffirmed their determination to repeal the prevention of terrorism legislation. Those people, masquerading as friends of the police, would deprive the police of powers that every policeman in the land knows to be essential in the fight against terrorism. I do not take lectures about my responsibilities from a mess of a party like that. When it faces up to its responsibilities, I shall perhaps be prepared to listen.
  Several Hon. Members:rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. A large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate. I ask for brief contributions, please.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is perhaps a measure of the weakness of the Home Secretary's case that he found it necessary to resort to the jejune arguments relating to police powers and did not answer the substantial questions that were raised earlier on the level of police remuneration and the structure and method of determining police pay. It is bizarre also that the Home Secretary reaffirmed his support for Edmund-Davies, when at the heart of the Edmund-Davies report is a clear message that police pay is to include rent allowances and that the whole structure of police pay was based upon that assumption. Perhaps that was an inappropriate formula for the future, and therefore it was necessary for the Government to raise some of the issues that followed the introduction of the poll tax in the police service. However, it was not appropriate simply to override the Edmund-Davies formula on remuneration, and in so doing to set aside the arbitral process that was so integral to the ultimate determination of police pay.
  It is quite clear that Edmund-Davies has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance in this round of negotiations. It would have been better if, as soon as he took office" the Home Secretary had made clear his judgment that there was a need for a round-table conference on the future of police remuneration, in the light of the circumstances that he has described, and not resorted to the simple procedure of rejecting the findings of the arbitral tribunal. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, they were difficult negotiations. Both sides had to make compromises, which were then embodied in a recommendation. It is true that the Government are not bound in law to accept that recommendation, but most Home Secretaries would regard it as foolish not to do so.
  On previous occasions when arbitral findings have been questioned—between 1984 and the time when the Home Secretary took office, there were some six occasions on which the police negotiating board could not reach agreement and the matter was submitted to the arbitral tribunal—those findings were upheld. Even at the time of the ill-fated intervention of the previous Home Secretary on 23 October, when he meddled in the negotiations in the manner described by the Home Secretary, it was thought that it was the Government's clear intention to abide by the results of the process. Why, otherwise, bother to meddle? If, at the end of the day, the previous Home Secretary intended simply to lay down the law and utter his fiat, what was the purpose of his intervention?
  Mr. Waddington: Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to read the whole of my right hon. Friend's letter? In paragraph three, he said:
  "However, in present circumstances we do not believe that we can commit ourselves to meeting the recommendations of the Police Negotiating Board."
  My right hon. Friend fairly intimated, on 23 October, that there would be difficulties if the police negotiating board produced conclusions along the lines of those that it eventually produced.
  Mr. Maclennan: I have the whole of the former Home Secretary's letter in front of me. As I read it, the difficulty that he mentioned related to the cost of the proposed settlement. The reluctance of the Home Secretary in his speech tonight, and in answer to my intervention, to reveal
  128
  the possible cost of carrying out the arbitral finding reinforces the impression that finance is at the bottom of it. Cash is at the bottom of it, not any schematic difficulties. There are always schematic difficulties in dealing with police pay, and there probably always will be—so long as there are 47 different police authorities in England and Wales, and different police authorities in Scotland, there will be no nice solution to these problems. Money seems to have been at the heart of the matter.
  The modest changes that have been made as a response to the substantial outburst of anger in all parts of the country from the police, who are not a noticeably militant organisation, have created further anomalies and difficulties. I do not propose to repeat those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in his understandably long speech. However, in this short debate, I wish to draw attention to at least one of the problems that has arisen, and about which concern has been expressed by the Northern constabulary in Scotland, as an illustration of the Secretary of State's failure to deal with the problem.
  I refer to the proposed £300 allowance to those living in police accommodation. That has not been a source of gratitude; it has brought about an awareness of the inequity of what is proposed, because many officers who have been living not in police-provided accommodation, but in lodgings that they have had to find, are very much worse off than those who are the beneficiaries of the modest change. I must advise the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who is with him on the Treasury Bench, that there is the gravest anger and disquiet throughout Scotland at what has been done. One letter that I received from the Northern constabulary states:
  "The regulations have torn us apart—my telephone is red hot every day and the Force morale as far as rent allowances is concerned is at rock bottom, and I can assure you that it is the same in every Force in Scotland."
  It is probably the same in every force in England, too. Evidence that I have received from a number of different forces in England suggests that there is a seething anger about the way in which the matter has been handled. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) drew attention to the concern on Merseyside about the differentiation between the positions in Cheshire and Liverpool. I have also seen letters from, for example, Norfolk, addressed to Conservative Members as well as to myself, also expressing anger.
  The Home Secretary failed to explain why he was not willing to enter into negotiations and discussions with the police, not only about the matters before the police negotiating board, but about his proposition that there must be a wholly new approach to police pay, which departed so fundamentally from Edmund-Davies in ruling out the rent allowances, and which set at nought the long and painful negotiations that had taken place. The Home Secretary has argued that he was not "obliged" to implement the proposals—I acknowledge that he was not "obliged" in law, but he was "obliged" in honest decency at least to recognise that the Edmund-Davies formula on police pay had, in the past, taken into consideration the unsocial hours, the restriction on private lives, the exposure to danger, the need to be on call, and the denial of the right to join a trade union. All those matters were in the Edmund-Davies formula on police pay.

  129
  Rent allowances were taken into account when setting the basic pay scales. The increases in the rent allowances were designed to reflect movements in housing costs, not living costs. The Home Secretary has departed from that formula in the regulations. If we assume a continuing rate of inflation at 7.5 per cent., which may not be a fair assumption in the light of current rates, the transitional rent allowance will be worth only a third of the current value by the time it has caught up with the housing allowance.
  The Police (Amendment) Regulations were originally laid before the House on 9 March. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) prayed against both the English and Scottish regulations, yet there was no debate. For months a most peculiar silence fell over the Government. Why? It was a bizarre failure of our democratic process to take the necessary step in the implementation of the police regulations. I can assume only that it was because of some internal Government battle about the sum that might be made available as a sweetener to try to rob the debate of some of the bitterness that it has assumed. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is right in believing that some of the sting has gone out of Tory Members. Perhaps they are no longer so angry as they were when the regulations were first announced. The facts have not changed and it is to be hoped that hon. Members on both sides who expressed themselves so strongly earlier will reject the regulations, which do a serious disservice to the policing of the country.
  The police are not a militant organisation, but they rely on us in the House to safeguard their interests so that they do not require the protection that others in the public service have enjoyed. If the Home Secretary is saying that there are grave matters of public import that led him to take the decision to set aside the tribunal, he has not spelt them out tonight. He may have said that there were some anomalies, and certainly there were, but that is not a reason for introducing regulations that in themselves are anomalies. They certainly cannot be regarded as being necessitated by reasons of grave national importance, to use the terms of Edmund-Davies.
  Although the problems will be felt throughout the country, in urban and peripheral areas, they will undoubtedly be most acutely felt in rural areas, where those who must live in the village police house will not receive the allowance. Those who live in a tied house do not acquire capital in a house of their own. They have the future disadvantage that they will have no rates allowance.
  We are not talking about small sums. The Northern constabulary of the Scottish Police Federation has calculated that there is a difference between the maximum old and new allowances of £1,546.25. By any test, that is a significant decrease in take-home pay. I hope that the House will take the only sensible step open to it, and will avoid continuing widespread discontent and dissatisfaction in an already demoralised police force, by voting against the regulations.
  11.19 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales, and I want formally to declare that interest.
  130
  This debate is not about pay but about the Government's decision to take the unprecedented step of setting aside a decision of the police negotiating board on rent allowances following the recommendation of the police arbitration tribunal.
  The people affected by that decision are the men and women who serve the public in the police forces of our country. They do a difficult and dangerous job. They are the men and women in blue who each year sustain serious injuries in the line of duty and who in some cases lose their lives. They are members of a loyal and disciplined force who by law do not have the right to take industrial action.
  They expect the Government of the day to abide by negotiations between the official side representatives—the Home Office and local police authorities—and the staff side representing 126,000 police officers. They expect the Government and the Home Secretary of the day to accept the considered verdict of the police arbitration tribunal if there is disagreement during the negotiating process.
  They have always believed that the police negotiating board and the police arbitration tribunal were established by Parliament to ensure fair play between the employer and the employee on pay and allowances. But they are not suggesting for a moment that my right hon. and learned Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland cannot disapprove of an agreement.
  I am sorry to tell the House that the beliefs of many police officers have been shattered by the decision that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary felt obliged to take. That is why the police believe that, to uphold the principles of democracy, they have no alternative but to have their grievances aired on the Floor of the House, where the decision was taken to set up the police negotiating board and police arbitration tribunal.
  Their sense of shock has been all the greater because the Home Office, in its own evidence to the Edmund-Davies Committee in 1977, uttered those famous words:
  "The Secretary of State would never withhold approval save for reasons of grave national importance."
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not, so far as I know, given specific reasons of "grave national importance" for his decision, but in his letter that he sent to my hon. Friends last Thursday, he stated that his reasons for setting aside the police negotiating board agreement were that he
  "could not accept a recommendation which would have meant rent allowances continuing to rise at a rate which bore no relationship to the cost of running a home. And that with pay and allowances taking the lion's share of police budgets, there would have been less and less available for vital expenditure on, for instance, equipment."
  Those are not reasons of "grave national importance" of the kind envisaged by the Edmund-Davies Committee. Nor do they appear to take account of the savings made by my right hon. and learned Friend's Department and by police authorities which no longer have to pay rates, water rates and, in rural areas, cesspit charges for thousands of police officers, who since 1 April have had to pay those charges themselves.
  I should also like to make it clear that the three small changes to the Police (Amendment) Regulations, made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary last Thursday, in answer to a question from me, are outside the police arbitration award that we are debating tonight. They correct technical anomalies which were unfair to the officers concerned. However, I can tell the House quite

  131
  unequivocally that those changes are most welcome, and that they are typical of the constant care and courtesy that my right hon. and learned Friend so often demonstrates in his handling of police matters. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will not mind my saying that those changes are not related to the fundamental issues of principle that we are considering.
  As the House knows, the relationship between the Government and the police has been good for more than a decade. Therefore, if the Government considered that the arbitration award, which contains a new method of updating rent allowance, and which reflects the need for change, did not sufficiently decrease the bi-annual uprating, at least the mechanism should surely include and reflect the housing index element of the retail prices index, of which only 185 points out of 1,000 bear any relationship to housing costs.
  However, my right hon. and learned Friend set that recommendation aside, for the reasons that he gave this evening. In view of that, I hope that the House will bear with me as I explain why so many police officers have been lobbying their Members of Parliament and have attended the House today, and why they are so deeply unhappy about the situation in which they now find themselves. I am afraid that, as the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) well know, it is a complex matter, but I shall attempt to state it as simply and as briefly as possible.
  First, it is important to understand exactly what constitutes rent allowance and why it is paid. It is paid to compensate police officers who are not provided with accommodation free of charge as part of their conditions of service. It has been an integral part of police pay since the 1920s. It is also paid in lieu of accommodation, because police officers can be, and are, required by their chief constables to move home to meet operational requirements, and because, in many cases, they have no choice as to where they live.
  In the past, the allowance has been uprated every two years, following a review of property values, by an independent valuer. For the sake of administrative convenience, roughly half the police forces in England and Wales, and half the forces in Scotland and Northern Ireland, have received their revaluation in one year, with the revised allowance being paid from the following April. The other forces in England and Wales—about 14—and in Scotland and Northern Ireland, receive their revaluation in the following year, with the revised allowance payable from the following April.
  The police arbitration tribunal decided that rent allowance should be abolished for all new entrants to the police, with effect from 1 April 1990, but that it would be retained and protected—or red-circled, as it is known in police jargon—at the existing level for those officers in service before the change took place. It was the intention that in future it would be uprated every two years by the equivalent of the increase in the new force housing allowance, which came into effect on 1 April. Unlike rent allowance, which was geared to property values, the new force housing allowance will in future be related only to the movement in the retail prices index. Twenty-nine forces in England and Wales are frozen at 1988 levels, before red-circling.
  132
  Instead of agreeing to a revaluation of the existing rent allowance for the 29 forces in England and Wales alone that last had their force maximum uprated in 1988 before they were protected, my right hon. and learned Friend decided in February that their existing level of rent allowance should be frozen at the 1988 level but that the 14 forces in England and Wales that were uprated in 1989 could retain their rent allowance at the higher 1989 level. That was obviously unfair. It discriminated arbitrarily between different police forces.
  As a result of that decision, it was calculated by the Police Federation's advisers, Binder Hamlyn that it would take between 15 and 17 years before the new force housing allowance equalled the existing level of rent allowance, whereas every police officer receiving rent allowance at the protected level naturaly expects it to be increased biennially, as in the past. As a result, most officers will now leave the police before receiving any increase whatsoever in their protected allowance.
  Dame Jill Knight: I am following my hon. Friend's argument closely. What will be the position of police officers who, under the existing arrangements and with a certain understanding about allowances, choose to buy their homes? Do they not have a difficult choice to make?
  Mr. Shersby: If they bought their homes before 31 March, they will qualify for the existing level of protected rent allowance. If, however, they were unable to do so—and they did not have very much time in which to do so between my right hon. and learned Friend's statement and the end of March—they will not qualify for the protected rent allowance if they decide to buy their own homes. That is most unfair in the case of the officers in the 29 forces whose rent allowance was to have been protected at the 1988 level.
  As a result, representations were made by me, the Police Federation and the staff side of the police negotiating board to my right hon. and learned Friend and Treasury Ministers. After the most careful consideration, my right hon. and learned Friend agreed to uprate those officers in the 29 forces concerned by the movement in the retail prices index between 1988 and 1990. I repeat what I said earlier: that that is what we asked him to do and that is what he did, for which the Police Federation is grateful. The increase is equivalent to 16.6 per cent. for all but five forces, depending on the month in which they were uprated.
  The increase is most welcome. I pay warm tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for his unfailing courtesy and consideration and for his recognition of the fact that the original decision that he announced in February was untenable. I am particularly glad that he was able to persuade the Treasury to relent.
  The cost of the uprating agreed to by my right hon. and learned Friend was £26.5 million. I think that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will agree that £26.5 million is hardly "rubbish". I understand that that will bring the 29 forces who last had their rent allowance uprated in 1988 to the same level as those that were uprated in 1989 and that it will cost approximately an additional £30 million annually. We referred to a cost of roughly £55 million to bring everyone up to a common starting point. My right hon. and learned Friend has provided £26.5 million.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: If my hon. Friend's representations on behalf of the Police Federation have been met by my right hon. and learned Friend and if that was all that the Police Federation wanted, why is it seeking a further concession?
  Mr. Shersby: The increase to which my right hon. and learned Friend agreed, welcome though it is, falls far short of the level of rent allowance that is being paid to the 14 forces which had their rent allowances uprated from 1989, and which are protected at that level. Despite my right hon. and learned Friend's welcome movement, thousands of police officers in 29 forces in England and Wales, together with half their colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland, will be receiving hundreds or thousands of pounds less in rent allowances than their colleagues in the 14 forces in England and those in half the forces in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  I shall give the House an example.
  Mr. Waddington: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not think for one moment of misleading the House. I am sure that he will agree with me that officers in the 1988 forces are always worse off than their colleagues in 1989 forces. There are plenty of 1988 forces with rent allowances that are higher than those of 1989 forces. For example, under the new arrangements with the retail prices index uprating for two years, £4,270 is paid in Hertfordshire. The sum paid in Leicestershire, which is a 1989 force, is only £3,350. In 1989, Cumbria was uprated to £2,869. There are may 1988 forces that do much better than that. It is rather simplistic to say that all those in 1988 forces have done badly. There are some that have done very well.
  Mr. Shersby: My hon. and learned Friend is right to draw attention to differential housing valuations in different parts of the country. I have a map which illustrates the argument that he is advancing.
  I shall give the House an example. Thames Valley police force last had its rent allowance uprated in 1988. It will now receive a 16.6 per cent. increase as a result of the recent uprating. Police officers in that force will be substantially disadvantaged compared with officers living in my constituency of Uxbridge, which is in the Metropolitan police area. The rent allowance in the Sussex force is £3,702, whereas in the Metropolitan police area it is £5,864. That is a difference of £2,162.
  Mr. Waddington: Surely my hon. Friend recognises that the Metropolitan police, for obvious reasons, has always had a much higher allowance than those of county forces. Generally speaking, property values are much higher in the Metropolitan police area than elsewhere.
  Mr. Shersby: I accept that house prices in London are high. I am talking about rent allowances, which are based on property values, and those values in Sussex are very high. The reaction to the differentials is shown in the number of senior and experienced police officers who are applying to leave their present forces to join the Metropolitan police. That is happening in the Surrey and Sussex forces.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman talks about the difference between the allowance in his constituency, which comes within the Met, and that which is paid in the
  134
  Thames Valley police force. Would 40 per cent. be an exaggeration of the difference? If it would not, what is the likely recruitment pattern in the two areas?
  Mr. Shersby: I quoted figures to demonstrate the substantial difference between the allowances that are paid in the Thames Valley police force and the Metropolitan police. We shall have to wait and see what effect that has on recruitment in the two areas.
  Sir John Wheeler: Until recent times—perhaps this trend is continuing—have riot experienced Metropolitan police officers been moving out of the Metropolitan police area into the areas which are policed by provincial forces?
  Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend is right. It has been suggested to me in a humorous way that perhaps that is my right hon. and learned Friend's secret weapon, which is designed to boost the recruitment of the Metropolitan police. I am sure that that is not the position.
  The income from rent allowances, which, before the arbitration award, officers in some 29 forces in England and Wales had every right to expect, has been denied them. That has serious consequences for many officers who have decided to buy their homes because they are not being provided with accommodation. Moreover, they have done so encouraged by the Government's property-owning philosophy.
  Let us take as an example a police officer in his late twenties or early thirties buying a house in greater Birmingham. He has calculated his ability to meet his mortgage repayments on the basis of his expected pay and rent allowance, which has always been an integral part of police remuneration. Now he suddenly finds that the financial goal posts have been moved. His rent allowance in the west midlands force was last uprated in 1988. It will now go up by 16.6 per cent. to £3,399, thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement, but it will still fall short of the rent allowance payable to the adjoining force of Warwickshire by £788 to officers doing the same job and buying a similar house. The same officer has to pay the community charge and water rates, and to cope with the current level of interest rates.
  The second major problem concerns officers living in police accommodation. The police negotiating board recommends that the 16,000 or so officers living in provided accommodation should receive a force housing allowance and pay rent. My right hon. and learned Friend made that clear. The police accepted that recommendation, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has decided to maintain the status quo with officers living in provided accommodation receiving no housing allowance and living rent and rate-free. That includes the payment of water rates, and in country areas cesspit charges.
  However, as the House well knows, domestic rates came to an end on 31 March and with effect from 1 April, all police officers in provided accommodation, and their spouses if any, will be worse off in relative terms, by anything between £300 and £1,200 a year, depending on the community charge in the area in which they live, plus water rates and, in country areas, cesspit charges.
  The Police Federation accepted that all officers should pay the community charge, but 20 per cent. of the officers in provided accommodation have no choice but to occupy that accommodation. For the first time, they will be

  135
  financially penalised for so doing. As a result, a police officer earning £10,000 a year with a spouse and two children living in provided accommodation will suddenly and unexpectedly have to find an additional cash sum for which he or she has not budgeted and which he or she had no reason to think would be payable. In other words, up to 10 per cent. of salary could now have to be paid in local government taxation which had not previously been paid by the police but by their employers, the local police authorities.
  Clearly that was unfair, and, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, in response to representations that were made to him, he introduced the provided accommodation allowance of £300 a year. That is only £255 after tax. I observe in passing that it was fixed when the Government thought that the average community charge might be in the region of £300.
  However, it is still an additional expense for officers in police accommodation to meet from their family budgets. It has been sprung on them at rather short notice and represents a major change in their conditions of service. Up and down the country, officers in police accommodation can be worse off by as much as £1,200 a year. That is a recipe for discontent and a source of grievance.
  To sum up, there are two serious disagreements which will not be remedied by the regulations if they are passed without amendment tonight—the two different scales of allowance and the substantial additional expenses to officers living in provided accommodation.
  Above all, I believe that it was wrong for the Government, who have constantly urged employers and employees to negotiate and to reach agreement on pay and conditions, to overturn the agreement, particularly as they are the employer. I must ask the House, what sort of example is that?
  That error of judgment is compounded by the fact that the police do not have the right to take industrial action. They must rely on the process of negotiation and arbitration for the resolution of their pay and conditions. No trade union or self-respecting staff association that has the right to strike would have readily accepted the agreement.
  I repeat, and I stress, that I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend and his Treasury colleagues for the improvements that he has made since he announced his original decision in February. Moreover, I do not wish him to think that either the Police Federation or I are ungrateful. He might wonder what solution I would have adopted had I had the misfortune to be in his place.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: In his summing up, with his deep knowledge of the Police Federation and the personalities involved, will my hon. Friend say whether the leaders of the Police Federation seriously believe that they would be better off under a Labour Home Secretary, given the low police morale under the last Labour Government and the constraints on their economic policy, which the shadow Chancellor keeps spelling out to the country?
  Mr. Shersby: As my hon. Friend well knows, the police are non-political; they do not express political views. That is their duty as police officers.
  The Government should have implemented the agreement submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend
  136
  by the police negotiating board following arbitration. Had they done so, the cash difference between what has now been agreed and what they would have had to pay would be relatively small, particularly if one bears in mind the savings being made by local police authorities, which will not have to pay domestic rates because of the introduction of the community charge.
  The fact that that has not happened makes it impossible for me to vote for the regulations. Regretfully, I have no alternative but to vote against them, to show the strength of feeling of the police on the major point of principle—the setting aside of the police negotiating board agreement following arbitration. I have not encouraged my hon. Friends to vote for or against the regulations; nor shall I do so. That is not part of my role as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I know that the concern that I have expressed is well understood by many right hon. and hon. Members, and no doubt they will decide for themselves how to cast their votes in the Lobby tonight.
  11.48 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: May I first declare an interest? I have recently been appointed parliamentary adviser to the Royal Ulster Constabulary Federation.
  The issue that we are debating is one not primarily of detail but of principle. On that basis alone, I intend to question the Government's position. It is imperative that hon. Members who vote, especially Conservative Members, fully understand that they are being called upon to demonstrate the integrity of the House and that no hon. Member is here merely to reflect his or her support of or opposition to Government policy.
  At the risk of repeating some of the points to which hon. Members have alluded, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that Lord Edmund-Davies, in his 1978 report, clearly outlined what the powers of the Secretary of State should be in responding to the recommendations of the police arbitration tribunal. He noted the recommendation by all the constituent bodies of the Police Council, except the Home Department, that the findings of a police arbitration tribunal should be binding on all parties including the Secretary of State.
  Being assured by the Home Department that the Secretary of State would never withhold approval of a Police Council agreement save for reasons of grave national importance, he conceded that argument in relation to the future arbitration tribunals. In doing so, he took into consideration the fact that should there be any future failure to agree or a pay award or any breakdown of the negotiating machinery, the Government would need the power to make regulations on pay matters for the police, whose efficiency was essential to the maintenance of law and order. Lord Edmund-Davies was influenced also by the unique role of the police and the ultimate responsibility of the Secretaries of State for the maintenance of the Queen's peace. Specifically, on that clearly defined basis, he expressed himself content that discretionary powers would not be used or abused.
  In paragraph 117 of chapter 10, Lord Edmund-Davies states:
  "We would, however, like to place on record our view that any award by the Police Arbitration Tribunal should be set aside only for reasons of the utmost national importance."
  Could anything be more unequivocal or binding as a matter of honour? In fact, the Secretaries of State have

  137
  infringed that stipulation by Lord Edmund-Davies and have abrogated the spirit of the arrangement that has commanded the respect of the police for the past 11 or 12 years. What is the matter of grave national importance that requires the Government to act less honourably today than they did in 1984, when the same issue was referred to arbitration and the Government were then able to accept the tribunal's decision?
  It is important that we remember that it is as part of police pay and conditions that police officers, where they cannot be provided with police accommodation, have been granted a rent allowance. Although that rent allowance may be a separate payment calculated through an independent process, none the less it is an integral part of the totality of police remuneration, and was recognised as such by Lord Edmund-Davies. At a time when our police forces have to endure increasing pressures, in terms of public scrutiny and through the advent of more sophisticated and better organised violence, is it not ironic that this Government—the so-called Government of law and order—should unilaterally undermine the confidence of those who serve the community at the coal face?
  I cannot help but reflect on the flattering words that are used by the Prime Minister and her Ministers to describe the job that policemen and policewomen do, often under the most trying conditions, but it seems that talk is always cheap. When the community needs protection for whatever reason and whenever Government policies have brought angry, unruly and often violent mobs on to our streets, it is not the Secretaries of State who bear the brunt of that disorder. Are memories so short that the Government cannot remember the poll tax riots, the tragedy of Broadwater Farm or the ongoing courage of the Royal Ulster Constabulary over the past 20 years?
  When Earl Ferrers, the Minister of State, Home Office, wrote in The House Magazine on 12 February, he admitted that there was absolutely no precedent for the Minister to reject the findings of an arbitration tribunal. He then asserted that this did not signal a change in negotiating arrangements or in the access to arbitration which is provided for in those arrangements. Does he expect a single officer to believe such illogical nonsense? Does he expect hon. Members to do so?
  The noble Lord then asserts that there is no question of anyone having money taken out of his present earnings as a result of the decision of the Home Secretary. What is the guarantee for the future? Can we have a similar assurance on that point? The Government have advanced a series of arguments as to why awards should not be agreed in full, and why the Home Secretary should select what someone called the plums within the arbitration award and leave the police with the duff. They have sought to confuse the issue by relating rent allowance to police pay.
  We have heard quoted how much better the police have done vis-à-vis the average worker in terms of increases. We all thought that that was because the Government recognise that the police do not do a normal job but a special one and that they are conscious of the danger to life and limb that the police encounter every day. We thought that they appreciated that the police do not enjoy the protection of the health and safety agencies and we are denied the right of industrial action to defend conditions of service or to pursue legitimate grievances. That is obviously not the case.
  The Government of law and order clearly show that they value saving to the public exchequer more than they
  138
  value the good will of the police service. They are callously prepared to sacrifice the basis of trust and faith that has been built up over the past 11 years.
  To the shame of the Government, I shall quote from the last paragraph of the final report of the tribunal in November 1989:
  "We have felt it necessary to set out these principles at some length for two reasons. There is a natural tendency for each side to cling to familiar aspects of the older arrangements that they feel advantageous, without weighing the compensatory gains. But most important is the fact that any inclination to pick and choose"—
  as the Home Secretary has done—
  "between the individual changes that we have suggested is likely to destroy, to the advantage of one side or the other, the fairness of the solution we have proposed, which we believe takes account of the need not to add to the expense of the police service and is based on clear and sensible principles."
  Both sides of the police negotiating board have accepted and adhered to those principles. But the Government, who were represented on the official side, have chosen to ignore sound advice and the principles that are involved.
  If the House is to be the final arbiter and the protector of rights and principles it must vote against any revocation of the criteria laid down by Lord Edmund-Davies for resolving matters pertaining to police pay and allowances. Anything less is a betrayal and must inevitably have the direst short, medium and long-term consequences for policing in the United Kingdom.
  11.59 pm
  Sir John Wheeler: I could scarcely believe my ears as I listened to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), which must count as one of the most cynical and outrageous pieces of opportunism to have been heard in the House for many a long year. Members of the British police service who are well accustomed to dealing with the overwhelming amount of crime that is opportunistic will fully understand what I mean when I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's speech in that way.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made several significant spending commitments for the Opposition. All Conservative Members look forward to seeing those spending commitments set out clearly with sums attached so that we may gain a greater understanding of what the tax burden would be were the Labour party, in the unlikely event, to form the Government after the next general election.
  During his speech to the Police Federation's conference a short while ago, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook appeared to make yet another spending commitment, If it understood him correctly, he undertook to establish a third police force that would be responsible for investigating complaints. Complaints investigations would no longer be supervised by the independent Police Complaints Authority. According to my reckoning, that would cost between £10 million and £15 million. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to confer with his colleagues responsible for the Labour party's financial policies, to put figures to those commitments.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir John Wheeler: No, I have only just started. I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to proceed.

  139
  I want now to consider the Government's record as that is more relevant to the regulations that we are discussing. Under this Government the police service, as every officer knows, has received steady and what I believe the vast majority of British people would agree are fair increases in pay. Within a week of coming to office in 1979, the Government implemented the Edmund-Davies pay formula in full. Since then the Government have stuck to that pay formula. Since May 1979, basic pay has increased by more than 41 per cent. in real terms. I am delighted that the Government have reaffirmed their steadfast commitment to that pay formula and I contrast that with the condition that the police service was in when we came to office in 1979.
  It might be helpful if I were to give some figures to show the pay with which we have rewarded our police officers. The figures to which I shall refer to Metropolitan police officers, as that is the force with which I am principally concerned as the Member for Westminster, North.
  A police constable in the Met with 15 years' service or more enjoys a maximum salary of £16,521 to which there is added London weighting of £1,089 and a special London allowance of £1,011, making a total of £18,621. A constable—a new recruit—aged 22 years or over will enjoy £14,562 while a sergeant with four years' service and on top scale will receive £20,229. An inspector with four years' service, on the top scale, will receive £23,850. A married constable—as of April 1989—could receive a rent allowance amounting to £7,329, while an unmarried constable under 30 could receive a maximum of £3,665. That will give the House an idea of the extent of the pay and rent allowances that the police will receive from the Government.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir John Wheeler: I am being assailed by more than one hon. Member, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
  Mr. Marlow: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the Government's treatment of the police force has been generous, and I am sure that that is recognised; but will he deal with a question to which I have yet to receive an answer? I live in Warwickshire, but my constituency is in Northamptonshire. Housing costs in Warwickshire are lower than those in Northamptonshire, yet the police rent allowance in Warwickshire is higher than that in Northamptonshire. Why?
  Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking such an interesting question. Were we to have the luxury of sitting late into the night, I am sure that we could contemplate the possible answers in great detail. However, I propose to allow that interesting point to lie "upon the Table" for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to pick up.
  Mr. Waddington: Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing is certain—that the difference referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) results not from any assessment made by the Home Office, but from an assessment made by the local
  140
  district valuer? There is no Machiavelli behind the decision; it just happens that the valuation of a typical police house in one area is not the same as the valuation of a typical police house in another area.
  Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The way in which the rent allowance formula is applied varies from constabulary to constabulary. After all, we have 52 of them—and, as some hon. Members may know, if the matter were left to me, the arrangements would be considerably rationalised. I hope and pray that we shall work towards that in the near future, when our problems may well be resolved through the process of negotiation.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman thinking of bringing to the police service the expertise that has been demonstrated by the prison service? Police officers are now having to look after many people in the cells.
  Sir John Wheeler: Surely the hon. Lady knows the answer to that question.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to forget the extent of Government funding during the past 11 years—not only of police pay, although I welcome that, but of the service as a whole. Since 1979, there has been an increase of nearly 59 per cent. in total expenditure on the police service. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the average increase in allowances last year topped 42 per cent., while the allowance to the Metropolitan police rose by more than 57 per cent. The allowance in Warwickshire rose by 67 per cent. Those rises bear no relation to the true rise in living costs. Generous as the Government rightly are to the police, the Police Federation and police officers—men and women of common sense—will understand that there are limits to the amount of money that can be put into rent allowances, which my right hon. and learned Friend has a duty to consider and make a judgment upon, as he is doing tonight.
  Mr. Wells: Was not it entirely predictable, given the formula that we agreed under Edmund-Davies, that such increases would take place, bearing in mind property prices, particularly in the home counties and in London? Therefore, if we want to change the arrangements, surely the Home Office should have approached the police and the Police Federation in 1986, 1987 or 1988. It is no good complaining that rent allowances have increased in accordance with the formula subsequent to those events. Surely it is no justification to object to the increases in those years and then to refuse to pay them in the next year and thus disadvantage many police forces.
  Sir John Wheeler: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an immensely complicated subject. I agree also that it is not possible to find an easy solution. However, I remind my hon. Friend that negotiations commenced in 1988 and have been going on for quite some time. It is a matter of regret, but my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues in the Government have had to reject the recommendation of the police negotiating board.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred to the additional funding that my right hon. and learned Friend had obtained—about £26 million—to try to ease the path of this arrangement. I for one was greatly struck by his remarks in the journal Police, the magazine of the Police Federation, a few weeks ago. He wrote that one of the most difficult tasks that he had to

  141
  perform on behalf of the Police Federation was to participate in the discussions that he honourably carried out with my right hon. and learned Friend on the issue. In the magazine he referred to
  "the new Provided Accommodation Allowance' of £300 a year for three years and to an uprating by the movement in the retail price index (RPI) between 1988 and 1990 for the 29 Forces concerned. This is worth 13.7 per cent. While these decisions are very welcome and helpful they obviously do not meet the full expectations of officers throughout the country who had expected the agreement reached by the PNB to be endorsed and implemented."
  My hon. Friend implied that he had found a fair balance between the interests of the federation and the Government's position.
  Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the arithmetic behind the issue may be complex, the principle behind it is terribly simple? In a nutshell, it is that an arrangement that has worked very well for 10 years is now being unilaterally abandoned because it appears to be working to the disadvantage of the Government.
  Sir John Wheeler: That is the difficulty of being the Government. [Interruption.] There is mirth on the Opposition Benches, for the quite obvious reason that the Opposition will never he in government. They will never need to make difficult decisions about the use of taxpayers' money. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend has had to do. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was right to say that there is a problem, but that is why the Government must form a view and suggest what decision should be taken by the House.
  The figures that I have given tonight and the costs that have arisen in some parts of the country have been so high that the Government have a duty to consider where the emphasis should be placed in public expenditure. It is for that reason that I shall support my right hon. and learned Friend in the Lobby tonight.
  12.15 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Home Secretary is good at correcting his parliamentary colleagues if they fall into error. I hope that he will interrupt and correct me if I am wrong when I ask him three questions. How much money will the Government save by the set-aside of the arbitration award? More precisely, what would have been the total cost of the scheme if they had gone along with the arbitration award and what will the present scheme cost?
  I realise that there may be difficulties with the notional valuation of housing. If I asserted that the savings will be between £80 million and £100 million, would I be wrong? The Home Secretary and his advisers must have some sort of figure.
  Mr. Waddington: I think that it is less than that for the first year, but that is not the point. I cannot begin to calculate what the additional cost would be, year on year on year, if we were to go down the path recommended by the police negotiating board. I believe that the initial saving will be more like £50 million than £80 million or £100 million, but it is still quite a lot of money. It is £50 million that comes out of total police provision, and therefore means less money to be spent on equipment and so on.
  Mr. Dalyell: Many policemen will think that they are being done out of £50 million-plus—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us what he really thinks about it.
  Mr. Waddington: I made a long speech saying what I thought about it. I said that there had been enormous increases in rent allowances. I quoted the two instances of a 59 per cent. increase in the Metropolitan police rent allowances last year and a 67 per cent. increase in the Warwickshire police rent allowance. I do not think that it is unfair to red-circle officers so that those serving before 31 March lose nothing in cash, but we end the system of bizarre increases that bear no relationship to the true increase in the cost of running a house.
  Mr. Dalyell: Many of our police constituents will say that that is all very well, but in scarcely any other job, in anything like the same way, are people ordered to change house at short notice. That point was made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I want a detailed reply to be made to the Police Federation grievance.
  You asked for short speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a Scottish point—the question of community police officers in rural areas. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) knows the problem in many parts of Scotland. People must live in police houses, to which are attached police officers, so that they can do their job. They will not receive the allowance. They have a much more limited temporary arrangement. By accepting the requirement and living in tied accommodation, they put themselves at a disadvantage anyway because they are not acquiring capital in a house of their own. They are to be subject to a further disadvantage in that they will have no rate allowance now that the poll tax has replaced the rates. Those officers are almost invariably married because it is normally regarded as essential to have a married man in such a post.
  That is a genuine problem in many parts of Scotland. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will agree that as we Scots are a year more advanced with the poll tax than people in England, extra urgency is added to the problem.
  Finally, the Scottish Office brief states that the Secretary of State
  "noted that as a direct result of the draft regulations, over 80 per cent. of Scottish Police officers receiving rent allowance would now receive lump-sum back-dated payments to reflect the outcome of the reviews which his decision would make possible. He further noted that these lump-sum back-dated payments would be in addition to the back-dated payments Scottish officers had received a month or so ago when the rates element of rent allowance had been restored to Scottish officers."
  What advice has the Home Secretary received from his Scottish Office colleagues on the adequacy or otherwise of the lump-sum payments, because there have been some pretty bitter complaints about their size?
  Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall leave it at that.
  12.21 am
  Sir Bernard Braine: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I must declare an interest. For the past quarter of a century, I have advised the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales. If I have not spoken in recent years in the House on police matters, that has been largely because, since the

  143
  advent of the present Government and the Edmund-Davies award, the police have been treated fairly. That was their view and the view of the Police Superintendents Association until my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to set aside the recommendation of the police negotiating board on housing rent allowance. I am saddened by that and must report that I have received more angry letters from police officers since that decision was made public than in all my 40 years in the House. I know that I share that experience with many right hon. and hon. Members.
  In defence of all this, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) says that the police are well paid. The view of the Police Superintendents Association, the rank and file of the police service and, I should have thought, most people in this country is that the police deserve to be well paid. After all, they are paid what Edmund-Davies recommended. Broadly speaking, they have preserved what they gained then, but we should not underestimate their feeling that they have now been sadly let down.
  It is true that before 1979 police morale was very low, but that has not been so in recent years. However, since 1979 crime has increased by more than one third; the police work load has increased substantially and its scope has been widened by legislation passed by the House. Every aspect of police work has increased during that time. We have seen the emergence of lager louts, acid house parties, public order problems and racial tensions. The number of people arrested and prosecuted has substantially increased. In addition, the police have been expecred to safeguard public services in disputes. I refer to what happened in the miners' strike and in the ambulance and fire brigade disputes. Huge new burdens have been placed on the police in recent years.
  A price must be paid for these extra burdens and risks. The reports of the police convalescent homes in Goring and Harrogate reveal the increased risk. Goring is new but needs to be extended, and Harrogate was extended but needs to be extended further to cope with the increasing flow of officers injured while protecting the public.
  Last year, sickness caused by violent assaults on officers outside the London area alone equalled about 190 years. The biggest factors are stress and incidents leading to injuries, all of which can have a lasting effect on officers and their families. None of that has yet been properly assessed.
  Today the police service faces increasing criticism, yet never have the education and professionalism of officers been higher. They are necessary because the nature of society is changing, in some respects for the worse. Assaults on children and young people, domestic violence, football violence and racial tension have increased in the past 10 years, involving the police in an increasingly complex world of multi-agency approaches, case conferences, studies and detailed specialism.
  It follows that in a period of increasing work, public pressure and risk, the police are entitled to ask to be fairly treated. After all, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, they are forbidden by law on pain of imprisonment from taking industrial action. After the bitter disputes of the 1970s, the
  144
  Edmund-Davies inquiry set up the police negotiating board as a means of providing a fair way to resolve pay and allowances.
  It is true that Edmund-Davies's awards are not set in tablets of stone for ever, but the police are entitled to ask that those who seek to make material changes in police remuneration should place their arguments before independent arbitration and, subject to national emergencies, accept the result of that arbitration.
  In this instance, the arbitration award, made by responsible and credible people, did not wholly favour the police. They set out the position clearly in their report:
  "We have felt it necessary to set out these principles at some length for two reasons. There is a tendency for each side to cling to familiar aspects of the older arrangements that they feel advantageous without weighing the compensatory gains. But most important is the fact that any inclination to pick and choose between the individual changes that we have suggested is likely to destroy, to the advantage of one side or the other, the fairness of the solution…which we believe takes account of the need not to add to the expense of the police service and is based on clear and sensible principles."
  The arbitration award in itself and the police negotiating board agreement which followed made substantial savings in the police budget. The Home Office was not satisfied with that, so went much further and set aside many important provisions in the agreement which, I am advised, detracted from the fairness of the award. The police budget had been reduced by several millions, but as a result the excellent relationship built up between the staff association and the Home Office since the Edmund-Davies inquiry was undermined.
  The real issue that we are debating, however, is not one of saving money, but the unfair way in which the Home Secretary's discretion has been used to overturn an agreement of the PNB, ignoring the special machinery set up precisely because the police are debarred from taking industrial action. I am worried at the way in which this decision ignores the implications for the future. I refer specifically to the police superintendents, who are the senior officers in the field responsible for the discipline and morale of other ranks. They are filled with concern that there are now fewer superintendents, who are the salt of the earth, confronted by increasing problems and a much higher work load.
  Before Edmund-Davies, the police service as a whole, was unhappy. I have a vivid recollection of that unhappiness. Since Edmund-Davies, police superintendents have been busy seeking to improve service to the public and standards of education and professionalism. They are not primarily concerned with money, and acknowledge that the Home Office has, in the short term, preserved the remuneration of long-serving officers approaching retirement. They are concerned not about themselves but about the future of the service and the confidence that it has in its negotiating machinery.
  That is why police superintendents are unhappy at the way in which arbitration has been treated. They fully accept that in times of grave national importance the service must take second place. But the public, and bodies such as the Association of County Councils and the police negotiating board have the right to ask what reasons of "grave national importance" arise in this case. If none exists and the Home Office is simply unhappy about part of an uprating system, in my view and that of police

  145
  superintendents it should have dealt with the matter fairly and constitutionally, by referring it back to the police negotiating board.
  I do not deny that concessions were made as a consequence of the approach by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the Police Federation, but I am unhappy at the way that the issue has been handled since. I am uneasy therefore about the future of the police service in the present social climate, and suggest that the House should be, too. It is a serious matter to overturn an arbitration award, and I do not think that in this case it was justified. Therefore, I am in full sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and find that I cannot go into the Lobby in support of the Government.
  12.32 am
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the few moments left before the closing speeches from both Front Benches, I will not rehearse the technical arguments that have been made in this interesting debate. I speak on behalf not only of the Scottish National party but also of Plaid Cymru, which are united on this issue and speak with one voice in expressing a view that they share. A matter of principle is at stake, and Conservative Members have clearly expressed their dissent, as have right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House.
  When the Home Secretary addressed the Police Federation conference in Scarborough and made it clear that he did not intend to change the regulations, he expressed his hope that, after this debate,
  "we'll draw a line under it and move on to other things."
  The Home Secretary cannot dismiss so easily the events of the past months. A line cannot be drawn under such a major issue. It is not a matter of wiping the slate clean just like that. The Home Office handling of the matter has done great damage to the morale, commitment and confidence of police forces the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
  The police representatives negotiated in good faith for many months, believing that the principles enshrined in the Edmund-Davies package would be upheld and honoured. What has been appalling is that Ministers, who asked that trade unionists observe democratically agreed procedures in negotiations and arbitration, throw those procedures out of the window when it suits them. It was clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) that he did not think that this issue involves principle. I believe that he demonstrated the Government's lack of principle on the issue and he showed that the dead hand of the Treasury is steering through these regulations.
  What has happened is wrong in principle and outrageous in practice. We have still not heard a clear answer about the grave national importance that has led the Government to alter their view of the arbitration tribunal.
  We seem to expect our police officers to observe matters of national importance in the course of their lives. The men and women of the Scottish police force trawled the hills and fields around Lockerbie after the air disaster. They are the men and women who have to deal with drug addicts and criminals in our society. We expect them to turn out on matters of national importance. No doubt many of them are working tonight, not far from here, on the explosion in London. If they observe national importance,
  146
  surely they deserve respect and honour from the Government, who should observe the regulations as they were first agreed.
  These events have ridiculed the staff side negotiations, have treated the negotiation machinery with contempt, have ignored Lord Edmund-Davies and Professor Sir John Wood, and have demoralised police forces. That is a terrible indictment of the Government's attitude to men and women who deserve our respect.
  12.36 am
  Mr. John Greenway: Rather uniquely, I have experienced police matters at first hand at three different levels. As the House knows, I served as a police officer in the west end of London. I have also served as a police authority vice-chairman and here in Parliament as a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, when there is an opportunity to study policing matters in considerable detail.
  I am sure that the House will accept that that allows me to consider the issue that we are debating tonight from three distinctive perspectives. How do the police see the new regulations? Understandably, they are upset and deeply angry at the Home Secretary's decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) articulated that anger in his speech. However, I ask police officers to accept that many Conservative Members supported the representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge made to the Home Secretary, and that we were glad about the improvements that my right hon. and learned Friend made. I take the view that he has gone as far as he can to satisfy policemen and women on the matter.
  The five years that I served as a policeman in London coincided with the Labour Government of 1964–70. Morale was not good. I was partly attracted by pay levels into the police force in 1965, and it seemed to me that those levels had been eroded by the time I left in 1970. My most vivid recollection was the lack of support that we police officers felt we had in the aftermath of the two Grosvenor square riots, outside the American embassy, in 1967 and 1968. That is all history, but it provides an insight into how police officers feel when there is a Grunwick, a miner's strike, a Wapping, or a Trafalgar square. I think that all serving policemen know that the Government have sincerely supported their efforts in the public disturbances that have taken place in recent years.
  Happily, my experience as vice-chairman of the North Yorkshire police authority is much more recent, and I have discussed the issue at length with my chief constable and my chairman. They expressed three major concerns: morale, mobility and finance. Morale was boosted recently by the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) when he was Home Secretary to appoint an extra 40 police officers over two years. We asked for 50 in North Yorkshire. We did very well to get an additional 40. It boosted morale.
  Morale has been adversely affected by the decision on housing allowance. It would be wrong to suggest otherwise. We must be careful to stress the clear Government commitment to honour Edmund-Davies on pay. The Government's support for the police speaks for itself.
  Mr. Allason: When my hon. Friend met the chief constable, did the chief constable reflect the views of Mr.

  147
  James Anderton, who pointed out that the tribunal reached its conclusions on 18 December 1989, that the Home Office received the recommendations on 21 December 1989 and that the Home Office managed, in record time, by 4 January 1990, to produce 20 pages of draft regulations? The view of many chief police officers is that, far from honouring the Edmund-Davies formula, the Home Office set out from the beginning deliberately to delay implementation of the arbitration recommendation and had no intention of agreeing to it.
  Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his intervention. I cannot answer the point. The chief constable did not articulate that to me, but he did articulate other matters that I am about to address.
  I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to recognise the problem of mobility in rural police forces. In North Yorkshire we require all new recruits to serve for the first seven years in a rural beat house. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend is right to reject the payment of an allowance and the payment of rent. It would lead to all sorts of difficulties. However, in due course we should like those officers to move out of that accommodation and to buy their own home. Thereafter, the housing allowance must be adequate to allow recruits to do that. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to keep an open mind as to future needs.
  My chief constable and chairman also discussed finance. It is a concern that manpower costs represent such a large slice of the police budget—at present 80 per cent. Community charge payers have to meet 30 per cent., whatever the police bill may be. Members of police authorities, who are also county councillors, have responsibility for other priorities: education, teachers' pay, and social services, which all place heavy demands on resources, too. The debate would not be about housing allowances if police authorities had the opportunity to choose the issue. Instead it might be about capital spending plans. We cannot ignore the urgent need to make a thorough reappraisal of police buildings and accommodation, including the fabric of many police houses, training facilities, the need for new computer technology and communications equipment.
  That leads to my experience of the current work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. All our inquiries point one way. For 11 years the Government have given top priority—rightly, in my view—to the recruitment and pay of our police officers. The priority now must be to give that manpower the tools with which to do the job. My right hon. and learned Friend supports that view. It was his recognition of the need to reorder priorities that led him to take this difficult decision. It is no more easy for Conservative Members who support the police to support that difficult decision, but I do so in recognition of three facts.
  First, we have the best-paid police force in Europe. We now want to have the best-equipped police force in Europe. The Government have the responsibility for ensuring that proper priority is given to all the needs of the police service. This decision I take to be part of that process. Secondly, I invite the police to see the Opposition motions for what they are: cynical opportunism.
  Thirdly, and above all, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I recognise that although a decision has been taken
  148
  that has damaged the relationship between the Conservative party and the police service, the Conservative Government have given the police every support over the past 11 years. We now ask the police service to support us, to understand why the decision was taken, to understand what is being done, to understand that the Edmund-Davies pay commitment will continue to be honoured and to understand that a highly motivated, well-trained and properly equipped force must be, and will continue to be, a high priority for this and the next Conservative Government.
  12.45 am
  Mr. Donald Dewar: We have been dealing with what could fairly be described as a matter of byzantine details. We have been faced with a complex mass of convention and precedent. We have a system which no one would have designed and which has grown over the years. It has had the great virtues of maintaining the confidence of the police force and offering stability. It is, above all, a system that has worked.
  The system has been the subject of a major review. A series of difficulties have been compounded, as in so many other areas of our life, by the introduction of the poll tax. If there is one thing on which there is unanimity in the House, it is that the police are unhappy. There is common ground between those who are unfavourably disposed to the actions of the Home Secretary and those who are bravely supporting him because of party loyalty.
  The House will not be surprised to know that in Scotland, as elsewhere, the unhappiness of the police is directly reflected. The reasons for the unhappiness have been made clear during the debate. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who declared his special interest, carefully documented the reasons for the unhappiness. There were moments when perhaps he documented it too carefully, but I take the points he made and recognise their substance. Undoubtedly anomalies are appearing in the system as a result of the repudiation of the arbitration award, and these will cause much bitterness and unhappiness.
  The Home Secretary sounded peculiarly unhappy and unconvincing when dealing with the problems of the Housing allowance and the anomalies between different forces. Comparisons have been made between those which uprated in 1988 and those which did so in 1989. The right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened more than once to tell us that inevitably there were differences, and that those differences have always existed because housing circumstances varied throughout the country. That is true, but differences are now being introduced that are the result of a different method of calculation. That will lead to great unhappiness and deep resentment.
  That point was made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) when he expressed his worry about the contrast between Dorset and Hampshire. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) talked about the impact on the force in the country of which he represents part and the number of police officers who are trying to transfer to other forces. Despite the interim or halfway stage that the Home Secretary produced under pressure, there remains a major anomaly. That is the difference between £26.5 million and £55 million, the first

  149
  sum being the cost of the present scheme and protection and the second figure being the cost of eliminating all the anomalies that have been created.
  We must recognise the problem faced by police officers who are buying their own homes. We are told that the rent allowance will be uprated by 16 per cent. over two years, but there was plenty of testimony by Conservative Members to the unhappiness that exists and the substantial differentials that will continue to prevail.
  We have heard about the red-circling of rent allowances and mark-time protected incomes under the new system. These devices will not solve the problems or take the edge off the discontent. In a different context, and perhaps at a different financial level, I think of the last occasion when I, as a constituency Member, had to deal with a large number of people who had mark-time protected incomes. These people had been on supplementary benefit and they found themselves with a protected level of benefit as they faced transition to income support. In the first year of transition, many of them said that it was fine. They did not notice any difference. The noticed a difference in the next year and the following year when upratings were introduced and they realised that they would not get a penny piece. The new system bit, and it bit hard. That will be the impact and the effect on the police force in years ahead.
  I had the impression that even those Conservative Members who were trying to be loyal were distinctly nervous about the prospects. I respect the special authority of the speech by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). He was not representing a particular interest but has served as a police officer. He was particularly unhappy about what he recognised as the damage that was being done to the relationship between the Government of the day and the police force. I do not like that happening. I do not worry so much about relationships within the Tory party, but I accept that there is a problem when the police force loses confidence, in the government of the day, or that confidence is damaged. That is bad for morale, which should concern us all.
  The hon. Gentleman argued that police officers were angry, but he went on to say that the Government had done everything they reasonably could, leaving us with the implication that the anger was therefore unreasonable. I do not believe that, in his heart of hearts, the hon. Gentleman believes that, or that any of his former colleagues in the force would feel that they were being unreasonable, even after listening to his arguments.
  The anger has been compounded by a sense of outrage over a breach of principle. The arbitration award has been overturned, according to the Secretary of State for Scotland's correspondence with me a month or two ago, "after careful consideration". He told us that it was not done lightly. That is a doubtful plea in mitigation. It suggests that the Secretary of State knew what he was about; it was a premeditated act committed with malice aforethought.
  Some of his arguments appear deplorably lightweight. His letter to me dated 12 February displays a curious air of unreality. For example, he made the point that those who live in police authority housing would have had to pay rent and that the rent might have been higher than the allowances. That may be so, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say, quaintly in view of all the Government's rhetoric over the past few years, that if they paid rent they would have a right to buy and that would
  150
  be unthinkable because it would have adverse operational consequences for housing stock. Having been deaved by the Secretary of State for Scotland for some five years about the essential virtues of selling off every piece of public sector housing stock that could possibly be put on the market, that seems to me to be a perverse argument.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman then discussed what index should be used to calculate the housing allowance. I understand that, if one uses capital values and the housing element in the retail prices index, one may end up with a significantly higher figure, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, that was carefully considered by the arbitration machinery, which concluded that it was right to do so. I find it remarkable that the Secretary of State for Scotland should lecture me on the fact that the RPI includes mortgage costs and therefore is suitable. I hope that he will have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and persuade him that mortgage costs should remain within the RPI.
  However, my central objection concerns the nature of the arbitration. Arbitration is effective and carries long-term confidence only if it is binding on both sides. It does not need to be formally and legally binding, but it has to be an undertaking of honour and an agreement by which both sides will stand if it is to mean anything.
  No doubt Mr. Justice Edmund-Davies produced a much-admired and extremely useful report, but in some ways he was lamentably naive. He said that there was no need to make it legally binding because the actions of the Secretary of State were accountable to Parliament, so no further control was necessary. I do not know whether he envisaged that we would be debating these matters at 1 o'clock in the morning with no chance to amend or debate them in any detail or principle. He went on to give that famous pledge that in his view arbitration should be overruled
  "only for reasons of the utmost national importance".
  The outstanding feature of the debate was that the Secretary of State argued good housekeeping, pleaded poverty and argued about the common sense and the nuts and bolts of a complicated system, but he made no attempt to argue that, in his decision, there were reasons of the utmost national importance. He might have said that he had to overrule arbitration because the general mismanagement of the economy made it impossible to afford the arbitration award, but for some reason he did not advance perhaps his most plausible argument.
  The truth is that he is embarked on a course of action that will damage police morale, at a time when we wish to improve and not to undermine it. Having failed to win the argument in the police negotiating board and having faild to carry the police arbitration tribunal, he has decided to take the law into his own hands. I am not trying to argue—I repeat the distinction made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook—that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing is illegal, but I repeat that it is an act of doubtful morality, given the expectation arid relationship of trust that has marked the machinery set up by Mr. Justice Edmund-Davies over the past 11 years.
  The Secretary of State said that that argument was the usual waffle and that it was complete balderdash. But then he rather betrayed himself, because he said that it was all a matter of honour. It is a matter of honour, nothing to do with waffle, balderdash or illegality. Against that test, the

  151
  right hon. and learned Gentleman fails. In the end, sadly for him, "the utmost national importance" has been equated with the convenience of the Treasury.
  12.56 am
  Mr. Waddington: With the leave of the House, I should make a few points.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that I was wrong because our decision was all about money. In part, he was right. It was essential that the Government chould consider the wider economic interests, because more in rent allowance inevitably means less on other police services. Every hon. Member knows perfectly well that representations are being made even now that there is not enough money for all the other expenses of running a police force, such as vehicles, equipment or machinery.
  It is not a serious indictment of the Government that we were concerned with the cost of the proposals put before us by the police negotiating board. It would have been thoroughly irresponsible if we had allowed such massive increases in rent allowance. In the first year, the amount involved may be described as relatively modest, but I cannot believe that any hon. Member believes that if the system as recommended by the police negotiating board had been put in place large sums of money would not have been involved over a period of years.
  Therefore, it was important that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should have made it abundantly plain that the Opposition are pledged to an increase in rent allowances, which would deprive police forces of substantial sums that undoubtedly are needed for other purposes. [Interruption.] If the Opposition do not intend to spend those funds on rent allowances when they could be used on other police services, the indictment against the right hon. Gentleman is all the more forceful. He is committing the Labour party to considerable extra public expenditure, but we have yet to hear where the money will be found.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was more than generous, and I am grateful to him. It is right that we had amicable discussions about how best to resolve the differences between the Government and the Police Federation. My hon. Friend acknowledged, fairly, that the Government were not unyielding and that, in two respects, we had listened to the representations of the Police Federation, heeded its comments and acted accordingly. I do not think that many people would seriously believe that we had not made a big move to get rid of the feeling of unfairness about officers who belong to forces that are uprated in even years compared with officers in forces that are uprated in odd years.
  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). The Government have made their commitment to the Edmund-Davies report, but there is criticism about capital spending plans in police forces. We must heed that argument and do our best to meet the representations made to us. The more we refuse to grasp this nettle, when housing allowances have run completely out of control, the less chance we have of meeting the serious objections that have been made to us on an entirely different front.
  152
  I do not understand the Opposition's point. They laughed when we said that if we had observed the recommendation of the police negotiating board, those who rented houses would have had the right to buy. They seem to suggest that they would have been happy for that to happen. I cannot understand it. If they think that the—
  It being three hours after proceedings on the motion had been entered upon, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to the Order [22 June].
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 293.

  Division No. 262]

  [9.37 pm

  AYES

  Allason, Rupert

  Gill, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, James

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Atkinson, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Baldry, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gow, Ian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gregory, Conal

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Benyon, W.

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Ground, Patrick

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hague, William

  Body, Sir Richard

  Harris, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayward, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hill, James

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Brazier, Julian

  Holt, Richard

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

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunter, Andrew

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Irvine, Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Jack, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Janman, Tim

  Cash, William

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

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

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Key, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Couchman, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Cran, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Curry, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Devlin, Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Dover, Den

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Durant, Tony

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Evennett, David

  Mans, Keith

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Maples, John

  Fearn, Ronald

  Marlow, Tony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Franks, Cecil

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Freeman, Roger

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Gardiner, George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  106

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Norris, Steve

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Page, Richard

  Stokes, Sir John

  Paice, James

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Sumberg, David

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Raffan, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Redwood, John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Riddick, Graham

  Walden, George

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wallace, James

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Ward, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rost, Peter

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wilshire, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Shersby, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Edward Leigh.

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Eastham, Ken

  Alexander, Richard

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Allen, Graham

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Alton, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Anderson, Donald

  Faulds, Andrew

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fisher, Mark

  Ashton, Joe

  Flannery, Martin

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Flynn, Paul

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Derek

  Beckett, Margaret

  Foulkes, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Galloway, George

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

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

  George, Bruce

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boateng, Paul

  Graham, Thomas

  Boyes, Roland

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caborn, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Carr, Michael

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Haynes, Frank

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clay, Bob

  Henderson, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Janner, Greville

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Kilfedder, James

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Knowles, Michael

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

  Lamond, James

  Dewar, Donald

  Latham, Michael

  Dixon, Don

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dobson, Frank

  Leighton, Ron

  Douglas, Dick

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  107

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Reid, Dr John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Richardson, Jo

  McCartney, Ian

  Robertson, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Short, Clare

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Michael, Alun

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Turner, Dennis

  Mullin, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Nellist, Dave

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  O'Brien, William

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, Brian

  Parry, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Worthington, Tony

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wray, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Randall, Stuart

  Mr. George Buckley and

  Redmond, Martin

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Division No. 263]

  [1.1 am

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Allason, Rupert

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Allen, Graham

  Fisher, Mark

  Alton, David

  Flannery, Martin

  Anderson, Donald

  Flynn, Paul

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Foster, Derek

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Foulkes, George

  Ashton, Joe

  Fraser, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Galloway, George

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Barron, Kevin

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bell, Stuart

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gould, Bryan

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

  Graham, Thomas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Blair, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Blunkett, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Boateng, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Hardy, Peter

  Boyes, Roland

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bradley, Keith

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Henderson, Doug

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Buckley, George J.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hood, Jimmy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Carr, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clay, Bob

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Coleman, Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kilfedder, James

  Corbett, Robin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cousins, Jim

  Lambie, David

  Cox, Tom

  Lamond, James

  Cryer, Bob

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cummings, John

  Leighton, Ron

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lewis, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Litherland, Robert

  Darling, Alistair

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  McAllion, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dixon, Don

  McCartney, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Doran, Frank

  McKelvey, William

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McLeish, Henry

  Eastham, Ken

  Maclennan, Robert

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Madden, Max

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  153

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Shersby, Michael

  Maxton, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Short, Clare

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Trimble, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Turner, Dennis

  Nellist, Dave

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, William

  Wallace, James

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Parry, Robert

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Patchett, Terry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wilson, Brian

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Redmond, Martin

  Worthington, Tony

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wray, Jimmy

  Reid, Dr John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Richardson, Jo

  Robertson, George

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  Sheerman, Barry

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Alexander, Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Chope, Christopher

  Amess, David

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

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Ashby, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Conway, Derek

  Atkins, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Atkinson, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cran, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Curry, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

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

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dover, Den

  Boswell, Tim

  Dunn, Bob

  Bottomley, Peter

  Durant, Tony

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bowis, John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Evennett, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Fallon, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Favell, Tony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

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

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Burns, Simon

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Burt, Alistair

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Butcher, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Forth, Eric

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Cash, William

  Franks, Cecil

  154

  Freeman, Roger

  Maples, John

  French, Douglas

  Marland, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gill, Christopher

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mellor, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gow, Ian

  Mills, Iain

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moate, Roger

  Grist, Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Ground, Patrick

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Grylls, Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hague, William

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Harris, David

  Needham, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hill, James

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Norris, Steve

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

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

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Page, Richard

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Paice, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Irvine, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Janman, Tim

  Portillo, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Price, Sir David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Key, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Redwood, John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Riddick, Graham

  Knowles, Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lang, Ian

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rost, Peter

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lightbown, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Lilley, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shelton, Sir William

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maclean, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Madel, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Keith

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  155

  Squire, Robin

  Viggers, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  Walden, George

  Stevens, Lewis

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Whitney, Ray

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Tredinnick, David

  Trippier, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad, and

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Question accordingly negatived.

CONTRACTS (APPLICABLE LAW) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) ( Second Reading Committees),
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With permission, I will put together the two motions relating to European Community documents.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committee on European Community documents).

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  ORGANIC FOOD
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10499/89, relating to the production and labelling of organic food; and supports the Government's aim of negotiating changes which take proper account of United Kingdom standards and practice in the production, certification and labelling of such food.

  POULTRYMEAT
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10438/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 7th March 1990, relating to marketing standards for poultrymeat; and supports the Government's aim of negotiating measures that take account of the interests of consumers and poultry producers in the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  Question agreed to.

  Post Office
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  1.13 am
  Mr. John Marshall: Since my success in the ballot, my argument has been strengthened by two events. First, yet another industrial dispute in north-west London has affected postal services; secondly, increases in postal charges have recently been announced.
  The sad, sorry saga of industrial relations in the postal service has given many of my constituents a deep sense of frustration. Only this morning, I received various letters: I shall quote, briefly, from two of them. One of my constituents asked:
  "Is there any means of making accountable to the public those responsible for the sporadic, sometimes prolonged, always disruptive and damaging postal strikes which bedevil north-west London, of which we are a part?"
  A second wrote:
  "I have lost count of the number of times I have been denied this most essential service for my profession recently. What sort of Government is it that cannot control a postal service, and discipline or dismiss the left-wing agitators who terrorise this district?"
  Those are two examples of constituents' complaints about the constant interruption of postal services suffered by the people of north-west London over many years.
  The second event—the Post Office's announcement of a series of increases in charges—underlines its weakness and inefficiency. I understand from the Post Office business plan, provided by the Mail Users Association—the Post Office was kind enough to give it to the association—that last year the inland letters service made a pre-interest loss of £37 million, and that the most profitable part of the postal service is interest-receivable. The international letters service made a profit of £41 million on sales of £331 million. In the letters business, 64 per cent. of pre-interest profit comes from 10 per cent. of turnover. Interest receivable in the year 1990–91 will be twice the profit from inland letters.
  My remarks are not aimed at the chairman of the Post Office, its board or its employers; I believe that the Post Office's problems are an inevitable consequence of nationalising a monopoly. It is no coincidence that the part of the Post Office that is relatively efficient—the parcels operation—is the part that has to operate in a competitive world. I congratulate the chairman of the Post Office on securing the freedom of Giro to prosper in the private sector, and on "divisionalising" the Post Office into Royal Mail, Post Office Counters Ltd. and the parcels service. Those three divisions are a privatiser's dream.
  The chairman has also performed a major public service by ensuring that the Post Office lives in the real world, instead of the world of make-believe statistics that dominated public comment on the subject for so long.
  Post Office Counters operates in a large number of prime sites, but suffers from several basic problems. First, there is a declining market. The 1987–88 report of the Post Office said that growth was in danger of petering out; certainly, Post Office Counters, basic business is providing pensions and child benefit, and in future many people will want to be paid by Giro rather than in straight cash. Secondly, Post Office Counters lacks the property expertise to redevelop the sites, and the present financial arrangements make it rather unnecessary for it to do so: if

  157
  it were to redevelop, the money would go straight back to the Treasury, and would not be reinvested within the business.
  When the Monopolies and Mergers Commission looked into Post Office Counters, it was critical of what it saw. It said that working practices and clerical procedures were outdated, that there was less than a full workload for the hours paid and that overtime was institutionalised and often unnecessary. As a result, Post Office Counters operates in many of the prime sites in our high streets, but its open for far fewer hours than many retailers. Apart from Post Office Counters, no other high street retailer shuts on Saturday afternoons. If Post Office Counters were privatised en bloc tomorrow, the result would be greatly beneficial to a large number of its employees and to its customers.
  There are many complaints about the cost and quality of postal services. Hon. Members know of the apocryphal evidence. During the Pete Murray programme last week, a listener telephoned to say that a card that he sent for Easter 1989 arrived just in time for Easter 1990. Another listener telephoned to say that a letter that was posted in March arrived elsewhere in London in mid-June. One of the prime cases was of a letter that went 15 miles during five days. At three miles a day, pigeon post would be somewhat more efficient.
  When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry examined the Post Office, it referred to the present deplorable performance of the first-class mail service. The Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) said that, over the years, the Post Office had not organised itself as effectively as it should.
  When the Consumers Association investigated the Post Office in September last year, it pointed out that the first-class mail service had deteriorated since 1985. Only 85 per cent. of first-class mail was delivered the next day, and only 53 per cent. of long-distance first-class mail was delivered the day after it was posted. That is a much poorer record than the Post Office aims at, and it underlines the difficulties with which the consumer must contend.
  It is not only first-class post that is a source of complaint for many consumers. The Which? survey found that a large amount of second-class mail was not arriving by the third working day after posting. The survey came to certain conclusions, one of which was to avoid posting first-class mail on Friday or Saturday because it has less chance of arriving on time. Of mail that is posted on Friday, only 50 per cent. would arrive on time.
  Not only Which? has shown how bad the first-class postal service is. The mail users survey of March 1989 showed that first-class and second-class mail services were quite inadequate. It estimated that the cost of postal delays to industry was £4 billion.
  Apart from postal services being unreliable and slow, a significant amount of post is now lost. The Mail Users Association has estimated that 5 per cent. of letters disappear. Regardless of whether we judge the postal service on the basis of price increases or reliability, it is inadequate.
  Post Office representatives have periodically referred to the difficulty that the service faces. They have so far failed to produce the goods. The 1978 Carter report concluded:
  "If the service becomes much worse than the public expects, it would become impossible to defend the monopoly against those who might offer a better service."
  158
  The Post Office has failed to deliver the goods at the speed that it promised. A competitive service would produce a better deal for the consumer.
  I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will make international comparisons. He will compare the British monopoly with the German monopoly. We do not want to say whether one monopoly is better than another—Conservative Members believe that all monopolies are inherently bad and inefficient—but we want to know whether a competitive service would not be better than a monopolistic service. The record of the Post Office in recent years demonstrates that a competitive environment would be better than the present environment. The conclusion can be only that the present position is unsatisfactory.
  On Saturday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that her enthusiasm for privatisation and greater competition for the state industries continues apace. My hon. Friend the Minister's belief in competition and the evils of monopolies was frequently demonstrated in Strasbourg and on the Back Benches of the House before he became a Minister. I look forward to his reiterating the speeches that he made before the burdens of office came on to his shoulders, where they sit so lightly.
  1.25 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on obtaining this debate this evening. I acknowledge the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) has been present during the debate, as have the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was here earlier. As ever, my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench are keeping a close eye on what I say and, I suspect, on how long I take to say it.
  This is an important subject, of interest to every citizen. It is one in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has shown a consistent and expert interest since he came to the House. As he is aware, the Post Office is not an ordinary nationalised industry. Whereas many of Britain's nationalised industries came into being only relatively recently, the Post Office's links with the Crown go back a long way. The Post Office has long been at the forefront of the development of global postal services. It is especially appropriate at this time to mention, as an example of that tradition of innovation, the introduction of the adhesive postage stamp and with it the universal delivery and single tarriff postal system, which were introduced in Britain by Rowland Hill 150 years ago and which are now taken for granted throughout the world.
  We should also remind ourselves that the Post Office is a very successful organisation. As my hon. Friend anticipated. I shall mention briefly—it is important to do so—that the quality of the letters service in this country is significantly higher than in most other European Community countries, Indeed, the Post Office recently announced that, according to a survey that it commissioned of the quality of the letters service in six European countries, including the United Kingdom, our Post Office now offers the best quality of service of all

  159
  those countries. In addition, I remind the House that, unlike many European postal administrations, the Post Office has throughout the past decade generated profits.
  We cannot expect an organisation as big as the Post Office to be without its difficulties and there are several areas in which we would all like improvements. I shall touch on some of those now, and in doing so I shall address the issues that my hon. Friend raised in his speech.
  While the Government do not have day-to-day responsibility for the quality of service in the Post Office—that is, of course, an operational matter for the Post Office—I and my colleagues are aware of how important that is to users of the Post Office's services. I say that bearing in mind the point, which my hon. Friend stressed, that the Post Office enjoys a statutory monopoly on the carriage of ordinary letters—a subject to which I shall briefly return later. The Post Office chairman has made it clear on a number of occasions that he regards improvements to the quality of service as a key priority, and I welcome that. I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute to the chairman and his colleagues, and I join him in that. They discharge a difficult task with great vigour and dedication.
  For some time, there has been a perception among mail users, including my hon. Friend, that the letters service is perhaps not as good as it should be. Indeed, judging from my hon. Friend's remarks tonight, he may well think that to be an understatement. I remind the House of the protracted national postal strike in September 1988. More recently, we have been faced, particularly the constituents of my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton, with the difficulties caused by the unofficial—I stress that they are unofficial—strikes in the north-west and west London letters districts. The Government consider that industrial relations, while primarily a matter for the Post Office, its employees and the trade unions, are something about which we share my hon. Friend's concern.
  I must repeat what I said to the House last week: every time unofficial industrial action is taken that prejudices the level of service offered by the Post Office, it strengthens the argument of those who would like to see radical change in the present status of the Post Office. I hope that Post Office employees will bear that in mind before taking such action.
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the number of days lost through industrial action in the year to March 1990 was 20 per cent. lower than the corresponding figure for the previous year, even when the effects of the national stoppage in September 1988 are taken out. I look forward to seeing that improvement maintained in future.
  Recruitment and retention have been a problem for Royal Mail recently, particularly in London and the south-east of England, and this too has inevitably had an effect on quality of service. I am glad to be able to say that Royal Mail is responding to this problem with imagination and vigour. Regional pay supplements in areas of difficult recruitment area now a well-established feature of Royal Mail's pay structure and their introduction has proved to be a significant benefit.
  Royal Mail has also taken a series of direct steps designed further to improve the quality of its services. During 1990, we have seen the reintroduction of Sunday
  160
  collections, and by the autumn that part of the programme will be complete. Improvements are being made to Royal Mail's transport network, which will enable mail to be moved around the country more quickly. The airborne network, which moves first-class mail around the country, has recently been strengthened by the addition of four new routes, and more mail is now being moved locally by road.
  In the sorting offices, state-of-the-art optical character recognition sorting machines which can read typewritten postcodes are being introduced. In addition, we have seen the introduction of the sale of postage stamps through about 40,000 retail outlets throughout the country, and I know what a popular measure it has proved to be.
  Complementing those developments, the Post Office introduced for the first time last year an end-to-end quality of service measurement system which measures the quality of the letter service as the customer sees it. At the same time, the Post Office made a public commitment—agreed with the Post Office Users National Council—to improve the quality of the first-class letter service on average by 3 per cent. during the year to the end of March 1990. I understand that, while problem areas still remain—they were highlighted by my hon. Friend—this overall target was slightly exceeded. According to the Post Office's statistics, compiled for it by independent consultants, nationally, 78.1 per cent. of first-class letters were delivered the next day during the year to the end of March 1990 compared with 75.4 per cent. in the previous year.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating the Post Office on this improvement and in encouraging it to continue to work for further improvements. On this point, I welcome the announcement last week that the Post Office has agreed with the Post Office Users National Council a further set of district-by-district quality of service improvement targets for first-class mail for this year of an average of 3 per cent.
  I am pleased to say that the improvements that I have outlined are not confined to Royal Mail. Hon. Members will have noticed the relaunch of the Post Office's parcels business under the name Parcelforce. Considerable investment is being made in Parcelforce to enable it to meet the needs of its customers. Hon. Members will be aware that Parcelforce has no monopoly protection—my hon. Friend mentioned this—and has to compete for its share of what has become a very competitive market.
  Overall, these developments represent a considerable investment package. In this year's public expenditure White Paper it was announced that the Post Office was planning to spend more than £1 billion over the next three years, about 60 per cent. of which will be spent in Royal Mail. The total planned capital expenditure of around £350 million this year is more than twice as much as was spent in 1987–88.
  It is my belief, and I hope that the House will agree, that the package of measures that I have described provides encouraging evidence of the determination of Royal Mail, and of the Post Office as a whole, to meet the needs of its customers by improving the quality of service it offers them. These improvements do not, however, come free of charge. In order to help to fund the major programme of investment that I mentioned a few moments ago—as my hon. Friend acknowledged, or rather criticised—the Post Office has recently consulted the Post Office Users National Council about a proposal to increase the first and second-class letter tariffs by 2p in September. Although none of us welcomes such price increases, we must

  161
  recognise that they are needed to fund improvements in quality of service and even after the increases, stamp prices will have risen by considerably less than inflation over the past five years.
  I know that there are some, however, like my hon. Friend, who feel that the only way to have a Post Office which is efficient and genuinely responsive to consumers' needs is to subject it to full competition. That was the burden of my hon. Friend's argument. He wanted to abolish its statutory monopoly for the conveyance of letters or to subject it to market disciplines by other means, such as privatisation.
  I should say immediately about the monopoly of letter services in general, that the Government attach great importance to the continuation of a letter service which enables letters to be sent from anywhere to anywhere in the United Kingdom at the same reasonable tariff rate. In particular, we fully recognise the significance of such a facility for those living in isolated communities or wishing to communicate with them.
  Post Office services throughout the world have traditionally been afforded the protection of a mail monopoly to help them to achieve the twin objectives of universal delivery at a uniform, affordable price. The extent of the letter monopoly varies from country to country, but it may be worth repeating the classic economic arguments for having one.
  Other things being equal, there must be scale economies in letter conveyance, particularly in final delivery. It generally costs no more to empty a letter box containing 50 letters than one containing 100. If a postman must walk down one's garden path or climb the stairs to one's flat to deliver one letter, it will generally cost little more for him to do so with three. Consequently, removing letter traffic from the Post Office might not allow it to reduce its costs proportionately, and the average cost of conveying the letters remaining with the Post Office would tend to increase. The result would be either higher stamp charges or a bill for the taxpayer. Neither alternative is attractive. The consequences for the Post Office's costs would be exacerbated by the fact that anyone entering the letter market without obligations would naturally take the lower-cost traffic first.
  Arguments about the monopoly are not all one way. We know from experience that the letter monopoly is certainly no panacea. It denies the consumer choice and represses innovation in the development of new types of service. It also protects the Post Office from outside influence, shelters it from the financial consequences of perhaps less-than-perfect organisation and productivity, and prevents direct external comparisons from being made.
  It is worth remembering that the Post Office is already subject to some competition. The letter monopoly in the United Kingdom does not extend to letters for which less than £1 is charged. That allows competition for time-critical and value-added mail. There is no monopoly in the delivery of parcels.
  Nonetheless, there is no doubt that increased direct competition in the letter market would be beneficial and that some of the financial pressures resulting from any loss of scale economies, or "cream skimming" as it is known, of low-cost traffic could be balanced, or perhaps exceeded, through improved Post Office efficiency. The challenge is to determine the manner in which and the degree to which competition should be introduced so that its benefits can
  162
  be realised, while allowing the Post Office to continue to fulfil its obligations at a reasonable cost to its customers. Therefore, as the Government have made clear on many occasions, we keep and will continue to keep the options for introducing further competition under review to ensure that the needs of customers throughout the United Kingdom are met as fully as possible.
  My hon. Friend mentioned counters. The Post Office operates the largest retail network in the country. It has over 20,000 post offices throughout the United Kingdom—considerably more outlets than any bank or building society and more per head of population than in France, Germany, Japan or the United States of America. That means that, in the United Kingdom, post offices are easily accessible to all but those in the remotest areas. In urban areas, the aim is to have offices distributed so that no one is more than a mile from a post office, and in rural areas no more than two miles.
  Only a small proportion of offices—some 1,300 out of over 20,000—are directly owned and operated by Post Office Counters. The vast majority of offices, about 19,300, are already sub-post offices, run under contract to Post Office Counters Ltd. by self-employed sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. That arrangement benefits both parties. The post office brings in regular customers to buy stamps, post parcels and collect benefits and pensions, providing potential customers for the sub-postmaster or mistress's private business. Overheads are shared between the two busineses. Sub and agency offices can therefore have significant advantages over directly run Crown offices.
  In rural areas particularly, post offices also serve an important social function in their local communities. That was clearly recognised in the Act establishing the Post Office as a public corporation, which imposes on the Post Office a statutory duty to have regard to the social as well as industrial and commercial needs of the United Kingdom in exercising its powers. Because of that, changes in the network require careful consultation with the local community and the Post Office Users National Council as representatives of the customer.
  In 1988, Post Office Counters began the process of restructuring its network, which I hope my hon. Friend welcomed, both to give a more cost-effective service and, like any retail network, to respond to movements in population and variations in shopping habits. As part of that process, it has converted about 170 Crown post offices, mostly smaller ones, to agencies. The Post Office is continuing that process. It has completed consultations on some 290 proposed conversions and begun consultations on a further 40. I shall be pressing it to move ahead with the process as quickly as possible.
  Before concluding, I will mention one topic of increasing importance to the Post Office and to private sector mail operators—developments in the European Community in the context of the single market. Towards the end of the year, the European Commission plans to publish a Green Paper on Community postal policy, which will be considered by the Council of Ministers before a period of public consultation, which is likely to continue into 1991. Once the consultative process has been completed, it will be for the Council of Ministers to decide on any changes that the Community may introduce.
  The Commission, with the help of a senior officials group, has been collecting information and views from member states for several months. It is too early to

  163
  speculate on its final proposals, but the United Kingdom takes the view that those who live in the Community should have access to a basic letter service at an affordable tariff—but beyond that, it believes that the Post Office should be subject to maximum competitive pressures. We believe that there is an important role for competition to play in increasing efficiency and improving services to the customer.
  I have tried to do justice to the points raised by my hon. Friend. I hope that he accepts the balance of the
  164
  arguments that we see—acknowledging the improvements that the Post Office has made to its services and looking forward to yet further improvements, while being sensitive to the needs of my hon. Friend's constituents and their natural desire to see an improvement in Post Office services. I hope also that my hon. Friend and the House recognise the continuing efforts being made by the Post Office's management and employees to do justice to the confidence shown in them by the House, the Government, and users of post office services throughout the land.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Two o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Archbishop of Canterbury
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what finance has been made available by the Commissioners for the administration of the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the current financial year.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners have paid the stipend of the archbishop and met the costs of his supporting staff and their equipment.

  Ordination of Women
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many priests he expects to be paid redundancy and severance payments in the event of women being ordained in the Church of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  No authoritative projections exist of the numbers of priests likely to leave the Church of England in the event of women being ordained to the priesthood.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Neill Joseph Patterson
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he has anything to add to his answer of 19 December 1988,Official Report, column 92, to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), on the result of the trial of Neill Joseph Patterson.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. The three extraterritorial offences for which Patterson was prosecuted were not tried before a jury. The offences were charged as alternatives to offences allegedly committed in Northern Ireland. As Patterson was convicted of the offences allegedly committed in Northern Ireland the judge did not return a verdict on the extraterritorial offences and ordered them to lie on the file. The result of the trial should therefore read—"No verdict returned; left on file." I regret the inadvertent mistake in the answer.

  Criminal Law Jurisdiction
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he has anything to add to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 280, to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) concerning offences allegedly committed in the United Kingdom.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. At the time of my reply the Irish authorities had indicated that the offences alleged against John Brendan Brady were committed in Northern 2
  Ireland. However, they have subsequently reported that the offences were committed in the Republic of Ireland, albeit with the intention that offences should be committed in Northern Ireland. I understand that the confusion arose because the offences were charged contrary to provisions of Irish legislation, as amended by the Irish Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 (CLJA). Whilst the offences could not have been prosecuted but for the amendments to Irish law effected by the CLJA, the prosecution was not an extraterritoral prosecution under that Act.

  Mrs. Hanif Bibi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General when the appeal of Mrs. Hanif Bibi, TH/9473/88, is to be heard by the immigration tribunal; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The appeal of Mrs. Hanif Bibi is to be heard on 26 June 1990.

  Mr. Zabur Khan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General when the immigration tribunal is to issue its determination in the case of Mr. Zabur Khan, TH/13322/88; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The determination was issued to Mr. Zabur Khan's representatives in the United Kingdom on 21 June 1990.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Poland
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount of bilateral and EC aid received by Poland from the United Kingdom in 1988.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Poland received no bilateral aid nor EC attributed aid from the United Kingdom in 1988.

  Mekong River Project
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Nations commission for the Mekong river project or any of its subsidiary bodies last met; what plans are currently in hand for the furtherance of the programme; and what contribution Her Majesty's Government expect to make to the solving of any problems that are preventing its progress.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The last meeting of a Mekong commission body was held by the interim Mekong committee from 24 to 27 April 1990. An extensive work programme has been drawn up by the secretariat including some 70 projects planned for implementation in the period 1990–92. These are divided into three main areas: basin planning, data collection and information systems, and resources development.

  The British Government already contribute to the cost of various research studies and we have indicated our willingness to consider support to other activities. This could include assistance, with other donors, for a further phase of the water balance study once all members of the committee have agreed the way forward.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much food aid has been provided to Ethiopia by the EC and member states since July 1989.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Detailed information is readily available only for the period since 1 November 1989. This indicates that at least 370,000 tonnes of food aid, worth some £70 million, has been provided or pledged by the Community and its member states in this period for the benefit of the people of northern Ethiopia.

  Guyana
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid has been given to Guyana, and to what projects, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Financial aid to Guyana in project form was suspended in 1983 because of defaults on the

  £ '000s

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Project

  1. Essequibo sea defences

  319

  1,188

  686

  412

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2. Tapakuma irrigation

  847

  397

  629

  757

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3. Dredging equipment

  323

  152

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4. Plant and vehicle

  15

  —

  13

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Programme

  1 Agricultural spares

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  733

  2. Fuel oil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,942

  Technical co-operation

  852

  738

  396

  382

  378

  354

  487

  635

  521

  986

  TOTAL

  2,356

  2,475

  1,724

  1,555

  419

  354

  487

  635

  521

  6,661

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the European Community Council of Development Ministers discussed aid to Namibia at the meeting on 29 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 18 June at column 392.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the European Community has to grant a beef quota to Namibia under the Lomé agreement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have not yet received the Commission's proposals for Lomé accession arrangements for Namibia. The United Kingdom will support generous terms of accession for Namibia to the Lomé convention. We will give sympathetic consideration to any proposal for a Namibian beef quota.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Reserved Matters
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will introduce measures to ensure that applications for approval of reserved matters are published for consideration by interested parties.
  4
  repayment of development loans. Financial aid was resumed in 1989 in support of Guyana's economic recovery programme, but in the form of balance of payments support, a grant of £13·7 million being signed for this purpose in June 1989. The technical co-operation programme has continued throughout.

  In addition, a bridging loan was agreed, also in June 1989, for the purpose of helping Guyana to clear its arrears to international financial institutions which had led to suggestion of assistance from the institutions concerned. The loan—US$ 10·5 million—was activated on 19 June this year and with bridging finance from other donors and the Bank for International Settlements, has resulted in the clearance of the arrears in question. The World bank and the IMF will shortly be meeting to consider finance for the programme of economic adjustment on which Guyana has embarked.

  Expenditure figures for 1980–89 are as follows:

  Mr. Needham
  I have no plans to change the measures which already exist. Applications for reserved matters are advertised if the proposals have created particular interest at outline stage or where objectors have so requested.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to produce for Northern Ireland the information contained in tables in the answers to the hon. Member for Stretford of 24 April,Official Report, columns 177–82 and 185–86, and to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) of 14 March, Official Report, columns 251–56, on wages councils.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is given in the tables. There were no prosecutions in Northern Ireland in 1989 under the Wages (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

  Table 1

  Establishments covered by wages councils on register at 1989

  Wages council

  Number of establishments

  Baking

  286

  Boot and shoe repairing

  94

  Catering

  4,404

  Clothing manufacturing

  140

  Laundry

  15

  Linen and cotton handkerchief and household goods and linen piece goods

  49

  Paper box

  15

  Road haulage

  1,927

  Sugar confectionery and food preserving

  21

  5

  Wages council

  Number of establishments

  Northern Ireland totals

  6,951

  Table 2

  Establishments checked and underpayments found in wages council trades—1989

  Wages Council

  Establishments checked by all methods

  Percentage of register checked

  Establishments checked by visit

  Percentage of register checked by visit

  Establishments found underpaying

  Percentage of all establishments checked underpaying

  Percentage of establishments visited underpaying

  Baking

  34

  11·9

  33

  11·5

  6

  17·6

  18·2

  Boot and Shoe repairing

  10

  10·6

  10

  10·6

  —

  —

  —

  Catering

  912

  20·7

  714

  16·2

  96

  10·5

  13·4

  Clothing manufacturing

  28

  20·0

  27

  19·3

  5

  17·9

  18·5

  Laundry

  2

  13·3

  2

  13·3

  —

  —

  —

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods and Linen Piece Goods

  7

  14·3

  7

  14·3

  1

  14·3

  14·3

  Paper Box

  3

  20·0

  3

  20·0

  1

  33·3

  33·3

  Road Haulage

  415

  21·5

  207

  10·7

  11

  2·7

  5·3

  Sugar Confectionery and Food Preserving

  2

  9·5

  2

  9·5

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland totals

  1,413

  20·3

  1,005

  14·5

  120

  8·49

  11·94

  Table 3

  Workers covered by Wages Councils and results of checks—1989

  Wages Council

  Number of workers covered by wages Order

  Workers whose pay was checked by all methods

  Workers whose pay was checked by visit

  Workers found under-paid

  Percent under-paid of all workers checked

  Percent under-paid of all workers checked by visit

  Arrears paid £

  Arrears not pursued at workers request £

  Arrears not assessed for other reasons £

  Total arrears as due £

  Baking

  996

  193

  146

  29

  15·03

  19·86

  8,083·67

  —

  397·50

  8,481·17

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  59

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Catering

  15,567

  2,862

  2,337

  277

  9·68

  11·85

  6,227·23

  234·00

  2,238·56

  8,699·79

  Clothing Manufacturing

  9,965

  1,834

  1,834

  20

  1·09

  1·09

  972·42

  —

  231·13

  1,203·55

  Laundry

  306

  19

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household goods and Linen piece goods

  1,410

  363

  362

  1

  0·28

  0·28

  35·84

  —

  —

  35·84

  Paper Box

  841

  45

  45

  2

  4·44

  4·44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Road Haulage

  6,904

  725

  449

  16

  2·21

  3·56

  2,896·60

  —

  252·00

  3,148·60

  Sugar Confectionery and Food Preserving

  226

  53

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Totals

  36,274

  6,100

  5,252

  345

  5·66

  6·57

  18,215·76

  234·00

  3,119·19

  21,568·95

  Table 4

  Checks carried out and underpayments found by Northern Ireland Wages Inspectorate—1989

  Number

  per cent.

  Establishments checked by all methods

  1,413

  —

  Percentage of register checked

  —

  20.3

  Establishments checked by visit

  1,005

  —

  Percentage of register checked by visit

  —

  14.5

  Establishments found underpaying

  120

  —

  Percentage of all establishments checked underpaying

  —

  8.49

  Percentage of establishments visited underpaying

  —

  11.94

  6

  Table 5

  Workers whose pay was checked by National Insurance wages inspectorate: 1989

  Number

  Workers whose pay was checked by all methods

  6,100

  Workers whose pay was checked by visit

  5,252

  Workers found underpaid

  345

  Percentage underpaid of all workers checked

  5.66

  Percentage underpaid of all workers checked by visit

  6.57

  Arrears paid

  £18,215.76

  Arrears not pursued at workers request

  £234.00

  7

  Number

  Arrears not pursued for other reasons

  £3,119·19

  Total arrears assessed as due

  £21,568·95

  Wages Council

  Table 6 Establishments found failing to post wages council notices—1989

  Table 7 Establishments found failing to keep adequate records of wages paid—1989

  Table 8 Establishments found failing to keep adequate records of hours work—1989

  Baking

  9

  —

  3

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  4

  —

  —

  Catering

  193

  4

  40

  Clothing Maufacturing

  3

  —

  —

  Laundry

  —

  —

  —

  Linen and cotten Handkerchief and Household Goods and Linen Piece Goods

  —

  —

  —

  Paper Box

  —

  —

  —

  Road Haulage

  87

  1

  11

  Sugar Confectionery and Food Preserving

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Totals

  296

  5

  54

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those areas which have been declared sites of special scientific interest; and for which other areas he has proposals to become sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following sites have been declared as areas of special scientific interest:

  Carrickbrawn, County Fermanagh

  Gortnagory, County Antrim

  Moneygal Bog, County Tyrone

  Garry Bog, County Antrim

  Teal Lough and Slaghtfreeden Bogs, Counties Tyrone and Londonderry

  Black Bog, County Tyrone

  Glenariff, County Antrim

  Cleggan Valley, County Antrim

  Monawilkin, County Fermanagh

  Lough Beg, Counties Londonderry and Antrim

  Beagh Big, County Fermanagh

  Garvroa, County Fermanagh

  Moneendogue, County Fermanagh

  Lergan, County Fermanagh

  Drumlisaleen, County Fermanagh

  Inner Belfast Lough, Counties Antrim and Down

  Glen Burn, County Antrim

  Strangford Lough (Part 1), County Down

  Ballymacormick Point, County Down

  Strangford Lough (Part 2), County Down

  Kiltubbrid Loughs, County Armagh

  North Woodburn Glen, County Antrim

  Dunloy Bog, County Antrim

  Strangford Lough (Part 3), County Down

  Moninea Bog, County Fermanagh

  Proposals for a further five areas are currently under consideration and declarations are likely to be made later this year. Other areas will be designated in the future as a result of continuing survey work, but it is not possible at this stage to predict which sites will be designated.

  Rivers (Sewage)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to separate control of rivers and foul sewage disposal.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The control of river pollution and foul sewage disposal are already separated in the sense that the functions are carried out by separate directorates 8
  within the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. We have not proposed at present to alter that system.

  Gargoyles, Newtownards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 5 June,Official Report, column 387, why some gargoyles at the Old Cross, Newtownards were replaced.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Gargoyles decayed beyond recognition were removed and replaced with new ones based on those remaining. The two original gargoyles, which were better preserved, were retained in order to perpetuate the market cross.

  Schools (Selection)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the selection procedure transfer system from primary to secondary level schools.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have received representations about children who have not been admitted to the school of their parents' choice because the school is oversubscribed. It has always been made clear that parental choice is limited by the physical capacity of a school and that an independent appeals tribunal in each education and library board area will consider appeals from parents about the way schools have operated their admissions criteria.

  Shopping (Republic of Ireland Residents)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will raise at a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Ministerial Conference the decision of the European Court to reject the restriction by the Government of the Republic of Ireland on its residents shopping in Northern Ireland; if he will oppose the alternative proposal of a 36-hour restriction on such shoppers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  We have already conveyed to the Irish through a number of channels our anxiety that the European Court judgment should be given early effect and
  9
  intend to discuss the matter at the next intergovernmental conference. I have yet to consider the "36-hour rule" proposal with those of my right hon. Friends who have an interest in it.

  Cuan Sea Fisheries
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the length of the case of Cuan Sea Fisheries against the Department of the Environment (NI) in the High Court in Northern Ireland; what was the outcome; what payment is being made to Cuan Sea Fisheries; what are the estimated legal costs to the Department; and what legal costs of the claimant will be paid by him.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The case of Cuan Sea Fisheries Ltd. against the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and others lasted for 85 court days. The plaintiff ultimately agreed to withdraw its claim against the defendants in consideration of an ex gratia payment of £1 million to include costs and outlays. The Department of the Environment maintained its denial of liability. The estimated legal costs to the Department are some £320,000.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the length of time between commission and detection of a juvenile offence and prosecution in court; and what has been the trend for such periods over the past five years.

  Mr. Cope
  The Chief Constable has informed me that the information requested is not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate costs.

  The Royal Ulster Constabulary has discretion under the juvenile liaison scheme, through which all such cases are dealt with, to issue a caution as an alternative to prosecution. It does so wherever possible so that not every case reaches court. In cases that are taken to court it is estimated that the average length of time between initiation of proceedings and the final court hearing is three months. I understand that hearings are often adjourned to allow reports on accused juveniles to be obtained from probation officers. An important feature of the juvenile liaison scheme is that juvenile liaison officers visit the parents of the accused juvenile offender before court action is commenced. Sometimes this is not readily possible and, where difficulties arise, alternative arrangements have to be made. Delays of up to a few weeks between detection of a juvenile offence and initiation of court proceedings can therefore occur in certain cases.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether consideration has been given to extending the police juvenile liaison system by establishing a juvenile branch to deal with all prosecutions against juveniles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Under the juvenile scheme individual sub-divisional commanders have discretion to decide how an offence committed by a juvenile should be dealt with. This is in line with police policy elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Detection of offences by juveniles are therefore often not followed by a prosecution. Cautions are issued whenever possible. The Chief Constable tells me that he 10
  has no information to suggest that the use of discretion by sub-divisional commanders is a major factor in delays in the prosecution of juvenile offenders. I understand that he recently examined the desirability of creating a central juveniles branch within the Royal Ulster Constabulary and that he concluded that the case for doing so had not been made out.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will announce the 1990–91 social fund budget allocations to social security offices in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Social Security Office

  Loans £

  Grants £

  Total £

  Andersonstown

  915,636

  424,212

  1,339,848

  Antrim

  448,449

  229,953

  678,452

  Armagh

  317,106

  166,613

  483,719

  Ballymena

  383,728

  192,327

  576,055

  Ballymoney

  265,554

  136,757

  402,310

  Ballynahinch

  48,703

  29,384

  78,087

  Banbridge

  162,037

  92,455

  254,492

  Bangor

  196,414

  108,115

  304,529

  Carrickfergus

  175,273

  92,650

  267,923

  Coleraine

  429,403

  226,051

  655,454

  Cookstown

  254,167

  143,750

  397,917

  Corporation Street

  1,059,369

  601,174

  1,660,543

  Downpatrick

  172,124

  88,394

  260,518

  Dungannon

  400,736

  214,197

  614,933

  Enniskillen

  327,961

  194,388

  522,349

  Falls Road

  799,911

  387,353

  1,187,264

  Holywood Road

  529,377

  291,329

  820,707

  Kilkeel

  61,022

  34,367

  95,289

  Knockbreda

  286,501

  168,729

  455,229

  Larne

  178,239

  92,327

  270,566

  Limavady

  162,347

  84,517

  246,863

  Lisburn

  652,879

  339,746

  992,625

  Londonderry

  1,204,827

  650,955

  1,855,783

  Lurgan

  730,837

  400,229

  1,131,066

  Magherafelt

  394,742

  237,957

  632,699

  Newcastle

  80,162

  45,232

  125,394

  Newry

  678,334

  362,648

  1,040,982

  Newtownabbey

  304,808

  145,336

  450,144

  Newtownards

  163,269

  89,635

  252,905

  Omagh

  394,944

  199,907

  594,851

  Portadown

  221,537

  121,907

  343,444

  Shaftesbury Square

  586,871

  294,472

  881,343

  Shankill

  403,126

  214,459

  617,585

  Strabane

  409,558

  218,574

  628,132

  A note explaining how these allocations were calculated has been placed in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on publishing the United Kingdom's proposals relating to economic and monetary union before they are submitted to the EEC; and what notification she has had of the date of the intergovernmental conference at which these proposals are to be considered.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer placed a copy of the Government's most recent proposals on economic and monetary union in the Library of the House on 21 June and reported this to the House in answer to a question
  11
  from my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). The precise date of the intergovernmental conference has yet to be set but we expect that it will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the European Council on 25 and 26 June, which I shall attend, and the results of which I shall of course report to the House in the usual way.

  Visits, 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make arrangements for hon. Members to arrange visits to 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlay the decision to transfer financial responsibility for the mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and to which Department Her Majesty's permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors in Vienna is responsible.

  The Prime Minister
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office traditionally has responsibility for the costs associated with missions to international organisations including those in Vienna. Until recently the Department of Energy paid for 50 per cent. of the costs, including overheads, of Her Majesty's permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency and his personal assistant. These costs were transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in order to bring together responsibility for and control of resources and in the interests of greater efficiency. Her Majesty's permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency is concurrenty permanent representative to other United Nations organisations in Vienna. Although on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office establishment, he also reports, therefore, to a variety of Departments in London.

  Economic Advice
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what provision she makes within her office for the assessment of economic advice from unofficial sources and what estimate has been made of what the cost has been in the last year.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Gentleman on 18 June at column 403.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her policy with respect to the elapse of time before a letter sent by an hon. Member to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities should receive a reply; and what action will be taken to staff Department of the Environment Ministers' offices adequately to permit prompt replies to hon. Members' letters.

  The Prime Minister
  It is the aim of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that his Department should reply to letters within three to four weeks of receipt. However, the volume of correspondence about the new local government finance system has been 12
  very large and I regret that it has taken substantially longer to reply in many cases. A special unit, now comprising 20 staff, has been established to deal with this correspondence and as a result the Department has replied to 58,000 of the 65,000 letters on this subject received from hon. Members and members of the public so far this year. In general, letters from hon. Members on local government finance are being answered at present within about seven weeks and many are being dealt with more quickly than that; with current staffing the aim is to reduce the period significantly as soon as possible.

  Global Warming (Diatoms)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will raise the importance of work on diatoms and related studies at the forthcoming conference on global warming.

  The Prime Minister
  The work on diatoms is certainly an important component of scientific research into global warming and part of the research work to which I have referred and will continue to refer in speeches and conferences on global warming.

  Donna Maguire
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic the implications of the failure of the extradition attempt by West Germany of Donna Maguire; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. This is a matter between the authorities of the Republic of Ireland and West Germany.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answers of 6 June,Official Report, column 615, and 30 April, Official Report, column 385, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  The Prime Minister
  My answers on 6 June and 30 April relate to holdings of 417,784 and 586,843 sq ft respectively.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of the Cabinet Office in the latest available year.

  The Prime Minister
  Energy efficiency in the Cabinet Office has concentrated on encouraging staff to abide by commonsense measures to reduce energy wastage. Details of expenditure on other measures, such as the planned maintenance of boilers and the use of modern energy-saving lighting systems in refurbishment programmes, are not available.

  Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister if she discussed the case of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg during her recent visit to the Soviet Union.

  The Prime Minister
  No. But our concerns have been raised with the Soviet authorities on many occasions. The Soviet Union continues to maintain that Raoul Wallenberg died in prison in 1947, but we do not have information about the precise circumstances.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  New Books
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will take steps to direct local education authorities to ensure the recommendations of standards on new book purchase set out in the Bourdillon report;

  (2) if he will list those education authorities which (a) meet and (b) fail to meet the Bourdillon report standards, and what is the number of new books per thousand population purchased for each of the last five years by each.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Bourdillon report deals with the public library service. Neither local education authorities nor my right hon. Friend have any responsibility for this service. Responsibility lies with the Office of Arts and Libraries and local authorities.

  Disabled Teachers
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers with disabilities are currently employed in each local education authority in England; and what steps his Department is taking to increase the number of teachers with disabilities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not held by the Department. Responsibility for the employment and deployment of teachers, including disabled teachers, rests with local education authorities. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 covers all employers with more than 20 employees, including local education authorities.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what tuition fees overseas students were charged in each year since 1978–79; and what is the percentage change in real terms in the level of fees currently charged to overseas students compared with that in 1978–79.

  Mr. Jackson
  Fees are set by institutions and details of the fees actually charged are not held centrally. However, the then Secretaries of State for Education and Science recommended fee levels for all overseas students in 1978–79 and 1979–80 and, in respect of non-EC overseas students who embarked on their courses before 1980–81, between 1980–81 and 1984–85. Since 1980, EC students have been charged fees at the home student rate. In respect of non-EC overseas students embarking on their course in 1980–81 and subsequent years institutions are expected to charge fees sufficient to cover the full cost of the provisions made. The Council of Local Education Authorities and, until 1988–89, the University Grants Committee recommended fee levels to institutions in their respective sectors. Between 1981–82 and 1983–84 the then Secretaries of State also issued similar recommendations to institutions grant-aided by the Department. All the relevant recommendations for the years up to and including 1988–89 were promulgated by the Department. Details are in the Library. Because no information is held centrally on the fees actually charged, it is not possible to answer the second part of the hon. Member's question.

  Music
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for increasing opportunities for children at school to be taught music.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Music is a foundation subject in the national curriculum. This means that it will form part of the curriculum for every pupil aged five to 16 in a maintained school in England and Wales. We hope to make an announcement soon on the machinery to be set up to advise on the national curriculum requirements for music.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list of all Her Majesty's inspectorate reports on individual primary schools in England published during the last four years, indicating for each the number of pupils attending.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I am today placing in the Library a list of all Her Majesty's inspectorate reports on individual primary schools published between 1 June 1986 and 31 May 1990 showing for each the number of pupils on roll at the time of the inspection.

  In a small number of cases that information is not immediately available and I will write to the hon. Member with it in the near future.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A sum of £10,000 was spent on power factor correction equipment at our Darlington headquarters building in the 1989–90 financial year. This builds on the sum of £28,000 spent by the PSA on electrical lighting control sensors at the same site in the previous financial year.

  Capital expenditure on energy saving equipment for the Department's London headquarters site is not justified, as there is insufficient time left to recover the financial outlay that would be necessary before our impending move to new premises.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the answers of 10 May,Official Report, column 217 and 30 April, Official Report, column 392 about energy consumption, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The area of office space to which these figures relate is 540,023 sq ft.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the ministerial visit to Coventry schools of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on 22 June.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I was glad to have the opportunity to visit schools in Coventry on 22 June. I was impressed by
  15
  the professionalism and commitment of the teachers I met. It was helpful, following my meeting with representatives of Coventry LEA in February, to be able to see at first hand some of the problems of the physical conditions at these schools. The Department will do everything it can, consistent with the need to be fair to all authorities, to assist Coventry LEA in its task of improving conditions in its schools.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Drug Trafficking (Gibraltar)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has of the use of Gibraltar for drug trafficking.

  Mr. Maude
  There is no evidence of drug trafficking on a significant scale. But the Gibraltar authorities are always ready to co-operate actively with their Spanish counterparts to investigate all leads which might relate to drug trafficking in, or organised from, Gibraltar.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are taken to prevent the use of Gibraltar for the trafficking of drugs into the European Community.

  Mr. Maude
  Gibraltar's laws against the import, possession, supply and dealing in drugs are as comprehensive as those in the United Kingdom. The laws are rigorously enforced, in co-operation with the Spanish and other EC countries' law enforcement agencies where appropriate.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from the Spanish authorities concerning the use of Gibraltar by traffickers in drugs.

  Mr. Maude
  The Spanish authorities have raised the problem with us on several occasions. We have repeatedly assured them of the British and Gibraltar authorities' full co-operation in acting against drug trafficking and urged them to supply us with any evidence they have of such activity in Gibraltar.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings of the Council of Ministers there have been since the start of 1979; and if he will list the Ministers who attended each of these meetings.

  Mr. Maude
  Meetings of the Council of Ministers, with details of the Ministers who attended each meeting, are listed in annex A of the six-monthly White Papers on "Developments in the European Community".

  Cyprus
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what effect the United Kingdom's present relationship with northern Cyprus has had on extradition and the effective pursuit of crime.

  Mr. Maude
  Our policy of non-recognition of the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" does 16
  not preclude operational contacts between British police forces and the Turkish Cypriot police. These are working effectively. The question of extradition has not arisen.

  EC (United Kingdom Representation)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of people seconded to the United Kingdom's permanent representation to the European Community in Brussels in each of the years since the United Kingdom entered the European Community; and if he will break these figures down by Department of origin.

  Mr. Maude
  The exact figures requested are not easily available and their collection would involve a disproportionate cost. Since 1973 more than 150 non-FCO officials have been seconded to the United Kingdom's permanent representation in Brussels. At any one time roughly half the accredited diplomatic staff at the representation are seconded from the home civil service. The largest number are from the Department of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Departments of Employment, Energy, Environment, Health, Social Security and Transport, Her Majesty's Treasury, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices and the Bank of England have also been represented.

  Igor Rodionov
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Soviet Government in an effort to secure the release of Igor Rodionov.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The case of Igor Rodionov has recently been added to those which we raise in our contacts with the Soviet authorities. We shall continue to press the Soviet authorities until all such cases have been satisfactorily resolved.

  Middle East
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the implications of the further settlement of Jews in east Jerusalem and the occupied territories on the prospects for a middle east peace settlement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in the House on 13 June, east Jerusalem is, in our view, occupied territory. We have urged the Israelis to cease their settlement programme in the occupied territories. Such settlements are illegal, provocative and an obstacle to peace.

  Bulgaria
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a copy of the Council of Europe's observer team's report on the general election in Bulgaria; and if he will congratulate that country on returning to an acceptable form of democracy; and if he will explore ways of encouraging Bulgaria to play a useful role in the European context.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are looking forward to receiving the Council of Europe observers' report. But it is already
  17
  clear from the reports we have received from other observers that Bulgaria has made a considerable step towards democracy. This should help Bulgaria to play its full part in European affairs.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 30 April,Official Report, columns 404—05, about energy consumption, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The energy consumption figures in my reply of 30 April relate to office space of 137,376 sq m. The figure for the ODA is 21,280 sq m.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the year 1989–90 a total of £55,360 was invested in improving energy efficiency in FCO buildings. The old public offices are also being refurbished. It is expected that improvements to the fabric and the introduction of building energy management systems will bring further savings in energy costs.

  European Commission
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are currently employed by the European Commission; and if he will classify them by grade.

  Mr. Maude
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 May 1990, c. 33]: The details of United Kingdom staff in the other principal Community institutions are as follows:

  Number

  European Parliament

  A grade

  69

  Linguist grade

  59

  B grade

  32

  C grade

  84

  D grade

  17

  Total

  261

  Council Secretariat

  A grade

  23

  Linguist grade

  46

  B grade

  11

  C grade

  54

  D grade

  5

  Total

  139

  European Court of Justice

  A grade

  10

  Linguist grade

  21

  B grade

  11

  C grade

  22

  D grade

  3

  Total

  67

  Economic and Social Committee

  A grade

  8

  18

  Number

  Linguist grade

  13

  B grade

  7

  C grade

  9

  D grade

  3

  Total

  40

  Court of Auditors

  A grade

  15

  Linguist grade

  6

  B grade

  2

  C grade

  7

  D grade

  1

  Total

  31

  Grand total

  528

  Guyana
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ministerial or other official visits have been made to Guyana, for what duration and for what purpose in each of the last 10 years; what information he has as to the proper conduct of elections scheduled for 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested by the hon. Member in the first part of his question is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The most recent ministerial visit to Guyana was when my right hon. Friend (Mr. Patten), the then Minister for Overseas Development, visited Georgetown from 9–10 July 1989 when he signed a new aid agreement with the Government of Guyana. I reminded the visiting Foreign Minister of Guyana on 21 May of the importance which this Government attach to the principle of free and fair elections and of the need for elections to be seen to be fair.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Crossings
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet with the chairman of British Rail to discuss the safety of unmanned, no-barrier crossings on provincial lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  The installation and operation of all unmanned level crossings on public roads must meet stringent safety criteria laid down by the railway inspectorate. The inspectorate liaises closely with British Rail and the appropriate local authorities in all matters of crossing safety. There is the opportunity for discussion of any safety issue with the chairman of British Rail either at our regular meetings or at specific meetings, where necessary.

  Channel Tunnel
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any public funds have been made available towards the cost of a freight terminal linking Scottish industry and commerce with the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  No subsidy is being made available to British Rail under its current plans for the channel freight terminals.
  19
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes to make an assessment of the demand for regional freight terminals to link with the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a commercial matter for British Rail.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his statement of 14 June,Official Report, column 483, what information he has on the terms of reference given to Professor Halliday of Durham university and other consultants by British Rail for considering alternative routes for the high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that British Rail is still considering these matters and I will ask it to write to my hon. Friend when it is in a position to provide this information.

  Public Transport (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he proposes to take any new measures to improve public transport in rural areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  Public transport in rural areas is mainly a matter for the transport operators. Since deregulation bus mileage outside London and the metropolitan areas has increased by some 21 per cent., with 83 per cent. being run commercially. Local authorities have powers to subsidise additional socially necessary services. In addition, the rural transport development fund receives up to £1 million a year from my Department to support the introduction of innovative services in rural areas.

  Public inquiry finished

  Inspector's report received

  M6 Widening between junctions 20–21A

  May 1990

  Awaited

  M20 Widening between junctions 5 and 8 (Maidstone bypass)

  March 1990

  Awaited

  M65 Blackburn southern bypass

  March 1990

  June 1990

  A1 Tempsford grade separated junction

  December 1989

  March 1990

  A1 Dishforth-Leeming improvements—Phase 1

  November 1989

  March 1990

  A3 Milford bypass

  April 1989

  July 1989

  A5 Little Brickhill bypass

  February 1990

  May 1990

  A5 Fazeley, Two Gates and Wilnecote bypass

  May 1990

  Awaited

  A11 Besthorpe—Wymondham improvement

  June 1990

  Awaited

  A12 Hackney Wick—M11 link

  January 1990

  March 1990

  A14 M1-A1 link road contracts 8/9

  February 1990

  Awaited

  A14 M1-A1 link road contracts 2/3/5 north

  February 1990

  Awaited

  A16 Ludborough bypass

  April 1990

  May 1990

  A16 Spalding-Sutterton improvement

  June 1990

  Awaited

  A17 Leadenham bypass

  January 1990

  April 1990

  A17 Wigtoft-Sutterton bypass

  February 1990

  April 1990

  A23 Handcross-Pease Pottage improvement

  May 1990

  Awaited

  A27 Crossbush bypass

  January 1990

  February 1990

  A27 Westhampnett bypass

  February 1990

  March 1990

  A30 Oakhampton-Launceston

  May 1990

  Awaited

  A31 Newbury bypass

  November 1988

  March 1989

  A40 Gypsy Circus junction

  November 1989

  A40 improvement

  Joint inquiry August 1989

  Western Circus junction

  A41 Aston Clinton bypass

  May 1990

  Awaited

  A41/A421 Bicester bypass—Stage 2

  November 1989

  January 1990

  A259 Guestling Thorn diversion

  April 1989

  July 1989

  A406 East of Silver Street—A1010

  Joint inquiry

  February 1989

  A406 Dysons Road-Hall Lane

  November 1988

  A406 Regents Park Road junction

  February 1989

  August 1989

  A423 Southam bypass

  March 1990

  May 1990

  A428 Bedford Southern bypass

  May 1990

  Awaited

  Cardiff-Wales Airport
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to improve security at Cardiff-Wales airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The United Kingdom aviation security programme is drawn up and administered by the Department of Transport. Its purpose is to protect commercial aviation against terrorist attacks. It is not intended to cover private aviation which is not generally at risk from such activities. The incidents at Cardiff airport which have recently been reported in the local press relate to areas of the airport where private flying takes place, and they have no implications for the security of commercial aviation operations there. In common with other airports, the aviation security arrangements at Cardiff have been tightened considerably in recent months. Further improvements—which will also apply to other airports—are in the pipeline.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all trunk road schemes for which public inquiries have been completed but no ministerial decision has yet been made on the inquiry inspector's recommendation, giving the date on which the inquiry was closed; and, where the report has been submitted by the inspector, the date on which the report was presented to the Secretary of State for decision.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 22 June 1990]: The following schemes in the national programme for England are awaiting a decision following a public inquiry:
  21

  Public inquiry finished

  Inspector's report received

  A629 Skipton-Kildwick improvement

  June 1990

  Awaited

  A650 Airedale route (Crossflatts-Cottingley Bar)

  March 1990

  Awaited

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iraq
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the main financial constituents of trade protocols one, two and three with Iraq.

  Mr. Redwood
  The main constituents of the first three financial protocols were as follows:

  Year

  Amount £ million

  To Finance

  1983

  250

  Capital goods/projects

  25

  Pharmaceuticals line of credit

  1984

  250

  Capital goods/projects

  50

  Pharmaceuticals line of credit

  1986

  50

  Pharmaceuticals line of credit

  Under the financial protocols with Iraq, the Export Credits Guarantee Department undertakes to guarantee the repayment of an agreed amount of finance to be used in support of United Kingdom exports to Iraq. This lending is available for particular contracts or projects, or through lines of credit.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take to ensure that transputers ordered by Jordan are not used as a missile guidance system by Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Her Majesty's Government's policy on missile proliferation is well known and all appropriate steps are taken to prevent the proliferation of equipment and technology. A licence is required to export transputers to any destination under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, as amended. Applications for a licence to export transputers for a missile guidance system are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with stringent criteria. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on individual licensing matters.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether all contracts in the United Kingdom for providing sensitive military components for Iraq have now been identified; and what further action his Department intends to take.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Exporters are responsible for applying for, and obtaining, export licences for goods which are subject to control under the Export of Goods (Control) Order. My officials stand ready to advise whether an export licence is required.

  Takeovers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he plans to alter the scope and emphasis of the work of the takeover panel to take account of the effect of Europewide takeover policies in the run-up to 1992;

  (2) if he intends to prepare Europewide takeover regulations as a replacement for the takeover panel.
  22
  Mr. Redwood
  The draft directive on the regulation of takeovers provides for each member state to designate an authority or authorities to discharge the functions specified in the directive. These matters are regulated in the United Kingdom by the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers through the takeover code. The Commission is currently revising its proposals. When discussions resume, the Government will be seeking to ensure that supervisory authorities in member states can operate with a combination of flexibility and certainty. The takeover panel's experience has shown this to be necessary for effective takeover regulation.

  Accountancy Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, before granting qualifying body status to an accountancy body, he will(a) require it to appoint an independent ombudsman to hear the students' complaints against the body itself and (b) seek the comments of its present-day students.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. However, the Secretary of State will take into account comments received from the public, including accountancy students, when determining applications for recognition of professional qualifications under the Companies Act 1989.

  Auditing Standards
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will create a body, independent of the auditing industry, to formulate auditing standards.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will legislate to ban auditing firms from writing up the board minutes of companies and then auditing the same.

  Mr. Redwood
  I see no reason to do so. Under existing legislation, a person who is an officer of a company—or a partner or employee of an officer—is prohibited from being appointed as auditor of the company. Moreover, under the Companies Act 1989 the Secretary of State will be able to recognise a supervisory body for auditors only if the body appears to him to have adequate rules and practices designed to ensure that company audit work is conducted properly and with integrity, and that persons are not appointed as company auditors in circumstances in which they have any interest likely to conflict with the proper conduct of the audit.

  Departmental Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his practice to inform the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee of the number of his Department's inspectors linked to the accountancy firms criticised by disciplinary committees of the accountancy bodies.
  23
  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Institute of Chartered Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in his consideration of qualifying body status for the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales under the Companies Act 1989, he will require that its students will be made aware of his Department's inspectors' criticisms of auditing firms.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The Company Auditors (Examinations) Regulations 1990, which came into force on 20 June, set out the subjects which a qualifying body must test by examination if its qualification is to be recognised under the Companies Act 1989. Although inspectors' reports are not specified as such, the Secretary of State will wish to satisfy himself that the examinations are a proper test of the subject matter, and reflect current best practice, as indicated in inspectors' reports or otherwise.

  Riot Control Vehicles
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what circumstances licences would be granted under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 for the export of riot control vehicles which have been specially designed or modified to be electrified to repel boarders (PLI500(F)).

  Mr. Redwood
  Licences are required for the export to all destinations of riot control vehicles which are subject to control under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 —SI 1989 No. 2376—as amended. Licence applications are considered on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with stringent criteria, which include an assessment of the human rights record of the country concerned.

  It is not the practice to grant a licence for the export of equipment which is likely to be used for internal repression.

  English Estates
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is the overall disposal strategy and mechanism of sale receipts in relation to the sale of assets of English Estates; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what policy will be adopted by English Estates in the disposal of individual terrace units in relation to the sale of its assets; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is the policy in relation to existing tenants of English Estates who wish to acquire those premises where they are at present tenants; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what is the policy of his Department with regard to asset sales of English Estates; and what policy will be adopted in relation to the sale of assets of English Estates, the manner in which such assets are to be sold and their specific timing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The policy with regard to the sale of English Estates' property portfolio was set out in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply to a question on 26 April. English Estates is currently in the process of drawing up proposals for the conduct of the disposal programme which will best meet the broad objectives that have been laid down.

  Home Income Plans
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he proposes to discuss the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation report on home income plans with LAUTRO or the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Redwood
  Home income plans involving investment business are a matter for the SIB and other appropriate regulatory bodies which, I understand, are currently considering them.

  North Sea Oil Markets
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will place his Department's joint submission to the New York courts with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on regulatory jurisdiction over North sea oil markets in the Library.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 24 May 1990.

  Investor Compensation Schemes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the investor and depositor compensation schemes his Department monitors in the financial services industries, together with the compensation ceilings, the date from which they operate, and the criteria for claims.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Policyholders Protection Act 1975 provides compensation for private policyholders if an authorised insurance company becomes insolvent. A total of 90 per cent. of any admissible claim will be paid. There is no limit on the size of claims. Responsibility for the investors' compensation scheme lies with the Securities and Investments Board.

  British and Commonwealth Group
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received from creditors of the British and Commonwealth Group.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am not aware of any representations from creditors. However, some correspondence has been received from and on behalf of shareholders.

  Car Imports
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what differences the agreement negotiated in the European Economic Community on 19 June on Japanese car imports makes for the import into the continent of cars produced in the United Kingdom by Japanese-owned or other factories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  An informal discussion of the future treatment by the Community of cars produced by Japanese-owned companies took place between Ministers on 19 June. Commission officials will shortly participate in further talks with the Japanese authorities. Although formal agreement has still to be reached among member states and with Japan, I remain confident that cars
  25
  produced in Britain, including by Japanese-owned companies, will continue to enjoy unlimited free circulation throughout the Community after 1992.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each inner-city task force those voluntary organisations which have received grants in the current and previous financial years, and make a statement on his policy towards the voluntary sector projects so funded.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 22 June 1990]:This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, since my Department's records do not specify the nature, voluntary or otherwise, of grant-funded bodies.

  The task forces work with many different groups, including voluntary organisations, which can help fulfil their enterprise and employment objectives. Moreover, since task forces have a limited life, they devote some of their energy to strengthening local organisations which can step into their role when they leave. Voluntary organisations have an important part to play here, provided that they represent the most cost-effective approach in each case.

  Independent Television Franchises
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to monitor share dealings in companies which hold current independent television franchises.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 June 1990]: None. It is for the Independent Broadcasting Authority to enforce the ownership provisions in section 20 of the Broadcasting Act 1981.

  Textile and Clothing Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement outlining the steps which are currently being taken by his Department to ensure that exports by the apparel, knitting and textile industries do not face unfair barriers erected by other countries.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 June 1990]: The question of unfair barriers to exports of all categories of goods is one of the subjects for decision in the current Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations. The Government supply information on barriers which we would like to see removed to the Commission, which conducts negotiations on behalf of member states. The Community's aim is to achieve a reduction by all parties in their tariff and non-tariff barriers.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has concerning the level and value of exports of textile and clothing products from the United Kingdom in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what percentage these figures are of those for the same months in the previous year.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 June 1990]: The available figures are as follows:
  26

  United Kingdom exports of textiles and clothing by value

  1988–89

  £ million

  1988

  April

  259.3

  May

  251.0

  June

  276.8

  July

  276.6

  August

  271.5

  September

  323.7

  October

  313.9

  November

  325.8

  December

  277.1

  1989

  January

  234.1

  February

  273.4

  March

  321.7

  1989–90

  £ million

  1989–90 percentage of 1988–89

  1989

  April

  255.4

  98

  May

  290.2

  116

  June

  289.5

  105

  July

  306.2

  111

  August

  284.0

  105

  September

  353.7

  109

  October

  371.4

  118

  November

  349.7

  107

  December

  320.6

  116

  1990

  January

  277.8

  119

  February

  327.7

  120

  March

  377.8

  117

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics (CSO).

  Note: Textiles and clothing is defined as divisions 65 and 84 of the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC).

  Milford Haven Docks Company
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received his inspectors' report on the affairs of the Milford Haven Docks Company; and when he expects to publish it.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 June 1990]: The inspectors' report has not yet been submitted. A decision on publication will be taken when it has been received and its contents considered.

  Dunsdale Securities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what dates and for what periods his Department authorised Dunsdale Securities to conduct business.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 June 1990]: Dunsdale Securities Ltd. was first granted an annual licence to deal in securities on 7 November 1977. Further licences were granted each year until the Financial Services Act came into force on 29 April 1988.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what monitoring was carried out on the firm Dunsdale Securities during the period it was authorised for business by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 June 1990]: Dunsdale Securities Ltd. provided duly completed monitoring

  27
  returns to the Department from September 1983 until it ceased to be licensed by the Department, as required by the Licensed Dealers (Conduct of Business) Rules 1983. Prior to 1 June 1983, there was no requirement for companies to provide returns.

  Criminal charges have been brought by the Serious Fraud Office against Mr. Miller, the director of Dunsdale Securities Ltd.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consult the Financial Reporting Council and other interested parties on the need for a statutory definition of true and fair in company accounts.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 June 1990]: It is generally considered that the concept of
  "a true and fair view"
  is not readily susceptible of definition in a manner suitable for inclusion in a statute. However, I will draw the hon. Member's question to the attention of the Financial Reporting Council.

  Chinese Imports
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take action(a) unilaterally and (b) through the EEC to deal with Chinese imports that infringe the basis of their duty free status.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  As explained in an earlier reply to a similar question, HM Customs and Excise undertakes verification inquiries on imports for which preferential treatment is claimed. Where infringements of the EEC origin rules are detected, appropriate action is taken which includes the charging of full duty.

  There is regular exchange of information between the Customs authorities of all EEC member states about infringements of the preferential trade arrangements. That information is used in the control of preferential imports to the EEC.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the level of manufacturing investment in the north-east for each year since 1979 giving 1979 as 100.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available for investment expressed at constant prices because there are no regional price indices. The table provides the required indices for data at current prices:

  Manufacturing investment in the north-east1 at current prices and expressed as a percentage of the 1979 level

  Year

  Percentage

  1979

  100

  1980

  76

  1981

  53

  1982

  55

  1983

  58

  1984

  69

  1985

  91

  1986

  82

  1987

  90

  1988

  131

  28
  1The north-east is not a standard region of the United Kingdom but can be defined as the north less Cumbria. It comprises Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear.

  Sports Clubs (Television Rights)
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to give protection to the governing bodies of sports clubs and associations regarding exclusive television agreements.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to give legal protection to governing bodies involved in sports events or to change the provisions relating to the copyright protection of television broadcasts.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Mechanically Recovered Meat
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that all meat products containing mechanically recovered meat are labelled as such.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Food Labelling Regulations 1984 already require that where a food or an ingredient has undergone a specific treatment, reference to such treatment shall be included on the label if its omission could mislead the intending purchaser. It is for the decision of the courts whether mechanically recovered meat included in a meat product is subject to this rule.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animal test certificates are still in operation under the Medicines Act for BST, how many(a) farms and (b) cows the certificates cover; for how long the certificates are valid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are currently three animal test certificates. Each one is valid for two years and is renewable. They allow a maximum of 1,287 cows to be treated on 23 sites, although in practice many fewer cows are receiving BST at any one time.

  White Tigers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the diagnosis of white tigers at Bristol zoo as suffering from spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Spongiform encephalopathy and other lesions were discribed in the brains of four out of six white tigers which died or were killed in Bristol zoo between 1970 and 1977. All six cases had a similar illness of between one and five months' duration with behavioural changes. The changes described by the authors did not resemble those seen in transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Subsequently, mice and chimpanzees were inoculated with brain material from the tigers but none developed clinical signs suggestive of a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 458, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information previously supplied related to all departmental accommodation, not just office space. It related to an area of just under 600,000 sq m—about 6·5 million sq ft.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Ministry in the latest available year.

  Mr. Maclean
  A total of £40,000 was spent in the 1989–90 financial year specifically on energy-saving measures. Other maintenance and structural works also contributed to energy saving to a greater or lesser degree without this aspect being a separately identifiable element in the costs.

  EC Surplus Food
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a method of distributing European Community surplus food that ensures all people who are entitled to receive this surplus food do so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 19 March,Official Report, column 444. An announcement will shortly be made to the House of the names of the organisations that will be designated to distribute this food.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  China (Imports)
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to investigate infringement of the EEC's generalised system of preferences, country of origin rules in respect of imports from China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise checks the entitlement of imports from China to the beneficial rates of duty under the European Community generalised system of preferences. Some imports are selected for verification, and in the event of any infringement of the European Community origin rules appropriate action is taken, which includes the charging of full duty.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answers of 14 May,Official Report, column 274 and 30 April, Official Report, column 443, about energy consumption, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Ryder
  The square footage is as follows:

  sq ft

  Government Offices Great George Street SW1

  331,536

  Chessington Computer Centre, Surrey

  86,625

  Alencon Link, Basingstoke, Hampshire

  16,164

  30

  sq ft

  Grosvenor House, Basingstoke, Hampshire

  11,851

  Riverwalk House, London, SW1

  66,851

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 30 April,Official Report, column 444, and 14 May, Official Report, column 274, if he will break down the figures for solid-liquid fuel into solid fuel and liquid fuel.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 22 June 1990]: The figures shown in both answers refer to liquid fuel.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place a copy in the Library of the Treasury guidelines within which the process of receiving bids and the disposal of assets relating to the sale of the Skills Training Agency were carried out.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The general principles covering the disposal of assets are set out in "Government Accounting", a copy of which is in the Library. To ensure that the process of receiving and considering bids reflects best commercial practice, Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte were employed as sale advisers. No general guidance was issued for the bidding process, but Treasury officials were consulted throughout.

  Public Finance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the public sector surplus or borrowing for 1990–91.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest forecast for the public sector debt repayment in 1990–91 is the Budget forecast of £6.9 billion.

  Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the Government's borrowing requirement in May.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The public sector borrowing requirement in May is estimated to have been £1.7 billion.

  Efficiency Unit
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out in the Official Report a breakdown of the £1,300 million savings by Departments resulting from the work of the efficiency unit referred to in his speech to the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants on 9 May.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: The figure of £1,300 million is a cumulative total of savings agreed by Departments as a result of over 350 scrutinies and multi-departmental reviews carried out since 1979 under the guidance of the Prime Minister's efficiency unit.

  Scrutinies and the savings resulting from them are the responsibility of the departmental Minister concerned. However, I am informed by the efficiency unit that, in the period 1983–90, a period for which disaggregated information is readily available, the largest departmental

  31
  contributors in absolute terms were the Employment Group, the Departments of Health and Social Security, the Ministry of Defence and the Inland Revenue.

  Letters (Cornwall)
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect a reply to his letter of 27 March on behalf of Mrs. S. L. Penna, of Laurel Cottage, Greenwith Hill, Perranwell Station, Truro, Cornwall.

  Mr. Lilley
  I replied to my hon. Friend's letter on 25 June.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Foreign Police (Training)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been trained in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years from (i) Portugal and (ii) Greece; and in how many of these cases the cost of training was met from British public funds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1989, two Portuguese police officers attended training courses in the United Kingdom under central arrangements. The costs were met from public funds. No officers from Greece have made centrally arranged training visits in the last five years.

  Animal Experiments
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total number and names of research establishments where(a) cosmetic and (b) drug experiments on animals are conducted, the nature of the licence involved and the type of animals used.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The safety testing of cosmetics on animals is authorised at six designated establishments. It is not possible to identify separately establishments at which work on pharmaceuticals is carried out, although research work on medical, dental and veterinary products or appliances involving the use of animals is authorised at about 170 designated establishments.

  Details of the number of procedures for the safety testing of cosmetics and for research on medical, dental and veterinary products or appliances are published each year in table 3 and tables 1, 4, 7, 11, 12, and 13 of "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain" (1988 Cm. 743), a copy of which is in the Library.

  It is not our practice to identify individual establishments by name.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many research establishments using live animals in experiments for cosmetic or drug purposes have had their licences rescinded in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None, other than at the request of the certificate holder.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the latest date available what was the certified normal accommodation and the actual population for each female prison in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest available information on certified normal accommodation and prison population at each of the prison establishments for females in England and Wales is as follows:

  CNA1

  Population2

  Askham Grange

  134

  111

  Bullwood Hall

  126

  113

  Cookham Wood

  120

  118

  Drake Hall

  288

  226

  Durham

  40

  35

  East Sutton Park

  84

  81

  Holloway

  517

  481

  Low Newton

  36

  38

  New Hall

  122

  96

  Pucklechurch

  56

  45

  Risley

  92

  98

  Styal

  208

  188

  Exeter

  5

  0

  1 Certified Normal Accommodation as at 11 March 1990.

  2 Population as at 22 June 1990.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners in England and Wales are classified as mentally ill or mentally disordered.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 30 September 1989, the latest date for which information is available, 19 female prisoners in England and Wales were considered by medical officers to meet the criteria for detention in hospital as set out in the Mental Health Act 1983. Of these. 12 were considered to be mentally ill within the meaning of the Act.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities exist in female prisons in England and Wales to assist with visits from dependent children.

  Mr. Mellor
  All female prisons have facilities for inmates to receive visits from their dependent children, including in some establishments play areas with games and toys and baby changing and feeding facilities. As circumstances and resources permit, the opportunity is being taken to improve visits accommodation in prisons. We are also seeking to encourage the provision of visitors' reception centres. The assisted prison visits scheme can in certain circumstances provide financial assistance with the cost of visits by children to their mothers.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the basis of what energy consumption figures he will be monitoring progress towards the target of 15 per cent. reduction over five years.

  Mr. Waddington
  The basis for monitoring progress towards the target of 15 per cent. reduction over five years has been set by the Energy Efficiency Office at the Department of Energy. The actual consumption for 1989–90 will be the starting point and the consumption of all fuels will be converted to a common unit of kilowatt hours to enable direct overall comparisons to be made.
  33
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the consumption by prisons for each year from 1978–79 of(a) kWh of electricity, (b) therms of gas, (c) litres of liquid fuel and (d) tonnes of solid fuel;

  (2) what was the spending by prisons for each year from 1978–79 on (a) electricity, (b) gas, (c) liquid fuels, (d) solid fuels and (e) all energy, expressing the spending in (i) money terms and (ii) real (1990) terms.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his question on 5 June, at column 423.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mr. Waddington
  A total of £123 million was invested in the financial year 1989–90 in improving the energy efficiency of the prison service estate. I am not able to provide the information on the remainder of the Home Office estate, as the responsibility for most of it rests with the Property Services Agency at the Department of the Environment.

  Immigration Offices
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of letters unopened in the(a) postroom and (b) registry at Lunar house, Croydon and the nationality department at Liverpool on the first day of each month for (a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c)

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Letters unopened in IND

  1988

  1989

  1990

  January

  47,469

  976

  4,726

  February

  56,067

  779

  7,663

  March

  53,091

  2,192

  6,996

  April

  33,347

  2,982

  3,471

  May

  7,053

  940

  5,244

  June

  545

  2,371

  4,437

  July

  226

  1,630

  —

  August

  491

  855

  —

  September

  253

  1,932

  —

  October

  2,889

  4,498

  —

  November

  3,281

  8,732

  —

  December

  173

  4,772

  —

  On average, letters are being acknowledged within three days of receipt in the Department. There are no unopened letters in the Liverpool nationality office, since correspondence is opened immediately on arrival and passed direct to caseworkers.

  Naturalisation Applications
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cheques and postal orders were cashed on each day at his Department in May for applications for naturalisation; and what was the value of the cheques.
  34
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Naturalisation fees and registration fees are recorded together. The amounts brought to account on each day in May 1990 and the numbers of applications were as follows:

  Value of

  May

  Applications (Number)

  Total amount (£)

  Cheques

  Postal orders

  Cash

  1

  105

  10,645

  9,360

  645

  640

  2

  93

  7,675

  7,065

  260

  350

  3

  104

  10,000

  8,940

  360

  700

  4

  115

  11,820

  11,050

  660

  110

  8

  127

  14,390

  12,890

  300

  1,200

  9

  120

  12,580

  11,160

  460

  960

  10

  106

  9,990

  9,390

  600

  —

  11

  114

  11,795

  10,285

  870

  640

  14

  115

  12,390

  9,990

  1,175

  1,225

  15

  99

  10,725

  8,480

  875

  1,370

  16

  108

  12,450

  11,450

  590

  410

  17

  87

  8,954

  8,554

  400

  —

  18

  114

  10,915

  9,665

  360

  890

  21

  87

  9,565

  9,145

  180

  240

  22

  125

  13,180

  11,880

  730

  570

  23

  115

  11,940

  10,385

  815

  740

  24

  93

  10,122

  9,432

  400

  290

  29

  96

  9,473

  9,123

  350

  —

  30

  82

  8,110

  7,470

  640

  —

  31

  103

  10,400

  8,320

  690

  1,390

  Totals

  2,108

  217,119

  194,034

  11,360

  11,725

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time for dealing with the cases of(a) naturalisation, (b) variation of leave for visitors, (c) political asylum and (d) variation of leave for visitors who subsequently apply for indefinite leave.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the following table:

  Estimated average length of time between the receipt of an application and the decision, for cases1 decided in the first quarter of 1990

  Months

  Applications for naturalisation

  27

  Application for variation of leave as a visitor

  2

  Application for refugee status

  9½

  1 Includes, where relevant, cases decided in the Public Enquiry Office as well as in caseworking groups.

  Nationality (Registration)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the new target date for the completion of all registration cases made under the British Nationality Act 1981.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) on 21 March 1990, at column 634. At that time, we held some 18,000 transitional registration cases where a response from the applicant was awaited. That number has now reduced to 10,000. We cannot set a date for completing these applications as this will depend on how soon applicants respond. For the continuing classes of registration case, our aim is to reduce waiting times below 12 months as soon as practicable.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answers of 18 June,Official Report, columns 430–31, 10 May, Official Report, columns 197–98, and 30 April, Official Report, column 400, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Waddington
  The square footage of the buildings is 3,445,664, but this is not all office space, as the buildings listed include offices, stores, laboratories and residential training facilities.

  Trafalgar Square (Incidents)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by age, sex, offence, last known address, and prison, or place of confinement, those people remanded in custody following the incidents in Trafalgar square on 31 March, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details of the charges preferred against those arrested in connection with the disturbances in central London on 31 March and the readily available information about the age, sex and place of residence of the arrested and charged are set out in my reply to a question from the hon. Member on 13 June at column 192. I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the other information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Passports
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports were held at the Home Office for each day of each month of 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Nationality

  Variation of Leave1

  Asylum and related casework1 2

  Naturalisation

  Registration

  General immigration casework

  Eastern European casework

  January

  64,402

  47,622

  28,023

  1,251

  14,475

  February

  65,355

  42,791

  26,602

  1,376

  15,031

  March

  65,050

  38,832

  26,359

  1,609

  16,272

  April

  63,902

  35,780

  24,581

  1,616

  17,270

  May

  64,273

  33,755

  21,914

  1,530

  18,150

  1 The casework figures include referred entry clearance applications.

  2 These figures are a total of all work outstanding in the Refugee Unit.

  Kurdish Refugees
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be in a position to respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central of 5 December 1989, ref. 28762/89, on Kurdish refugees.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the response has been delayed, and I shall reply to the hon. Member in the near future.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of entry clearance have been referred to him for each month of 1990.
  36
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to amend the passport regulations to allow widows and widowers holding joint passports to continue to use them.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The proviso that passports which include particulars of the holder's spouse are not available for use when the spouse (including a widowed spouse) is travelling alone accords with general international practice, and there are no plans to change it.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from hon. Members on individual immigration cases for each month of 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  For each month of 1990, written representations or queries from hon. Members on individual immigration cases have been received as follows:

  Number

  January

  532

  February

  508

  March

  510

  April

  430

  May

  512

  Information on the number of representations made orally is not available.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding applications for(a) naturalisation, (b) registration, (c) variation of leave and (d) asylum applications there were in each month of 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information relates to casework in B1 and B4 divisions in the immigration and nationality department and is as follows:

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not available centrally.

  Variation of Leave
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce fees for applications for variation of leave; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am considering how and when the provision for charging for indefinite leave to remain under section 9(1) of the Immigration Act 1988 might be implemented. An announcement will be made at the appropriate time. There are no present plans to introduce fees for applications for other variations of leave.

  Distress Warrants
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of distress warrants issued by magistrates courts in 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information will not be available until around the end of July.

  Refugees from China (Permits)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees from the People's Republic of China have been granted(a) entry permits and (b) residence permits since 4 June 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the following table.

  Grants1 of refugee status or exceptional leave since 4 June 1989 to Chinese nationals who have applied for refugee status

  Number

  Granted refugee status

  37

  Granted exceptional leave

  11

  1 Provisional figures which may be underestimates.

  These figures do not include Chinese nationals who apply to remain here on an exceptional basis, and are being allowed to stay under the terms of the announcement to the House on 20 December 1989 at column 274.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each local authority those voluntary organisations in receipt of section 11 funding, money from crime prevention schemes or any other projects administered by his Department.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 22 June 1990]: Under present arrangements, section 11 funding may be paid only to local authorities. Although posts funded in this way may be based in voluntary organisations no collected information is kept of such posts.

  Grants under the safer cities programme are currently made in 16 local authority areas and I will write to the hon. Member with a list of the voluntary organisations that have received funding to date.

  Most Home Office grants to voluntary organisations and projects are not allocated by reference to local authority area. The latest available information about Home Office grants was given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 11 May at column 254.

ENVIRONMENT

  Nuclear Waste
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he was last in communication with Nirex regarding possible sites for a nuclear waste repository.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he was last in communication with Nirex regarding possible sites for a nuclear waste repository.
  38
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he was last in communication with Nirex regarding possible sites for a nuclear waste repository.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet been in communication with United Kingdom Nirex. His predecessor last met senior representatives of Nirex on 15 March 1989. Officials are frequently in contact with Nirex on various matters.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money his Department is spending on research into the storage, treatment, handling and transport of nuclear waste.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department plans to spend about £9 million in the current financial year on radioactive waste management research, including the storage, treatment and handling of nuclear waste. The transport of radioactive materials is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of second homes for each local authority in Britain, on the basis of information collected for the community charge.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am at present collecting estimates of the number of properties giving rise to a standard community charge.

  Suffolk and Norfolk Broads
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the working of the Suffolk and Norfolk Broads Act 1987, and particularly the planning aspect.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Broads Authority submits its five-yearly management plan, annual comprehensive work programmes and quarterly grant-in-aid information to the Department.

  Waste Management Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution was made by his Department to the 92nd annual waste management conference held on 12 to 15 June.

  Mr. Trippier
  I was pleased to address the 92nd conference of the Institute of Waste Management on 12 June. Officials from the Department were present for the rest of the conference.

  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals Her Majesty's Government are putting to the second meeting of parties to the Montreal protocol on ozone-depleting substances in London on 20 to 29 June.

  Mr. Trippier
  The European Community negotiating position, based on that of the United Kingdom, is as follows:
  39
  CFCs: 50 per cent. cut on 1986 levels by 1991–92; 85 per cent. by 1995–96; phase out by 1997 or at least before 2000. Halons: 50 per cent. cut by 1995; phase out by 2000 except for a limited number of essential uses. Methyl chloroform: 25 per cent. cut by 1994; 50 per cent. by 2000; consideration in 1994 of further and faster cuts. Carbon tetrachloride: 50 per cent. cut by 1991–92; phase out by 2000.

  UN Environment Programme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he intends to put forward at the United Nations Environment Programme governing council meeting in Nairobi on 1 to 3 August.

  Mr. Trippier
  I shall be attending the special session of the United Nations Environment Programme governing council from 1 to 3 August which will consider priority evolving environmental issues. I will be calling for international support for action on major issues such as climate change, the ozone layer and biodiversity. I will also seek to ensure that the governing council sends a strong message to the preparatory committee for the 1992 United Nations conference on environment and development about the major issues facing the world today.

  Letters (Cornwall)
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect a response to the letter forwarded to his Department on 5 March on behalf of Mrs. Barbara Toyne, of 24 Penmere crescent, Falmouth, Cornwall.

  Mr. Chope
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 16 May.

  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect a response to the letter forwarded to his Department on 18 April on behalf of Mrs. G. M. Prowse, of 1 Woodview, Woodland avenue, Penryn, Cornwall.

  Mr. Chope
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 15 June.

  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect a response to the letter forwarded to his Department on 23 April on behalf of Mr. A. R. Jago, of 5 Lister street, Falmouth, Cornwall.

  Mr. Chope
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 15 June.

  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Liverpool of the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities.

  Mr. Portillo
  I visited Liverpool on 14 May and 21 June. On the first visit, I met the dean of the Anglican 40
  cathedral, to see the development being carried out on the precinct site, below the cathedral, and to hear the dean's ideas for future initiatives in the area. I was encouraged by what I saw and heard. I then visited the Granby-Toxteth task force, and had a quick tour of the area with its leader, before touring the Liverpool part of the Merseyside development corporation's area.

  During my visit on 21 June, I met the leaders of the Princes Park and Granby community council. The group recognised the value of programmes being carried by central and local government, but expressed the view that the Toxteth area was not benefiting and that there could be better co-ordination of the programmes of the statutory agencies active in the area, and improvements in consultation with the local community. I found it a helpful and positive meeting. I then met the board of the Merseyside development corporation, to discuss its recently published strategy and its future policies and programmes. I was impressed by the achievements of the corporation so far, and I encouraged it to continue to take a vigorous and dynamic role in its much-expanded area.

  I look forward to visiting Merseyside frequently in future, in my roles as Minister with special responsibility for the Liverpool city action team and the Granby-Toxteth task force.

  Incinerators
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to bring forward in response to his Department's study of municipal incinerators, carried out by Warren Spring laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am considering an investigation to determine which incinerators can or will be modified to meet the new European regulations on emissions.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will consider the fire certificate threshold of six letting bedspaces as a starting point for the imposition of uniform business rate;

  (2) if he will seek powers to change the limit of 100 days of opening below which accommodation operators will not be subject to uniform business rate.

  Mr. Chope
  We have received a number of representations which argue that the threshold at which bed-and-breakfast accommodation provided in an individual's own home comes into non-domestic rating is inappropriate. We are at present considering these representations, and whether there is any case for altering existing provisions.

  Water Charges
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet the Director General of Water Services to discuss the workings of the water and sewerage infrastructure charges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet the Director General of Water Services. The detailed application of infrastructure charges is a matter for individual water and sewerage companies, within the terms of their instruments of appointment. It is the responsibility of the director general to ensure that individual companies are complying with their terms and conditions of appointment.

  Water Quality
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all independent research bodies that are carrying out public interest work on water quality and supply, funded by his Department.

  Mr. Trippier
  During the 1990–91 financial year, the following independent research bodies will be carrying out research on water quality and supply for the Department:

  Water Research Centre (1989) plc

  Hydraulics Research Ltd.

  Altwell Chemistry Ltd.

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  North West Water Ltd.

  Natural Environment Research Council

  —Plymouth Marine Laboratory

  —Institute of Freshwater Ecology

  —Institute of Hydrology

  Brunel University

  University of Dundee

  Atomic Energy Authority Technology

  Management Information System
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to place a copy of MINIS 11 in the Library; and if he will make a statement on its conclusions.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I expect to place a copy of MINIS 11 in the Library by the summer recess.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answers of 10 May,Official Report, columns 189–90 and 30 April, Official Report, columns 382–83, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The amount of office space to which the figures in my earlier answers relate is 1,209,645 sq ft. This area excludes specialised sites such as the royal parks and palaces which were included in the consumption and expenditure figures but to which the concept area is not appropriate.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the consumption by the Property Services Agency for the civil estate of(a) kWh of electricity, (b) therms of gas, (c) litres of liquid fuel and (e) tonnes of solid fuel for each year from 1978–79 to 1989–90, breaking the figures down by Government Department;
  42
  (2) what was the spending by the Property Services Agency for the civil estate on (a) electricity, (b) gas, ife) liquid fuels, (d) solid fuels and (e) all energy, expressed in (i) money terms and (ii) real 1989–90 terms for each year from 1978–79 to 1989–90, broken down by Government Department as far as possible.

  Mr. Chope
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Expenditure on energy efficiency measures within my Department for 1989–90 is estimated to have totalled £120,000.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will extend the categories of persons receiving transitional relief for community charge to include the registered disabled.

  Mr. Chope
  Registered disabled people are not excluded from transitional relief and some may be eligible for extra help. All charge payers, including disabled people, may be eligible for relief where the assumed community charge for the area exceeds the assumed rates bill for 1989–90 by more than £156 a year. In addition, for disabled people who did not previously pay rates or who were not the partner of someone paying rates, extra relief may be available on any amount of assumed community charge that exceeds £156 a year.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to monitor capital and revenue spending on sport, recreation and leisure services in local authorities following the introduction of the new capital control system for local authorities.

  Mr. Chope
  Information on local authority spending on sport, recreation and leisure is collected as part of regular statistical returns by authorities. Relevant budget information on revenue spending has now been submitted by most authorities. We plan to collect information on capital expenditure which separately identifies 1990–91 spending on sport and recreation when local authorities report their outturn expenditure after the end of the financial year.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the estimated cost of allowing transitional relief for community charge to all persons who are registered disabled.

  Mr. Chope
  Disabled people who were formerly ratepayers qualify for transitional relief on the same basis as other charge payers. Extra help is available for disabled, and elderly, people who were not formerly ratepayers, nor the spouse of a former ratepayer. No estimate is available for the cost of extending the extra help to all persons who are registered disabled.
  43
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations have taken place on the proposed changes to the community charge in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have not brought forward any proposals for changes to the community charge.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase Government assistance to local authorities to reduce the community charge bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities on 17 May,Official Report, column 508.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many suggested alternatives he has received for amending the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I continue to receive suggestions on all aspects of local government finance.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the local authority organisations to discuss possible changes to the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the main local authority associations on 21 May, when these matters were discussed. Since then there have been a number of informal meetings with association chairmen.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he Will make a statement about proposed changes in the poll tax legislation.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have already announced that they intend to bring forward legislation to amend the law on the standard community charge as it relates to caravans.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to extend universal community charge-capping powers over all local authorities in England and Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the capital value rates bill payable on a property in Ealing worth(a) £50,000, (b)

  Average Charge £

  Revenue Support Grant £ million

  Safety Net £ million

  Special Grants1 £ million

  Specific Grants £ million

  Bradford

  276

  157·8

  9·8

  8·1

  64·6

  Craven

  256

  5·0

  1·6

  0·4

  1·5

  Easington

  278

  13·3

  6·7

  1·9

  4·8

  East Lindsey

  277

  17·5

  0·0

  0·0

  7·8

  Merton

  280

  42·9

  0·0

  0·0

  17·4

  Richmondshire

  276

  5·0

  0·6

  0·0

  2·2

  Rochester upon Medway

  249

  22·9

  –2·5

  0·0

  14·0

  Scarborough

  276

  11·4

  4·0

  0·6

  6·8

  South Herefordshire

  279

  5·7

  –0·6

  0·0

  2

  South Kesteven

  279

  13·6

  0·0

  0·0

  4·7

  Teesdale

  245

  3·6

  0·8

  0·5

  1·9

  44
  £80,000 and (c) £100,000 in the current year assuming a rate to raise the same amount of money as with the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  Figures placed in the Library on 4 April show illustrative levels of capital value based rates in 1990–91 were such a system to be used to raise the same amount nationally as the community charge. The implied bills in Ealing for properties worth(a) £50,000, (b) £80,000 and (c) £100,000 are £567, £907 and £1,134 respectively.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of local authorities which received standard spending grant and other grants from central funds which were 50 per cent. or more greater per capita than that secured by Rotherham.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Twenty-four authorities are expected to receive revenue support grants and other revenue grants from central funds in 1990–91 which were 50 per cent. or more greater per capita than that secured by Rotherham. The authorities are as follows:

  Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

  Bradford

  Knowsley

  Birmingham

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  City of London

  Lewisham

  Greenwich

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Wandsworth

  Southwark

  Camden

  Lambeth

  Westminster

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Islington

  Hackney

  Tower Hamlets

  Waltham Forest

  Ealing

  Haringey

  Brent

  Newham

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the community charge levied, the standard spending grant given and the total of other grants from central funds for all local authorities which have fixed personal community charges of below £280.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The information for 1990–91 is as follows:
  45

  Average Charge £

  Revenue Support Grant £ million

  Safety Net £ million

  Special Grants1 £ million

  Specific Grants £ million

  Wandsworth

  150

  118·1

  24·0

  11·0

  39·9

  Westminster

  195

  116·9

  -10·1

  7·2

  33·5

  York

  264

  11·9

  4·0

  1·4

  2

  1 Inner London Education grant and Low Rateable Values grant.

  2 Budget returns are not yet available for south Herefordshire and York.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many ratepayers were summoned for non-payment of rates in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and to March 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 June 1990]: Figures published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting on the number of summonses issued by local authorities in England for non-payment of rates are as follows. These figures do not contain returns from every authority and I have therefore indicated the response rate in each year.

  Year

  Number of summonses

  Response rate (per cent.)

  1984–85

  1,107,000

  96

  1985–86

  1,147,000

  95

  1986–87

  1,189,349

  93

  1987–88

  1,112,970

  85

  1988–89

  1,102,148

  84

  Figures for 1989–90 are not yet available.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases have been brought by local authorities to date through the magistrates courts against their charge payers under the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 June 1990]: This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many local authorities are employing(a) their own bailiffs, (b) certificated bailiffs and (c) non-certificated bailiffs to enforce the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it mandatory for local authorities to use only certificated bailiffs to enforce community charge debt through magistrates courts under the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 June 1990]: The rules governing enforcement are clearly set out in the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989. The number and type of bailiffs employed by a local authority is entirely a matter for the authority. My Department's detailed practice note for local authorities on enforcement advised that an authority considering using private sector bailiffs should take up references and ensure that the firm and its employees are reputable and qualified.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what periods of time a merchant seaman 46
  must be resident in each of the local authorities in England and Wales before being made eligible for community charge; what guidelines are issued to local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 June 1990]:It is initially the responsibility of the individual community charges registration officer to decide whether a person is solely or mainly resident in his area and therefore subject to a community charge. My Department issued guidelines suggesting that merchant seamen be treated in a way consistent with their royal naval counterparts. These informal, non-statutory, guidelines suggest that a home-owning seaman might be deregistered if he is away on board ship for a period in excess of six continuous months, while a single seaman with no permanent address will not be registered for the charge unless he spends periods on shore in excess of 61 days. If a person feels aggrieved by a decision on their sole or main residence then they can appeal to his or her local valuation and community charge tribunal.

  Bristol Channel
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail in percentage terms water pollution in the Bristol channel for the different sorts of pollution and polluter.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is not possible to quantify water pollution in the Bristol channel in percentage terms. Details of discharges to controlled waters, as defined under the Water Act, are held on the public registers maintained by the National Rivers Authority. Details of licences issued for waste disposal at sea are held on the public register of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Further information on water quality including the quality of fish and shellfish is available in the reports compiled by MAFF in the "Aquatic Environment Monitoring" series. These are available in the Library of the House.

  Environment White Paper
  Mr Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report all those organisations which have made submissions in advance of the Government White Paper on the environment: and if he will deposit in the Library copies of submissions not expressly marked confidential.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have welcomed written and oral contributions from a wide range of individuals and organisations, including the following:

  Advisory Group on Recycling

  Airfields Environment Federation

  47

  Arts Council

  Association for the Conservation of Energy

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  Association of Consulting Engineers

  Association of County Councils

  Association of District Councils

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries

  British Agrochemical Association

  British Cement Association

  British Consultants Bureau

  British Maritime Industries Federation

  British Property Federation

  British Waterways Board

  Builders Merchants Federation

  Building Employers Confederation

  Building Services Research and Information Association

  Business in the Environment

  Chartered Institute of Building

  Chemical Industries Association

  Civic Trust

  Combined Heat and Power Association

  Confederation for British Industry;

  Consumer Association;

  Council for Environmental Education;

  Council for the Protection of Rural England;

  Country Landowners Association;

  Countryside Commission;

  Cycling Tourist Club;

  English Heritage;

  Environment Council;

  Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors;

  Friends of the Earth;

  Garden History Society;

  Genetics Forum;

  Green Alliance;

  Groundwork Foundation and Trust;

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency;

  House Builders Federation;

  Housing Standards Co. Ltd.;

  Institute for European Environmental Policy;

  Institute of Directors;

  Institute of Waste Management;

  Institution of Environmental Health Officers;

  International Chamber of Commerce;

  Landscape Institute;

  Marine Conservation Society;

  Marine Forum;

  National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors;

  National Consumer Council;

  National Council of Building Material Producers;

  National Farmers Union;

  National Federation of Demolition Contractors;

  National Heritage Memorial Fund;

  National Home Improvements Council;

  National House Building Council;

  National Rivers Authority;

  National Society for Clean Air;

  National Trust;

  Nature Conservancy Council;

  Neighbourhood Energy Action;

  Noise Abatement Society;

  Noise Council;

  Office of Water Services;

  Open Spaces Society;

  Pesticides Trust;

  Property Advisory Group;

  Ramblers;

  Royal Commission on Historic Monuments of England;

  Royal Fine Art Commission;

  Royal Institute of British Architects;

  Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors;

  Royal Society for Nature Conservation;

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds;

  Royal Town Planning Institute;

  Royal Yachting Association;

  Rural Development Commission;

  Science Museum;

  Scottish Environmental Education;

  48

  Seas at Risk;

  Shellfish Association of Great Britain;

  Tidy Britain Group;

  Town and Country Planning Association;

  Trades Union Congress;

  Transport 2000;

  UK Petroleum Industry Association;

  United Kingdom Environmental Law Association;

  United Kingdom Reclamation Council;

  Volume Housebuilders Study Group;

  Water Research Centre;

  Water Services Association;

  Wildlife Link;

  Worldwide Fund for Nature.

  As these contributions were not part of a formal consultation process, we do not have permission from contributors to place their submissions in the Library.

  Mineral Extraction
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against licences for mineral extraction he has considered each year for which records are available.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department records appeals made under sections 36 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 involving mineral extraction. The number of such appeals decided in each year for which records are available, is as follows:

  Year

  Appeals decided

  1984

  18

  1 1985

  18

  1986–87

  37

  1987–88

  36

  1988–89

  43

  1989–90

  41

  1 After 1985, records are available only for financial years.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the decision was taken to include in table 3.2b of the United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory uncommitted low-level waste arisings.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 26 March 1990,Official Report, column 12.

  Rural Disadvantage
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amounts of social policy expenditure have been allocated by his Department and its agencies to combat rural disadvantages.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Rural Development Commission, which is the Government's principal agency in England for carrying forward our policies on the rural economy, is developing and implementing a wide range of initiatives which deal with economic and social problems in the countryside. The Commission's expenditure on its social programmes in 1989–90 was £4.7 million.

  District Councils (Searches for Solicitors)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the length of time taken by district councils(a) nationally and (b) in Staffordshire to conduct searches for solicitors.

  Mr. Chope
  Ministers at the Department of the Environment receive occasional representations about the length of time taken by district councils to conduct searches. No recent representation has referred specifically to a council in Staffordshire.

  Local Government Salaries
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much he estimates would be added to the local government wage bill if all local government employees were paid at least two thirds of the national average wage in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: My hon. Friend may want an estimate of the cost of paying two thirds of the national average wage to those local authority employees earning less than this figure, or he may also want account to be taken of the consequences for those earning more than this figure, who will want to maintain differentials. However, on either basis, I regret the information is not available centrally.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the London borough of Greenwich has applied for permission to run a portable discount scheme for local authority tenants in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 21 June 1990]: The London borough of Greenwich's bid for resources under the 1990–91 homelessness initiative originally included proposals for a portable discount scheme. This element of the bid was subsequently withdrawn by the council. There is, however, no reason why the council should not consider running a portable discount scheme without such special funding, using its own resources.

  Denitrification
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the research which he has commissioned into denitrification technology; what reports he has received; and if he will place copies in the Library.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 21 June 1990]: The Department has been involved with research into denitrification processes as follows:

  (1) 1972–74, research by the Metropolitan Water Board, Middle Lee Main Drainage Department and the Water Pollution Research Laboratory into the denitrification of sewage effluent by the modified activated sludge process (part funding);

  (2) 1973–75, research by the Water Research Centre into denitrification by ion-exchange and biological processes;

  (3) 1977–79, field studies by the Anglian Water Authority of ion-exchange denitrification using fixed bed and experimental continuous loop plants (part funding);

  (4) 1980–82, field trials by the Anglian Water Authority of fluidised bed biological denitrification plant (part funding);

  (5) 1987, review by Consultants in Environmental Science Limited of the effects of nitrate removal on water quality in
  50
  distribution; and collection of information on the operation of denitrification plants in Europe and the United States of America;

  (6) 1988–89, studies by the Cranfield Institute of Science and Technology of the combined use of ion-exchange and biological denitrification processes (part funding);

  (7) 1988–89, project by the Cranfield Institute of Science and Technology to develop a computer model of the ion-exchange process for optimum operation;

  (8) 1990, studies by the Water Research Centre to improve the biological denitrification process.

  Reports in various forms on all the projects were received, but not all are readily available.

  I am arranging for copies of reports on projects (5) and (7) to be placed in the Library of the House.

  New Homes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to increase the number of homes built in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 21 June 1990]: The Government do not attempt to forecast output of private housebuilders, who build some 85 per cent. of new houses. Output of subsidised dwellings by housing associations financed by the Housing Corporation in England is expected to rise substantially between 1989–90 and 1990–91, more than offsetting an expected decline in new housebuilding by local authorities.

  Toxic Waste
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the ports that received toxic waste in each year since 1987, the quantity of such waste imported, the composition of the waste, and the country of origin and ultimate destination of the waste.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 June 1990]: The information is available in the detail required only since the introduction of Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988. Provisional figures for imports of hazardous wastes through English ports in the year to 31 March 1990 by country of origin and destination, and by waste disposal authority, are as follows. Figures for types of waste imported are summarised, as information for individual ports is not available in a concise form.

  Imports of hazardous waste 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990 via ports in England

  By country of origin

  Tonnes

  Chatham

  Belgium

  409

  Dartford

  Belgium

  1,137

  Dover

  France

  16

  Switzerland

  5,144

  Total Dover

  5,160

  Felixstowe

  Australia

  279

  Austria

  29

  Belgium

  306

  Canada

  62

  Germany

  439

  Ireland

  1

  Italy

  1,169

  51

  Tonnes

  Luxembourg

  17

  Malaysia

  34

  Netherlands

  5,670

  Norway

  424

  Singapore

  39

  Switzerland

  13

  Total Felixstowe

  8,480

  Fleetwood

  Ireland

  154

  Flixborough

  United States

  4,237

  Gravesend

  Austria

  25

  Grimsby

  Germany

  39

  Harwich

  Austria

  52

  Belgium

  64

  Switzerland

  35

  Total Harwich

  150

  Heysham

  Brazil

  33

  Ireland

  582

  Total Heysham

  615

  Immingham

  Belgium

  1,712

  Denmark

  17

  Italy

  620

  Netherlands

  4,937

  Norway

  170

  Sweden

  1,241

  Total Immingham

  8,696

  Ipswich

  Germany

  185

  Liverpool

  Canada

  506

  Ireland

  193

  Switzerland

  37

  Total Liverpool

  736

  Middlesbrough

  Belgium

  184

  Poole

  Channel Islands

  30

  Portsmouth

  Spain

  2

  Purfleet

  Finland

  12

  Ramsgate

  Belgium

  2,958

  Seaforth

  Portugal

  73

  Southampton

  Singapore

  5

  Teesport

  Switzerland

  90

  52

  Tonnes

  Tilbury

  Brazil

  12

  Uruguay

  3

  Total Tilbury

  15

  Great Yarmouth

  Denmark

  8

  Total

  33,399

  Imports of hazardous waste 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990 via ports in England

  By Waste Disposal Authority of destination

  Tonnes

  Chatham

  Greater Manchester

  171

  Torfaen BC

  238

  Total Chatham

  409

  Dartford

  Greater Manchester

  23

  Hampshire County Council

  448

  Torfaen Borough Council

  666

  Total Dartford

  1,137

  Dover

  Greater Manchester

  4,778

  Torfaen Borough Council

  382

  Total Dover

  5,160

  Felixstowe

  Essex County Council

  424

  Greater Manchester

  1,198

  Hampshire County Council

  163

  Suffolk County Council

  22

  West Midlands

  5,401

  Torfaen

  1,272

  Total Felixstowe

  8,480

  Fleetwood

  Cheshire County Council

  110

  Greater Manchester

  44

  Total Fleetwood

  154

  Flixborough

  Humberside County Council

  4,237

  Gravesend

  Torfaen Borough Council

  25

  Grimsby

  Essex County Council

  39

  Harwich

  Essex County Council

  15

  Greater Manchester

  35

  Torfaen Borough Council

  100

  Total Harwich

  150

  Heysham

  Greater Manchester

  530

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  West Midlands

  51

  Torfaen Borough Council

  33

  Total Heysham

  615

  Immingham

  Greater Manchester

  6,714

  53

  Tonnes

  Hampshire County Council

  72

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  33

  West Midlands

  17

  Torfaen Borough Council

  1,860

  Total Immingham

  8,696

  Ipswich

  Torfaen

  185

  Liverpool

  Greater Manchester

  164

  West Midlands

  77

  Torfaen Borough Council

  495

  Total Liverpool

  736

  Middlesbrough

  Greater Manchester

  184

  Poole

  Lancashire County Council

  15

  Warwickshire County Council

  15

  Total Poole

  30

  Portsmouth

  Torfaen Borough Council

  2

  Purfleet

  Essex County Council

  12

  Ramsgate

  Greater Manchester

  22

  West Midlands

  2,936

  Total Ramsgate

  2,958

  Seaforth

  Torfaen Borough Council

  73

  Southampton

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  Teesport

  Greater Manchester

  90

  Tilbury

  Torfaen Borough Council

  16

  Great Yarmouth

  West Midlands

  8

  TOTAL

  33,399

  Imports of hazardous waste 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990 via ports in England

  By type of waste

  Tonnes

  Inorganic acids

  10

  Alkalis

  282

  Toxic metal compounds

  822

  Non-toxic metal compounds

  167

  Metal oxides

  1,644

  Inorganic compounds

  427

  Other inorganic materials

  10,894

  Organic compounds excluding PCBs

  2,080

  PCBs/PCB contaminated material

  2,986

  Polymeric material and precursors

  181

  Fuels, oils and greases

  410

  Fine chemicals and biocides

  600

  Miscellaneous chemical waste

  1,426

  Filter materials, treatment sludge and contaminated rubbish

  5,490

  Interceptor wastes, tars, paint, dyes and pigments

  3,499

  Miscellaneous wastes

  2,234

  54

  By type of waste

  Tonnes

  Total

  33,399

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  European Legislation
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the revised arrangements for considering EEC legislation will be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  In the light of the House's forthcoming debate on the Procedure Committee's report on the scrutiny of European legislation and the Government's response to it, the Government will table motions to make the necessary detailed amendments to Standing Orders. The Government hope that the new arrangements will operate from the start of the next Session.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make space available in the Palace of Westminster for an exhibition of the palaeontological, palaeo-botany and diatom work of the natural history museum.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Upper Waiting Hall is available for Members wishing to arrange for an exhibition to be held there. The procedures agreed by the Services Committee are set out in the leaflet "Exhibitions in the Upper Waiting Hall" and I am arranging for a copy to be sent the hon. Member.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward a motion to approve the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure's first report of Session 1989–90 on oral questions.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I hope to do so shortly so that, if the House agrees, the recommendations can take effect from the start of the next Session.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to the answers of 30 April,Official Report, column 406 and 10 May, Official Report, column 199, about energy consumption, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Privy Council Office covers 15,372 sq ft. This area includes office and storage space, and courtroom of the Judicial Committee.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of the Privy Council Office in the latest available year.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  No specific part of the Privy Council Office vote is dedicated to improving energy efficiency, but staff are encouraged to be economical in their use of energy resources.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, 24 May,Official Report, column 297, if he will make it his policy to ensure that (a) the staff unions and (b) the staff creche committee are consulted about the design and operation of the feasibility study of the provision of child care facilities in the House.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Extensive consultations over the past few years in relation to the provision of child care facilities have clearly identified the nature of provision desired by both groups to which the hon. Member refers. They will, however, be given the opportunity to update their observations once the feasibility study has been completed.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Official Duties
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many official visits he has made as Chancellor of the Duchy since last replying to questions in the House.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  One.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Marginal Tax Rates
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the marginal tax rate incurred by a combination of income tax, national insurance, housing 56
  benefit rent withdrawal taper, and the community charge benefit withdrawal taper in 1990; and what is the contribution of each of these to the total.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The marginal tax-benefit withdrawal rate on additional gross income for someone paying standard rate income tax, and national insurance contributions, and receiving both a rent rebate and community charge benefit is 86–8 per cent., from April 1990, where the earner is not contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme; and 86–4 per cent. where the earner is contracted out. These overall withdrawal rates break down as follows:

  Percentage of additional gross income

  Per cent.

  Contracted In

  Income tax

  25

  National insurance

  9

  Reduced entitlement to income related benefits

  Rent rebate taper

  42·9

  Community charge benefit taper

  9·9

  Contracted Out

  Income tax

  25

  National insurance

  7

  Reduced entitlement to income related benefits

  Rent rebate taper

  44·2

  Community charge benefit taper

  10·2

  Note: Rent rebate and community charge benefit entitlement is calculated on the basis of net income, after deduction of tax and national insurance contributions. The withdrawal tapers applied to additional net income are 65 per cent. for rent rebate and 15 per cent. for community charge benefit.

  War Widows
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will supplement the pensions of war widows whose husbands, while holding United Kingdom citizenship, were killed in the service of a Commonwealth country, whose pensions they now receive, to bring them up to the level of war widows whose husbands were killed while serving in the United Kingdom armed forces;

  (2) if he will supplement the pensions of war widows whose husbands, while holding United Kingdom citizenship, were killed in the service of a Commonwealth country during either of the world wars and whose pensions they now receive, to bring them up to the level of war widows whose husbands were killed while serving in the United Kingdom armed forces.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The pensions paid to war widows by other countries are matters for those countries. There is no provision under the war pensions scheme to pay pensions to widows of men who died as a result of service in the armed forces of another country.

  Deaf People
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has carried out into the additional costs that deaf people face.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government commissioned the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to carry out major surveys of disability in Great Britain between 1985 and 1988. The reports include information about the additional costs incurred by people with a range of disabilities, including hearing. The six OPCS reports of the surveys' findings are in the Library. A follow-up study to the family expenditure survey has been carried out to compare the actual spending of disabled and non-disabled people, and the results of that study will be published shortly.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 36, on residential homes, if he will make available such information as is available to him on this subject.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The average total number of income support recipients in residential care homes and nursing homes whose recorded fees were below the appropriate income support limit for the period November 1988 to August 1989 was 22,000 rounded to the nearest thousand. This represents just over one eighth of the average total claimants in such homes in that period.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims for income support were received during the last financial year from residents of care homes which had been transferred from local authority to independent management or ownership;

  (2) what guidance has been issued by his Department as to the eligibility for income support of residents in care homes managed by charitable trusts set up by local authorities.

  Mr. Scott
  Eligibility for income support is defined by regulations, which provide that benefit is available in 58
  respect of fees, up to certain limits, to residents of registered residential care homes and certain other types of homes. Independent adjudication officers are provided with guidance on the interpretation of the regulations by the chief adjudication officer in the adjudication officers' guide, but no specific guidance has been given on this point. Information on numbers of people living in transferred homes who have claimed income support is not available centrally.

  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many doctors are employed by his Department for the purpose of assessing attendance allowance and mobility allowance claims in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; on what basis they are employed; what salaries or fees they receive; and whether such payments are related to the number of claimants they examine.

  Mr. Scott
  The numbers of doctors who carry out examinations of claimants to attendance and mobility allowances in the areas mentioned are:(a) Inverclyde—30, (b) Strathclyde—428, (c) Scotland—982. The work is of a casual nature, the available cases being allocated among the doctors who are available and have been trained in the work. Payment is from a scale of fees agreed between the Treasury and the medical profession's representatives. A fee is paid for each case completed, individual case fees depending on the time taken to deal with that case.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average and what is the longest delay in hearing of appeals against refusals of mobility allowances, during each of the last five six-month periods for which records are available.

  Mr. Scott
  Appeals against refusal of mobility allowance can be made to a social security appeal tribunal if the decision was not on medical grounds and to a medical appeal tribunal on medical questions. Information about these appeals is not available in the form requested. The national average clearance times, during the last 10 quarters, for appeals on mobility allowance to social security appeal tribunals, from date of lodgment to hearing, were as follows:

  Quarter ending

  Weeks

  30 June 1987

  19·1

  30 September 1987

  20·6

  31 December 1987

  20·1

  31 March 1988

  23·3

  30 June 1988

  20·1

  30 September 1988

  20·5

  31 December 1988

  20·8

  31 March 1989

  21·8

  30 June 1989

  18·8

  30 September 1989

  17·6

  The Department has recently began compiling information on the clearance times for appeals to medical appeal tribunals, but this has not been running long enough to provide representative figures. Information about the time taken to have a hearing on an appeal to a medical board is not kept.

  Information about the longest delay in hearing any of these types of appeal can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole are entitled to poll tax rebate based on claims for refund of rebate received from Strathclyde regional council and other regional and island councils; and what percentage of poll tax payers this represents in (a), (b) and (c) above.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The caseload returns made by regional councils do not provide information separately for parliamentary constituencies and district councils. The latest available caseload information for Strathclyde regional council shows that at the end of February 1990 about 490,000 community charge rebate cases were in payment—(counting rebates to couples as one case). The latest 1989–90 caseload estimate for Scotland is 930,000. The total number of individual charge payers receiving help with the community charge is not collected. It is not, therefore, possible to show the proportion of individual charge payers helped by benefit.

  Office Relocation
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress on the relocation work from local offices to Glasgow.

  Mr. Newton
  I am pleased to announce that relocation of all backroom work from the first cluster of four London offices—Ealing, Southall, Acton and Notting Hill—to the social security centre was completed on schedule on 18 June 1990.

  My Department recently undertook an evaluation study to establish whether the initiative had resulted in an improved service to our London customers. The results were most encouraging. Claims are being processed much more accurately. The error rate has fallen significantly from 29 to 9 per cent. Work is also being dealt with faster. The average time taken to clear a claim has been reduced by 50 per cent., from 11 days to five days. Caller waiting times have also been reduced, and a sampling exercise revealed that, already, between a third and half of customers have noticed an improvement in the quality of service provided. It is also encouraging that these improvements have been made against a background of greater efficiency: the cost of processing a unit of benefit has reduced by half, from £12 to £6. I am arranging to place a copy of the evaluation study in the Library.

  Invalidity Pension
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received on the question of members who serve on local authorities and are in receipt of invalidity pension having the invalidity pension disregarded when assessing the payment of allowances etc. for serving on their local council; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has considered disregarding the payment of invalidity pension for those members who serve on local authorities and are disabled, when assessing payment of allowances to councillors; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he has discussed with local authority organisations the question of the disregard of invalidity pension for members of local authorities who are in receipt of invalidity benefit when receiving allowances for local government duties; and if he will make a statement.
  60
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The question of entitlement to local authority allowances is the prerogative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and is a matter over which we have no jurisdiction. I understand, however, that invalidity benefit has no bearing on the amount of local authority allowances payable.

  Entitlement to invalidity benefit is dependent upon a person being incapable of work and is not, therefore, normally payable where any work is performed. However, following discussions with hon. Members and councillors' representatives special arrangements were introduced for councillors. These provide that councillors can receive invalidity benefit in full in addition to any local authority allowances to which they are entitled up to the level of the therapeutic earnings limit—currently £35 per week. Where local authority allowances for any week exceed this limit, invalidity benefit is reduced only by the excess. These arrangements have operated since May 1987 and continue unchanged.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of income support claimants are living below the appropriate scale rate of benefit because they are repaying social fund, or benefit overpayments, or fuel arrears(a) nationally, (b) regionally and (c) in each local Department of Social Security office area.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of successful social fund applicants are in paid employment(a) nationally, (b) regionally and (c) in each local Department of Social Security office area.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information requested is not collected.

  Letters (Cornwall)
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect a reply to his letter of 7 April, on behalf of Mr. T. G. Harry, of 20 Barripper road, Camborne, Cornwall.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 22 May.

  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect a reply to his letter of 7 April on behalf of Mr. P. McKenna, of 8 Greenfield terrace, Portreath, Redruth, Cornwall, reference POS (3) 2223/240;

  (2) when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect a reply to his letter of 28 February on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. H. E. Thomas of 19 Castle View Park, Mawnan Smith, Falmouth, Cornwall.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 20 June.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there are any plans to harmonise retirement pensions in the European Community.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no plans to harmonise retirement pensions in the European Community.

  Debt Recovery
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, column 53, whether his Department makes any distinction in its treatment of debt collection between moneys owed by (a) current social security beneficiaries and (b) former social security beneficiaries, liable relatives and national insurance contributors.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department undertakes a wide range of debt recovery work and seeks to do so in the most cost-effective way possible. The action taken will depend upon the nature of the debt, the individual circumstances of the debtor and the legal powers available. In the case of current beneficiaries, for example, it is possible to recover sums due by deductions from benefit.

  Disabled People (Benefits)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he is having with disablement groups regarding the proposal to introduce a disability employment credit; and when he last met the Disablement Income Group.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how he proposes formally to consult disability organisations on his proposals outlined in "The Way Ahead—Benefits for Disabled People";

  (2) when he expects to publish draft proposals for the disability employment credit.

  Mr. Scott
  We regularly meet the disability organisations to discuss a wide range of issues. I met the Disability Benefits Consortium—an umbrella group representing over 250 disability organisations including the Disablement Income Group—on 5 April in the second of a series of meetings to discuss their views on "The Way Ahead".

  The proposals for a disability employment credit were outlined in "The Way Ahead"; the Government propose to implement these proposals by bringing forward legislation at an early opportunity.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will continue to answer parliamentary questions on the full range of social security issues after the proposed executive agencies for social security are established.

  Table 1: Single Pensioner

  Gross income1

  Net income2

  Annual charge 300.00 CC Benefit per week

  Net income less Community Charge

  Annual charge 400.00 CC Benefit per week

  Net income less Community Charge

  Annual charge 500.00 CC Benefit per week

  Net income less Community Charge

  56·90

  56·90

  3·34

  54·49

  4·88

  54·11

  6·41

  53·72

  66·90

  66·90

  1·84

  62·99

  3·38

  62·61

  4·91

  62·22

  76·90

  75·32

  ·58

  70·15

  2·11

  69·76

  3·65

  69·38

  62
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 6 June, at column 615.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the latest estimates of the proportion of (a) pensioner households, (b) households with dependent children and (c) other households who are taking up their entitlement to housing benefit, showing the division between council tenants and others.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) on 29 March at column 300.

  Community Charge (Members' Questions)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the reasons why he was unable to reply until 14 June to the priority written questions about community charge rebates tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton for answer on 23 May; and what steps he takes to ensure that answers are provided on the day selected by an hon. Member for priority answer.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  All questions for priority written answer by this Department are answered on the specified day, although some may not receive a full reply on that day. Out of over 1,000 questions tabled for priority written answer this Session, fewer than 150 have been given holding replies: these are given only where the information requested is so detailed or complex that a full reply cannot be provided in the time allowed by the hon. Member concerned. Neither of the questions on community charge rebates tabled by my hon. Friend for answer on 23 May was straightforward. A costing was made as quickly as possible in reply to one question. In the case of the other question, detailed consideration led to the conclusion that no estimate was possible.

  Pensioners
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures for(a) a single pensioner and (b) pensioner couples showing the effects of community charge benefit on their net weekly incomes, assuming a community charge of (i) £300, (ii) £400 and (iii) £500, and weekly incomes other than the relevant state basic pension of £10, £20, £30, £40, £50, £60, £70, £80, £90, £100, £150 and £200.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: The information requested is set out in the tables.
  63

  Gross income1

  Net income2

  Annual charge 300.00 CC Benefit per week

  Net income less Community Charge

  Annual charge 400.00 CC Benefit per week

  Net income less Community Charge

  Annual charge 500.00 CC Benefit per week

  Net income less Community Charge

  86·90

  82·82

  —

  77·07

  ·99

  76·14

  2·52

  75·75

  96·90

  90·32

  —

  84·57

  —

  82·65

  1·40

  82·13

  106·90

  97·82

  —

  92·07

  —

  90·15

  —

  88·23

  116·90

  105·32

  —

  99·57

  —

  97·65

  —

  95·75

  126·90

  112·82

  —

  107·07

  —

  105·15

  —

  103·23

  136·90

  120·32

  —

  114·57

  —

  112·65

  —

  110·73

  146·90

  127·82

  —

  122·07

  —

  120·15

  —

  118·23

  196·90

  165·32

  —

  159·57

  —

  157·65

  —

  155·73

  246·90

  201·52

  —

  195·77

  —

  193·85

  —

  191·93

  1 "Gross Income" comprises, the basic state retirement pension plus £10, £20, £30 … £100, £150 and £200.

  2 Net Income is gross income, calculated as at 1, less income tax. For the purposes of independent taxation, it is assumed that in pensioner couples all income other than the wife's state retirement pension is allocated to the husband.

  Table 2: Pensioner couple

  Gross income1

  Net income2

  Annual charge 300.00 CC Benefit per week

  Net income less Community Charge

  Annual charge 400.00 CC Benefit per week

  Net income less Community Charge

  Annual charge 500.00 CC Benefit per week

  Net income less Community Charge

  85·10

  85·10

  7·78

  81·38

  10·84

  80·60

  15·90

  79·82

  95·10

  95·10

  6·28

  89·88

  9·34

  89·10

  12·40

  88·32

  105·10

  105·10

  4·78

  98·38

  7·84

  97·60

  10·90

  96·82

  115·10

  115·10

  3·28

  106·88

  6·34

  106·10

  9·40

  105·32

  125·10

  125·10

  1·78

  115·38

  4·84

  114·60

  7·90

  113·82

  135·10

  135·10

  —

  123·60

  3·34

  123·10

  6·40

  122·32

  145·10

  143·83

  —

  132·33

  2·02

  130·51

  5·10

  129·75

  155·10

  151·33

  —

  139·83

  ·90

  136·89

  3·98

  136·13

  165·10

  158·83

  —

  147·33

  —

  143·49

  2·84

  142·49

  175·10

  166·33

  —

  154·83

  —

  150·99

  1·72

  148·87

  225·10

  203·83

  —

  192·33

  —

  188·49

  —

  184·65

  275·10

  240·04

  —

  228·54

  —

  224·70

  —

  220·86

  1 "Gross Income" comprises, the basic state retirement pension plus £10, £20, £30 … £100, £150 and £200.

  2 Net Income is gross income, calculated as at 1, less income tax. For the purposes of independent taxation, it is assumed that in pensioner couples all income other than the wife's state retirement pension is allocated to the husband.

  Home Ownership (Pensioners)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the proportion of retirement pensioners who own their own homes(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in those other European Community member states for which information is available.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  Comparative information for owner-occupation by age categories appears in table 10.24 of the Building Societies Association's "Housing In Britain", which is in the Library. More recent figures available for some countries are as follows:

  Percentage of owner-occupiers among households with a head aged 65 years or over

  Country

  1984

  1985

  Great Britain

  47

  49

  Netherlands

  —

  32

  West Germany

  —

  40

  France

  56

  —

  Note:

  The West German figure of 63 per cent. for this age category in 1982 appearing in the BSA publication should read 33 per cent.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the proportion of retirement pensioners(a) aged over 75 years and (b) aged 65 to 70 years who (i) own their own homes and (ii) have income from occupational or private pensions.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.
  64
  The available estimates are from the 1988 general household survey and the 1988 family expenditure survey and are as follows.

  Age of head of household

  1 Percentage who are owner occupiers

  2 Percentage with income from occupational or private pension

  65 to 69

  56

  66

  70 to 74

  53

  57

  75 or over

  48

  49

  1Source: 1988 General Household Survey (Great Britain).

  2Source: 1988 Family Expenditure Survey (United Kingdom). Includes covenants and annuities.

  The two surveys used as sources do not cover the institutional population, and so exclude people in nursing homes, rest homes or residents permanently in hospital.

WALES

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people with glaucoma and diabetes received free eye tests in Wales(a) in each quarter in 1988–89 and (b) in each quarter in 1989–90.

  Mr. Grist
  The data requested were not collected centrally before 1 April 1989, since when they have been collected on a six-monthly basis.
  65
  The available information is given as follows:

  Estimated1 number of sight tests paid for by Family Practitioner Committees in the six months ending

  30 September 1989

  31 March 1990

  Persons aged over 40 who are relatives of glaucoma suffers

  2,950

  4,910

  1 Estimates based upon a 2 per cent. sample of all such sight tests.

  Skomer Marine Nature Reserve
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of his negotiations with the Welsh Yachting Association over the establishment of a marine nature reserve at Skomer.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The draft order in respect of the Skomer marine nature reserve was published in March 1990. Three representations were received during the statutory 28–day objection period including one from the Welsh Yachting Association. The points raised by the representations have been resolved and all the representations have since been withdrawn. We are therefore now proceeding with the designation of the area as a marine nature reserve in accordance with the requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Education Act 1981 (Appeals)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of appeals received under section 5(6) of the Education Act 1981 by local education authority; and what were the decisions taken by the appeals tribunal for each year from April 1983.

  Mr. Grist
  Appeals under section 5(6) of the Education Act 1981 are made directly to the Secretary of State. Four appeals have been made since April 1983 and in two cases the local education authority concerned was directed to reconsider its decision not to complete a statement of special educational need. The details are:

  Local education authority

  Year

  Number

  West Glamorgan

  1983

  1

  Gwent

  1986

  1

  South Glamorgan

  1987

  2

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of appeals received under section 8(6) of the Education Act 1981 by local education authority; and what were the decisions taken by the appeals tribunal for each year from April 1983.

  Mr. Grist
  Appeals under section 8(6) of the Education Act 1981 are made directly to the Secretary of State. Nine appeals have been made since April 1983. The Secretary of State found in favour of the local education authorities in respect of seven cases; the remaining two are still under consideration. The details are:

  Local education authority

  Year

  Number

  Clwyd, Mid Glamorgan

  1985

  2

  Clwyd, South Glamorgan

  1987

  2

  West Glamorgan

  1988

  1

  Gwynedd, South Glamorgan

  1989

  2

  Clwyd, Gwynedd

  1990

  2

  Disabled Teachers
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of students with disabilities who have entered initial teacher training in Wales for each of the last 10 years; and what percentage of the total number of student teachers these represent.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many teachers with disabilities are currently employed in each local education authority in Wales; and what steps his Department is taking to increase the numbers of teachers with disabilities.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the numbers of teachers with disabilities is not held centrally. The initiatives being taken by the Government to increase the supply of teachers are directed at all prospective teachers, including those with disabilities.

  Schools (Access)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wailes what specific funding has been available to Welsh local education authorities to enable access to school and college buildings for pupils and teachers with disabilities in each of the last 10 years; and if he has any plans to make specific grants available to local education authorities to carry out necessary capital works to facilitate physical access for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Grist
  Under the arrangements agreed with local authorities in Wales, capital resources are not hypothecated to specific services. It is for the authorities themselves to determine priorities between and within services, and therefore to decide how much to spend on facilitating physical access to educational buildings for people with disabilities.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he gives to local education authorities in Wales on the standards of access for people with disabilities for new designs for and adaptations to school and college buildings; and whether he will consult interested parties regarding statutory provision for standards of access for new school and college buildings.

  Mr. Grist
  Guidance is given to local education authorities in design note No. 18 (1984) "Access for disabled people to Educational Buildings" and in building bulletin 61. The design note is based on the recommendations of a working party comprising representatives of interested parties.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many nursery, primary and secondary schools in Wales are fully accessible to pupils and teachers with disabilities; what are these figures as percentages of the total number of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Clwyd TEC
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State forWales if he will take steps to enable Alyn and Deeside district council to have direct representation upon the Clwyd, Gwynedd 1990 2 Clwyd TEC; and if he will make a statement.
  67
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. The Government's White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" said that training and enterprise councils were to be employer-led. Two thirds of the directors, including the chairman, must be local business leaders from the private sector. The balance may be drawn from other sectors including local authorities, but this is for individual TECs to determine. The TECs will need to work closely with all relevant groups in the community, including the local authorities, and must demonstrate that they have widespread support before their plans will be approved.

  Deeside High School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet(a) Shotton town council, (b) Queensferry community council and (c) Haversden community council to hear their views concerning the proposed closure of Deeside high school.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 7 February 1990, column 661.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the expected date or dates for implementation of the provisions of the Children Act 1989 in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Some minor provisions covering the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the meaning of "parent" for certain provisions of the Child Care Act 1980 pending its repeal, and tests to establish paternity came into effect on Royal Assent to the Children Act on 16 November 1989. An amendment to the Education Act 1981 in respect of provision outside England and Wales for certain children came into force on 17 January 1990. We expect to bring the remaining provisions into force in October 1991.

  Group and type of staff

  WTE Staff of residential accommodation for elderly and elderly mentally infirm people

  WTE Staff of residential accommodation for younger physically handicapped people

  WTE Staff of residential accommodation for mentally ill people

  WTE Staff of residential accommodation for mentally handicapped adults

  WTE Staff of residential accommodation catering primarily for mentally handicapped children

  Officers in charge or equivalent

  193·0

  4·0

  12·0

  32·0

  11·0

  Deputy officers in charge or equivalent

  229·2

  8·6

  9·0

  22·6

  9·8

  Other care staff1

  435·7

  21·8

  5·5

  133·8

  38·7

  Care assistants

  1,586·4

  46·3

  53·7

  187·9

  24·4

  Other staff

  1,427·0

  41·1

  32·4

  72·5

  17·9

  Total

  3,871·3

  121·8

  112·6

  448·8

  101·8

  1 Including trainee care staff but excluding care assistants.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons aged 65 years and over were in accommodation for the elderly in each local authority in Wales, and how many in each local authority were in accommodation provided by(a) local authorities, (b) voluntary homes and (c) private homes in each year since

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to make a decision on community health council reform in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I hope to announce a decision shortly.

  Obstetric Accidents
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, in the light of recent evidence published in the British Medical Journal of 26 May on the causes of certain obstetric accidents, he will undertake a review of the training of junior doctors in Wales in relation to foetal heart monitoring and the use of obstetric forceps.

  Mr. Grist
  Standards of training are laid down by the General Medical Council and the content of training programmes for junior doctors in this specialty is essentially a matter for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes the independent sector provides for each year since 1980 in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Private and voluntary residential homes are all in the independent sector.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed by(a) voluntary registered homes, (b) private registered homes and (c) local authority homes in Wales; and, in each case, what appropriate formal qualifications they have.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of people employed by voluntary and private registered homes is not held centrally. The number of people employed in local authority homes as at 30 September 1989 is shown in the following table. Information on their appropriate formal qualifications is not held centrally.

  1980; and if he will estimate what the change will be in these figures in the future due to changes in community care policy.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of residents aged 65 years and over in accommodation for elderly people in local authority and private and voluntary residential homes is shown in the following table:
  69

  As at 31 March

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Clwyd

  Local authority

  887

  914

  976

  955

  946

  886

  868

  814

  787

  690

  Voluntary and private homes1

  757

  821

  830

  985

  1,249

  1,484

  1,698

  1,893

  1,998

  2,069

  Dyfed

  Local authority

  1,042

  1,081

  1,101

  1,117

  1,157

  1,143

  1,131

  1,152

  1,116

  1,086

  Voluntary and private homes1

  76

  78

  86

  91

  157

  275

  447

  531

  631

  790

  Gwent

  Local authority

  955

  967

  962

  979

  958

  951

  945

  948

  962

  929

  Voluntary and private homes1

  62

  67

  59

  130

  208

  235

  260

  321

  447

  422

  Gwynedd

  Local authority

  812

  802

  822

  814

  826

  813

  824

  809

  813

  787

  Voluntary and private homes1

  184

  198

  249

  276

  367

  523

  639

  767

  916

  1,021

  Mid Glamorgan

  Local authority

  1,154

  1,180

  1,203

  1,198

  1,192

  1,209

  1,222

  1,242

  1,231

  1,207

  Voluntary and private homes1

  85

  100

  96

  131

  172

  247

  320

  357

  517

  611

  Powys

  Local authority

  380

  371

  369

  383

  395

  396

  381

  394

  397

  398

  Voluntary and private homes1

  32

  35

  69

  100

  115

  143

  168

  195

  224

  241

  South Glamorgan

  Local authority

  909

  928

  921

  890

  870

  851

  781

  747

  747

  748

  Voluntary and private homes1

  405

  410

  457

  496

  659

  748

  987

  1,168

  1,297

  1,375

  West Glamorgan

  Local authority

  833

  859

  857

  837

  829

  840

  888

  874

  836

  777

  Voluntary and private homes1

  118

  122

  129

  130

  158

  253

  296

  317

  361

  368

  Wales

  Local authority

  6,972

  7,102

  7,211

  7,173

  7,173

  7,089

  7,040

  6,980

  6,889

  6,622

  Voluntary and private homes1

  1,719

  1,831

  1,975

  2,339

  3,085

  3,908

  4,815

  5,549

  6,391

  6,897

  1 Separate figures for the voluntary and private sectors are not available prior to 1989.

  Changes in patterns and volumes of care will take place on the basis of social care plans which are to be produced by social services authorities working with health authorities and other interests and which are to be published by April 1991.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many residents in voluntary and private homes were sponsored by local authorities for each year since 1980; and what information he has on the proportion accounted for by supported residents in(a) voluntary homes and (b) private homes in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The data as at 31 March are shown in the following table:

  Supported residents in private and voluntary homes

  Percentage of these in voluntary homes

  Percentage of these in private homes

  1980

  729

  77·4

  22·6

  1981

  586

  81·6

  18·4

  1982

  577

  86·1

  13·9

  1983

  576

  83·7

  16·3

  1984

  519

  88·1

  11·9

  1985

  422

  93·4

  6·6

  Homes, Places and Residents for Elderly People as at 31 March 1980–1989

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  (a) Registered Private and Voluntary1

  1980

  Homes

  45

  5

  4

  22

  2

  2

  16

  5

  101

  Places

  801

  94

  67

  266

  102

  67

  435

  137

  1,969

  Residents

  775

  78

  63

  184

  85

  49

  409

  127

  1,770

  70

  Supported residents in private and voluntary homes

  Percentage of these in voluntary homes

  Percentage of these in private homes

  1986

  217

  99.5

  0.5

  1987

  128

  99.2

  0.8

  1988

  162

  98.8

  1.2

  1989

  182

  100.0

  —

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (i) private registered homes, (ii) voluntary registered homes and (iii) local authority homes for the elderly there were in each local authority in Wales(a) how many places these provided and (b) how many residents there were, for each year since 1980; and what estimate he has made of the likely change in these figures as a result of changes in community care.

  Mr. Grist
  The information required is shown in the following table. Changes in patterns and volumes of care will take place on the basis of social care plans which are to be produced by social services authorities working with health authorities and other interests, and which are to be published by April 1991.
  71

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1981

  Homes

  55

  5

  5

  27

  3

  2

  16

  5

  118

  Places

  1,043

  95

  74

  306

  131

  68

  448

  142

  2,307

  Residents

  839

  80

  68

  198

  100

  56

  417

  130

  1,888

  1982

  Homes

  59

  5

  5

  27

  4

  3

  20

  7

  130

  Places

  1,131

  95

  109

  360

  135

  88

  511

  155

  2,584

  Residents

  846

  88

  60

  250

  96

  89

  464

  133

  2,026

  1983

  Homes

  68

  7

  7

  31

  6

  4

  24

  9

  156

  Places

  1,359

  124

  155

  393

  147

  123

  558

  156

  3,015

  Residents

  1,012

  92

  132

  279

  131

  110

  502

  135

  2,393

  1984

  Homes

  86

  10

  11

  45

  9

  5

  35

  11

  212

  Places

  1,672

  173

  245

  550

  201

  139

  732

  182

  3,894

  Residents

  1,282

  161

  212

  372

  175

  127

  671

  163

  3,163

  1985

  Homes

  101

  21

  15

  49

  15

  7

  41

  21

  270

  Places

  1,921

  307

  315

  716

  303

  162

  815

  278

  4,817

  Residents

  1,517

  282

  269

  540

  252

  151

  754

  259

  4,024

  1986

  Homes

  117

  42

  16

  53

  18

  8

  63

  23

  340

  Places

  2,197

  545

  328

  753

  374

  194

  1,166

  318

  5,875

  Residents

  1,741

  466

  284

  645

  326

  170

  999

  306

  4,937

  1987

  Homes

  135

  46

  19

  64

  22

  11

  72

  25

  394

  Places

  2,371

  621

  352

  892

  421

  232

  1,303

  343

  6,535

  Residents

  1,929

  557

  328

  778

  363

  207

  1,181

  321

  5,664

  1988

  Homes

  147

  50

  25

  75

  30

  12

  78

  28

  445

  Places

  2,453

  721

  501

  1,090

  609

  242

  1,472

  404

  7,492

  Residents

  2,035

  653

  457

  926

  522

  229

  1,309

  366

  6,497

  1989

  Homes

  151

  63

  23

  87

  33

  15

  84

  28

  484

  Places

  2,620

  895

  473

  1,220

  684

  280

  1,559

  422

  8,153

  Residents

  2,102

  814

  431

  1,037

  618

  256

  1,390

  379

  7,027

  (b) Local Authority

  1980

  Homes

  23

  28

  25

  26

  32

  15

  27

  22

  198

  Places

  943

  1,164

  1,049

  853

  1,281

  418

  975

  898

  7,581

  Residents

  916

  1,108

  1,011

  843

  1,238

  394

  936

  860

  7,306

  1981

  Homes

  23

  29

  25

  26

  33

  15

  27

  22

  200

  Places

  946

  1,208

  1,047

  852

  1,305

  417

  976

  909

  7,660

  Residents

  937

  1,149

  1,027

  826

  1,257

  387

  942

  893

  7,418

  1982

  Homes

  24

  29

  25

  26

  33

  15

  27

  22

  201

  Places

  1,011

  1,207

  1,047

  853

  1,311

  418

  976

  909

  7,732

  Residents

  1,001

  1,161

  1,019

  840

  1,271

  385

  933

  891

  7,501

  1983

  Homes

  23

  29

  25

  26

  33

  14

  27

  21

  198

  Places

  1,003

  1,212

  1,043

  854

  1,318

  414

  956

  882

  7,682

  Residents

  976

  1,186

  1,026

  833

  1,266

  400

  907

  861

  7,455

  1984

  Homes

  24

  29

  25

  26

  33

  14

  27

  21

  199

  Places

  1,032

  1,257

  1,038

  853

  1,326

  417

  954

  881

  7,758

  Residents

  966

  1,219

  1,004

  845

  1,263

  410

  889

  855

  7,451

  1985

  Homes

  23

  29

  25

  26

  33

  14

  27

  22

  199

  Places

  958

  1,224

  1,041

  855

  1,329

  434

  949

  910

  7,700

  Residents

  904

  1,211

  996

  834

  1,273

  410

  865

  863

  7,356

  72 73

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1986

  Homes

  23

  29

  24

  27

  34

  14

  27

  23

  201

  Places

  962

  1,273

  1,010

  883

  1,373

  434

  949

  960

  7,844

  Residents

  881

  1,188

  982

  842

  1,287

  394

  795

  902

  7,271

  1987

  Homes

  22

  29

  24

  27

  34

  14

  24

  23

  197

  Places

  899

  1,266

  1,029

  866

  1,372

  440

  868

  929

  7,669

  Residents

  830

  1,199

  982

  824

  1,293

  404

  764

  895

  7,191

  1988

  Homes

  21

  29

  24

  27

  34

  14

  24

  23

  196

  Places

  861

  1,258

  1,030

  860

  1,364

  440

  846

  900

  7,559

  Residents

  797

  1,155

  986

  841

  1,271

  410

  756

  851

  7,067

  1989

  Homes

  20

  27

  24

  27

  34

  14

  24

  22

  192

  Places

  794

  1,148

  1,026

  848

  1,349

  440

  838

  907

  7,350

  Residents

  703

  1,123

  953

  810

  1,248

  404

  758

  793

  6,792

  1 Separate figures for the voluntary and private sectors are not available prior to 1989.

  Toxic Algae
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the effect in Wales of toxic algae upon water resources and those who use them.

  Mr. Grist
  The National Rivers Authority has commenced a major programme, concentrating on public supply reservoirs and inland waters regularly used for water contact sports, to monitor for blue-green algae. If algae is identified in any waters, the authority immediately informs the district council health authority and the owner.

  Responsibility for taking any necessary precautions and bringing the matter to the attention of water users and other members of the public lies with the owners.

  To supplement the information provided by the NRA, Dwr Cymru Cyf is also carrying out routine monitoring of all susceptible water resources used for public supply. Dwr Cymru advises me that, to date, blue-green algae has been reported in four such reservoirs but the algal scums have been limited to small areas on the surface of the water and have thus not adversely affected the water used for public supply.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to improve security arrangements for the collection and disposal of clinical waste in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  All district health authorities in Wales have been made aware of the provisions contained in the Environmental Protection Bill, which will introduce revised standards for the disposal of clinical waste by incineration.

  Discussions with senior managers of Welsh health authorities have already taken place to focus attention on this subject and a seminar on the new standards and requirements has been arranged for health authority staff and local authority environmental health officers on 4 July.
  74
  Each health authority was also given the opportunity to comment on the consultation document reviewing the operation of the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 and which proposes that clinical waste should be classified as special waste. If implemented this would require a consignment note procedure to be applied to the disposal of clinical waste.

  Provision is incorporated in the Environmental Protection Bill imposing on producers of waste the duty to ensure the adoption of proper methods of control in its handling and this duty would apply to producers of clinical waste.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give an estimate of the current number of homeless in Wales; and, of those, how many suffer from(a) alcoholism or drug dependency, (b) AIDS and (c) mental illness.

  Mr. Grist
  There were 4,2081 households accepted as homeless during the quarter ending 31 March 1990. Of these, 26 households were classed as in priority need because a household member was considered vulnerable as a result of mental disability. Information on the number of persons in households accepted as suffering from alcohol or drug dependency or AIDS is not collected centrally.

  1 This figure includes an estimated 2,000 households made homeless in Colwyn as a result of the major flooding incident in February 1990.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of persons aged 65 years and over received home help service in each local authority in Wales since 1980; and what estimate he has made of the likely change in these figures as a result of changes in community care.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is shown in the following table:
  75

  Persons aged 65 and over receiving home help

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  (a) Numbers1

  1980

  3,401

  3,640

  6,567

  2,946

  11,044

  1,006

  5,585

  4,773

  38,962

  1981

  4,063

  3,707

  6,775

  3,065

  11,160

  923

  5,343

  5,024

  40,060

  1982

  4,252

  4,001

  6,867

  3,319

  11,898

  794

  5,816

  5,107

  42,054

  1983

  4,437

  3,983

  7,409

  3,438

  12,863

  808

  7,118

  5,794

  45,850

  1984

  4,496

  3,752

  7,769

  3,309

  13,177

  906

  6,373

  6,588

  46,370

  1985

  4,618

  3,891

  6,512

  3,256

  13,661

  860

  7,095

  7,154

  47,047

  1986

  5,031

  4,134

  8,136

  3,557

  14,009

  873

  7,298

  7,742

  50,780

  1987

  5,128

  4,452

  8,559

  3,297

  14,237

  979

  7,559

  8,009

  52,220

  1988

  5,661

  3,869

  9,643

  2,997

  16,431

  952

  5,208

  7,526

  52,287

  1989

  5,878

  4,956

  9,713

  3,273

  16,711

  986

  5,249

  6,837

  53,603

  (b) As a percentage2

  1980

  5.2

  6.7

  10.6

  7.0

  14.7

  5.3

  9.9

  8.4

  9.0

  1981

  6.1

  6.6

  10.7

  7.1

  14.7

  4.8

  9.4

  8.7

  9.1

  1982

  6.3

  7.2

  10.9

  7.6

  15.6

  4.2

  10.1

  8.7

  9.5

  1983

  6.6

  7.0

  11.6

  8.0

  16.9

  4.2

  12.4

  10.0

  10.4

  1984

  6.7

  6.6

  12.4

  7.7

  17.4

  4.7

  11.1

  11.2

  10.6

  1985

  6.9

  6.8

  10.3

  7.6

  18.0

  4.6

  12.3

  12.3

  10.7

  1986

  7.5

  7.0

  12.6

  8.2

  18.2

  4.5

  12.5

  12.9

  11.3

  1987

  7.5

  7.5

  12.9

  7.5

  18.1

  4.9

  12.7

  13.2

  11.4

  1988

  8.2

  6.4

  14.2

  6.8

  20.5

  4.7

  8.5

  12.2

  11.2

  1989

  8.5

  8.0

  14.1

  7.3

  20.7

  4.8

  8.5

  11.0

  11.4

  1 During the year ended 31 March.

  2 Expressed as a percentage of estimated population aged 65 and over at 30 June in preceding year.

  Changes in patterns and volumes of care will take place on the basis of social care plans which are to be produced by social services authorities working with health authorities and other interests and which are to be published by April 1991.

  Elderly People (Day Centres)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many day centres for the elderly there were, and how many places were available in these day centres in each

  As at 31 March

  Clwyd

  Dyfed1

  Gwent1

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys1

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  Centres

  Places

  Centres

  Places

  Centres

  Places

  Centres

  Places

  Centres

  Places

  Centres

  Places

  Centres

  Places

  Centres

  Places

  Centres

  Places

  1980

  3

  145

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  128

  33

  1,386

  —

  —

  12

  990

  —

  —

  56

  2,649

  1981

  3

  145

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  128

  33

  1,364

  —

  —

  13

  1,060

  —

  —

  57

  2,697

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  183

  27

  1,277

  —

  —

  13

  1,060

  —

  —

  50

  2,520

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  185

  27

  994

  —

  —

  13

  1,060

  —

  —

  50

  2,239

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  250

  26

  871

  —

  —

  13

  1,060

  —

  —

  51

  2,181

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  284

  26

  866

  —

  —

  13

  1,060

  1

  20

  54

  2,230

  1986

  2

  68

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  281

  25

  752

  —

  —

  9

  800

  3

  60

  53

  1,961

  1987

  2

  71

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  287

  24

  663

  —

  —

  9

  800

  5

  123

  54

  1,944

  1988

  3

  86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  288

  26

  673

  —

  —

  9

  800

  6

  153

  58

  2,000

  1989

  3

  86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  330

  34

  794

  —

  —

  9

  800

  8

  208

  69

  2,218

  1 Dyfed, Gwent and Powys provide day centres but they cater for a variety of client groups although elderly people are the predominant attenders.

  Primary Schools Dyfed
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of all Her Majesty's inspectorate reports on individual primary schools in Wales published during the last four years, indicating for each the number of pupils attending.

  Mr. Grist
  Her Majesty's inspectorate reports on individual primary schools to 21 June 1990 are listed in the following tables, by local education authority, with the number of pupils on the school roll in January of the year of publication.
  76
  local authority in Wales in each year since 1980; and what estimate he has made of the likely future change in these figures as a result of changes in community care.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Changes in patterns and volumes of care will take place on the basis of social care plans which are to be produced by social services authorities working with health authorities and other interests and which are to be published by April 1991.

  Dyfed

  Report issued

  Number on roll January

  Prendergast Junior

  1986

  241

  Lakefield County Primary

  1986

  218

  Ysgol Gymraeg Rhydaman

  1986

  125

  St. Francis Roman Catholic

  1987

  127

  Plascrug County Primary

  1987

  352

  Tenby Junior

  1987

  189

  Aberporth County Primary

  1988

  166

  Pwll County Primary

  1988

  122

  Ysgol Gynradd Eglwyswrw

  1988

  133

  Llangunner County Primary

  1988

  255

  Grove Junior School

  1988

  235

  Llangeitho County Primary

  1988

  72

  Whitland County Primary

  1988

  156

  Penparcau Junior School

  1988

  95

  77

  Report issued

  Number on roll January

  Ysgol Gymraeg Tielo Sant

  1988

  127

  Llandovery County Primary

  1988

  198

  Barn Street Junior

  1989

  204

  Parc Y Tywyn

  1989

  101

  St. Padarns Roman Catholic Primary School

  1989

  136

  Penygroes County Primary

  1989

  143

  Peniel County Primary

  1989

  118

  St. David's Church in Wales Primary School

  1989

  96

  Gwent

  Report issued

  Number on roll January

  Cwmfelinfach

  1986

  220

  Mathern CP

  1986

  76

  Durham Road Junior

  1986

  325

  Briery Hill CP

  1987

  151

  Pengam CP

  1987

  292

  St. Dials Infants and Welsh unit

  1987

  197

  Llanfair Kilgeddin voluntary controlled

  1987

  29

  Cyltha CP

  1988

  200

  Nantyglo Junior and Infants

  1988

  164

  Henllys Junior and Infants

  1988

  28

  Cwmffrwdoer CP

  1988

  175

  Llangattock Nigh Usk CP

  1988

  25

  Willowtown Junior

  1988

  242

  Ty Sign Junior School

  1988

  293

  St. Woolos PS

  1989

  184

  St. Andrews Infants

  1989

  216

  Libanus PS

  1989

  256

  Alway Junior

  1989

  222

  Dukestown Junior

  1989

  141

  Sofrydd Junior (and Welsh unit)

  1989

  147

  St. Andrews Junior

  1989

  184

  Llwynu Junior

  1990

  183

  Gwynedd

  Report issued

  Number on roll January

  Llandefgan

  1986

  201

  Coed Mawr Infants

  1986

  72

  Glan Adda CP

  1987

  82

  Bodlondeb Voluntary Controlled Infants

  1987

  113

  Dolgellau Voluntary Controlled

  1987

  92

  Ysgol Y Morfa

  1987

  41

  Candnant VC Junior

  1987

  160

  Ysgol Treferthyr

  1988

  148

  Dolgellau Junior

  1988

  99

  Ysgol Morfa Rhianed

  1988

  151

  Beamaris PS

  1988

  165

  Nefyn Infants School

  1988

  171

  Nefyn Junior School

  1988

  Ysgol Fridd Y Llyn

  1988

  24

  Ysgol Gynradd Y Bala

  1988

  90

  Ysgol-Y-Borth

  1988

  24

  Treffos Independent

  1988

  63

  Ysgol Gynradd Y Parc Holyhead

  1989

  230

  Ysgol Cae Top

  1989

  192

  Ysgol Llanfairpwllgyngyll

  1990

  355

  78

  Clwyd

  Report issued

  Number on roll January

  Ysgol Gymraeg Bodhyfryd, Wrexham

  1986

  397

  Glynceiriog CP

  1986

  67

  St. Mary's Voluntary Aided, Ruabon

  1986

  233

  Park Junior CP, Llay

  1986

  236

  Borras Park CP

  1986

  224

  Old Colwyn Junior CP

  1986

  252

  Ysgol Caer Drewyn, Corwen

  1987

  106

  Wat's Dyke Infants, Mynydd ISA

  1987

  233

  Ysgol Mair RC, Rhyl

  1987

  523

  Penley Madras VP

  1987

  117

  Ysgol Bro Cynllaith

  1988

  51

  Ysgol Heol Gaer, Flint

  1988

  234

  Ysgol Emmanuel CP, Rhyl

  1988

  421

  Ysgol Gynradd Bro Cernyw, Abergele

  1988

  97

  Ysgol Derwen, Kinnerton

  1988

  168

  St. Mary's Aided, Overton

  1988

  98

  Bronington VP, Whitchurch

  1988

  110

  Ysgol Dewi Sant, Rhyl

  1989

  319

  Ceiriog Junior CP, Chirk

  1989

  175

  Chirk Infants CP

  1989

  187

  St. Elfod Junior CP, Abergele

  1989

  246

  Penmaenrhos Infants School, Old Colwyn

  1990

  131

  West Glamorgan

  Report issued

  Number on roll January

  Birchgrove Infants

  1986

  290

  Duffryn Afan CP

  1986

  38

  Tirmorfa CP

  1986

  263

  Ynystawe Primary

  1987

  181

  Coedfranc Infant

  1987

  282

  Garnswllt CP

  1987

  25

  Crynallt Junior

  1987

  322

  Llangyfelach

  1987

  133

  Central Junior

  1988

  282

  Glyncorrwg PS

  1988

  174

  Blaengwrach CP

  1988

  149

  Gors Infants School

  1988

  228

  CWM Nedd Welsh PS

  1988

  290

  Bryncoch C in WPS

  1988

  162

  Portmead PS

  1988

  360

  CWM Gors CP

  1989

  96

  Ysgol Gynradd Gymraeg Bryniago

  1989

  124

  Tywyn PS

  1989

  308

  Baglan PS

  1989

  234

  Pennard CP

  1990

  207

  South Glamorgan

  Report issued

  Number on roll January

  Llanilltud Fawr Primary

  1986

  254

  Ysgol Gymraeg Sant Ffrancis

  1986

  203

  Lakeside County Primary

  1986

  371

  Ysgol Gymraeg Sant Baruc

  1986

  135

  Hywel DDA Junior

  1986

  165

  Pendolylan Church in Wales

  1986

  74

  Llansannor and Llanhari Church in Wales

  1986

  98

  Hawthorn Junior

  1986

  112

  Trowbridge County Infants

  1986

  243

  Gwenfo Church in Wales Controlled

  1987

  130

  Bryn Hafod County Primary

  1987

  357

  Gabalfa Primary

  1987

  307

  Glan yr Afon Infants

  1987

  195

  79

  Report issued

  Number on roll January

  Christ the King Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided

  1987

  234

  Danescourt Junior

  1988

  170

  St. Anne's Church in Wales Infant

  1988

  23

  Murch Junior School

  1988

  254

  Glan yr Afon Junior School

  1988

  210

  Llysfaen County Primary

  1988

  324

  Radnor County Primary

  1988

  297

  Eaglewell Infants

  1989

  190

  Rhws Primary School

  1989

  252

  St. Francis Roman Catholic Junior

  1989

  182

  Holton Junior

  1989

  300

  Ysgol Gymraeg Penarth

  1989

  289

  Ysgol y Wern

  1990

  221

  Powys

  Report issued

  Number on roll January

  Radnor Valley County Primary

  1986

  75

  Irfon Valley County Primary

  1986

  106

  Trefonnen Church in Wales

  1986

  246

  Llandysilio Voluntary Controlled

  1987

  49

  Machynlleth Junior

  1987

  141

  Llangynidr County Primary

  1987

  136

  Gurnos Infants

  1987

  56

  Pentwyn Independent

  1988

  11

  Llanerfyl Church in Wales

  1988

  22

  Crossgates County Primary

  1988

  127

  Ysgol Trefeglwys

  1988

  109

  Penrhos County Primary

  1989

  129

  Ysgol Pennant

  1989

  74

  Buttington/Trewern County Primary

  1989

  68

  Ffynnon Gynydd Church in Wales Primary School

  1989

  35

  Ysgol Maes-Y-Dre

  1989

  235

  Trecastle County Primary

  1989

  41

  Ysgol Gymraeg Ynys Cedwyn, Powys

  1990

  87

  Priory Church in Wales Primary

  1990

  179

  Mid Glamorgan

  Report issued

  Number on roll January

  Bryncethin Junior

  1986

  166

  Llwyncrwn Primary

  1986

  497

  Ysgol Penybont

  1986

  364

  St. Brides Major Church in Wales

  1986

  136

  Ty'n-y-Wern Junior

  1986

  125

  Twyn Junior

  1986

  253

  Hendenny Park County Primary

  1986

  247

  Creigiau County Primary

  1987

  356

  Parc Primary

  1987

  199

  St. Helens' Roman Catholic

  1987

  304

  Cymmer Junior

  1987

  213

  Derwen Deg County Primary

  1987

  301

  Penrhiwceiber Junior

  1987

  196

  West Park

  1987

  186

  Ysgol Gynradd Gymraeg Llantrisant

  1987

  279

  St. Gwladys Junior School

  1988

  154

  Penywaun Junior School

  1988

  184

  Coed-Yr-Esgob Primary School

  1988

  120

  Glantaf Infants

  1988

  148

  Newtown Primary School

  1988

  39

  Ton Pentre Junior

  1989

  150

  Hengoed Infants

  1989

  103

  Trelewis Primary School

  1989

  189

  Ffynnon Taf County Primary

  1989

  160

  Cwm Ifor Infants

  1989

  165

  Cefn Glas Infants

  1989

  299

  Marlas Infants

  1990

  126

  80

  Report issued

  Number on roll January

  Lansbury Park Infants

  1990

  257

  St. Mary's and St. Patrick's Primary School

  1990

  193

  Peny-Y-Graig Junior

  1990

  112

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of those primary schools which(a) have closed in Wales during the last three years, (b) have been considered by him and their closure approved and (c) have been considered by him and their closure rescinded; and if he will give for each school the number of pupils attending.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is as follows:

  Primary Schools Closed 1987

  Clwyd

  1 Llangwm Church in Wales VC Primary

  1 Llanrhaeadr Yn Cymmerch VC Primary

  1 Shotton County Nusery

  Dyfed

  1 Model VC Primary

  Gwent

  1 St. Mary's RC VC Infants—Amalgamation

  1 St. Mary's RC VC Junior—Amalgamation

  1 Llanfair Discoed County Primary

  1 Trellech VC Primary

  1 Penallt VC Primary

  1 Catbrook County Primary

  1 The North County Primary

  1 Llanishen County Primary

  2 Beaufort Hill County Infants—Amalgamation

  2 Beaufort Hill County Junior—Amalgamation

  Gwynedd

  2 Nefyn County Primary—Amalgamation

  2 Nefyn County Infants—Amalgamation

  2 Ysgol Maenon (County Primary)

  West Glamorgan

  2 Bishopstown County Junior

  Primary schools closed 1988

  Dyfed

  2 Penwaun County Primary

  2 Carmarthen County Nursery

  1 Llandewi Velfrey VC Infants

  1 Priory Street Church in Wales VC Primary

  1 Pentrepoeth County Infants

  1 Pentrepoeth County Junior

  Gwent

  2 Tredegar Wharf County Primary

  2 Alexandria County Primary

  2 Bolt Street County Primary

  2 Belle Vue County Nursery

  1 Caerwent VC Infants

  Gwynedd

  Ysgol Capel Curig

  Mid Glamorgan

  2 Glynogwr County Primary

  Powys

  1 Cray County Primary

  West Glamorgan

  2 Morriston County Junior

  Primary schools closed 1989

  Clwyd

  1 Rhuallt County Primary

  1 Golftyn County Infants

  81

  Dyfed

  1 Adpar County Primary

  1 Newcastle Emlyn VC Primary

  1 Park County Infants

  1 Pembroke Dock County Junior

  2 Penparcau County Infants—Amalgamation

  2 Penparcau County Junior—Amalgamation

  2 Trimsaran County Infants—Amalgamation

  2 Trimsaran County Junior—Amalgamation

  Gwent

  1 Mathern County Primary

  1 St. Arvans VC Primary

  2 George Street County Nursery

  2 George Street County Junior and infants

  Gwynedd

  1 Ysgol Glanypwll (County Primary)

  Mid Glamorgan

  2 Llanilltud Faerdref County Junior—Amalgamation

  2 Llanilltud Faerdref County Infants—Amalgamation

  Powys

  2 Llanfrynach Church in Wales VC Primary

  West Glamorgan

  2 Cadle County Infants

  1 Proposal approved by the Secretary of State.

  2 Proposal determined by the maintaining authority.

  During the period one proposal, by Clwyd LEA, to close Cornist Infants School, was rejected by the Secretary of State in 1989.

  The Department does not maintain records of primary school closures by size of school.

  Community Care
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the additional costs will be following the implementation of the proposals of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill in Wales; and how much will be attributable to community care.

  Mr. Grist
  The estimated additional recurrent costs in Wales of the implementation of the proposals for the national health service which were included in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill are £10.85 million. The estimated costs for community care in Wales are being considered in the current public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with local authority representatives from Wales of the financial implications of the new community care policy.

  Mr. Grist
  Our officials have had extensive discussions with local authority representatives in Wales under the aegis of the Welsh consultative council on local government finance (WCCLGF) to consider the expenditure implications of the arrangments proposed in the White Paper "Caring for People" (Cm 849). My right hon. Friend will be discussing this matter with the local authority associations at the meeting of the WCCLGF on 4 July.

  Village Schools
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy on small village schools.
  82
  Mr. Grist
  Our school reforms are intended to improve the quality of education in all schools irrespective of size or location. It is for local education authorities to determine the pattern of education in their areas.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answers of 10 May,Official Report, column 196, and 30 April, Official Report, columns 426–27, about energy consumption, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The figure is 717,960 sq ft.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums of money have been or are being made available by his Department to support the implementation of the all-Wales strategy for mental illness in each relevant financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 30 April, columns 425–26.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether projects concerned primarily with mental illness will be eligible for grant aid under the urban programme in Wales for the 1991–92 financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  No. As proposed in the White Paper "Caring for People: Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond" (Cm. 849) and confirmed in Welsh Office circular No. 22/90, a copy of which is in the Library, urban programme resources for community care projects are being transferred to more appropriate Welsh Office funding programmes. This change includes special funding for mental illness services which, from April this year, is allocated solely under the Welsh Office mental illness strategy.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Energy efficiency is taken into consideration when building works and maintenance schemes are undertaken in my Department's offices, and expenditure relating to energy efficiency is not separately identified.

HEALTH

  Immunisation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to complete the pilot study of parent-held child immunisation cards.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the results of the pilot study of parent-held child record immunisation cards.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The British Paediatric Association published the report of a joint working party on
  83
  professional and parent-held records used in child health surveillance in May and launched the record itself on 12 June. Copies of the report and a specimen of the child health record, which includes a record of immunisations, have been placed in the Library.

  Drugs
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what compensation other than through civil action is available to families of somebody who had died from the effects of a particular drug when that drug has begun to show unexpected side-effects.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The question of whether compensation is payable depends on the detailed circumstances of the case. The means by which parties pursue issues between them either by discussion, negotiation, or litigation must also be determined by the circumstances. The Medicines Act 1968 makes no provision for compensation, being a measure aimed at providing safety, quality and efficacy of marketed medicines. Decisions made under the Act are based on the best possible scientific judgment on available information and are monitored carefully, but the possibility of unexpected side-effects cannot be totally excluded.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to bring forward legislation which will allow a victim of a drug injury to claim compensation without having to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 any person injured by a defective product (including a medicinal one) may seek redress through the courts without having to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer of that product.

  Health Education
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the total expenditure on health education in 1990–91 by(a) the Health Education Authority, (b) each regional health authority in England and (c) other agencies; and what proportion of the budget of each regional health authority is devoted to health education.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The planned expenditure on health education in 1990–91 by the Health Education Authority is £26.8 million.

  It is not possible to quantify the proportion of total regional allocations spent on health education by each regional health authority since so much of it is integral to health service activity.

  The Department also provides funding under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, for a large number of voluntary bodies, many of which undertake health education as part of their overall role.

  Joint Finance
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each regional health authority in England,(a) the total sum available for joint finance for each year 1984–85 to 1990–91, (b) what this sum represents as a percentage of the total regional health authority
  84
  budget and (c) what proportion of joint finance was allocated to projects relating specifically to the closure of long-stay hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the sums allocated for joint finance (revenue and capital) and the proportion that represents of regional health authorities' total initial allocations (revenue and capital) is shown in the tables. Information on sums allocated to projects relating specifically to the closure of long-stay hospitals is not held centrally.

  1984–85

  Regional health authority

  Joint finance allocation £ million

  Percentage of total initial allocation per cent.

  1· Northern

  6·526

  1·1

  2· Yorkshire

  7·356

  1·1

  3· Trent

  9·097

  1·1

  4· East Anglia

  3·910

  1·1

  5· North West Thames

  7·034

  1·0

  6· North East Thames

  8·293

  0·9

  7· South East Thames

  8·649

  1·1

  8· South West Thames

  6·710

  1·1

  9· Wessex

  5·982

  1·1

  10· Oxford

  4·315

  1·1

  11· South Western

  7·055

  1·1

  12· West Midlands

  9·821

  1·0

  13· Mersey

  5·297

  1·0

  14· North Western

  8·844

  1·0

  1985–86

  Regional health authority

  Joint finance allocation £ million

  Percentage of total initial allocation per cent.

  1· Northern

  6·732

  1·0

  2· Yorkshire

  7·702

  1·0

  3· Trent

  9·707

  1·1

  4· East Anglia

  4·107

  1·1

  5· North West Thames

  7·464

  1·0

  6· North East Thames

  8·692

  0·9

  7· South East Thames

  9·443

  1·1

  8· South West Thames

  7·129

  1·1

  9· Wessex

  6·320

  1·1

  10· Oxford

  5·031

  1·2

  11· South Western

  7·456

  1·1

  12· West Midlands

  10·875

  1·0

  13· Mersey

  5·924

  1·1

  14· North Western

  9·360

  1·0

  1986–87

  Regional health authority

  Joint finance allocation £ million

  Percentage of total initial allocation Per cent.

  1· Northern

  7·132

  1·0

  2· Yorkshire

  8·310

  1·0

  3· Trent

  9·958

  1·0

  4· East Anglia

  4·236

  1·0

  5· North West Thames

  7·989

  1·0

  6· North East Thames

  9·220

  0·9

  7· South East Thames

  10·030

  1·1

  8· South West Thames

  7·327

  1·1

  9· Wessex

  6·536

  1·1

  10· Oxford

  4·869

  1·1

  11· South Western

  7·867

  1·1

  12· West Midlands

  10·845

  1·0

  13· Mersey

  5·465

  1·0

  14· North Western

  9·998

  1·0

  85

  1987–88

  Regional health authority

  Joint finance allocation £ million

  Percentage of total initial allocation Per cent.

  1. Northern

  7·397

  1·0

  2· Yorkshire

  8·305

  1·0

  3· Trent

  9·942

  1·0

  4· East Anglia

  4·506

  1·0

  5· North West Thames

  7·897

  1·0

  6· North East Thames

  9·010

  0·9

  7· South East Thames

  10·354

  1·1

  8· South West Thames

  7·499

  1·0

  9· Wessex

  6·647

  1·1

  10· Oxford

  4·782

  1·0

  11· South Western

  8·099

  1·1

  12· West Midlands

  11·292

  0·9

  13· Mersey

  5·828

  1·0

  14· North Western

  9·357

  0·9

  1988–89

  Regional health authority

  Joint finance allocation £ million

  Percentage of total initial allocation Per cent.

  1· Northern

  7·268

  0·9

  2· Yorkshire

  8·383

  0·9

  3· Trent

  10·564

  0·9

  4· East Anglia

  4·784

  1·0

  5· North West Thames

  7·899

  0·9

  6· North East Thames

  9·362

  0·8

  7· South East Thames

  9·762

  1·0

  8· South West Thames

  7·538

  0·9

  9· Wessex

  7·121

  1·0

  10· Oxford

  4·912

  0·9

  11· South Western

  8·293

  1·0

  12· West Midlands

  11·516

  0·9

  13· Mersey

  5·819

  0·9

  14· North Western

  9·628

  0·9

  1989–90

  Regional health authority

  Joint finance allocation £ million

  Percentage of total initial allocation Per cent.

  1· Northern

  7·623

  0·8

  2· Yorkshire

  8·774

  0·9

  3· Trent

  11·114

  0·9

  4· East Anglia

  5·067

  0·9

  5· North West Thames

  8·279

  0·8

  6· North East Thames

  9·800

  0·8

  7· South East Thames

  10·235

  0·9

  8· South West Thames

  7·894

  0·9

  9· Wessex

  7·506

  1·0

  10· Oxford

  5·218

  0·9

  11· South Western

  8·732

  1·0

  12· West Midlands

  12·104

  0·8

  13· Mersey

  6·094

  0·8

  14· North Western

  10·051

  0·8

  1990–91

  Regional health authority

  Joint finance allocation £ million

  Percentage of total initial allocation Per cent.

  1· Northern

  8·004

  0·8

  2· Yorkshire

  9·213

  0·8

  3· Trent

  11·669

  0·8

  4· East Anglia

  5·321

  0·9

  5· North West Thames

  8·693

  0·8

  86

  Regional health authority

  Joint finance allocation £ million

  Percentage of total initial allocation Per cent·

  6· North East Thames

  10·291

  0·7

  7· South East Thames

  10·747

  0·9

  8· South West Thames

  8·289

  0·8

  9· Wessex

  7·882

  0·9

  10· Oxford

  5·478

  0·8

  11· South Western

  9·169

  0·9

  12· West Midlands

  12·708

  0·8

  13· Mersey

  6·399

  0·8

  14· North Western

  10·533

  0·8

  Child Accident Prevention
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total level of Government spending on child accident prevention via(a) the Health Education Authority, (b) the Royal Society for the Prevention of 1988–89 Accidents and (c) other agencies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Health Education Authority and the Child Accident Prevention Trust, both of which are funded by the Department, expect to spend £127,000 and £107,000 respectively on child accident prevention in 1990–91. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents receives funding from a number of Government Departments; the largest grant is from the Department of Transport, which has allocated it £389,000 in the current financial year for its road safety activities. These extend beyond child accident prevention.

  Friedreich's Ataxia
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a separate unitary fund for research into Friedreich's Ataxia.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have no plans to do so. The Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives grant in aid frorn the Department of Education and Science, is the main Government agency for the promotion of biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom. In 1988–89, the last financial year for which figures are available, the MRC spent £197,000 on research projects which were relevant to Friedreich's Ataxia. The council is always willing to consider soundly based proposals for research funding in competition with other applications. In addition to this, university departments and medical schools, with support from University Funding Council block grants and health authorities, may be undertaking research into Friedreich's Ataxia; information on this is not collected centrally.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health of the current members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines how many have declared that they are given(a) private consultancy fees from pharmaceutical companies and (b) research grants to their medical departments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Interests are declared in accordance with the code of practice published with the annual report of the Medicines Commission. A copy is in the Library. Under the code, personal interests involve payments to the member personally, for example, consultancies or other fee-paid work. Non-personal
  87
  interests involve payments to a department for which a member is responsible, but does not benefit the member personally, for example, commissioned research. Currently there are 21 members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and the interests they have declared are as follows:

  Members

  (a) A personal and non-personal interests

  11

  (b) Non-personal interests only

  7

  It is vital that committees providing expert scientific advice on medicines have members with practical experience of research and up-to-date scientific knowledge. By following the ethical standards set by the code of practice members are able to avoid conflicts of interest which might otherwise impair the objectivity of the advice they give. We have full confidence in the personal integrity of the members of the CSM.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the names of those members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines who are specialised in allergenic diseases.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The membership of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and its sub-committees covers a wide range of specialties. Additional experts may be consulted or appointed as temporary members as and when necessary. A table showing the membership of the committee and its sub-committees has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Committee on Safety of Medicines voted in respect of the drug Corwin.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The deliberations of the Committee on Safety of Medicines are confidential.

  Tampons
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is currently being undertaken by the Government into toxic shock syndrome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  For several years the staphyococcal reference laboratory of the public health laboratory service has gathered information about the occurrence of toxic shock syndrome and has characterised the strains involved from this and other conditions. Work in this field is also being carried out in universities and national health service hospitals and at the centre for applied microbiological research, Porton Down.

  Waiting Lists
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the function of waiting list funds and initiatives.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The waiting list initiative and waiting list fund provides targeted resources to enable health authorities to treat additional patients from the waiting list, and to reduce the number of patients who wait excessively long times. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on 18 January 1990 at columns 403–4.

  GPs (Computer Software)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress on the provision of computer software for general practitioners' budgets.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are continuing our discussions with the computer companies, many of which have been directly consulted during the development of the technical specifications for the software package. We are unable to give any details about these discussions at this stage as to do so would be a breach of commercial confidentiality.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many relatives of glaucoma sufferers in each district health authority area of England received free eyesight tests in each quarter of 1988–89 and in each quarter of 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statistics prior to 1 April 1989 were not broken down by patient group. Since then family practitioner committees have collected data on sight tests paid for under the general ophthalmic services on a six-monthly basis. District health authorities do not collect such information. The table gives estimated numbers by patient group and regional health authority for the period in question:

  NHS sight tests paid for during April-September 1989 Relatives of glaucoma sufferers

  Relatives over 40

  Regional health authority

  Northern

  2,700

  Yorkshire

  3,950

  Trent

  9,260

  East Anglia

  3,900

  North West Thames

  3,500

  North East Thames

  5,190

  South East Thames

  4,150

  South West Thames

  4,800

  Wessex

  5,860

  Oxford

  3,250

  South Western

  4,950

  West Midlands

  5,650

  Mersey

  2,520

  North Western

  5,360

  These figures are based on a 2 per cent. sample of NHS sight test application forms processed by family practitioner committees. They do not take into account sight tests paid for after 1 April 1989 but conducted before that period.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to receive a report from the Bolton family practitioner committee of the inquiry into the financial background and other related matters of its general manager; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to change the reference and vetting procedures for recruitment of officials to posts involving responsibility for public resources to require that their past financial and other relevant history is available to the interviewing committee.
  89
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that Bolton family practitioner committee dismissed its general manager on 14 June with immediate effect. This decision was a matter for the committee as employing authority.

  Under the terms of health circular HC(FP)(89)9, which governs FPC general manager appointments, regional health authorities were asked to provide a complete service to family practitioner committees for the recruitment and appointment process. This service was provided to Bolton family practitioner committee by the North Western regional health authority. I understand that the authority is re-examining the procedures applied in this case. If more general lessons emerge, we shall ensure they are brought to the attention of other national health service authorities.

  A copy of health circular HC(FP)(89)9 has been placed in the Library.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what demographic and social changes were taken into account in his Department's calculation of the numbers of elderly persons likely to need local authority support to live in residential homes after 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It will of course be for local authorities to decide how many elderly people should receive residential care with their support in future years. Each year the local authority associations will provide the Department with estimates of the number of people whom they consider are likely to receive such care, taking into account demographic and other factors and those estimates will be taken into account by the Government in determining the level of revenue support grant to local authorities.

  "Face the Facts"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the transcript of the BBC Radio Four programme, "Face the Facts", broadcast on 13 June.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. Whilst the Department is aware of its content, the programme was concerned in the main with compensation claims in respect of families who had been in some way connected with the operations of the Sellafield reprocessing plant. Matters relating to nuclear safety are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when regional health authorities were notified of charges arising from the military assistance during the ambulance dispute; and when the costs were notified to each district health authority of the sums they would have to pay towards costs incurred during the ambulance dispute;

  (2) what is the total amount of money that each regional health authority has been asked to pay for costs incurred during the ambulance dispute for military assistance; and what is the amount apportioned to each district health authority budget by regional health authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The total costs that each regional health authority has been asked to pay for military assistance during the ambulance dispute are given 90
  in the table. Regional health authorities were notified of amounts due in respect of the period to 31 December 1989 on 7 March 1990, and in respect of the period January to 31 March 1990, on 14 June 1990. Information is not held centrally about the amount apportioned by regions to district health authorities nor when such amounts 'were notified.

  Region

  Total amount (£ thousands)

  Northern

  474

  Yorkshire

  534

  Trent

  654

  East Anglian

  284

  North West Thames

  520

  North East Thames

  646

  South East Thames

  581

  South West Thames

  480

  Wessex

  399

  Oxford

  319

  South Western

  475

  West Midlands

  764

  Mersey

  379

  North Western

  649

  Total

  7,158

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the expected date or dates for implementation of the provisions of the Children Act 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Some provisions of the Children Act 1989 are already in force. We plan to implement the remaining provisions in October 1991.

  Night Working
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the implications for care homes of the proposed European Community directive on night working.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The European Commission has not yet issued a draft of its proposed directive on working time; however, we understand that the Commission is likely to propose restrictions on night and shift working. Clearly this may have implications for a wide range of workers, including those in care homes, and in other health services, where there is a need to maintain care on a 24–hour basis. We will not be able to assess the full implications until the Commission has published its detailed proposal.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received regarding hospitals opting out of the present national health service management structure.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 May at column 418. Since then a further six units have expressed interest in national health service trust status. This brings the total number of units which have expressed interest in trust status to 199.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the national medical organisations which have
  91
  made representations to him expressing support for proposals for national health service hospitals to become self-governing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since the White Paper was published in 1989 it has attracted a great deal of interest from the medical profession at national and at local level. Much of the discussion with the national organisations has been about the detailed implications and practical details of the implementation of the proposals. At local level there is substantial interest and support from the medical profession on the proposals for establishing NHS trusts.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how far his decision on whether a hospital will become self-governing will depend on the number of individuals and organisations in the area who have been involved in the consultation process concerned being in favour of such a step being taken.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider applications for national health service trust status individually in the light of all relevant information, including any views expressed in the local consultation exercise.

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, Porton
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) of 19 April,Official Report, column 990, if he will make a statement on the state of negotiations with Porton International on the future of the centre for applied microbiology and research, Porton.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have nothing to add to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 19 April at column 990.

  NHS Pay Bargaining
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 12 June,Official Report, columns 150–51, whether he intends to issue guidance in respect of pay to protect specific groups of workers and to prevent shortages in specialisms across the country.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to issue guidance on pay in national health service trusts. Guidance will be issued on non-medical education and training to ensure an adequate supply of suitably trained staff throughout the national health service.

  Sheppey General Hospital
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in the assessment made regarding the proposals to cut acute geriatric and acute medical provision at Sheppey general hospital, what regard was made to questions of(a) population influx to Sheppey in the summer months, (b) future housing development in Sheppey, (c) the nature of access to the island and (d) the availability of an ambulance service on the island.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Medway health authority is currently consulting locally on its proposals for Sheppey general hospital.
  92
  The hon. Member should contact the chairman of Medway health authority for information about the factors taken into account in the authority's assessment of the future use of Sheppey general hospital.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to improve security arrangements for the collection and disposal of clinical waste in England.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Collection and disposal of clinical waste is governed by the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the related Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988 (Si 1988, No. 819).

  It is the responsibility of health authorities to ensure adequate arrangements are made for the safe storage, collection and disposal of clinical waste from their premises. The responsibility for collection and disposal of clinical waste from private dwellings rests with the local authority.

  Obstetric Accidents
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in the light of recent evidence published in the British Medical Journal of 26 May on the causes of certain obstetric accidents, he will undertake a review of the training of junior doctors in relation to foetal heart monitoring and the use of obstetric forceps.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The training of junior hospital doctors in the use of techniques such as foetal monitoring and the application of forceps is a matter for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the individual consultants under whose supervision such junior doctors work. However, issues like those identified in the recent article in the British Medical Journal will, as a matter of course, be raised during the regular meetings held between the Department and the college.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  For the whole of the period for which information is available, the Department of Health was part of the Department of Health and Social Security. I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security gave him today.

SCOTLAND

  Flooding, River Tay
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the expert hydrologists who will carry out the independent survey of the causes of the flooding in the River Tay valley on Sunday 5 and Monday 6 February will have powers to investigate the operation of the hydro board water control measures on these dates.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The independent study will be overseen by a working group of interested parties
  93
  and the consultants will be free to investigate any matters within the agreed terms of reference. Scottish Hydro-Electric plc is represented on the working group and we would expect any relevant information to be made available.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the powers(a) under which the independent survey of the flooding in February in the River Tay valley will be carried out and (b) under which his Department is funding the survey.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The independent consultant is to be appointed by Tayside regional council which has powers under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to investigate, and collect information relating to, any matter concerning its area.

  The Government's contribution towards the cost of the survey will he made under the authority of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 and the Appropriation Act.

  Fishing Industries
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the likelihood of haddock quotas being exhausted before the end of 1990; and whether he has any plans to ensure that excess landings in any producer organisation's area do not lead to closures in other areas where quotas are not in danger of being exceeded.

  Mr. Lang
  The objective of the fisheries departments is to ensure maximum uptake in the United Kingdom's haddock fisheries without exceeding national quotas. Fisheries departments, therefore, closely monitor uptake as well as operating established penalty and compensation arrangements for overfishing. Departments are implementing in full special arrangements introduced in March in the North sea haddock fishery with the aim of spreading uptake more evenly throughout the year, thus minimising the risk of premature closure. At that time departments wrote to producer organisations setting a limit of the amount of fish they could take by 30 June. A further limit was set on the amount that could be taken by 30 September. To enforce this measure fisheries departments will, as a minimum, suspend the North sea haddock licence of any producer organisation which looks as though it will breach its 30 June limit (or 60 per cent. of the more recently circulated interim allocations, whichever is the greater) and are considering whether more stringent action is required if the 30 September limit is breached. Such suspensions will apply to individual producer organisations and can be effective for differing periods of time. To date none of the Scottish, and only one of the English producer organisations is likely to have problems remaining within its 30 June limit.

  I believe that the measures that departments have already taken considerably reduce the risk of United Kingdom catches getting out of hand, but it would be wrong of me to guarantee under any circumstances a full 12–month fishery since this will depend on self-discipline being exercised by fishermen and their organisations.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if all cattle arriving at Scottish abattoirs are subject to examination for BSE.
  94
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1961 all cattle slaughtered in Scottish abattoirs have been subjected to statutory ante-mortem inspection by suitably qualified meat inspectors or veterinary surgeons in order to determine whether they are showing symptoms of any disease, including BSE, or signs of injury, disease or stress. This applies equally to export approved abattoirs and those producing meat for domestic consumption only.

  GP Budgets
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the general practitioner practices in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Strathclyde which have indicated that they wish to become fund holders.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ambulance Services
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which ambulance services have expressed an interest in becoming self-governing trusts.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Chief ambulance officers, in common with a number of others working in the national health service, have asked for, and been given, background briefing on self-governing status.

  Schools (Access)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what specific funding has been made available to local education authorities to enable access to school and college buildings for pupils and teachers with disabilities in each of the last 10 years; and if he has any plans to make specific grants available to local education authorities to carry out necessary capital works to facilitate physical access for people with disabilities;

  (2) what advice he gives to local education authorities on the standards of access for people with disabilities for new designs for and adaptations to school and college buildings; and whether he will consult interested parties concerning statutory provisions for standards of access for new school and college buildings;

  (3) how many primary and secondary schools in (a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland are fully accessible to pupils and teachers with disabilities; what are these figures as percentages of the total number of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Authorities are responsible for funding educational building work and other capital programmes within the broad limits set each year on the total capital expenditure which each authority may incur. Authorities have wide discretion in the use of capital resources and the limits set are not hypothecated to particular projects or limited to use for individual programmes.

  Since 1985, the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations have required that the design of most new or altered or extended buildings, including schools, take proper account of the needs of disabled people. The Scottish Education Department published guidance to education authorities on access to educational buildings for disabled people in educational building note 19 in 1984. Copies of the regulations and the building note are in the Library.
  95
  Information about local authority buildings which are accessible to the disabled is not held centrally.

  Nursing Homes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any representations from(a) COSLA and (b) other interested parties on the provision of nursing home care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In responding to the White Paper "Caring for People" the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities suggested that the lead responsibility for the registration of nursing homes should lie with local authorities, rather than with health boards as at present. The Government remain of the view that, since nursing homes accommodate people who have a need for health care, health boards are best placed to ensure that standards in nursing homes are maintained.

  I also receive from time to time representations from Members of Parliament and members of the public about various aspects of nursing home care, including the provision of care in individual homes.

  Housing (Elderly People)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he proposes to have on the housing needs of the elderly.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department has recently carried out a research project into the housing needs of elderly people in Scotland. This involved interviews with elderly people themselves and consultation with various interest groups. A circular will be published later this year, based on this research and further informal consultation, giving new guidance on meeting the housing needs of the elderly and other groups who require care in the community.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all beneficial appointments and nongovernmental paid positions for which officials and former officials of his Department sought, and were granted, permission to accept since June 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Since June 1979, 55 officials and former officials have sought and received such permission. It is not my Department's practice to release details of individual cases.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the figures in constant value of the output in manufacturing industries in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole (i) in 1979 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  Output figures in constant value terms are calculated for Scotland as a whole only in index form. Output figures for Strathclyde are not available. The table shows manufacturing output of Scotland at constant prices, indexed with 1985=100.
  96

  Manufacturing output index (1985=100)

  Year

  Index

  1979

  103·3

  1980

  96·4

  1981

  93·8

  1982

  94·5

  1983

  93·5

  1984

  97·8

  1985

  100·0

  1986

  97·9

  1987

  100·8

  1988

  108·8

  1989

  112·9

  Source: Index of Industrial Production for Scotland.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table, using 1979 at a value of 100, of investment in real terms in manufacturing in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  Figures are not available in the form requested because there are no separate price deflators for Scotland and the use of United Kingdom deflators for Scotland does not give sufficiently reliable constant price estimates.

  The following table gives estimates of gross domestic fixed capital formation by manufacturing industry in Scotland at current prices for each year from 1979 to 1987, the latest year for which estimates are available.

  Separate figures for Strathclyde region are not available.

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation Manufacturing industry: Scotland

  Year

  £ millions

  1979

  561

  1980

  645

  1981

  586

  1982

  541

  1983

  470

  1984

  597

  1985

  861

  1986

  788

  1987

  738

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing by district council ward the numbers unemployed in the constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow in 1979, 1983, 1987 and for the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  The table gives the number of unemployed claimants by district council wards for Greenock and Port Glasgow constituency for May 1990, the latest figures available, May 1987 and June 1983, the earliest figures available. Figures on the number unemployed by ward are not available before June 1983.

  Ward

  1990

  1987

  1983

  Port Glasgow East

  397

  759

  695

  Port Glasgow South

  337

  671

  487

  Clune Brae

  305

  642

  433

  Port Glasgow West

  274

  357

  277

  Gibshill

  407

  838

  723

  Blairmore

  262

  420

  489

  Bellville

  310

  493

  368

  97

  Ward

  1990

  1987

  1983

  Greenock East Central

  525

  663

  561

  Broomhill

  192

  330

  235

  Gateside

  208

  322

  213

  Bow

  342

  572

  462

  Larkfield

  286

  567

  414

  Upper Larkfield

  323

  643

  641

  Greenock South

  251

  493

  403

  Greenock West Central

  160

  356

  239

  Greenock West End

  123

  205

  120

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage change in employment in(a) the service sector, (b) self-employment and (c) manufacturing industry between 1979 and 1990.

  Mr. Lang
  Between December 1979 and December 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of employees in employment in the service sector increased by 10.5 per cent., and the number of employees in employment in the manufacturing sector decreased by 29.0 per cent. Over the same period the number of people who are self-employed is estimated to have increased by 54.1 per cent.

  Dyslexic Children
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new measures he intends to undertake to assist dyslexic children in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Responsibility for dyslexic children within schools lies with education authorities, which employ learning support teachers to provide for their special educational needs. Additionally the Scottish Education Department has commissioned a research study of policy, practices and provision for children with specific learning difficulties, including dyslexia, which will identify any gaps in provision and offer guidance to teachers of such children. The research will be completed by spring 1992.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many dyslexic children are educated in each of the education authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many specialist teachers of dyslexics there are in post in each of the education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not available.

  Disabled Teachers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of students with disabilities who have entered initial teacher training for each of the last 10 years; and what percentage of the total number of student teachers this represents.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of COSLA to discuss possible changes to the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.
  98
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I met representatives of COSLA on 6 April when several aspects of the community charge, including possible changes to the system, were discussed.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) families and (b) single people are accepted as homeless within (i) Inverclyde district, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of applicants under the homeless persons legislation assessed by local authorities as homeless, as recorded in the returns submitted to the Scottish Development Department in he year ended 31 March 1989, are as follows:

  Number

  Inverclyde district

  111

  Strathclyde region

  4,494

  Scotland

  9,561

  These returns do not record information on the composition of applicants' households. It is not therefore possible to say how many were from families and single people respectively.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the current number of homeless in Scotland, and, of those, how many suffer from(a) alcoholism or drug dependency, (b) Al DS and (c) mental illness.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on which to base such an estimate is not held centrally.

  EC (Civil Servants)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of people seconded from the Scottish Office to the United Kingdom's permanent representation to the European Community in Brussels, in each of the years since the United Kingdom entered the European Community; and if he will break these down by Scottish Office department.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Scottish Office staff on secondment to the United Kingdom's permanent representation to the European Community in Brussels in each year since 1973 are listed in the table, by department.

  Department

  Year

  Number

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1973

  1

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1974

  1

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1975

  1

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1976

  1

  Industry Department for Scotland

  1977

  1

  One Industry Department for Scotland, One Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1978

  2

  One Industry Department for Scotland, One Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1979

  2

  One Industry Department for Scotland, One Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1980

  2

  99

  Department

  Year

  Number

  One Industry Department for Scotland, One Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1981

  2

  Two Industry Department for Scotland, One Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1982

  3

  Industry Department for Scotland

  1983

  1

  One Industry Department for Scotland, One Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1984

  2

  One Industry Department for Scotland, One Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1985

  2

  One Industry Department for Scotland, One Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1986

  2

  One Industry Department for Scotland, Two Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1987

  3

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1988

  1

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1989

  1

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1990

  1

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers, ranks and departments within the Scottish Office of those civil servants who work exclusively on European Community affairs; which are monitoring European Community activities; and which are administering and advising on grants.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information in the form requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Consumers Council about the possible decline of legal services in rural areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The council has expressed concern about the possible effect of the Bill on rural legal services, and has welcomed our initiative in monitoring the position. The council welcomes the proposals in the Bill to widen consumer choice as something for which there is demand in Scotland.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answers of 30 April,Official Report, column 453, and 10 May, Official Report, column 214, about energy consumption, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The figure is 1,241,664.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mr. Rifkind
  About £62,000 in 1988–89.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has issued to regional councils, environmental health departments and other relevant authorities in Scotland regarding the dangers posed by freshwater algae.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 June 1990]: Regional councils are responsible for providing wholesome drinking water and they, together with environmental health and other relevant authorities in Scotland, are aware of the potential problems arising from certain types of freshwater algae. No specific advice has been issued as there is no evidence of a significant problem in Scotland, but the matter is under consideration.

EMPLOYMENT

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is undertaking to assist the new democratic regimes in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Howard
  The reforming countries of eastern Europe urgently need practical help to develop their labour markets, to fight unemployment, to increase training and retraining, and to generate a spirit of enterprise. My Department is giving a high priority to providing such help, working with and through the Government's know-how fund.

  In recent weeks I have visited Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and have signed agreements of co-operation in the labour market area with both Governments. This week I shall be in Poland, where I shall sign a similar agreement with the Polish Government. These individual agreements set out specific, practical measures, based on each country's particular needs, in a number of areas where my Department can help, including training and retraining, support for the development of small firms and enterprise, and the management of unemployment.

  Departmental Public Relations Adviser
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends making an appointment to his Department of a public relations adviser.

  Mr. Howard
  I have no plans to appoint a public relations adviser.

  Wages Inspectorate
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the annual publicity-promotional budget allocated to his Department's wages inspectorate for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The cost of publicity and promotional activities undertaken by the wages inspectorate is not distinguishable from general running costs.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of people employed by his Department's wages inspectorate in the north-west region for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is given in the table:
  101

  Year

  Number of staff employed in the north-west in September of each year

  1979

  38

  1980

  36

  1981

  28

  1982

  27

  1983

  29

  1984

  29

  1985

  30

  1986

  28

  1987

  121.5

  1988

  119.5

  1989

  120.5

  1 Since 1987, staff employed in the north-west have also had responsibility for advisory and enforcement work in north Wales.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment where he distributes literature about wage council protection.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Notices giving details of minimum rates are distributed to all establishments where workers covered by wages councils are thought to be employed. These notices and supplementary literature are also issued to other organisations and individuals, in particular those offering advisory services.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those local education authorities participating for the first time in TVEI extensions in 1990–91; when each such authority was informed by the Training Agency of their budget for 1990–91; and when they were informed of their budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  Education authorities starting TVEI extension in 1990–91 are as follows:

  Avon

  Barnet

  Central

  Doncaster

  Dorset

  Harrow

  Highland

  Hillingdon

  Humberside

  Knowsley

  Lancashire

  Lincolnshire

  Merton

  Newham

  Nottinghamshire

  Redbridge

  Rotherham

  St. Helens

  Strathclyde—districts of Ayr

  Dumbarton

  Lanark

  Tayside

  These authorities were given approval on 25 May 1990 to start extension. They were informed of their budgets shortly afterwards.

  Authorities have not yet been given their budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the TVEI extensions budget 102
  for 1990–91 for each local education authority in (a) the north-west, (b) Yorkshire and Humberside, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) Wales and (e) Scotland.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Wednesday 20 June. TVEI does not operate in Northern Ireland.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of employment training places are not filled.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are estimated to have been on employment training courses since the inception of the scheme; what has been the cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  About 700,000 people have entered employment training at a cost of about £1.6 billion. This is indicative both of the programme's success in attracting large numbers of unemployed people and the Government's significant investment in adult training.

  Fatal Accidents
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest figures for fatal accidents at work per million employees and the comparable figure for 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The figure for 1979 was 27 per million employees. The latest available figure, for 1988–89, was 24 per million employees—provisional—which includes the fatalities from the Piper Alpha disaster.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of women(a) in full-time work, (b) in part-time work and (c) self-employed for the current year and for 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is as follows:

  Female employment—Great Britain Thousands seasonally adjusted

  Workforce in employment

  Self-employed

  Period

  Full-time

  Part-time

  June 1979

  5,960

  3,837

  348

  December 1989 (latest available)

  6,709

  4,997

  775

  Skill Centres
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total expenditure involved in the payment to METEL for the acquisition of the Liverpool skill centre.

  Mr. Eggar
  No payment was made to METEL for its acquisition of Liverpool skill centre. METEL paid the Government £65,000 for the centre.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total payment to the Training Business Group Ltd. for the acquisition of the Lambeth skill centre.
  103
  Mr. Eggar
  The sale of the training businesses at Lambeth skill centre to the Training Business involved a payment of some £800,000 from the Government to the consortium.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the members of the Lakin consortium who successfully bid for skill centres.

  Mr. Eggar
  The members of the consortium, headed by Mr. Christopher Lakin, who successfully bid for the training businesses at Cumbria, East Lancashire, Ipswich and St. Helens skill centres, are:

  Mr. Christopher Lakin

  Mr. Howard Lien and

  Mr. Clive Ibbison-Steele

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which skill centres have achieved approved training organisation status for employment training.

  Mr. Eggar
  Employment training providers have two years to achieve approved training organisation status. The assessment process for organisations which joined employment training at its outset on 5 September 1988 is still under way. No skill centres have as yet been fully assessed.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total payment to Mr. Lakin for acquisition of skill centres.

  Mr. Eggar
  The sale of the training businesses at Cumbria, East Lancashire, Ipswich and St. Helens skill centres to the consortium headed by Mr. Christopher Lakin involved a payment of some £2.1 million from the Government to the consortium.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the dismissed staff at Liverpool skill centre have been offered re-engagement by the METEL group; and under what terms and conditions of employment.

  Mr. Eggar
  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd.—METEL—purchased Liverpool skill centre on 14 May 1990. From the completion of the sale contract, responsibility for the continuing employment of former STA staff, and the terms and conditions of their employment passed to it. It is understood that four former STA staff were offered re-engagement, but I am not aware of the terms and conditions which are a matter for METEL.

  Employment Service Offices
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the total number of full-time employment exchanges; and if he will list the full-time employment exchanges which his Department is currently considering closing for Scotland, Wales, the standard regions of England and Great Britain;

  (2) what is the total number of local employment exchanges; and if he will list any part-time local employment exchange which his Department is currently considering closing for Scotland, Wales, the standard regions of England and Great Britain;

  (3) what is the total number of part-time unemployment benefit offices; and if he will list the part-time
  104
  unemployment benefit offices which his Department is currently considering closing, for Scotland, Wales, the standard regions of England and Great Britain;

  (4) what is the total number of full-time unemployment benefit offices; and if he will list the full-time unemployment benefit offices which his Department is currently considering closing, for Scotland, Wales, the standard English regions and Great Britain.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Employment Service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Gentleman.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount paid to Mr. Bishell, Mr. Kent and Mr. Wells for consultancy fees on the sale of the Skills Training Agency; if he will list the consultants involved; whether the advance has been repaid; and for what period consultancy advice was given.

  Mr. Eggar
  As I informed the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on 3 April 1990,Official Report, column 585, Mr. Bishell, Mr. Wells and Mr. Kent appointed Coopers and Lybrand to advise on their bid for the Skills Training Agency and Irwin Mitchell to provide legal advice.

  Following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on 13 March 1989 that he intended to make financial assistance available to members of STA staff contemplating a buy-out, Messrs Bishell, Wells and Kent applied for help. This was offered on 31 March 1989. A total of £82,500, excluding VAT, was made available to them as a contribution to their costs, and this has now been repaid in accordance with the terms on which it was offered.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total estimated expenditure involved in the payment of fees to Deloitt Haskins and Sells for work done on the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency, for the most recent dates for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  Similar questions were recently posed by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to him on 27 March,Official Report column 158 which was reiterated on 3 April, Official Report column 585. Total expenses in connection with the sale of the Skills Training Agency in 1989–90, including professional fees and expenses paid to Deloittes and other advisers will be available in the appropriation accounts—class VI, vote 5—to be published in the summer.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed by the Health and Safety Executive at the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At 1 April 1990 the Health and Safety Executive employed 3,698 staff.

  Employment Schemes
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which of the Government schemes to increase employment he has assessed as producing the best results.

  Mr. Eggar
  Indicators of the cost-effectiveness of Government measures to assist unemployed people into work are published in chapter 6 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" (Cm. 1006). Since the nature of the measures and the characteristics of their respective client groups differ, it is not possible to single out any one as producing results which are better than the others.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 448, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The square footage is 16,913,143.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 448, if he will break down the figure of £0.578 million into spending on solid fuels, liquid fuels and any other categories.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 June 1990]: Cost details were not collected in the form requested and this information is not readily available.

ENERGY

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the effect of the top limit of 90 per cent. of the grant available under the home energy efficiency scheme, especially to households in the lowest income brackets.

  Mr. Baldry
  A number of representations have been received about the 90 per cent. limit as part of the consultation process. These are currently being considered.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to promote energy efficiency in business and industry.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to promote energy efficiency in business and industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Energy Efficiency Office encourages the adoption of energy efficiency measures in the home and the workplace, through a comprehensive marketing strategy at national and regional levels. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is currently hosting a series of seminars for key energy users throughout the country.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many homes he expects to be provided with energy conservation improvements via the home energy efficiency scheme in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole in the next financial year.
  106
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of homes he expects to be provided with energy efficiency improvements via the home energy efficiency scheme in the next financial year.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The home energy efficiency scheme will increase the take-up of basic insulation measures in low-income households. Final targets for the number of homes to be treated will be set following finalisation of the details of the scheme in the light of the consultation process.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what calculations his Department has made of the potential reduction in greenhouse gases which would result from the improved thermal efficiency achievable by industrial, commercial and city combined heat and power; and if he has any plans to provide stronger market signals.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  "An Evaluation of Energy Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions", published as energy paper No. 58 estimated that growth in CHP could, based on plausible assumptions, lead to reductions of 5 to 10 per cent. of United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions.

  Interest in CHP is already increasing rapidly in response to direct market signals. These are supplemented by my Department's encouragement of the use of combined heat and power through its best practice programme and by the industry's own marketing initiative, under the auspices of the Combined Heat and Power Association.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he has taken to ensure Government Departments practise greater energy efficiency.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Since the details of a campaign to promote energy efficiency within Government Departments were announced on 20 July 1989, Ministers with special responsibility for departmental energy use have met three times to discuss progress towards the Government's aim of achieving savings rising to £45 million per annum—15 per cent. of the current bill—over five years. The first report on the campaign will be published shortly.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Investment in items expected to make a significant contribution to the energy efficiency of the new headquarters building into which my Department moved in September 1989 is estimated by the Property Services Agency to have cost around £1 million. It includes an up-to-date electronic building energy management system, and additional air conditioning and secondary glazing beyond that specified by the developer.

  Offshore Energy Production
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the total stock of fixed capital investment in offshore oil and gas fields has been invested since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  Of the £65,000 million capital investment in offshore oil and gas fields, over 60 per cent. has been invested since 1979.
  107
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current output of oil and gas from the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf.

  Mr. Baldry
  Oil and gas production in the first quarter of this year were, respectively, 24.2 million tonnes and 5,700 million therms.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what level he expects exploration and appraisal drilling on the United Kingdom continental shelf to reach in the current year.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what level he expects exploration and appraisal drilling on the United Kingdom continental shelf to reach in the current year.

  Mr. Baldry
  A survey of company intentions by my Department showed that a record number of more than 200 exploration and appraisal wells could be drilled in the United Kingdom continental shelf this year.

  Department of Energy research, development and demonstration expenditure on renewable energy (£ millions)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Wind

  0·6

  0·8

  0·9

  2·5

  2·5

  4·8

  5·4

  3·7

  4·0

  3·9

  4·8

  Wave

  3·0

  3·3

  4·4

  3·1

  1·0

  0·4

  0·4

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  Geothermal Aquifers

  1·3

  1·7

  2·6

  1·5

  1·8

  1·1

  0·3

  0·1

  0·0

  0·1

  0·2

  Geothermal hot dry rocks

  0·0

  0·6

  5·6

  3·0

  2·9

  4·6

  3·5

  3·5

  3·6

  3·5

  3·3

  Solar

  1·2

  0·9

  0·7

  1·4

  0·9

  0·5

  0·7

  0·9

  1·1

  1·4

  1·9

  Biomass1

  0·1

  0·4

  0·4

  1·2

  0·7

  1·1

  0·8

  1·3

  2·2

  1·5

  1·4

  Tide

  0·6

  1·4

  0·4

  0·0

  0·0

  0·3

  0·1

  0·1

  1·4

  1·2

  1·1

  Hydro/General studies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  Technology transfer and promotion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·7

  1·0

  1·6

  ETSU services

  1·4

  2·2

  2·3

  2·0

  1·9

  2·1

  2·0

  2·3

  2·3

  2·5

  2·7

  8·2

  11·3

  17·3

  14·7

  11·7

  14·9

  13·2

  12·0

  16·3

  16·0

  17·9

  1 Includes expenditure on "waste as a fuel" under the Energy Efficiency Demonstration Scheme.

  Note:

  Up to 1986–87 total for R & D also includes expenditure on low head hydro and general studies. These are separately identified for 1987–88 and include work carried out by the Chief Scientist's Group, ETSU.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to reassess the potential for wave power; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  As I announced to the House on 13 November 1989, an updating study to review cost, technical and commercial viability and prospects for wave energy in the United Kingdom is currently under way. The views of all interested parties are welcome and I will ensure that they are all taken into account. Further consultation will take place as work progresses and the final report will be published.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the development potential of Salter's Duck.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  While my Department has no current plans for additional funding of this project, an updating study to review wave energy in the United Kingdom is currently under way. Interested parties will be consulted fully as this study progresses; indeed, only last week I met Professor Salter to ensure that I was personally aware of his views.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he uses on the comparative costs of renewable sources of energy, fossil fuel and nuclear power to guide his conduct of energy policy.

  Mr. Baldry
  In the pursuit of energy policy I make use of information from the energy industries and a variety of other sources.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much investment by the Government in the development of renewable sources of energy has risen since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  Annual expenditure since 1979 by the Department of Energy on its renewables programme has more than doubled from £8–2 million to £17–9 million.

  I will arrange for a table of annual expenditure to be published in the Official Report.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to encourage the generation of wind power.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government will continue to support a major research and development programme on wind power aimed at developing its commercial viability and environmental acceptability for electricity generation. In addition, wind-generated electricity should benefit from the non-fossil fuel obligation and, at the present time, the public electricity suppliers are examining a number of possible schemes which have been submitted for inclusion under the renewables order to be made in the late summer.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much his Department allocated in 1989 to research and development for(a) nuclear fission and (b) renewable energy sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Provision for research and development into nuclear fission in 1989–90 was £135–4 million. This includes research and development into nuclear materials and radioactive waste management. Provision for renewable energy research and development in the same year was £17–9 million. Of the total expenditure of £153.3 million, some 35 per cent. was spent in Scotland.
  109
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has made an assessment of the appropriateness for the development of renewable energy of placing the energy technology support unit at the Atomic Energy Authority's research site at Harwell.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has made an assessment of the appropriateness in respect of the development of renewable energy sources of locating the energy technology support unit at the Atomic Energy Authority's research site at Harwell; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Responsibility for the research and development programme on renewable sources of energy remains with my Department. The energy technology support unit is responsible for the day-to day-management of the programme. On that basis, the Advisory Council on Research and Development, set up independently to advise the Secretary of State for Energy on matters of research and development for fuel and power, has reviewed and endorsed my Department's programme on renewables.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the most up-to-date estimate of the share of electricity generation in England and Wales fuelled by(a) coal, (b) nuclear, (c) gas and (d) oil in the year 2000.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Future fuel shares are uncertain and will depend largely on decisions taken by the market. Two possible scenarios for 2005 were published in energy paper No. 58—table 4.10—a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his best estimate of the level of gas burn in electricity generating power stations in 1995, 2000 and 2005.

  Mr. Baldry
  The future levels of gas burn in electricity generating power stations are highly uncertain and will depend on future electricity demand, relative fuel prices, and the investment decisions in the privatised electricity supply industry. Two scenarios of the future gas burn levels in the United Kingdom were published in energy paper No. 58—table 4.11—a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairmen of National Power and PowerGen regarding flue gas desulphurisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of PowerGen and chief executive of National Power frequently and discuss a wide range of issues, including flue gas desulphurisation.

  EC Ministers
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet his European Community counterparts to discuss energy and environment issues.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I expect energy and environment issues to feature regularly at future meetings of the Energy Council. Community Energy Ministers will be meeting informally in Rome next month.
  110
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to attend a meeting of the European Community Council of Energy Ministers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The next meeting of the European Communities Council of Energy Ministers is due to take place on 29 October 1990. The United Kingdom representation at this Council will be decided on nearer the time. In addition, Energy Ministers of member states will meet informally in Rome on 16 July.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has recently met, or is planning a meeting with, the chairman of Nuclear Electric to discuss privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of Nuclear Electric plc regularly to discuss various matters.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairmen of electricity distribution companies to discuss privatisation.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairmen of the area electricity distribution companies to discuss privatisation.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairmen of electricity distribution companies to discuss privatisation.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairmen of the area electricity distribution companies to discuss privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet regional electricity company chairmen regularly to discuss a range of matters.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairmen of the area electricity distribution companies to discuss privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

  Coal Production
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of national average production in the coal industry in the year ending 1989–90.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State far Energy what was the level of national average production in the coal industry in the year ended 1989–90.

  Mr. Baldry
  During 1989–90 the estimated production of the coal industry, including both deep-mined arid opencast coal, was 95.2 million tonnes.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry since 1983–84.

  Mr. Baldry
  The output of coal per man-shift in the British Coal Corporation has increased by over 75 per cent. since 1983–84.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of Britain's energy output is produced at Sellafield.
  111
  Mr. Baldry
  A total of 0.2 per cent. of Great Britain's energy output in 1989 was produced by the Calder Hall power station at Sellafield.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals his Department has to assist the Atomic Energy Authority to maintain its atomic energy research capabilities and to develop new non-nuclear business.

  Mr. Baldry
  AEA Technology has launched a major drive to become more commercial, more efficient and to reduce costs. This initiative offers the AEA the opportunity of exploiting its research capabilities and of developing new business.

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of accidents involving injury to personnel on offshore installations for the first three months of 1990.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  One fatal accident, 16 serious accidents and 129 accidents causing disablement from work for three days or more were reported to this Department between 1 January 1990 and 31 March 1990.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the director of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association to discuss safety on offshore installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I meet the director of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association regularly to discuss a range of issues concerning safety on offshore installations. In addition, my safety directorate is in regular contact with the association about measures to improve offshore safety.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much the sales of lead-free petrol have increased since 1979.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much the sales of lead-free petrol have increased since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Sales of unleaded petrol have increased substantially over the last two years. In 1979 there were no sales of unleaded petrol, whereas currently about one third of petrol sold is unleaded.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many representations he has received in favour of the construction of Sizewell B; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has received several representations in favour of constructing Sizewell B.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last reviewed the cost of construction and the resulting cost of electricity from the Sizewell B nuclear power station.
  112
  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) earlier today.

  British Coal
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future of the coal industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss investment funding for new pits in the east midlands.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal on a regular basis to discuss all aspects of the coal industry. I have recently announced a capital allocation for the corporation for 1990–91 of £445 million. Within this allocation investment in particular projects is a commercial matter for the management of British Coal, but I would of course expect to be consulted about any major new investment project.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to see the chairman of British Coal to discuss productivity.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal on a regular basis to discuss all aspects of the coal industry, including productivity in which the corporation has achieved excellent improvements since 1985.

  Pollution
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the impact on consumer prices of the measures taken to reduce pollution of the environment from power stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  Measures to reduce pollution from existing power stations are likely to increase costs. The extent to which measures to reduce pollution will increase consumer prices will depend on a number of factors, including the cost and availability of alternative, cleaner sources of supply.

  Methane Discharges
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on methane discharges from gas terminals.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Methane cannot be released unignited into the atmosphere from gas terminals unless a consent under section 12 of the Energy Act has been given by the Secretary of State for Energy. Consents are issued only when it has been demonstrated that it is necessary for the safe operation of a particular plant.

  Industrial Gas Prices
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much industrial gas prices have risen since 21 November 1986; and by how much they rose between 1974 and 1979.
  113
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much industrial gas prices have risen since 21 November 1986; and by how much they rose between 1974 and 1979.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much industrial gas prices have risen since 21 November 1986; and by how much they rose between 1974 and 1979.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Data on average prices are available only quarterly. Between the fourth quarter of 1986 and the fourth quarter of 1989 the latest period for which figures have been published there was a fall of 21 per cent. in real terms in industrial gas prices. From 1974 to 1979 there was an increase of 83 per cent. in real terms.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has made a recent assessment of the respective costings of electricity generated from(a) nuclear power and (b) renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department's latest estimates for the generating costs of renewable technologies are published in energy paper No. 55, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Nuclear costs are a matter for the industry.

  Radioactive Material (Transport)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will outline his Department's responsibilities in respect of the transportation of radioactive material.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department's responsibilities are concerned with the security measures necessary to ensure the safe transportation of radioactive materials in the United Kingdom.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive the auditor's report on the accounts of Nuclear Electric plc.

  Mr. Baldry
  Nuclear Electric plc's review of its accounting policies is continuing. The company's opening report and accounts will be published during the summer.

  Pipelines
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which pipeline systems in the United Kingdom continental shelf are to be shut down for maintenance in the current year; and for how long.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Three pipelines on the United Kingdom continental shelf are due to be shut down for maintenance work during 1990. These are:

  (i) Ivanhoe/Rob Roy, Gas Pipeline (Amerada Hess).

  (ii) Cleeton to Dimlington, Gas Pipeline (BP).

  (iii) Hewitt 48/29 FTP to Bacton, Gas Pipeline (Phillips).

  In addition, emergency shutdown valves are to be installed or repositioned in 110 pipelines to comply with SI 1989/1029, and sub-sea isolation systems installed in 10 pipelines during 1990. The pipelines will be shut down for varying periods, from a minimum of four days to a maximum of several months while this work is carried out.

  Offshore Industry (Exports)
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the value of export orders won by the British offshore industry in 1989.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The British offshore supplies industry is estimated to have won export orders worth around £2 billion in 1989. I have every hope that the value of these exports will continue to grow over the next few years now that the United Kingdom is established as a major centre of technological excellence.

  Gas Privatisation
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many gas bill vouchers issued at the time of the privatisation of British Gas have still to be used.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many gas bill vouchers issued at the time of the privatisation of British Gas have still to be used.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  On 31 May 1990, a total of 50,790 gas bill vouchers worth £1,297,440 had yet to be used. All gas bill vouchers are valid until 30 September 1990.

  Geothermal Energy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most recent estimate of the potential for geothermal energy production in Cornwall.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The most recent estimate of the potential for geothermal energy production in the United Kingdom was published in energy paper No. 55, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. A review of progress of the geothermal programme and future possibilities is currently in hand. I hope to visit the project myself next month.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will bring forward proposals to give to the mineworkers the opportunity to own their industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  No decisions have yet been taken on the future structure of the privatised coal industry, but all options, including employee participation, will be considered.

  Gas Leaks
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has made a recent assessment of leakage levels from the gas distribution system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 23 April 1990 at column 96.

  Nuclear Safety (France)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he has taken to improve co-ordination between the nuclear installations inspectorate and the French civil nuclear safety authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate has frequent contact on topics of
  115
  mutal interest with its French counterpart, the Service Central de Surete des Installations Nucleaires, under a formal exchange of information arrangement. This co-operation is currently being enhanced by the formation of two new working groups to discuss safety standards, and advanced computer protection systems.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his Department's efforts to improve energy conservation in the home.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Energy efficiency in the domestic sector is promoted by my Energy Efficiency Office through a number of programmes and initiatives. These include the provision of authoritative and targeted information via the best practice programme; marketing and publicity initiatives targeted on low-income householders and those moving house or undertaking improvements; proposals for a new scheme of grants for insulation measures and advice in low-income households; and support for home energy labelling schemes.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the further energy savings which could result from the wider adoption of contract energy management systems.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government see contract energy management as a very important option available to help industry, commerce, and the public sector to improve their energy efficiency. It allows consumers access to expertise and capital. Its uses range from heavy industry through hospitals and offices to groups of dwellings. My Department, together with Property Holdings, is currently looking at the potential for contract energy management in its headquarters building.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many homes have been insulated by community insulation projects since 1982.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  More than 750,000 homes have been treated by the projects since their work began in 1982.

  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the United Kingdom will comply with the European Community's directive on sulphur dioxide emissions from large combustion plants.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent evidence he has received casting doubt upon the importance of the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The report of the science working group of the intergovernmental panel on climate change is clear that, without some change in the rate of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, there will inevitably be some consequent warming of the earth's atmosphere. Considerable uncertainty remains as to the scale and timing of such a warming, but, potentially, it could be of the highest importance for our future. I have seen no 116
  authoritative evidence to the contrary. However my right hon. Friend has received a number of letters expressing an alternative view. All but one of these have been from my hon. Friend.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of imported coal for the latest month for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Coal imports to the United Kingdom in April 1990 amounted to 1.12 million tonnes.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the third-stage decommissioning costs of nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government do not make estimates of the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations. The work of decommissioning nuclear power stations and estimates of the cost of that work are matters for the operators of nuclear power stations.

  National Grid Company
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to increase Government control of the National Grid Company.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. In the new structure NGC is owned, through a holding company, by the 12 regional electricity companies.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the answers of 10 May,Official Report, column 201 and 30 April, Official Report, columns 414–15 about energy consumption, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The total area of office space occupied by the Department in 1989–90 to which the energy consumption figures relate was 259,683 sq ft.

DEFENCE

  Security Clearance
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the main factors which are considered to present a security risk among those working for sub-contractors to his Department;

  (2) in how many cases in the last 12 months sub-contractors' employees working at Faslane have failed to gain security clearance; and what was the average length of time such employees had been working at the base before they were informed of this.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am unable to give the information requested, owing to national security considerations.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what rights of appeal exist for sub-contractors' employees working at Faslane who fail to gain security clearance;
  117
  (2) what procedures his Department adopts when sub-contractors' employees fail to gain the necessary clearance to work at Faslane;

  (3) what steps his Department takes to vet sub-contractors' employees working at Faslane.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the policy of this or any previous Administration to release details of security clearance procedures.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the total cost of the repairs to the Hawk aircraft, tail number XX227, following its accident on 21 April 1983; and where the repairs were carried out;

  (2) what was the total cost of the repairs to the Tornado aircraft, tail number ZA597, following its accident at RAF Honington in November 1983;

  (3) what was the total cost of repairs to the Tornado aircraft, tail number ZA412, following its accident at RAF Wildenrath on 14 April 1987.

  Mr. Neubert
  Exact repair costs for these aircraft are not available, but estimated figures are as follows:

  Aircraft

  Date of Accident

  Estimated cost of repair £K

  Hawk XX227

  21 April 1983

  35

  Tornado ZA597

  14 November 1983

  91

  Tornado ZA412

  14 April 1987

  23

  Hawk XX227 was repaired at RAF Scampton and repainted at RAF St. Athan.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the rate of major accidents per 10,000 flying hours for Royal Air Force fast jet aircraft in(a) 1988 and (b)

  Mr. Neubert
  The rates of major accidents per 10,000 flying hours for Royal Air Force fast jet aircraft, defined as Buccaneer, Harrier, Jaguar, Lightning, Phantom and Tornado aircraft, were 0.79 for 1988 and 0.59 for 1989.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all accidents to Royal Air Force fast jet aircraft since 1979 in which an aircraft was assessed to have category 4 damage, providing for each such accident(a) the date, (b) the type of aircraft and (c) the tail number of the aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  There have been eight accidents to RAF fast jet aircraft since 1979 where the damage has been assessed as category 4. Details are as follows:

  Date

  Aircraft type

  Tail number

  6 June 1979

  Harrier

  XW767

  19 August 1980

  Hawk

  XX243

  12 May 1982

  Tornado

  ZA330

  8 June 1982

  Harrier

  XZ989

  14 November 1983

  Tornado

  ZA597

  19 November 1985

  Harrier

  XW922

  10 December 1986

  Tornado

  ZA611

  24 June 1988

  Hawk

  XX304

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the total number of Hawk aircraft procured for the Royal Air Force has been lost in accidents over the aircraft's service life so far.
  118
  Mr. Neubert
  Of the total number of Hawk aircraft procured for the RAF, 14.2 per cent. have been lost in accidents.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the rate of major accidents per 10,000 flying hours for the Tornado GR1 aircraft since its entry into RAF service, as at the latest available date; and how many RAF Tornado aircraft have been destroyed in flying accidents.

  Mr. Neubert
  Twenty-four Tornado aircraft have been lost in accidents since the aircraft's entry into service (23 Tornado GRI, and one Tornado F3).

  On major accident rates, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on 26 June 1989, column 361.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the total number of Harrier aircraft procured for the Royal Air Force has been lost in accidents over the aircraft's service life so far.

  Mr. Neubert
  Of the total number of Harrier aircraft procured for the Royal Air Force, 27.4 per cent. have been lost in accidents.

  Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given to contractorising the mooring services functions of the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The mooring and salvage work undertaken by the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service is currently the subject of studies to determine future requirements. Whether this work should be offered to competitive tender will depend upon the outcome of those studies.

  Air-to-Surface Missiles
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a statement on the deployment of a tactical air-to-surface missile on British soil.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on 15 June at column 379.

  Soviet Union (Official Visit)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters were discussed by him or his officials with their Soviet counterparts during his recent visit to the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend had extensive discussions with Soviet leaders on a wide range of defence and security issues including future European security, German unification, arms control, confidence and security-building measures and bilateral defence relations.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made any proposals recently to his counterpart in the Soviet Union concerning the international nonproliferation regime.
  119
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No, but we continue to keep non-proliferation issues under close review.

  Atomic Weapons Research
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will ensure that any legislation on the contractorisation of the atomic weapons research establishment, Aldermaston, and other atomic weapons research establishment sites will contain a clear statement of legal accountability and public responsibility between Government and contractor in the event of a serious accident;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that legislation on the contractorisation of the atomic weapons research establishment, Aldermaston contains a firm commitment to the safety of those working on the site.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Government's proposals for the future management of AWE recognise the primary importance of safety at AWE's sites. Appropriate arrangements will be made to ensure that safety standards are maintained and that the responsibilities of both the MOD and the contractor in this area are carefully defined. It would, however, be inappropriate to anticipate the detailed content of proposed legislation at this stage.

  Civil Servants (Workplaces)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessments under The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have been undertaken at all workplaces used by civil servants and members of Her Majesty's armed services in his Department.

  Mr. Neubert
  Assessments of workplaces under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 were initiated on 1 October 1989. The assessments are carried out in accordance with the guidance given by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Combat Aircraft (Warsaw Pact)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish figures showing the trends in rates of production of tactical combat aircraft by Warsaw pact countries since 1983.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Tactical combat aircraft are produced by the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland. The aircraft manufactured by the east European countries are mainly combat capable trainers. The Soviet aircraft industry is dominant, both in terms of the volume of output and the capability of the aircraft being produced.

  Estimated annual production of tactical combat aircraft by Warsaw pact countries, 1983–1989 (including combat capable trainers)

  Number of aircraft

  1983

  1,000

  1984

  1,000

  1985

  950

  1986

  1,000

  1987

  1,000

  1988

  925

  1989

  875

  Wardlaw Hill, Ayrshire
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the Royal Air Force facility on Wardlaw hill, Ayrshire; what construction has taken place there in the past five years; and what new facilities are planned there.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Air Force facility on Wardlaw hill, Ayrshire, provides a communications link between the mainland and the Scottish islands. It was constructed during the last five years and consists of two aerial masts, a building housing the associated communications equipment, and power supplies.

  We have plans to erect a further radio mast and an unmanned digital telephone exchange by the end of 1992.

  Construction Projects
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date it became his Department's policy to produce environmental impact statements for new defence construction projects; and if he will list all such environmental impact statements produced to date.

  Mr. Neubert
  My Department first undertook an environmental impact assessment in 1984. Since then it has been the practice to consider their preparation wherever the submission of a notice of proposed development to a local planning authority might give rise to local concern. In so doing, we now adhere to the guidelines issued in 1988 by the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office, and the Welsh Office.

  To date we have produced environmental impact statements in relation to the following proposed developments:

  Clyde Submarine Base—Overall development proposals;

  Clyde Submarine Base—Glen Fruin Road;

  Clyde Submarine Base—Northern Access Road and Garelochhead Bypass;

  Clyde Submarine Base—Rhu Narrows;

  Clyde Submarine Base—Magnetic Treatment Facility;

  NATO Pipeline—Colne to Purton to Fairford;

  Otterhurn Training Area—New Military road.

  Soviet Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what trends have been observed in the rate of production of nuclear-powered submarines by the Soviet Union since 1985.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following a low in the mid-1980s as newer types were introduced, Soviet output of nuclear-powered submarines recovered in 1987 and since then it has remained at about five a year.

  ROF, Bishopton
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department has with the royal ordnance factory at Bishopton; and what is their financial value.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There are currently a total of 24 headquarters contracts placed with the royal ordnance site at Bishopton and these have a total value of £17 million. It is not our practice to disclose details of individual contracts for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Options for Change
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any academics have been asked to work on the study of options for change.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether any staff are at present working full-time on the study of options for change;

  (2) pursuant to his reply of 14 June, Official Report, column 329, what is the number of staff from (a) the office of management and budget and (b) the defence staff, who are engaged in work on the study of options for change.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Several dozen staff within the Ministry of Defence have been involved at various times in certain aspects of the options for change work in addition to their normal duties.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any staff from the Procurement Executive have been involved in the study of options for change.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Several dozen staff within the Ministry of Defence have been involved at various times in certain aspects of the options for change work as part of their normal duties, and this will include staff from the Procurement Executive.

  Military Threats
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current assessment of the nature of the military threat from(a) Iraq, (b) Libya and (c) Iran; and what assessment of the potential military threats from each of these countries has taken place as a result of the study of options for change.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All potential threats are kept under constant assessment, but it is not our practice to give details of such assessments. The implications of changing international circumstances are being considered in our examination of options for change.

  Tornado
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications have taken place between his Department and British Aerospace plc(a) prior to 18
  122
  June and (b) since 18 June this year regarding the economic and industrial consequences of the decision not to authorise work on the order for the eighth batch of Tornado aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are in constant communication with British Aerospace on a range of topics. The industrial consequences of procurement decisions—18 June 1990, column 771—are a matter for the companies concerned.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the costs to his Department, on cancellation charges, of the reduction in the orders for Tornado aircraft announced on 18 June.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There are no cancellation charges as such. Rundown costs will be negotiated with the contractors.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1988–89 the Ministry of Defence invested some £9 million in energy-saving measures throughout the defence estate and a smaller but unquantifiable sum of money on the civil estate.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 5 June,Official Report, column 429, whether he has any plans to increase the number of energy managers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no current plans to increase the number of energy managers, but we keep the matter under review.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answers of 30 April,Official Report, column 429 and 10 May, Official Report, columns 213–14 about energy consumption, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information regarding the floor area of buildings comprising the defence estate is not held centrally. However, the floor area of buildings on the civil estate is estimated to be 6.5 million sq ft.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

The Barony of Wharton
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that Her Majesty has been pleased to determine the abeyance of the Barony of Wharton in favour of Myrtle Olive Felix Robertson. The Barony fell into abeyance in 1974, on the death of her mother Elizabeth Dorothy, Baroness Wharton. The noble Baroness now attends at the Bar with her writ of summons to take her seat.
The Baroness Wharton The Baroness Wharton—Took the Oath.

The Energy Efficiency Office
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been any recent expansion in the role of the Energy Efficiency Office, and whether the resources at its disposal have been increased.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, new initiatives developed by the Energy Efficiency Office over the past year include the best practice programme; an increased role for the regional energy efficiency officers; the public sector campaign with a target of 15 per cent. energy savings in Government departments within five years; and proposals, currently before Parliament in the Social Security Bill, for the home energy efficiency scheme for low income households.
The budget for Energy Efficiency Office programmes in 1990–91 is £26 million, an increase from £15 million last year, and the office's staff complement has increased from 58 in June 1989 to 76.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while I welcome those developments, does the noble Viscount not agree, in the light of the increasing importance of environmental issues and of the major impact which energy efficiency can bring to bear on those issues, that a major reappraisal of the role of energy efficiency should now be undertaken? In particular, will he indicate the extent to which the Government are specifically promoting combined heat and power schemes, which virtually double the efficiency of power stations and substantially reduce CO2 emissions in relation to energy consumed?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. The Government have long recognised both the energy
1264
efficiency and environmental benefits of CHP. We have actively promoted the technology through a comprehensive programme of market studies, feasibility studies, research, development and demonstrations. As I said, we are building on that success through our best practice programme. In a most welcome initiative, the industry is currently running a series of events organised by the Combined Heat and Power Association to highlight the advantages of combined heat and power to key decision-makers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say exactly what measures the Energy Efficiency Office is taking about the heat wasted in domestic premises? What measures do the Government intend to take to see that the enormous amount of heat wasted in houses is preserved? In relation to nuclear energy, can the noble Viscount say whether the Government have a policy of least cost option, bearing in mind the fact that the nuclear power station at Sizewell B is now apparently going to cost £2,200 million, £1,000 million above the original cost estimate?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. Through its regional offices the Energy Efficiency Office has managed, among other things, to promote an awareness among members of the community as to how houses should be insulated. The new home energy efficiency scheme, which is to be promoted this autumn, brings to low income houses the great benefits which insulation provides. The least cost option is one option which is under constant study by the department. As the noble Lord knows, energy efficiency in power stations is currently being looked at, and the combined cycle gas turbine, which is a new technology, is one of the options involved. As regards Sizewell, I am not prepared to comment on that press speculation.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Combined Heat and Power Association. Is my noble friend aware that there is not much CHP on the ground? The biggest scheme at the moment is a district heating scheme which heats a few streets in Sheffield. There has been a lot of talk; is it not time to end the talk and act on CHP?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend should take comfort from the fact that CHP currently contributes around 3 per cent. of the UK electricity demand. A recent report published by the department indicates that that capacity could double over the next decade, and therefore the prospects for CHP are better than ever.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that the National Audit Office said that among the barriers to lower energy use in the public sector is the ignorance of managers of the measures that are available? Bearing in mind that many cuts made in the energy office fell on advertising and the develoment of energy surveys among managers, will the Minister say how he intends to realign those priorities?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord denies that improved energy efficiency is making, and has already made, a substantial contribution both to the environment and to the national economy. The UK energy consumption in 1989 was slightly less than that in 1979, in spite of an increase in GDP of 25 per cent. I would not call that ignorance among energy managers.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Minister of State spent a considerable amount of time visiting the regions and promoting efficient energy use, particularly in smaller companies?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. My right honourable friend Mr. Peter Morrison, the Minister of State for Energy, embarked upon a series of regional visits to promote energy efficiency, bringing industrialists face to face to discuss the problems, opportunities and success stories in their regions.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether his department has studied the Watt Committee report on energy regarding technological responses to the greenhouse effect? If so, what action is it taking regarding the implementation of new technologies for energy efficiency recommended by that report?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot be specific in response to the question asked by the noble and gallant Lord. However, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that we are prepared to set ourselves a target of returning to the 1990 levels of carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005. That means a substantial reduction in emissions from levels projected in the department's Energy Paper No. 58. Energy efficiency measures are bound to play a major part in reaching that goal. All those factors will be considered in the environment White Paper to be published in the autumn.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the Minister realise that if we are to obtain CHP in some of the larger cities government guarantees and finance will be required? Surely that is worth while for the future. Will the Government seriously take into account that long-term, large CHP schemes cannot be financed only by the private sector?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not entirely agree with the noble Viscount. The private sector is well aware of the advantages of CHP and is substantially involved in the CHP schemes. There are currently 120 such schemes in industry, accounting for 95 per cent. of overall CHP capacity. As I said, we expect that capacity to double over the next 10 years.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was referring to domestic CHP in large cities? The industrial side can take care of itself.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I accept that and I agree that the industrial sector is likely to continue to be the main CHP area. However, a number of
1266
smaller projects in buildings continue to grow and I understand that a recent study indicated a potential of 320 megawatts by the mid-1990s.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the Energy Efficiency Office offer any kind of help to the private bodies which help companies regarding energy efficiency?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. The Energy Efficiency Office produces a large number of guides. It also holds seminars, and that is part of the best practice programme that I outlined in my original Answer.

Arms Reduction
2.49 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of continuing international progress in arms reduction, they intend to redirect funds from defence to industrial research and development.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, it is too early to say what financial savings may result from the current work on options for change and how soon those may occur. Investment in civil research and development is a matter for industry.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. The threat to the Warsaw Pact has rapidly diminished and that must call for a restructuring of UK defence and possibly through the 1990s will lead to substantial savings. Could those savings be used to assist industry in research, particularly in science and technology, for the benefit not only of defence but all aspects of British industry?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is too early to know precisely what savings will accrue. What to do with the savings will be determined once the amount is known; but any likely savings will be in the medium and long term rather than the short term.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the continuing progress in international arms reduction referred to in the Question has resulted in any appreciable diminution in the superiority of the Soviet Union in nuclear, conventional and chemical warfare equipment?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Soviet Union continues to produce weaponry at a somewhat alarming rate.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, if funds are to be directed for research in industry, can it be made known that help from whatever source will be encouraged, particularly from the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I indicated in the first Answer, it is the responsibility of industry to decide its own internal programming and research.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is now the Government's view that the Soviet threat is, as the Minister said, alarming?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, when I use the word "alarming" I must add that the Soviet Union is continuing to produce weapons and armaments at a regular pitch.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State has pointed out that in the past year, which is the fifth year of Gorbachev's reign, the Soviet Union has produced 15 new nuclear submarines, 500 of the most modern fighters, and 50 of the most modern bombers? Is my noble friend also aware that its rate of production of heavy tanks is three times that of NATO? Does he not agree that that is cause for alarm?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is against the background which my noble friend has outlined that we have to make far-reaching decisions on the size, shape and future of the armed forces. It is not an easy matter; it is a complex matter which needs very careful consideration.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister will know that the defence review is the subject of intense speculation in the press and elsewhere. Can he give us any idea when the Government will be in a position to announce their conclusions?
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords, I cannot do that at the moment. I can tell the noble Lord that an announcement will be made when it is considered that we have got the options for change correct.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the break up of the Warsaw Pact treaty countries is a very realistic state of affairs and something that we should welcome? Therefore, does he further agree that there is bound to be a need for some restructuring among our NATO allies? When that subject is being discussed will the Minister ensure that the Government discuss this restructuring with our NATO allies and also that they arrange for some kind of collaboration with industrial research for peaceful purposes in which we can join and which will be as good as that which we provided for defence?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, all decisions concerning the future are taken in consultation with our NATO allies.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how much the nation spends on R&D and what proportion of that total is spent on defence? Further, can the Minister estimate any necessary increase in R&D in the redirection to civilian use?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that in the 1990–91 long-term costing programme, just under £2 billion is being spent on defence.

UK Exports: Comparisons
2.57 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
What percentage of United Kingdom exports goes to the COMECON countries of Eastern Europe, and what are the comparative figures for the Federal Republic of Germany and France.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, on the basis of the figures published by the OECD, in 1989 approximately 1·5 per cent. of the UK's total exports went to the COMECON countries, including the USSR. In the same year some 3·8 per cent. of the exports of the Federal Republic of Germany and 2 per cent. of French exports went to those countries. The figure for the FRG does not include exports to the GDR, which are not published.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It confirms the discouragingly low percentage of our exports which go to that large and expanding market. Is he aware that Germany and France—which the Minister has confirmed already have a much larger share of those markets—have recently increased the credit cover provided for exports and trade to those markets? Does he not agree that it is perhaps a little eccentric of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to propose both to reduce the scale of the operations of the Export Credit Guarantee Department and to increase charges?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is misinformed. My right honourable friend has reached no decisions on this matter and nor has he announced them. However, it is true that in due course we shall move the short-term part of the ECGD's business into the private sector; that has already been announced. We are also considering the future for the projects side of the business to which the noble Lord referred. The important objective is to ensure that British exporters remain equipped to compete effectively in world markets. That is certainly what we shall do.
As regards ECGD facilities for Eastern Europe, the subject of the Question, the noble Lord will be aware that in some of the countries in Eastern Europe with which we trade there are very serious financial difficulties which very much confine the amount of additional credit that we can make available. In at least three of the Eastern European countries we are continuing to offer significant credit facilities where they are required.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Lord not in a position to say anything more positive than that? At the moment the most interesting and exciting economic developments are taking place in the world. Is the Minister aware that the Germans, French and the Japanese are in the process of pouring capital into those countries and that we seem to be the one country that is saying "it is all very risky and we had better be very careful"? Does the

1269
Minister agree that when we have lost those markets in a few years' time everyone will be asking why we did nothing at the time?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, again the noble Lord is not well informed on this matter. The Government are taking a number of steps to promote and support the activities of British firms in the newly emerging markets of Eastern Europe. I say that they are "newly emerging", but the economies of most of the countries concerned are in very considerable disarray. There is a limit to the amount of money that, to put it frankly, we should pour down the drain in some of those places where there is no prospect of a sensible return ensuing.
In some cases there will be important business to be secured. We shall support the efforts of British firms to do that by, for example, the Know-How Fund of which the noble Lord may have heard. Recently a number of visits to that area have taken place. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, my honourable friend Mr. Redwood and I have all made visits. We have also expanded the use of the ECGD to support investment in Eastern European countries by guaranteeing appropriate investment projects in that area. We are also continuing a number of the traditional trade promotion arrangements, such as joint commissions and ventures of that kind.
Lord Peston: My Lords, far from being uninformed, the Minister has confirmed precisely what I was implying; namely, that the Government are adopting an entirely minimalist approach by emphasising the risks involved. Is he not aware that the greatness of this country in its heyday in the 19th century was not built on people emphasising the risks involved but on the great potential for returns? That is precisely the view that the Japanese and Germans are taking. Will the Minister not at least suggest to his right honourable friend that some return to the entrepreneurial spirit by this country might be highly desirable for that part of the world?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am all for the entrepreneurial spirit to which the noble Lord refers. We shall certainly support and encourage appropriate entrepreneurism in sensible cases. The fact is that in Poland, for example, the ECGD already has major liabilities. I am not sure that we would be doing the Poles any favour by lending them more money. We shall certainly try to help in other ways, such as through the Know-How Fund to which I have referred, and through the possibility of guaranteeing investments in Eastern European countries which may be aimed particularly at generating exports to help their economies get back on the rails.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind another obstruction to the development of East-West trade? It is a matter which is well within the competence of the Government. It is the dreadful delay in granting visas to businessmen who need to visit this country. Will the Minister take some steps to clear up the enormous delays? In asking this question I must reiterate my own interest in it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree that we need to do everything we can to ensure that there are no unnecessary bureaucratic difficulties placed in the way of commercial exchanges of every kind. A number of improvements and simplifications have been made recently to the visa regimes. For example, in respect of some countries we are allowing applicants to have a multiple entry visa as opposed to a single entry visa. I believe that that goes some way towards meeting the noble Lord's question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on the one o'clock news today a spokesman for the USSR predicted that if the Soviet Union did not extend into relevant credits there could under certain circumstances be a slip back to dictatorship in the USSR?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that I would wish to comment on that unhappy possibility. The United Kingdom already has major lines of credit open to the USSR, much of which has not been taken up but is available for use by Soviet buyers if they think fit.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people will be relieved if the implication of his reply is that charges in this area will not be increased? Is he further aware that, for someone who travels there on business, it is most depressing to see how small the British presence is in Central and Eastern Europe?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that our presence is small. I should point out that it has been greatly strengthened in recent times. We are seeking to seize the opportunities that are available, particularly, for example, through the medium of joint ventures and projects of that kind which do not need hard currency. The fact is that most if not all the Eastern European countries are extremely short of hard currency and are therefore very constrained in what they can do except by means of projects which earn the necessary hard currency.

Defence Budgets: Future
3.2 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will quantify the financial savings identified in the current and future defence budgets arising from developments in the international situation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, while we anticipate opportunities for reductions in some areas, it is too early to say what financial savings might be consistent with the outcome of the first stage of CFE and changes in Eastern Europe. We remain resolved to sustain modern and well equipped forces adequate for our security needs and we shall provide the necessary resources for that purpose.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the Bush Administration have announced that they intend to seek a 25 per cent. reduction in their defence expenditure over the next five years? When does he anticipate the Defence Review Options for Change being completed? To what extent does our expenditure on defence compare with expenditure by our European allies, particularly France and Germany?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall take the third part of the noble Lord's question first. Our expenditure as a proportion of GDP is 4 per cent. Concerning the first part of the noble Lord's question, I am aware of what President Bush has recently said. On the second question about when the conclusions of Options for Change will be delivered, the noble Lord knows full well that that is an exacting task which has many problems attached to it. More than 300,000 members of our armed forces are involved. It concerns a budget of some £21 billion. Such a background necessitates very careful consideration.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, in the light of the unstable world in which we live, does the Minister agree that any government would require a crystal ball to answer the Question on the Order Paper?
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. I am trying to see through that crystal ball.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that with the change in the European situation in particular there appears to be an opportunity for financial savings on defence. However, does he recognise it is because this country had the sense to hold on to its armaments under both Labour and Conservative Governments that we have been able to contribute to the peace of the world over the past 50 years? Can he give me an assurance that savings will not be at the expense of making Britain a third rate power?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I most hastily give the noble Lord that assurance. Our aim is to sustain modern and well-equipped forces at all times.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that our defence expenditure—whether it is to be increased or decreased—is not decided upon in isolation? To what extent are discussions taking place with our NATO allies—specifically with the United States—on this point? Will the amount by which they decide to decrease their defence expenditure influence our decisions?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the extent of our defence expenditure will be determined in the light of the current CFE talks. In considering precisely what reductions in arms and armaments will be necessary in this country, of course our NATO allies are consulted and their views taken into consideration.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in so far as we have with our NATO allies entered into many agreements with the Soviet Union on arms reduction, does the noble Earl agree with this point? We should in no way bring about a reduction unless, first, it is done in collaboration with our NATO allies; and, secondly, what the Soviet Union says it is doing in reducing arms is subject to complete verification by Britain and her NATO allies.
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords, that is certainly true, and it is part of the whole process of verification.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree on reflection that despite the views of some noble Lords opposite, it is not helpful or realistic to describe the Soviet threat to this country as alarming?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thought that I had made it clear to the noble Lord what I meant by that: the Soviet Union continues to produce arms at a significantly high rate.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although there may well be a prospect of serious arms reductions on the part of the United States, the form that those reductions might take could mean greater calls rather than lesser calls on the armaments of Britain and her European allies?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point.
Lord Richard: My Lords, may I press the Minister a little more on a point that I put to him on an earlier Question on the Order Paper? Of course defence reviews are exacting. Of course they have to be undertaken—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we accept that defence reviews are exacting? Is he further aware that we accept that matters have to be gone into in great detail? But can he not be just a little more forthcoming on this point? A good many people are dependent on decisions which the Government are to make. Can he say whether the defence review will be completed in a matter of weeks or months; or will we have to wait for years for it?
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords, I cannot say whether it will be a matter of weeks or months. As soon as we are able sensibly to determine what the future size and structure will be, so much the better. In the meantime, from the armed forces point of view, it is regrettably true that we live somewhat in a state of uncertainty. But the armed forces fully understand the circumstances and would much prefer that we made a good and sensible decision than responded with knee jerk reactions.
Lord Carver: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Options for Change study is being

1273
conducted solely within the Ministry of Defence or is it an inter-departmental study which includes the Treasury and the Foreign Office:
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is being conducted with those who are thought to be appropriate to determine future circumstances—that is, mostly with the Ministry of Defence.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it has been agreed through the usual channels that if the Report stage of the Social Security Bill has not been completed before 6 p.m. it will be adjourned at that time and the Third Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will be taken. There will be no evening adjournment.

Social Security Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Calculation of housing benefit
.—(1) Persons who are provided with accommodation under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1984 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.
(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 Registered Housing Associations Act 1985;
"eligible rent" and "eligible service charges" have the meanings set out in the Housing Benefit Regulations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with a problem which we have discussed during consideration of both this Bill and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. The problem has moved from Bill to Bill but we have not had a satisfactory answer from the Government. We have tabled the amendment to see whether we can take the matter any further.
We are concerned here with the situation which will arise next April when it is clear that it is the Government's intention that housing benefit should
1274
play a substantial part in financing the costs of residential care. They propose that rather than calculate housing benefit for each case, as would happen with a tenant, the local authority should have a formula so that a notional rent would be paid to all residents who are placed by local authorities in all types of homes.
There has been a wide degree of participation by the Department of Social Security. However, we still have no concrete proposals as to how housing benefit will be calculated and paid from next April. I am sure the Minister is aware that there is considerable concern among voluntary organisations which run residential projects that the proposal or the formula from the Government will result in a very low notional rent which will not reflect the true costs of rent and services provided. They fear—this point has been made on many aspects of this Bill and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill—that unless we have some concrete proposals in the near future local authorities will not have sufficient time to prepare for next April and we could see considerable delays in the payment of housing benefit, as happened on the last occasion when such changes were made.
We are also aware from reports in the press that local authorities are having to draw up their public expenditure bids for running community care services from next April. They still do not know how much of their expenditure will come through housing benefit and how much through revenue support grant. I should be the first to admit that the formula proposed in the amendment may not be perfect, but it gives the Minister an opportunity to say how far the Government have moved towards proposing a satisfactory formula. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this amendment has already been discussed twice. It was discussed during the debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and also in Committee on this Bill.
I am afraid I have to say that, once again, I do not think that there is much I can usefully add to what I said when this matter was last before the House. The Government made a commitment in the White Paper Caring for People to consult the local authority associations on the method of calculating housing benefit for this new category of cases from April next year. Those consultations are still under way. Bearing in mind the complexity of assessing housing benefit for this type of accommodation under the normal rules, we have proposed that housing benefit for people in residential care should be based on a notional rent. We believe that there would be considerable administrative advantages in such an approach.
Having said that, I can only assure the House that we are giving careful consideration to all the issues raised by the amendment as part of the consultation process with the local authority associations. I am afraid that I cannot go any further than that at this stage. However, I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we seek clarification on this point. We tried extremely hard, as the Minister acknowledged, to gain some idea of the time-scale involved so that the local authorities and voluntary organisations will know how to plan their activities. Can the Minister give us any hint as to when these consultations will be completed and their likely outcome?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Lord as regards the timing of the completion of the consultations. We have another week before what I understand is the suggested day for Third Reading; that is, next Monday. I hope that by that time I shall be able to give at least a hint as to when the consultation process will be completed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister's remarks amount to an assurance. However, in the light of his final words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Carer's premium
. In section 22 of the 1986 Act, after subsection (9) there shall be inserted—
"(10) In respect of a carer, the applicable amount shall include a carer's premium.
(11) For the purposes of subsection (10) above, a "carer" is a person—

(a) who is entitled to invalid care allowance or a person who would receive invalid care allowance except for the provisions of the Social Security (Overlapping Benefits) Regulations 1979; or

(b) who would be entitled to invalid care allowance if he were not at pensionable age.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 47. These amendments were moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. In our view, we received a very unsatisfactory reply from the Government at that time. We made it clear that we would return to the matter on Report.
The proposed new clause is aimed to extend eligibility for the carer's premium to carers over pension age, and to increase invalid care allowance to the level of other long-term income maintenance benefits, such as the basic retirement pension.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but can he confirm that he is speaking to both amendments?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am moving Amendment No. 46 and speaking also to Amendment No. 47.
In discussions on this Bill and also on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill there have been tributes from all sides of the House to the commitment and the contribution of informal carers to community care. However, we recognise that the current provision for carers is poor. The low level of financial support which is available to carers does not take fully into account the loss of earnings and
1276
the loss of opportunity to build up, for example, occupational pensions for their retirement. We believe that an adequate, independent income for all carers would be an important step towards proper recognition of their contribution. We all know that the Government save an enormous amount of money as a result of the unpaid services of carers.
We are aware of the Government's proposal as regards the carer's premium, which means that there will be an increase of £10 for income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit. However, that discriminates against the older carers as the invalid care allowance can only be awarded to people who are entitled to the allowance before reaching pension age. Anyone who starts to care after pension age—and this is a situation which will continue to occur as the average age of the population increases—will not be eligible for the carer's premium. In the same way, a carer who started to care before reaching pension age but who did not or was unable to claim the invalid care allowance will also not receive the carer's premium.
We would like to see the carer's premium awarded to all carers who fulfil the conditions for the invalid care allowance, apart from the upper age limit. An increase in the invalid care allowance, which is the subject of Amendment No. 47, to the level of other long-term income and maintenance benefits would be an important move forward. It would especially help those people who are unable to receive income-related benefits due to their savings, including those approaching pension age who have put aside some money for their retirement.
In Committee we drew attention to the excellent report entitled Caring for Carers which was produced by The Sunday Times and the Crossroads Care organisation. In its conclusions on the survey which was carried out the report said:
"Carers wanted to be heard and they wanted to have resources to care. Two-thirds of the respondents felt that no one ever listened to them, that no one ever cared for them. Nearly all wanted extra resources so that they could continue to care, and care effectively for their loved one".
I believe that the report was published on the day we discussed the matter in Committee. The Minister obviously had not had an opportunity to read it. However, it would be interesting to know now whether he has had time to read the report and whether he agrees with us that it illustrates very graphically the urgent need for these two amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I rise to express my support for these two amendments to which I have attached my name. I think that the relevant points have been made and I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House. However, underlying both amendments is the case for carers to be considered as people who are doing a job of work rather than people who are just having a contribution made to their income.
The amount saved by the state by having people looked after by carers in their own homes rather than being in institutions is so great, and the work undertaken so demanding, that surely it is reasonable that such people should be given much more support

1277
than they receive at present. Invalid care allowance is currently at a very low level. It is quite inadequate to compensate for the kind of work which carers are called upon to carry out.
I should especially like to stress the importance of looking at the position of people who start caring after they reach pension age. The additional costs and strains associated with caring are not related to whether one is above or below pension age; they are just as real when people are over pension age. I very much hope that the Government will think again about this restriction.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to speak in support of the amendment, and to ask the Goverment whether they can recognise a pistol when they see one. I have been looking at the fifth report of the Select Committee on Social Services of another place. It quotes the Royal College of Nursing to the effect that carers are becoming a scarce resource, for reasons that I believe I do not need to go into. It also quotes and accepts the estimate that carers are at present saving the Exchequer £24 billion a year. That is a considerable sum. It is a level similar to that for the whole of the budget for defence and education. If carers should lay down the burden, Ministers may then understand what I mean by a pistol.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as noble Lords have said, we have debated this issue before. I am not sure that I can take the House much further than I did in Committee. We recognise the important role that carers play in the community. We should look at the help that the Government have given, which has increased significantly over the past few years.
Expenditure on invalid care allowance has increased from £8 million in 1978–79 to £184 million in 1988–89. Carers will also benefit from several measures taking effect this year. The invalid care allowance earnings limit has increased from £12 to £20 plus allowable expenses; the allowance will become payable to more carers through the extension of attendance allowance to babies under two and people with a terminal illness; and an additional £10 premium as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, is being introduced in the income-related benefits for people receiving ICA.
The noble Lord referred to the Crossroads Report. As he said, it was published on the day the amendment was moved in Committee. He asked whether I had seen it. I have had a look at the report, as I undertook to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that I would. We recognise carers' financial needs and we shall keep the report's findings in view in our continuing monitoring of the help provided for disabled people and their carers.
The first amendment seeks to extend the new carer's premium to people who start caring after pension age. I am afraid that that is as far as I can go towards satisfying the noble Lord, Lord Carter. As I believed I advised the Committee, the carer's premium will not be available to people who start caring after pension age. That is because the ICA is not available to people who start caring after pension
1278
age. That is the crux of the issue. ICA is not then available because it is an income maintenance benefit. It compensates carers of working age for lost earnings opportunities, but when people reach pension age their relevant income benefit is retirement pension. We have no plans to pay one income maintenance benefit in addition to another, as the amendment proposes. However, as I have already promised, we shall monitor the new premium once it is introduced.
The second amendment seeks to increase the weekly rate of invalid care allowance (currently £28.20) to the same rate as the standard, basic weekly retirement pension (currently £46.90). I can only reiterate what I said on this matter when it was discussed before in Committee. The cost of paying invalid care allowance at retirement pension rate at over £100 million prohibits acceptance of the amendment. The social services committee, as my noble kinsman said, in its recent report, included that proposal in its list of long-term recommendations of improvements for carers. The committee did, however, recognise that such a change is not appropriate at the present time. In considering the committee's report as a whole, we will need to take account of all competing priorities in the area of social security benefit expenditure. The committee did not put a price on its recommendations but they appear to be costly. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I expected, that was a disappointing answer. It is clear that the Government do not intend to do anything for carers over pension age or for those who are under pension age who are ineligible for ICA. We hear that the findings of the Crossroads Report will be kept in view and that the situation will be monitored. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the cost of the provision (£100 million) must be set against the savings to the community of carers' unpaid efforts of about £24 billion. We have tried hard to get the Government to change their mind. The only thing we can do is to ask for the opinion of the House.
3.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Carter, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Birk, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blackstone, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Bottomley, L.

David, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Denham, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Ewart-Biggs, B.

L.

Ezra, L.

1279

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fitt, L.

Nicol, B.

Foot, L.

Northfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Galpern, L.

Phillips, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

[Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hanworth, V.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Seebohm, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Serota, B.

Jay, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stallard, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Kearton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strabolgi, L.

Kintore, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Leatherland, L.

Thurlow, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe,

Tordoff, L.

B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McNair, L.

Walston, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

White, B.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Henley, L.

Allerton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hives, L. Holderness, L.

Annaly, L.

Hood, V.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Auckland, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Balfour, E.

Ironside, L.

Barber, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beloff, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Joseph, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Lawrence, L.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lothian, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lurgan, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry,

Lyell, L.

D.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cayzer, L.

Morris, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Moyne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Munster, E.

Cox, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nelson, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Norrie, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

De Freyne, L.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dudley, B.

Pearson of Rannock, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Porritt, L.

Effingham, E.

Quinton, L.

Elibank, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliot of Harwood B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Foley, L.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Romney, E.

Gainford, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gibson Watt, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Selborne, E.

Gridley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint

Sharples, B.

Marylebone, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hailsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Havers, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

1280

Strathclyde, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Vaux of Harrowden, L

E.

Vinson, L.

Strathspey, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Wharton, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wolfson, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.32 p.m.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of carers who remain in the home.
.—(1) Section 22 of the Social Security Act 1986 (Calculation of Income Related Benefits) shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in subsection (2) below.
(2) Where a person has been admitted permanently to accommodation provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948, nursing home or hospital, the Secretary of State shall prescribe that in calculating the claimant's capital, any dwelling shall be disregarded if it is occupied in whole or in part by a person—

(a) whose sole or main place of residence is that dwelling; and

(b) who was providing a substantial amount of care on a regular basis to the claimant (and who was not employed to provide such care by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment) prior to the claimant's admission into care or hospital.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed a similar amendment when dealing with income support in Committee. This amendment deals specifically with the treatment of the capital value of someone's home when he or she goes into permanent care. When such persons claim income support, the value of the home that they no longer occupy is taken into account and treated as a capital asset. Anyone with more than £6,000 is not allowed to claim income support. While someone is in a home or hospital on a temporary basis, the value of the house is disregarded because it is assumed that the owner will want to return there.
The difficulty arises—and I believe that the Government recognise this—where someone who owns his own home needs permanent care. In this case the home is immediately treated as a capital asset. That can be a tremendous problem, obviously, if a carer is living in the home. That carer may be a friend or relative and may have given up his or her own home to live with and care for the person concerned. The income support legislation at present allows the home to be disregarded as a capital asset if it is occupied by the claimant's spouse or someone who is himself or herself elderly or incapacitated. However, this disregard does not apply to a carer who is under pension age and is neither chronically sick nor disabled.
The practical effect of this is that the value of the home prevents the claimant from receiving any income support and the carer is faced with either providing financial support for the resident or having to move out of the home so that it can be sold and its value realised. The amendment would

1281
ensure that the value of the home would be ignored when the home is owned by the claimant but there is living there a carer who had been caring for the claimant before the admission into care or into a long stay hospital. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept this. In the previous amendment we asked for sums of money which the Government—rightly or wrongly—regarded as considerable. The amount of money involved in this amendment is negligible. I hear the microphone whistling, I might wish to make a noise like that at the Minister, but I do not know how to produce it deliberately! The amount of money that this amendment would cost, in comparison with the amount involved in the previous amendment is negligible, but in a number of cases it would make a tremendous difference to the people concerned.
Many carers are not relations and are not themselves elderly and disabled. They are friends who have either been living together for a long time and ore or other of them falls ill; or they are people who have moved in. They have given up their own home and moved in with the person concerned in order to care for him or her. It is extremely harsh that people so placed should have to move out in order that the home can be sold to meet the costs of the person in need of care in an institution. Considering what, in relation to the cost, the amendment would achieve for a small number of people who are in any case under heavy handicaps, it is not a great deal to ask. I hope that the Government will feel on this occasion that they can meet the requirements of the amendment
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too wish to support the amendment. Treating a house as a capital asset is one of the absurdities of present financial thinking. It accounts for much of the credit boom, among other things. Even if it is an asset, it is not a negotiable asset. If people sell their house, where will they live afterwards? I remind my noble kinsman that we shall debate homelessness in a few moments. He might find it rather expensive to turn this amendment down.
Lord Henley: My Lords, although I cannot accept the amendment, that is not to suggest that I am not without sympathy for its aims. I have a feeling that my noble kinsman has gone slightly too far. There are many ocasions when the value of the house is not taken into account as capital. Here we are dealing with the relatively few cases where the carer is under 60 and is not a partner of the disabled person going into care. That carer potentially loses his or her house because it is then counted as part of the owner's income.
I am sympathetic to the aims of the amendment, but if noble Lords will bear with me, I must explain some of the problems. I am sure that the House will appreciate that the needs of the disabled person involve a cost to the taxpayer. The noble Baroness quite rightly mentioned this and said that that cost was negligible. However if the amendment were
1282
agreed, the cost to the taxpayer would have to be considered. For example, there is the argument for saying that the value of the home which would have been fully disregarded while the disabled person was living there and claiming benefit should now be realised so that he or she can enjoy a few luxuries in the remaining years.
In terms of cost to the taxpayer, we have unfortunately no clear picture of the number of people entering Part III, a nursing home or hospital, on a permanent basis in the circumstances of the amendment. However, our best guess—and I stress that this is very much a guess—is that in income support alone the cost might be in the region of £18 million.
The current rules are not unsympathetic to the needs of the carers. When disabled people enter Part III, a nursing home or hospital, they often do so on a temporary basis. During this period, which can be considerable, the property is fully disregarded because it is still their home. When the stay becomes permanent, there are other disregards which may help. As I said earlier, the property is fully disregarded if it is occupied by a partner or by a relative of the family who is 60 or over or is incapacitated. Those concessions will apply to many carers.
Although I said I had some sympathy with the amendment, I cannot accept it in its current form as I feel it is drafted too widely. I have in mind, for example, that a concession may be reasonable for some hard cases, such as a daughter who is in her late fifties and has spent over 30 years caring for her disabled parent. However, the same arguments would not necessarily apply to someone who had provided care for only a matter of months and is perhaps in full-time employment.
If there is a need for an amendment, the circumstances in which it is to apply have to be closely defined. The circumstances would have to be considerably tighter than those proposed in the amendment today in order to protect the needs of all parties, including the taxpayer.
The House may remember that a similar amendment was proposed to last year's Social Security Bill. It was considered in another place and the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my honourable friend Peter Lloyd, said he would consider whether an amendment was possible in order to catch the most vulnerable carers. Since then we have monitored the position through ministerial and other correspondence. To our knowledge no case has arisen for which the existing rules do not offer a solution. As I have said, I am unable to accept the amendment in its present form. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw it on the understanding that the Government are alive to the situation and will continue to monitor the position to see whether anything more needs to be done for carers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he possibly go one step further? If I may say so, he has expressed an unusual degree of sympathy for the amendment. Will he take it away and see whether he can come back at Third Reading with a more restricted amendment that would be

1283
acceptable to the Government? Will he consider doing that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give an assurance that I could manage that in a week. The same problem arose last year and my colleague Mr. Lloyd said he would continue to monitor the position. However, as I have said, the problem is that it is difficult to find a way of drafting an amendment appropriately to make it sufficiently tight. I cannot give the noble Baroness an assurance that I can come forward with anything at Third Reading. If the noble Baroness cares to try herself, she may—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I shall certainly try, with or without the Minister's permission, to bring an amendment back at Third Reading.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I did not intend to imply that the noble Baroness needed my permission. She knows she does not need that. However, if she wishes she can have another bash at this matter, but I give no assurance that the Government will necessarily accept what she may come forward with.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I think that is what is called half a loaf. The Minister said that the Government's best guess at the cost of the measure was £18 million. However, he then said that the Government, in monitoring the situation, had found that no cases had arisen which could not be solved by the existing rules. I found that rather difficult to understand.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said that the cost of implementing this amendment, as the noble Lord has drafted it, would be in the region of £18 million, at a rough guess. The noble Lord has drafted the amendment far wider than I think even he would accept is necessary. I said that I could envisage some hard cases arising. I mentioned a particular example. However, in our year's monitoring we have not come across any such cases.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I can assure him that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and I will come back at Third Reading with a suitably drafted amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Amendments relating to the social fund]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 17, line 4, at end insert:
("(2A) In section 33(10) of that Act, at the end there shall be added the words ", but no such general direction shall prohibit payments for deposits for secure accommodation." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to make it possible to use the money made available through the social fund for the paying of deposits. Any of us who has had the experience of counselling people who are in trouble in one way or another knows that very nearly the first question
1284
one has to ask is, "Have you got anywhere to live?" Some 22 per cent. of those who apply for help to the social fund do not have anywhere to live. Some 64 per cent. of those who optimistically apply to the social fund for deposits do not have anywhere to live.
The rules governing the operation of the social fund—my noble kinsman made this clear on Second Reading—permit it to be used to pay rent in advance but not to pay deposits. I quite appreciate that the line must be drawn somewhere, but drawing it at this point rather reminds me of Sir Hudibras who could by analytic skill divide a hair betwixt south and south-west side. I do not see why the line should be drawn in this place. I must confess that the principle behind it escapes me. The effect of it is to make it very nearly impossible to house applicants who come before the social fund needing somewhere to live. The effect of making it very nearly impossible to house them is to make it very nearly impossible to help them effectively, and therefore to make it very difficult to use the money which is already being spent through the social fund in any cost-effective way.
People who apply to the social fund are not likely to be the kind of people who are expected to buy their own homes. It is not likely that they are going to be able to obtain local authority housing. We are told that by 1992 we can expect the number of local authority dwellings being built to be down to something in the region of 6,000. The sums available to house people through housing associations are going down and there are considerable reports of trouble. Therefore the private rented sector is in effect the only hope. That means that those people have to get into the private rented sector which means they must face the fact that the taking of deposits in the private rented sector, for good or ill, is becoming more frequent. I do not wish to argue whether that is good or ill. We have to accept that, like Mount Everest, it is there. It seems that the Government have no objection to it. Indeed, in the Housing Act 1988 they seem to me to have encouraged the taking of deposits.
We have here a somewhat schizophrenic attitude. The Department of Social Security argues that making money available for deposits will encourage landlords to take them so it should not be given, while the Department of the Environment, being aware that landlords will not stay in business unless it is to their profit, positively encourages them to take deposits. I wish the Government would let their left hand know what their right hand is doing. They try to argue that, in effect, if such an amendment were carried it would prime the market for deposits. My noble kinsman said on 22nd May that single payments were,
"actually stimulating demand for deposits from landlords".—[Official Report, 22/5/90; col. 809.]
He was referring there to the situation before 1986.
The arithmetic of that is a little unexpected. In 1986 under the single payments scheme deposits were costing £3 million. In 1988–89 the total amount spent on housing out of GNP was £33 billion. There is a slight disproportion between those figures. In terms of market share I do not see that it is

1285
particularly likely that the amount spent on deposits through social security will have a significant effect on the overall state of the housing market.
The Government's argument here seems to be essentially one of cost. I can understand that, as it is a real problem, but my argument here is essentially one of waste. I believe there is no point in spending the money unless one can spend it effectively. Until people can get somewhere to live they cannot get a job, and until they can get a job they cannot get off benefit. That is the object we should be thinking of all the way through, if we are at all conscious of cost. In effect, calculating by the percentage of applicants and the percentage of the social fund money involved, the Government seem to me to be saving £3 million and wasting £40 million. That does not seem to me to be awfully good arithmetic.
I admit that when I put down this amendment I contemplated asking the House to vote on it. However, since then, last Friday to be precise, we have had a statement by the Minister's honourable friend Mr. Spicer about homelessness which I regard as at least a shuffle in the right direction. The Minister's honourable friend Mr. Spicer said some quite interesting things on the subject. He said that talks will be held with voluntary groups to establish a special fund to enable people living in hostels to get over the first hurdle of finding a deposit in order to rent flats. In other words, the Minister's honourable friend has diagnosed exactly the same problem, as I have, but he is talking of setting up a special fund.
There are arguments in terms of administrative proliferation and unnecessary cost against setting up unnecessary funds when the fund that is qualified to do the job is already in place. Therefore I shall ask my noble kinsman whether before Third Reading he will undertake to consult with his honourable friend Mr. Spicer to see whether between them they can evolve any practical way forward on the subject. I would much rather proceed by consultation than confrontation if possible. It is in that spirit that I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was very pleased to support the amendment from these Benches when we discussed it at Committee stage and I am pleased to support it again today. It may help the House if I give a brief idea of the size of the problem in terms of individual payments.
A survey was carried out by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in March of last year, two months after the Housing Act 1988 came into force. The survey covered 735 of its clients who were private tenants. It showed that for clients who had taken up their tenancies since January 1988 the average amount of payments for rent in advance was £195, the average deposit was £211 and the average premium was £85.
In the experience of the citizens advice bureaux, in most instances such sums are quite beyond the means of clients on income support. That means that unless they are able to obtain help from another source, such as the social fund, clients on benefits
1286
are unable to resolve their housing problems by means of the private rented sector. As we know, deposits to secure accommodation are specifically excluded by directive from the social fund. The amendment attempts to deal with the problem and I shall be extremely interested to hear the answer that the Minister gives to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, regarding the fund that was proposed only last week by Mr. Spicer.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may say immediately that I fully appreciate the concern of both my noble kinsman and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for those who find themselves homeless. In replying, I do not believe that I should go over old ground that was covered at Committee stage. However, I should like to comment briefly on our experience under the old single payment scheme.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin presented the main arguments to the Committee in a very clear and cogent manner. He said that to provide deposits to secure accommodation did not help to solve the problem of homelessness; far from it. It could stimulate demand for deposits, it could result in abuse of the scheme by landlords and tenants alike, and it was unfair to people in low-paid work who did not have access to the scheme. That is why we do not feel that the social fund would be the right way to go about solving the problem.
My noble kinsman quite rightly referred to the announcement by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Mr. Spicer, last Friday. My honourable friend announced then a new plan to provide emergency shelters for people sleeping rough. He also explained that there would be additional "move-on" accommodation for such people as a step towards normal living. Under those arrangements the Government are allocating some £15 million in the present financial year to provide additional subsidised accommodation for single homeless people. That will take the form of direct access accommodation for people on the streets and "move-on" accommodation to provide longer-term housing for people who are currently living in hostels. There will also be discussions with the voluntary groups concerned about the possibility of establishing a special fund to enable people living in hostels to get over the first hurdle of finding a deposit in order to gain access to rented accommodation.
My noble kinsman asked whether I would consult my honourable friend between now and Third Reading next week. Of course I can give an assurance that if at all possible I shall get together with my honourable friend and consult him on this matter. I do not see the social fund as being the way forward on this matter in terms of providing money for deposits, but I am sure that my honourable friend will be prepared to consider the points that my noble kinsman has raised.
I welcome the fact that my noble kinsman said that in view of the announcement on Friday he would not press the amendment to a Division and would be prepared to withdraw it. In the light of my assurances I hope that my noble kinsman will be able to keep to his original assurance.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reply. It is a little less forthcoming than I had hoped but at least it offers me a crumb of comfort. I must confess that I find it extremely difficult to see the precise line of difference between his honourable friend's proposal and my own, save only that his honourable friend's proposal involves a proliferation of agencies. I do not see that as being a great virtue.
I was of course aware of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in Committee. I answered some of the points that he made. I cannot see the quantitative scale of the amount of money that is likely to come through under the social fund as being sufficient to have any significant distorting effect on market levels.
The problem here is that we have two separate compartments of government thinking which do not seem to meet. If there is any reasonable prospect that those two compartments might come together between now and Third Reading we might get something very much more constructive out of it. In that hope I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I very much hope that if my noble kinsman is saying that the social fund is not the way forward by the time we reach Third Reading he will come back and tell us what is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 17, line 26, at end insert:
("(4A) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
("(10B) For the purposes of any general direction issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (10) above, a person in receipt of invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance shall be treated as if he were in receipt of income support.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment that we discussed at Committee stage. At that time the Government's answer seemed to be that they recognised the problem to which we had drawn their attention but could not deal with it, either because the social fund had not been running for long enough, it would cost too much to solve the problem or it was just too difficult. We have put the amendment down again to see whether we can obtain a more helpful approach from the Government and at least a recognition that the amendment draws attention to a very real anomaly.
One of the main objectives of the social fund as outlined by the Government was that it should break new ground in the field of community care. The part of the social fund specifically concerned with achieving that objective, as we know, is the community care grants, which allow for the provision of grants rather than loans. They are intended primarily to help those in vulnerable groups such as the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped or chronically sick or disabled and to enable them to return to living in or to remain in the community. The community care grants—or CCGs as they are called—were specifically designed to help those people who under community care policies are to be encouraged to leave long-stay institutions and
1288
establish themselves in the community. We are all united in our wish to see that happen.
However, a necessary condition of eligibility for community care grant is that a person should be receiving income support or will shortly do so. However, because of their sickness and disability many people in those groups will be in receipt of disability benefits such as invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance, which are set at slightly higher rates than income support. Therefore, we have the extraordinary situation that because of that anomaly the very people who should be helped by community care grants—a clearly definable group of people—will be prevented from doing so by a ruling that seems to run directly counter to the community care objectives that we are discussing at the moment in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, during the course of the debate in Committee, I explained that to extend the help available by way of community care grants to those receiving invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance presented us with very real problems. It would, for example, ignore other deserving groups, such as pensioners, ignore the fact that many of those receiving invalidity benefit have resources which mean that they are significantly better off than those receiving income support, and involve considerable extra funds or, alternatively, severely limit the help that could be offered to others in similar need. For those reasons I cannot accept the amendment.
However, during the course of the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, tried to limit the scope of the amendment. She suggested that help should be limited to a special category of people who were leaving institutions. I then said that I hoped that it might be possible at some point to look at that suggestion. I do not intend to raise false hopes, but I believe that it would be useful to have inquiries made in this area. Even if we are not in a position to extend the scheme at the moment we may be able to do so at a later date if an identifiable group can be found.
The inquiries made so far show that the matter is not so straightforward as both the noble Baroness and I expected. Not only is it difficult suitably to define the category of people we might wish to help, but limiting an extension to those receiving invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance perpetuates the discrimination of the original amendment. However, as I said previously, we must also resolve the question of equity and, of course, the extra cost involved. Once again I must warn the House that I cannot guarantee that there will be any change.
Finally, I must point out that to make such a change would not require an amendment to the legislation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be able to make any necessary alteration to the way in which the community care grants scheme works by issuing revised directions. I trust that, in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As he did in reply to a number of previous amendments, he trailed a hope and left us in the air about what will happen. When Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and talk about equity and extra costs I can only refer them to the poll tax.
The Minister has hinted that at least the Government are aware of the very real problem and are prepared to look at it. I believe that he gave the assurance that if they see a problem they will be able to deal with it through regulations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Unemployment benefit disqualification
. In section 20(1) of the principal act, for the words "26 weeks" there shall be substituted the words "13 weeks" ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as noble Lords will recall. I moved a similar amendment in Committee. I pointed out that at present an unemployed person must wait 26 weeks for unemployment pay—that is the period of disqualification—if he is judged voluntarily to have left his previous employment. For 75 years all governments, including Conservative administrations, were happy with a disqualification period of six weeks. This Government changed it first to 13 weeks and then, without waiting for an appropriate length of time to see how that worked, to 26 weeks.
There may be good reasons for leaving employment; for instance, another offer of employment may not materialise or there may be unsatisfactory or even unsafe working conditions. Young women in particular may suffer from sexual harassment and be too embarrassed or too shy to do anything about it except leave. Such incidents occur especially to the young and vulnerable.
If the insurance officer denies the right to unemployment pay, it is of course true that there is a right of appeal. But I have served on insurance appeal tribunals. Although when I was a member of such a tribunal it attempted to put people at their ease and to make the proceedings as informal as possible, it is a daunting experience for many people, particularly if they are not represented. Most of the people who the tribunal saw had the greatest difficulty in expressing precisely what their case was about. It is also possible to go to an industrial tribunal if it is claimed that one was dismissed because the situation at work had become so impossible that one could not continue to work in it; that is the case of constructive dismissal. Again, people need to be represented at such hearings and normally they take some time to be arranged.
I cannot see that there was a great deal wrong with the six-week disqualification period which existed until relatively recently. No government can agree that people can frivolously leave their employment and then claim benefit. That is why we had the
1290
disqualification period originally. But surely 26 weeks is far too long. It can lead to real poverty, particularly for families and those people in areas where there is a relatively high level of unemployment. The Government have already tightened up the conditions for entitlement to unemployment pay; instead of simply being available, one must actively be seeking work. Surely they do not need to disqualify for a period of 26 weeks, particularly since they have not given the 13-week period a fair run to see how it works.
In Committee it was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that a period between six and 26 weeks should be provided in the legislation. I hope that the Government have had time to think about the matter since Committee and will now be prepared to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I support the amendment. We agree with the noble Baroness that 26 weeks appears to be harsh. It is approaching what might be described on the other side of the Atlantic as "cruel and unusual punishment". We also agree that no state can encourage people wantonly to turn down jobs. However, we believe that the period is extreme. We also agree with the noble Baroness that it can be difficult for anyone outside the immediate circumstances to judge exactly a person's reasons for leaving a job. There is a possiblity of error and, therefore, there is a need for a slightly less stringent punishment.
I was a little taken aback to read in this morning's papers proposals for even further checks on availability for work—these are now proposed for the old and sick unemployed. I wonder what the Government have in mind and whether such checks are really necessary. I believe that, in all walks of life, if one is to keep one's self respect it must remain possible to say, "This is a job in which I cannot serve with honour".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment. As the noble Earl will recall, we have discussed the matter in this House on several occasions and there has been no general consensus of view.
It is important to stress that unemployment benefit should not be available to people who deliberately make themselves unemployed. The noble Baroness said that there can be cases in which the people making themselves unemployed have good reason for doing so. However, as has been pointed out, there is an appeal procedure. Therefore, the argument has no bearing on what the maximum penalty should be in cases in which it is decided that the people concerned made themselves unemployed without due or proper cause.
In present circumstances it is important that it should be made clear that, just because one is a little bored with a job or feels like a change, one cannot merely slide out, draw unemployment benefit and then take up another job. It is important that deliberately to make oneself unemployed should be marked as being wrongful and should carry an appropriate and adequate penalty. It is obvious that

1291
the old six-week penalty was wholly inadequate and no one seriously defended it. I believe that we should give the current period of 26 weeks a proper run. It might turn out to have a good effect on preventing people deliberately making themselves unemployed. I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend will be pleased to hear that I have no intention of accepting the amendment. It was because the disqualification rule was not acting as a sufficient deterrent that in April 1988 the Government increased the maximum period—and I stress the word "maximum"—for disqualification from 13 to 26 weeks. Since then disqualifications have fallen dramatically. Claims have also fallen but proportionately fewer disqualifications are now being imposed. That indicates that the policy of deterrence is working.
I should like to emphasise that the period of 26 weeks is a maximum. It is for the adjudication officers to exercise judicial discretion and to decide an appropriate period of disqualification taking into account all the relevant circumstances. In fact adjudication officers are now less inclined to apply the maximum period of disqualification than they were when the 13-week option was available.
The monitoring of 10,000 cases showed that less than 64 per cent. of disqualifications were for the maximum period. As my noble friend said, an aggrieved claimant has the right of appeal to a social security appeals tribunal. That applies whether he disputes the length of the period of the disqualification, or the disqualification itself.
I believe that my noble kinsman referred to an article in the Independent this morning which announced new changes in the employment service. The change reflects the fact that older workers are now more in demand in the labour market because there are fewer young people available. The Government are keen to encourage employers to widen their recruitment of older employees by treating clients of whatever age in the same way. Now that Jobcentres and benefit services are integrating, fortnightly attendance will ensure that older clients are regularly brought up to date on the latest vacancies available and can enjoy the benefit of the full range of the employment services.
The change will apply only to new clients reaching the time when they might have been given what was called quarterly attender status. It will not apply to existing quarterly attenders. The change applies to older workers only. People with disabilities will not be affected. People who are incapable of work through sickness are exempt from the requirement to be available for work and will also be unaffected.
Bearing in mind the explanation that I have given as to why we do not feel able to accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he define an older worker: Who is an older worker—older than whom?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I know the noble Baroness's interests in these matters. I know she does not like to consider anyone as being older than anyone else. In the past some workers over the age of 50 who have been unemployed for a year or longer were able to sign on as quarterly attenders. That will not be the case. I know that the noble Baroness does not believe in such categories as older workers. Therefore I am sure she will accept that what the Government are doing is right, despite what my noble kinsman said about it being an attack on the older worker. As the noble Baroness does not accept that there are such groups as older workers, I am sure that she will find it easy to support the Government.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, by leave, I certainly support older workers. The Minister has put it slightly out of perspective. I merely wish to know who is an older worker. He has given me an indication of 50 years. Luckily, because there is a shortage of school-leavers, these old 50 year-olds will have the chance to obtain a job. I am delighted about that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I did not misunderstand the noble Baroness. I had always understood that she felt we should not discriminate against older workers; and with that the Government heartily agree.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am not at all satisfied with his response. First he has not dealt with the argument that the 13-week period has not been given much of a chance to be tested. For 75 years the disqualification period was six weeks. For reasons with which I do not altogether agree, that was found to be unsatisfactory. We then had a 13-week period. Within a very short time—two or three years—the 13-week period was change to 26 weeks. I do not find his explanations for that change satisfactory.
It seems to me that he is bearing out what the voluntary organisations have told me: that the 26 weeks is regarded as the period to be imposed in the majority of cases. The Minister has confirmed that the maximum period of 26 weeks is applied in about 64 per cent. of cases. I do not believe that the position is satisfactory. It is a very long period indeed to be without unemployment pay. Quite frankly, I share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who thought that it was a cruel punishment. I think that it is draconian—so much so that I intend to take the opinion of the House on the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 54) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 138.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Aylestone, L.

Bottomley, L.

Birk, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

1293

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Northfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Richard, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Foot, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Walston, L.

Kearton, L.

White, B.

Leatherland, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Allerton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gainford, L.

Annaly, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Arran, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Balfour, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Barber, L.

Beloff, L.

Hanson, L.

Belstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Birdwood, L.

Havers, L.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L.

Blyth, L.

Hertford, M.

Boardman, L.

Hesketh, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hives, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Holderness, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hood, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Joseph, L.

Butterworth, L.

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Layton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Liverpool, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Long, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lothian, M.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lurgan, L.

Cox, B.

Lyell, L.

Craigavon, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cross, V.

Mancroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Manton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Deedes, L.

Mersey, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Derwent, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Effingham, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elibank, L.

Munster, E.

Elliot of Harwood B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Nelson, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrets, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Foley, L.

Orkney, E.

1294

Oxfuird, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Pender, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Plummer of St. Marlyebone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Swinfen, L.

Porritt, L.

Teviot, L.

Quinton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Renton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Rodney, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Romney, E.

Trumpington, B.

St. Davids, V.

Ullswater, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Vinson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Selborne, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Wise, L.

Sharples, B.

Wolfson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Somerset, D.

Young, B.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 63 names, the Tellers for the Not-Contents 138 names. The Clerks recorded 63 and 137 names respectively.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Income Support for 19 year olds in full-time education
The Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 shall have effect with the insertion in regulation 14(1), after the words "(meaning of child)", of the words "or a person aged 19 who is receiving full-time relevant education within the meaning of regulation 12(a) of these regulations" ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was discussed at Committee stage and we withdrew it to enable us to make a careful study of the reply that was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Having carefully studied the remarks made by the noble Baroness we remain unconvinced by the Government's arguments. The purpose of the amendment is to restore income support payments to parents of 19 year-olds who are still at school in non-advanced education, doing GCE or A-level. Under the old supplementary benefit scheme parents with 19 year-old children who were still at school received an amount in respect of those children which included the calculation of their weekly benefit. When income support was introduced in April 1988 such payments ceased when the child reached the age of 19. A problem arises in that not only do families with 19 year-olds who are still at school lose income support and the applicable amount of child benefit in relation to that child, but if the child is an only child or the last dependent child the family premium is lost.
If the family is headed by a lone parent, the lone parent premium and the one parent benefit will be lost. We are advised that couples can lose up to £43·40 a week, which represents a drop of 47 per cent. in their weekly benefit income, and lone parents can lose up to £53£10 per week, which represents a 59 per cent, drop in income. A lone parent can be left with £36£70 a week to support both himself or herself and his or her child, out of which the parent will have to meet all of their living expenses except

1295
for housing costs. Even then they will have to find 20 per cent. of the community charge.
The parents of 19 year-olds are faced with a difficult choice: a period of financial hardship or curtailment of the child's education. The long-term effect upon 19 year-olds of loss of qualification and consequent reduced access to further education or to job opportunities is bound to affect them detrimentally. That situation arises from the arbitrary fact of the child's date of birth and can only be perceived as unfair.
The Minister will probably say in reply that, as his noble friend said at Committee stage, the Government have to draw the line somewhere. It was pointed out in Committee that local education authorities have power to make awards in cases of hardship. Do the Government seriously believe that, with the pressures and costs of implementation of the Education Reform Act and the costs of the poll tax, with the threat of charge capping, extra resources will be made available by the local education authorities in that respect?
It would be helpful if the Minister could deal with the problem that faces lone parents. Would it be possible to single out lone parents for extra help so that they can keep their children in education until the age of 19? We have seen the Government's proposals in regard to attachment of earnings in order to secure maintenance payments. That proposal will produce a substantial saving in benefits and it would be reasonable to direct some of those benefits towards the problem that is met by the amendment. If the Minister does not feel able to go all the way with the amendment, will he consider the question of lone parents? I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we debated an identical amendment to this one at Committee stage. I regret that there is very little I can add to what my noble friend Lady Blatch said on that occasion. However, I will reiterate the main points of the Government's arguments.
There clearly must come a stage at which dependency upon parents is no longer appropriate. By the age of 19 a person is well over the age of majority, and most of them will have completed their secondary education and become independent of their parents.
Wherever the eligibility line is drawn, a small number of deserving cases will inevitably fall on the wrong side. To meet that situation, alternative statutory provision exists to alleviate hardship. Local education authorities have power to make awards to help young people in non-advanced education to complete their studies. That situation applies to children of lone parents as well as to others. The local authority has a complete discretion in relation to the amount. From the autumn of this year further help will be available for those studying at colleges of further education. That additional help will not, however, be available to those who are still at school, and I should like to consider their position further.
The noble Lord gave various figures as to potential losses of benefit on a child attaining his 19th birthday. I think the noble Lord was also taking into
1296
account child benefit; and of course he is aware that child benefit is taken into account in assessing income support. So he cannot add it on on this occasion to get the same figure.
The noble Lord also asked me to consider whether something could be done specifically for lone parents. I have to say in all honesty that I do not at the moment see any way in which they could be treated separately. If, as part of any further considerations on maintenance and support from liable relatives and so on, something could be done, no doubt we shall bear in mind the point that the noble Lord has made.
Lastly, may I say that the amendment as drafted is defective and primary legislation is also unnecessary. If after further consideration a change is to be made, we can respond at any time that is convenient by means of regulation. I shall consider these matters further; but in the meantime I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw this amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply. I was not completely surprised by it. He said that local authorities will have complete discretion, but I believe I am correct in saying that the extra cost of any award they make will all fall onto the poll tax, because it will not be taken into account in the standard spending assessment. We all know the problems that will face local authorities next year under pressure from the Government to keep the poll tax down.
As I said, and as I think the Minister agrees, the defect in the drafting could be dealt with if the Government were disposed to accept the amendment. But I can see that they will not do so, and there is little point in pressing the amendment to a Division, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Equal treatment of women in occupational and personal pension schemes
.In paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 of the Social Security Act 1989, sub-paragraphs (4)(d), (4)(e) and (4)(f) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned—
Lord Henley: My Lords, in moving her amendment, I presume that the noble Baroness is also speaking to my amendments which are grouped with it. Those amendments are Nos. 62B, 68A and 70.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes, my Lords. But I was not proposing to devote much time to them, because I hoped the Minister would explain exactly what they mean. If I may return to my Amendment No. 56, this is concerned, as it states, with the achievement of equal treatment for women in

1297
occupational and personal pension schemes. It is an overall amendment designed to achieve that objective.
As your Lordships know, we have gradually been moving towards full equality of treatment between men and women in occupation schemes for some years. For a long while we had equal access, but this by no means meant equal benefits. But over the years there have been changes designed to reach that objective.
One of the main problems in trying to achieve equality of treatment—and this was highlighted by the Occupational Pensions Board in a report as long ago as 1976—is that we have unequal state pension ages; and in this country, where we have schemes which integrate with the state scheme, that obviously gives rise to a number of anomalies and difficulties. However, it seems fairly clear from recent developments, not the least of which is the Barber judgment, that we shall have to come to terms with Europe so far as equality is concerned, and I have the feeling that the Government probably feel that they have to move in that direction as well.
The purpose of my amendment is to find out from the Minister whether the Government have yet decided what they intend to do in respect either of the Barber judgment or of the other pressures which are being exerted upon us to achieve equality in pension provision. With those few remarks, since the whole issue has been spoken to on many occasions in your Lordships' House, I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, may I formally support this amendment? We have spoken to it on a number of occasions.
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords. As the noble Baroness says, we have spoken to it on a number of occasions previously. As I said when I intervened at the beginning of the noble Baroness's speech, in speaking to Amendment No. 56, I shall also be speaking to Government Amendment No. 62B and to Amendments Nos. 68A and 70 which are consequential. I hope the House will bear with me if I say a little about the Barber case and its implications.
Mr. Barber was made redundant on 31st December 1980 by Guardian Royal Exchange. He was 52. He was denied his pension early, but a women of the same age would have received one. GRE's pension scheme had a higher normal pension age for men than for women and the early pension rules followed suit.
The case went to the Court of Appeal which sought the European Court's opinion on specific questions, so that the Court of Appeal could decide the case. In the event the ECJ ranged much further, pronouncing on wider issues affecting occupational pensions schemes. In particular, the court said that benefits from contracted-out occupational pension schemes must be paid to men and women from the same ages.
Let me say at this point that the ruling does not affect state pensions. Different state pension ages for men and women are specifically permitted by the
1298
first Equal Treatment Directive made by the Council of Ministers in 1979. That is not in question.
The Government, like the pensions world, have studied the Barber judgment in considerable detail. I have to tell the House that certain aspects of that judgment are by no means clear. I understand that many eminent figures in the pensions world are unclear as to the precise meaning of the judgment. The Government are considering the legal implications, have identified the need for a new amendment, and are looking to see whether a greater degree of legal certainty is possible. But at the end of the day, only the European Court itself can clarify how it intended its decision to apply. It is not yet clear whether an early opportunity will arise to obtain the court's clarification.
Let me first consider the effect of Amendment No. 56. The noble Baroness's amendment would remove each of the derogations in Schedule 5 to the 1989 Act. This would mean that from 1st January 1993, occupational schemes would be required to have the same pension age for men and women, to pay widowers' benefits on the same terms as widows' benefits and to provide the optional rights without regard to the member's sex. Paragraph 3(3) of the schedule would still continue to exclude rights and obligations accruing in respect of pre-1993 service. Accordingly, the amendment would require equality only in resepct of pensionable service after 1st January 1993.
The amendment appears largely superfluous in respect of pension age and survivors' benefits. The amendment would not achieve anything not already accomplished by the Barber judgment. Indeed, the amendment would not require until 1993 what Barber already requires from 17th May 1990. It is not clear how far the provisions in the 1986 Directive and Schedule 5 to the 1989 Act will still need to come into effect in the light of Barber. The Government will take account of legal advice on the relationship between Article 119 and the Directive before making a commencement order in respect of the schedule. In the meantime, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
I now turn to Government Amendment No. 62B. The Government have of course been examining the consequences of the court's ruling in the Barber case; in particular, as it might affect contracting-out from the state earnings related pension scheme. Legal advice is that there is a specific problem for occupational money purchase schemes, referred to, I understand, in the pensions world as COMPS; that is, Contrated Out Money Purchase Schemes.
The problem arises from the conflict between the court's ruling in the Barber case, that occupational schemes must equalise the age at which pensions come into payment for men and women, and the current requirement that such schemes may contract out of the state scheme only if they pay the proceeds of investing the minimum required contribution—known as protected rights—to their members at the age of 60 for women and 65 for men. COMPS schemes cannot do this and be consistent with the court's ruling. The aim of the amendment is to provide the necessary framework to enable COMPS schemes simultaneously to remain contracted out and meet the court's requirements.

1299
The amendment provides that COMPS, which put the protected rights into payment at any age from 60 to 65, may continue to be contracted out. Its effect will operate as from 17th May this year—the date of the Barber judgment.
Like other pension schemes, COMPS must of course take legal advice about the implications of the European Court's ruling for their own circumstances. The amendment means that they will be able to pay benefits derived from protected rights from the same age for men and women and remain contracted out of SERPS.
I hope that I have been able to make clear the new arrangements that Amendment No. 62B seeks to provide for COMPS schemes. There is no similar conflict between Community and national law in the case of other contracted-out occupational schemes. They will be able to meet the new equal treatment requirement following Barber and satisfy the contracting-out conditions without changes to the United Kingdom legislation.
I hope that, when we reach my amendment—Amendment No. 62B—the House will feel able to accept it. In the meantime, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation, both in regard to the effect of the Barber judgment and as regards his amendment, Amendment No. 62B. I am pleased to note that the Government are apparently taking legal advice as to how next to proceed. I assume that, when that advice has been thoroughly considered, we may very well have something more to consider in the shape of legislation in order to meet the terms of the Barber judgment. In the present circumstances, there seems no point in proceeding with my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 56A:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Equalisation of the Pension Ages
—(1) Section 27(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 (setting different pensionable ages for men and women) shall be amended so as to set the same pensionable age for men and women which shall take effect no later than 1st January 1995.
(2) The Secretary of State by order shall determine the age at which the same pensionable age shall be set no later than 1st January 1992.
(3)The power to make an order under subsection (2) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(4) Any statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (2) shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment concerns not the occupational or private pension schemes but state pension ages. As the Minister said when he spoke to the previous amendment, that was concerned only with occupational schemes, and the Barber judgment relates only to occupational schemes. However, the fact that we have unequal state pension ages in this country has its effect on occupational
1300
provision. We have been talking about equal state pension ages for almost as long as I can remember. As I said earlier, in its report on equal treatment in occupational pensions the Occupational Pensions Board drew attention way back in the mid-1970s to unequal pension ages as one of the basic reasons for the anomalies and inconsistencies in pension provision.
There have been two Lords Select Committees. The most recent, of which I was a member, made some recommendations which I think most of us thought were sensible and reasonable. We came down in favour of the idea of a decade of retirement between the ages of 60 and 70. We suggested a pivotal age of 63 for the payment of the state pension and with a long phase-in period as we wanted to safeguard the expectations of women who expected to receive the full basic state pension at 60. The conditions would be the same for men as for women.
As I said earlier, the state scheme pension age is important as regards occupational pension provision, as many occupational schemes integrate with the state scheme. That has led to the phenomenon of bridging pensions. They are now provided by some good occupational schemes which decided to equalise pension ages at 60. In order to make that palatable to men, they have been paying bridging pensions to stand in for the state scheme pension until the men reach the age of 65 and then qualify for the state scheme pension.
We have now been told that that private attempt at equality of treatment is not permissible under EC law as the employers will pay more to the men than to the women despite the fact that they are simply filling the gap caused by the non-payment of the state scheme pension until the age of 65. That is one of the anomalies that has arisen as a result of unequal state pension ages. I shall not refer to the Barber judgment again, except to say that it is bound to have the effect of causing us to look at state pension ages because of the interaction with occupational schemes.
I realise that this is a complicated issue. This is not the only government who have jibbed at taking action. The same could be said of previous Labour Administrations who looked at the possibility of equalising at the age of 60 and decided that it would cost too much. I have given some thought to the problem because it must be solved at some reasonably early date and the pressure is on from the various pressure groups which want to see action fairly soon. I have consulted the Equal Opportunities Commission and the formula in this amendment sets a timetable by which the Government must make up their mind and then gives another relatively short period of time by which implementation will have to be commenced.
By the end of the century, we should have done something about equalising state pension ages. Moreover, if people who are concerned with pension provision—particularly the integrated pension schemes to which I referred—are aware of the programme, steps can be taken in plenty of time to ensure that they take the necessary steps to deal with their own schemes. With those remarks, I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, this amendment raises big issues. She told your Lordships about the consideration that had been given over a good many years to the possibility of equalising our state pensions, or rather national insurance pensions. However, she understated the length of time that that proposal has been under consideration. I can tell the House that, when I was the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in the late 1950s, we gave serious consideration to the issue. If the department's archives have not been scattered or damaged, my noble friend will no doubt be able to turn up that evidence.
However, the difficulty that we found was that, if you were simply to reduce the man's age to 60, the cost would be enormous and a good deal of it would go in directions in which, although no doubt very acceptable to the recipients, there was no need. On the other hand, if you were to raise the woman's age to 63, as the noble Baroness suggested, you could not do it without giving a good many years' notice. Many people plan their careers in connection with the date on which they become eligible for pension and their terms of employment are often similarly limited. If one were to move the woman's age to anything above the present level, one would, therefore, have to give some years' notice.
Apart from anything else—I clearly remember this point arising in the 1950s—one would have to carry out the process of equalisation over a good many years. Under our political system, that must involve agreement between the major parties as, unless the party which would form the alternative government agreed to the scheme, no government could give sufficient notice to enable the transition to take place properly and regularly. We therefore dropped the idea.
The ages of 60 and 65 go back to Beveridge. I do not know why they were so arranged. On the face of it, it is odd, because I believe I am right in saying that a woman's expectation of life is on average three or four years more than that of a man. The noble Baroness says that it is five years more and she may well be right. If that is so, it strengthens the point that I am making because it means, as has always been the case, that retirement pensions have involved much greater expenditure on women than on men as they have started five years earlier and have ended four, or perhaps five, years later.
Therefore, this is a very serious problem. It has now been pushed into the limelight by the European Court's decisions and because of the obvious inter-connection between the National Insurance pension and the various private pension schemes, particularly the contracted-out schemes. The position is exceedingly complicated.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that the Government must face this problem but equally, they must face it on the basis that it would take a considerable period to put into effect any change without causing real injustice or hardship.
On the abstract merits, as I say, I never understood why Sir William Beveridge chose the 65/60
1302
discrimination. There is a very strong argument for equality. I do not believe that there is much evidence that under a system of equality, women have shorter working lives than men. Indeed, many of us know many ladies of great distinction—one does not need to look beyond this House to see such ladies—who are doing extremely useful work and who are long beyond pensionable age. Therefore, the problem must be resolved.
I should be interested were my noble friend to tell us what is the Government's thinking on this because in a way this is the biggest issue—certainly in financial terms and I imagine also in social terms—in the whole social security system at present and will be so for some years to come. I do not expect my noble friend to indulge in any precise statements of government intentions. Indeed, were he to do so that might mean that he would no longer occupy that distinguished place on the Bench, and no one would regret that more than I because he does the job so well. However, I should be grateful if he could give an indication that the Government are thinking hard about this matter and in particular as to the means to be used. I do not know whether a Royal Commission or similar body is the right solution. However, a careful study is required, not least to try to assess what change would be made as regards the ages of retirement of both men and women were the ages of entitlement to the National Insurance retirement pension to be altered. Obviously that would have very important economic as well as social effects.
I intervene in this debate only to say that this is a big issue, to which the Government must give careful consideration. At present it would be very unwise to expect them to give a snap answer to a question with which, as I have confessed to your Lordships, successive governments since 1950 have funked dealing.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If my memory serves me correctly—and I should not like to be put on oath on this matter—I recall Lord Beveridge saying that he chose the age of 60 for women because when the new scheme was introduced, men who retired at 60 could draw a dependence allowance for their wives if, and only if, the wives had reached the age of 60. The phrase which lingers in my mind—it comes from a meeting at that time and therefore cannot be regarded as reliable—is that Lord Beveridge said that women had to be treated the same as wives. Nobody ever has, but that is another point.
There has always been an anomaly as regards the different ages. It is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who was Secretary of State for Pensions, did not grasp the nettle in the 1950s. Had he done so, we should not now have this problem. However, because the noble Lord failed to grasp the nettle—and I should have thought that he was rather a good grasper of nettles—that does not mean that the problem can be continually pushed aside.
This is a much wider issue than merely what is contained in the Bill. Women are entitled to a

1303
pension at the age of 60 only if they have paid contributions. Of course, many women did not pay that contribution. In calculating the cost, has it been worked out how many women are paying contributions and are therefore entitled to receive a pension at the age of 60? As regards giving fair notice to women, let us take the case of a woman who is aged 45. If a woman is told at that age that she will not receive a pension until the age of 63, I do not believe that that is a grave injustice. If I was still 45—and I cannot remember when I was—I might not feel the same. However, I suspect that, because so many women did not pay contributions and a limit was put upon the age, the cost would not be as astronomical as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that we cannot continue to dodge this problem forever. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to the recommendations of an all-party committee of this House. I do not know how many more inquiries we need. That committee suggested a 10-year period in which to arrive at a pension at the age of 63 for both sexes. Again if my memory serves me right, as a basis for discussion, the same proposition was put forward by the Equal Opportunities Commission some years ago. Therefore, we are not very far from reaching agreement on this, if only the problem were tackled. I hope that the noble Lord will tell us that the Government propose to do that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I obviously misled the noble Baroness. The high costs would arise in connection with men rather than women, because men would be receiving the full retirement pension at 60 or the compromise age of 63. That would involve very large numbers. That would involve the cost of paying the pension and also the loss of a good deal of work because it would encourage earlier retirement. The men would cost the money not the women.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I support the amendment. I should like to make a few comments in the wider context to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to whom one cannot resist responding. If we continue to say that this matter is complicated, we shall always avoid it. All issues are complicated according to governments. Those of us who were involved with equal opportunities from the angle of sex discrimination will know that many plans which we produced were rejected because they were too complicated. I suggest that the complication arises from the introduction of the question of age. As I understand it, in the police force the number of years served determines the amount of pension paid. We need to have something as simple as that.
I believe that Lord Beveridge had something rather different in mind. At that time, not many women worked outside their own homes. I used to recommend to women that they should opt out because they could not claim the same benefits if they were married women. I am sure the strange dictum still remains as regards pension schemes—and the Minister will know whether I
1304
am right—that you cannot receive two government benefits at one time. For example, a young widow who was pregnant could not receive a widow's pension and maternity benefit. Similarly, she could not obtain unemployment benefit if she was receiving a widow's pension and yet was affected by both sets of circumstances.
I suggest that it is important that we should make a start. We cannot continually say that the matter is very complicated. Half the people who could collect the pension will be dead by the time we sort out this matter. It would have been marvellous had the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, grasped the nettle but surely this Government would like to do that. What a wonderful selling point that would be for them as we move towards the election. They can say that they have solved a problem which has beset governments for years. They can say that they have grasped the nettle and dealt with it.
Again, a widow's pension is determined by age. Under a certain age, a smaller allowance is paid, which increases year by year. That is unnecessarily complicated and very often is quite unfair. I hope that the Minister can say that, even if the Government cannot accept the amendment, they will look seriously at this matter. This Bill gives them the opportunity to do so.
5 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I support the amendment in general terms of moving towards an equal retirement age for men and women. However, I should like to grasp the most stinging of nettles and say that in practice we should be considering the raising of the retirement age to 66 or more for every one. The economically active people of this country carry the cost of the economically inactive. Thanks to the advance of medical science, that burden is ever increasing. Every projection shows that over the next 10, 15 or 25 years working people will have to carry the cost of a larger percentage of non-working people; that is, the retired.
We therefore have this paradoxical position. We foresee a shrinking labour force. We wish on all sides of the House and elsewhere to keep women at work and to encourage the opening of crèches to enable them to return to work quickly. But at the same time we speak of diminishing the labour force by reducing the age of retirement. The consequences of that can only be a bigger burden through the basic rate of tax which effectively pays for unemployment remaining high and those on marginal earnings being caught even deeper in the poverty trap. At the end of the day those on lower earnings will pay for those who wish to retire at 63 or earlier.
The consequences of lowering the retirement age fall on very fragile sectors of the working population. I urge the Minister, when resisting the amendment (as he no doubt will) to couple his remarks and the future propaganda of the Government with the grasping of the proper nettles—consideration of the real cost of lowering the retirement age and the consequences that that would have on the lower paid people of this country.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that the non-working population—as he calls them—who are supported by the working population, are non-working because they are unable to obtain work if they are over a certain age? Many of the non-working would be delighted to work and make a contribution. His argument is dangerous because it may be followed by compulsory euthanasia for those who have been there too long.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, the noble Baroness does not need reminding that more people are working in this country than ever before. When considering changing the retiring dates for the future, we must remember that there is only so much rice for the rice bowl and only so many people to cultivate it. We must encourage people to work. The decade of retirement is an excellent idea. The problem should not he approached with the aim of diminishing the number of economically active; the emphasis should be on increasing them. The more people who work, the more money they generate and the more they raise the base from which dependants can be looked after. There is more rice for the rice bowl.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I could return to the amendment and not be drawn into discussion on employment law, euthanasia and perhaps even Sir William Beveridge.
I listened with great care to what was said by the noble Baroness and noble Lords. I do not believe that the noble Baroness seriously considers that the Government should commit themselves in this way on an issue of such far-reaching importance as the equalisation of state pension age. However, I suspect that the amendment has achieved what the noble Baroness wanted; namely, further discussion of this very important matter.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, it is no exaggeration to say, could crucially affect millions of people. The Government do not accept that this is either the right way or the right time to introduce a measure of such importance. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter invited me to speculate on the future. He then advised me, if I did not want to spend more time with my family as the expression goes, not to speculate. All I can say is that we are committed to the principle of equal treatment for men and women. Beyond that I cannot go.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to have determined a common pension age by 1st January 1992 to come into effect no later than 1st January 1995. It gives no help whatever in suggesting how the major issues which flow from it should be addressed. I note also with considerable interest that the amendment appears to bear little relationship to the declared aim of the noble Baroness's party, as set out in its recent policy document, which was to create a "flexible decade of retirement" between 60 and 70.
The noble Baroness raised the case of Barber and bridging pensions. Perhaps I could for the last time briefly mention that difficult point. The effect of the Barber judgment is that schemes must pay equal benefits to men and women from the same age. The
1306
implication is that schemes cannot pay a different rate of benefit to one sex but not the other, and schemes with provisions for bridging pensions must seek their own legal advice regarding the effects of that court ruling on their own circumstances. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not expect me to go beyond that.
Perhaps I could spend a few moments on the effects of the amendment. The question of equalising state pension age is a complex one, as everyone is aware. That was stressed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I think he regretted not grasping the nettle many years ago. As one who was probably still in short trousers when my noble friend should have grasped the nettle, I rather wish he had. It would have saved me the difficult job of standing here trying not to speculate on how the Government might grasp the nettle.
My noble friend knows that it is a complex issue to which there are no simple answers. The Government recognise the force of the argument for equalisation, but as was pointed out in our response to the report of the Select Committee on the European Community, there are major issues to be considered in assessing the pace and direction of change; none more so than costs. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised the question of costs and the fact that many married women would not necessarily have the full contribution record. I do not wish to go further into those cost implications, but that is a point which will have to be addressed in any consideration.
We also need to have regard to the developing pattern of economic activity, future demographic trends—to which my noble friend Lord Vinson referred—and the financial effects of options for change. We need to take account of the assumptions and expectations that men and women now have regarding the age at which they will receive state pension and the retirement plans that they have made.
The amendment takes no account of any of those issues which the Government feel must be evaluated. It ignores the possible effect on the labour market. It takes no account of the expectations of individuals who will have planned carefully when to retire and what level of income they will receive at that time. In particular it will affect many people who have been planning for many years on the basis of retiring at the present state pension age and who expect to receive their state pension at that age. It also ignores the effects of any change on the close relationship between the benefits payable at state pension age and the national insurance contributions which pay for them.
In short, this amendment is not the right way forward. The Government will not be pushed into making precipitate decisions. We will bring forward proposals, but not until all the issues have been fully considered. Until such time I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not surprised by the response of the Minister. I did not expect the Government to accept the amendment. As the Minister said, and as all noble Lords who have

1307
spoken in the debate will agree, it is an extremely complicated matter.
However, I share the views of all those who, in a very short and interesting debate, said that something must be done very soon. This matter cannot be left as it is. Before the end of the century we shall need to make some determination on equal pension ages. One hopes for a move, as suggested by a number of noble Lords who spoke in the debate—I also referred to it—and as proposed by one of your Lordships' Select Committees, in the direction of a decade of retirement; that decade being between the ages of 60 and 70.
Were we to have such a provision I feel sure that it would meet some of the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, who was concerned about making inflexible rulings on whether people were economically active. If we had a decade of retirement we would need a pivotal age when the full state pension would be payable. I speak personally in this regard because I was a Member of your Lordships' Select Committee. I am in favour of the age of 63 because to go lower to 60 would prove to be rather expensive. One would have to make actuarial assumptions on the basis that everyone would go for the age of 60 rather than for the provisions of the decade of retirement.
However, in practice, particularly with improving health standards, if we had the decade of retirement between the ages of 60 and 70, large numbers of people would wish to go on working and therefore they would not be claiming their full state pension. Until we do something about it we are bound to have the kind of anomalies that have been thrown up in the controversy over bridging pensions.
As I said when we discussed the previous Social Security Bill, it seems very unfortunate that companies that have equalised pension ages of 60—which are the better companies with better schemes—should now find themselves in the situation of being unable to pay bridging pensions to men between the ages of 60 and 65, although they are making an attempt, as they see it, to produce full equality of treatment at least for people on the receiving end of pension provision.
I do not intend to press the amendment at this time. I am pleased that we have had this debate. I am also pleased that in replying the Minister has indicated that the Government will think seriously about it. Quite obviously, the reason that I have not spelt out the ages and processes in my amendment is that it is designed simply to set some kind of timetable. Everybody would then know that there was a timetable within which decisions would be made as regards equal pension ages. The Government would have the time to consult the various organisations and generally to take public soundings as to what would be the most suitable way to move forward. However, I accept that this amendment is not acceptable to the Government this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
Notional capital
"The following new sub-paragraph shall be inserted at the end of Regulation 51 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, and at the end of Regulation 34 of the Family Credit (General) Regulations 1987, and at the end of Regulation 43 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, and at the end of Regulation 33 of the Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989—
"( ) Where the claimant is treated as possessing capital under this regulation it shall be deemed to diminish in value at the same rate as the value of any weekly benefit calculated in accordance with these regulations which would have been awarded to the claimant were it not for the operation of this regulation, or at such higher rate as an Adjudication Officer may consider reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the claimant or his family."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with a situation which is rather complicated to explain but which in essence is very simple. We believe that there is either a flaw in the drafting of the regulations or a genuine anomaly. We cannot believe that the Government intend to happen what will happen.
The purpose of the amendment is to introduce a diminishing notional capital rule for all means-tested benefits. As the law stands at present, anyone in receipt of a means-tested benefit who deprives himself or herself of capital in order to obtain or increase their benefit is still deemed to possess that capital. If the amount of capital exceeds the various capital limits the claimant receives no benefit at all. If it is less than the capital limit but exceeds £3,000, there is the question of the tariff income which has to be calculated.
If the capital is less than £3,000 it will not affect the claimant's benefit. If the claimant receives any further capital, that will be added to the notional amount which will ultimately lead to a tariff income or to the loss of benefit altogether. We are advised that there is a fatal flaw in the law as it stands. Once a claimant is caught by this flaw he can never escape. In other words, the notional sum of capital is frozen at the amount originally calculated. It is never considered to have diminished in the sense of having been used or spent by the claimant.
For example, a claimant who is deemed to have £8,500 can never become entitled to income support even though he will soon have used up the £501 which put him above the capital for income support. That is either an oversight on the part of the parliamentary draftsman or it is a genuine anomaly. I am sure that the Minister will be grateful that we have drawn it to his attention.
He will be aware that under the old supplementary benefit scheme, which also had a notional capital rule, the social security commissioners held that the capital should be deemed to be diminished at the same rate as the claimant's weekly benefit. This amendment seeks to restore the former and more equitable position and also to allow an adjudication officer to deem that the claimant's capital has diminished at a faster rate than that of the weekly benefit, if it is appropriate to say so in all the circumstances.
We believe that it is important that an adjudication officer should hold this discretion

1309
rather than the Secretary of State so that the claimant can appeal against any refusal to exercise a discretion. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the deprivation rule, as it is commonly known, exists primarily to prevent abuse of the taxpayers' money. It provides for a person to be treated as still owning capital of which he has deliberately deprived himself in order to obtain benefit. That is a longstanding provision and a sensible one. Of course it would not be right, nor has it ever been the intention, to treat a person as possessing the same amount of notional capital for all time.
Therefore, I am able to inform the House that the Government already have in train proposals for introducing an amendment from next October into all the income-related benefits—that is, income support, housing benefit, community charge benefit and family credit. That amendment will provide for the capital which a person is treated as notionally still possessing to be reduced over a period of time.
In effect, the amendment will regularise the guidance which is generally operated at present in DSS offices and by local authorities. I regret to say that it is too early to give the House details of the proposed amendment. However, I can assure the House that it will apply in very much the same way as the old diminishing capital rule which existed under the supplementary benefit scheme and which had the support of social security case law.
I am sure that the House will want the new rule to be both fair and simple to operate. I think it is most unlikely, therefore, that we shall be able to take on board the noble Lord's suggestion that there should be a discretion to diminish the notional capital at a higher rate than would have been necessary had the claimant retained that capital. That would introduce a serious and unnecessary complication into the benefit scheme. It would also result in claimants being treated differently and lead to dissatisfaction all round. In terms of equity the important thing is to ensure in regulations that claimants who deprive themselves of capital in order to get benefit do not gain by their actions, but at the same time they are able to re-qualify for benefit. I can assure the House that that is what our amendment will achieve.
In view of that clear intention I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It is indeed good news. Presumably there will be an amendment to regulations.
Lard Henley: My Lords, yes, there will be regulations.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure that that reply will gladden the hearts of all those who have been aware of this flaw or anomaly, depending on one's
1310
point of view. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Annual increase of certain occupational pensions]:
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 57A:
Page 18, leave out lines 4 to 8 and insert:
("(2) On and after the appointed day, schemes to which this section applies should provide members with a pensioners' option.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mottistone and in doing so I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 57B, 57C and 57D. My noble friend in unable to be present this afternoon. In moving this amendment I am expressing the views of the CBI, with which I concur. I also wish to ask my noble friend certain questions. The effect of Clause 16 is to make mandatory certain annual increases in pension payments up to 15 per cent. The effect of these amendments is to introduce what I call the pensioners' option.
Under this proposal members of a pension scheme which did not guarantee pension increases of at least 5 per cent. would have an option to change their pension into a lower pension incorporating a guarantee of limited price indexation of 5 per cent. The option would be irrevocable once the pension had started to be paid and would be on such terms that taken as a whole its exercise would not be expected to place extra costs on the scheme unless both the trustees and the employers decided otherwise.
This proposal reflects the recommendation of the Occupational Pensions Board, the Government's advisory body on pension matters. I commend it to your Lordships for three reasons. First, it avoids placing additional pension costs on employers at a time when they are facing significant extra costs as a result, if I may dare refer to it again, of the European Court ruling in the Barber case. Secondly, it provides members of final salary schemes and money purchase schemes, including personal pensions, with the same set of options. It therefore seems to bring uniformity rather than diversity into the law. Thirdly, it makes clear to all pension scheme members that indexation of pensions can be provided only at additional cost and does not fall out of thin air.
The amendment has been put forward in the light of discussions during the debate in Committee. At that time my noble friend Lord Mottistone suggested that many final salary occupational schemes would not be able to afford to provide indexation and that they would have to reduce the pension benefits provided. The Minister recognised (at col. 840 of the Official Report on 22nd May) that some schemes would have to follow such a course. However, the Government's proposal gives no choice to individual members, many of whom might prefer to have a higher initial pension with no guaranteed increases rather than a lower level of initial pension with guaranteed increases. Yet that option is currently

1311
open to members of money purchase schemes, whether employer schemes or personal pensions.
During the debate in Committee the Minister said that the Government had decided to exclude money purchase schemes from the compulsory introduction of limited price indexation because members already have the opportunity:
"to take a flat-rate pension which will not increase or a lower initial pension, but which will increase annually at 5 per cent. or in line with the retail prices index".—[Official Report, 22/5/90; col. 826.]
Why are members of final salary schemes to be denied the option open to members of money purchase schemes? I can see no good reason for this discrimination. The amendments which I have put forward would provide members of final salary schemes and money purchase schemes with the same options.
I do not think that we should shirk from acknowledging that pension funds are not an Aladdin's cave, able to provide, at no additional cost to either the member or the employer, the indexation mooted. They are funded by the contributions of both parties and do not fall out of thin air. In most schemes the introduction of such measures will quickly remove any surplus which may have occurred in recent years and more commonly will lead to a reduction in accrual rates or to increased contributions from both employers and employees. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the amendment seeks to write into legislation one of the propositions put forward by the Occupational Pensions Board. It is based on the assumption that some people would prefer the option of a lower pension with some indexation to a pension with no indexation but a higher pension to start with. The noble Viscount called it the pensioners' option.
As noble Lords will know, I was and still am a member of the Occupational Pensions Board. I was not happy with the proposition when it was discussed by the board and I was in a minority in opposing it. However, I and another colleague did not carry our opposition into a minority report because we felt that to do so would weaken the general thrust of the report which, of course, we fully supported. My colleagues on the board were aware of my views on the matter and, not surprisingly, these were voiced when the Trades Union Congress made its views known on the final report which in general it welcomed.
I believe that pensions should be indexed. I should like to see them fully indexed to the RPI. In fact I am quite sure that the day will come when it will seem incredible that we ever thought that we were making pension provision when the pension starts to lose its value almost from the day that it commences to be paid. As we all know, people now live a great deal longer. Many people may expect to be on pension for 20 years. At the end of that period they are likely to be very poor indeed unless their pensions have been protected. They will be a good deal poorer than those in employment since the wages index always rises faster than the RPI and is likely to continue to do so.
1312
The problem about the pensioners' option as I see it is that if it exists it will not increase the pressure for proper indexing. Rather the reverse will be the case. Employers will say, "Well you have the option. You can take a lower pension now and have increases or a higher one now and no increases". I know that research has been carried out which seems to how that people would prefer the former option. But respondents were never asked whether they would simply like what is proposed in the Bill.
On this occasion I support the Government. They were right not to pick up the proposition of a pensioners' option. I hope that the House will decide that it does not want to do so either. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I welcome the forthright support of the noble Baroness. I listened with interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Brentford in moving the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. In Committee my noble friend Lord Mottistone sought to reduce the level of pension increases required for the future service from 5 per cent. to 3 per cent. On that occasion my noble friend said:
"I suggest that this [the 3 per cent. level] will be a reasonable minimum level of increase which the CBI believes could be attainable by most, if not all, final salary schemes".—[Official Report, 22/5/90; col. 838.]
With these amendments, however, my noble friend seeks to remove the whole of the provision for pension increases, both in respect of the future service and those to be guaranteed from the proceeds of any surplus in the scheme. The alternative proposed by my noble friend is the pensioners' option. Under this method a member whose pension scheme did not guarantee pension increases as favourable as prices or 5 per cent. would have an option within the scheme to change the pension into a lower pension incorporating a guarantee of limited indexation. The recommendation was put forward in the report of the Occupational Pensions Board—a recommendation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in a minority, said that she objected. No doubt the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong but I suspect that the proposal was put forward as a compromise to try to satisfy those who favoured statutory pensions increases and those who believed that no such legislation should be imposed.
I remind the House that these proposals for pension increases stem from the debate which was generated by our original proposals which would have required increases to be made when a scheme winds up. Varying arguments were put forward as to why this was not the best way to achieve the Government's objectives. We listened to those arguments, discussed ideas with representatives of the industry and concluded that a better balance could be struck between the different areas of pensions policy.
The requirement for schemes to make pension increases acknowledges that the Government's view is that it is no longer acceptable for defined benefit schemes to provide a pension which takes no account of inflation. We recognise that employers will wish to look carefully at their schemes and we are going

1313
to give them time to make their plans. Some may decide to alter the accrual rate and some will want to look carefully at the level of contribution made by the employees and themselves. Some may even decide that this is not the type of scheme they wish to offer.
Obviously I understand my noble friend's concern, but I believe, as I said in Committee, that the Government's proposals in Clause 16 and Schedule I strike a careful balance between the interests of the employers and those of members of the schemes. I urge my noble friend to withdraw the amendment, although I do so in a slightly less forthright manner than the noble Baroness.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, no one could argue with the general thrust of the argument.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I must remind my noble friend that this is the Report stage and it is the convention that no noble Lord shall speak after the Minister.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I apologise.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's remarks. I am also grateful for the forthright comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I should like to make clear the fact that I fully endorse the principle of indexation. I believe that pensions should undoubtedly be indexed. In my view, that is an excellent move forward. However, I am not sure that my noble friend has made clear why there should be this discrimination between the different categories of pension. I shall consider what he said, and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos 57B, 57C and 57D not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Schedule to be inserted as Schedule 3A to the Pensions Act]:
The Earl of Buckinghamshire The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved Amendment No. 57E:
Page 32, line 41, at end insert ("unless the Trustees elect to provide in full an amount equal to the appropriate percentage for those members of the scheme who on the valuation day are over such age as the Trustees may determine provided that the effect of such increases is to add to the liabilities of the scheme an amount equal to or greater than the amount of the surplus.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to this amendment. On Second Reading, and in Committee, I outlined my anxieties about the distribution of surplus which, if it was spread over the total membership—which can literally go from the ages of 18 to 85 or beyond—would arrive at a distribution which was meaningless at the lower age groups and therefore, in my view, would dissipate the value of that surplus. This amendment, with the drafting of which I am pleased to say I received the assistance of the National Association of Pension Funds, is an
1314
attempt to target the use of that surplus to the older age groups of a pension fund.
As noble Lords will clearly see, the amendment covers both those people in retirement and those in the older age groups with active membership. I believe that the amendment goes at least some way towards targeting the use of that surplus. I shall be especially interested to know my noble friend's views on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said. The points he has made are similar to those expressed in our discussion in Committee on the use of the surplus, when my noble friend Lord Mottistone suggested that to spread the surplus over a very large number of people would not necessarily be the best way to use it. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked him if discretion would mean that the trustees would have,
"the discretion to award extra increases in pensions payments to certain groups of employees such as senior executives or directors". [Official Report, 22/5/90; col. 849.]
The answer given by my noble friend was,
"Yes, if the terms of the trust said so".
In framing our proposals for this Bill we were anxious to avoid such an outcome. But I can appreciate that there are differing situations in different schemes and that some element of discretion for the trustees might be beneficial. I am therefore grateful to my noble friend for putting forward a suggestion which would give some discretion to trustees to have an order of priority, by age, in how the surplus should be used to provide increases.
I am sympathetic to what my noble friend is trying to achieve, and I should like to give further consideration to his proposal. However, an amendment to the Bill would not be required as we already have the necessary powers. I hope, therefore, that he will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. In my view he has given a most helpful reply. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 34, line 24, after ("58A") insert ("of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment, which is merely intended to clarify the drafting of Schedule 1. I invite the House to accept it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Pensions Ombudsman]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 35, line 26, at end insert:
("(6A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that provisions for the funding of the Ombudsman in no way affect the independent operation of the scheme.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I moved a series of amendments designed to replace

1315
the proposed ombudsman with a tribunal. I would still prefer to have the tribunal but the Government, on that occasion, were not disposed to accept those arguments and I did not press my amendments to a Division. However, if we are to have an ombudsman it must be clear to everyone that he is independent, irrespective of the manner in which the office is funded. One way to ensure that this is so would be to raise funding from general taxation; another would be to raise the funding from the industry and then set up an independent board to administer the scheme. The matter will undoubtedly be finally resolved by regulations, but independence, and the appearance of independence, are clearly of the first importance.
In its report, the Occupational Pensions Board suggested that the proposed tribunal should be funded from income generated by the registration service. Clearly, that would be one way forward. I hope that the Government will agree that it is important that this new service should get off to a good start. The ombudsman is to have very wide powers—much wider, I believe, than has been usual with ombudsmen appointed in the past. He is apparently to have powers to make judgments and enforce them. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that he should be shown to be totally independent, especially of the pensions industry. The Consumers' Association, which pressed hard for an ombudsman in preference to a tribunal, is still concerned—even though it appears to have got what it wanted—and fears that the ombudsman may not be seen as impartial unless dependence upon the pensions industry is ruled out from the start. With those comments, I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness's amendment has raised the questions of the funding of the pensions ombudsman and his independence. I hope that I shall be able to reassure her on the matter. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 gives the Secretary of State powers to impose a levy on occupational and personal pension schemes to meet the costs of the pensions ombudsman and the registry and the grant to be made by the OPB to the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service.
The OPB report Protecting Pensions linked together what it called "help for the individual" because it had,
"in mind that initial and annual fees for registration would be set at a level which would support the bulk of the expenses of all these functions".
The Government agreed that such levy should be imposed, and discussions are taking place with the pensions industry to decide on what basis this levy should be calculated. Of course, this is a matter for regulations. The levy which is derived from the industry will be paid to the Government, who will then be responsible for ensuring that the pensions ombudsman and his staff are adequately funded. There is no intention that the industry itself will have any control, direct or indirect, over the ombudsman. It will be for government to ensure that the pensions ombudsman is adequately funded. As we have already said, there will be no charge on users of the ombudsman.
1316
Therefore, there should not be any fears about the independence of the ombudsman. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the amendment is superfluous and, accordingly, I invite her to withdraw it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very clear explanation. I am much relieved to learn of the way in which it is intended to fund this new office. I am also pleased to learn that it will quite clearly be under government control without the possibility of any pressure being exerted from the industry—at least, that appears to be the case. In the circumstances, I beg leave with withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Registration of occupational and personal pension schemes]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 21, line 11, at end insert:
("(7A) The Minister may by regulation require money purchase and personal pension schemes to comply with the requirements of this section, following the quinquennium 1988 to 1993.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when this issue was discussed in Committee, I supported an amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, the object of which was to compel all types of pension schemes, not simply final salary schemes, to uprate pensions in line with the provision that these be increased by 5 per cent. per annum or the RPI, whichever was the lower figure. On that occasion, the noble Earl said:
"It seems clear to me that the Government are determined to proceed with legislation to compel pension schemes to increase pensions in payment. I believe that they should recognise that in all pension schemes—whether final salary, money purchase occupational or personal pension schemes—the end product is the same: a pension. Therefore, all schemes should be treated the same. Either all of them should be compelled to provide increases in payment or none of them should". [Official Report, 22/5/90; col. 825.
I believe that to be correct, and in his reply the Minister did not appear to disagree with that proposition.
However, he said that it was too early to reach any decision about it since it had only been possible to contract out of SERPS by means of private personal pensions since July 1988 and had only been possible to do so via COMPS since April 1988. He argued that time was needed and suggested that we should await the review at the quinquennium beginning April 1993.
My amendment takes the Minister at his word; but it needs to be written into the Bill if it is intended at some future time that all pension schemes should be covered by the same provisions. Clearly they should; and it should be clearly signalled to providers and purchasers of the scheme benefits that the same conditions will apply to their schemes as to final salary schemes after 1993. That might have the effect of ensuring the continued growth of final salary schemes since employers would see no benefit in

1317
attempting to change over. Furthermore, it would give added security to those who have decided to opt for alternative methods of retirement provision. I beg to move.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, one cannot but help support the general principles behind the amendment; but will my noble friend the Minister bear in mind that any attempt automatically to increase or to index pensions in payment, unless there is a fairy godmother who can provide the money at some point, would be putting an unquantified obligation on company balance sheets or the provider of any money purchase scheme be it aggregated or disaggregated? There is only one way to meet that dilemma—that is, to make available to the private sector the same levels of indexation as are available to pensions given to those in the public sector. That calls for a continuous issue of generous tranches of index linked gilt-edged bonds. With that, aggregated money purchase schemes, which are company schemes, or straight money personal purchase schemes, can knowingly and positively meet their future obligations. I hope that my noble friend will have that thought in the back of his mind when he makes his reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was very much taken with the conciliatory way in which the noble Baroness moved the amendment. Clearly she has given thought to the points I made when the issue was discussed in Committee last month, and has now brought forward an amendment which is superficially attractive.
It may be helpful if I remind the House briefly of the reasons why we have decided to exclude money-purchase benefits, including personal pensions, at this time from the requirement on other occupational schemes to guarantee pension increases in line with the retail prices index up to a maximum of 5 per cent. a year for future service.
First, members of personal pension schemes and money-purchase schemes already have the opportunity to use the proceeds of the investment made on their behalf to choose a pension which has provision for some sort of indexation after retirement.
Secondly, we believe that there is a proper time to consider this whole question, and in view of the short time that has elapsed since it has been possible to contract out of SERPS by a money-purchase scheme or by means of a personal pension, we do not believe that that time is now. Employers and individuals have entered into commitments on the basis of the terms and rebates which apply to the current quinquennium, which ends in 1993. The noble Baroness has of course taken that point on board in the terms of her amendment.
The question of pension increases in those schemes will, as I have previously said, be considered as a part of the terms for contracting out of SERPS for the next quinquennium; that is, for the period beginning in April 1993. That review, which will begin next year, considers the reductions in the Class I standard rates of contributions for those contracted
1318
out (and therefore affects the rebate paid in respect of personal pensions) and the factors affecting the cost to occupational pension schemes of providing guaranteed minimum pensions.
If, in the course of that review, the Government decide that it would be appropriate to extend the current proposals to include money-purchase benefits, including personal pensions, then I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall bring forward the necessary legislation.
I hope that I have sufficiently reassured the noble Baroness for her to feel that there is no need to have the amendment written on to the face of the Bill. I hope therefore that she will feel able to withdraw it.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. The wording of my amendment provides that the Minister "may by regulation". It does not say that he would have to require it following the 1988–1993 quinquennium. However, in view of the assurance that the Government will consider the whole issue in the course of the review and will, if they think it necessary, bring forward legislation, there is no point in pressing the amendment at this stage. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Occupational and personal pension schemes]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 46, line 5, at end insert:
("(3A) No refund shall be made to the employer in the event of wind-up until benefits have been increased to the maximum allowed under the Inland Revenue regulations.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we are looking again at the vexed question of surpluses. The OPB did not deal with who owns the surplus. In fact we were not asked to do so. It is a difficult question, particularly when final salary schemes are often funded on a balance-of-cost basis. On the other hand, the money is subscribed for pension purposes, and employees have some justification for considering that it is their money paid in as a form of deferred salary. The fact that in the past such surpluses acted as a magnet for predators is a further cause for concern and is one of the reasons why the OPB was asked to consider the matter and report. The OPB paid particular attention to that problem. There had been a spate of contribution holidays when employers had decided unilaterally not to pay any money into the scheme for a specific period. That was widely misunderstood and often deeply resented if there were no corresponding contribution holidays for employees.
The amendment deals with what happens to the surplus on wind-up. The OPB recommended that surplus assets remaining after liabilities on pensions on payment had been discharged should be returned to the employer; but a number of organisations, the TUC and the Consumers' Association among them, believe that that is insufficient to deter a predator.

1319
They believe that the surplus should be used to improve the benefits. Therefore, the amendment proposes that on wind-up the first call on the surplus should not just be the provision of increases for pensions but that benefits in the scheme should be increased up to Inland Revenue limits. Only when that has been done, should the residue be returned to the employer. That is fair and reasonable. After all, a pension fund exists to provide pensions. We hope that the Government will feel disposed to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the position, as the noble Baroness is aware, when a scheme winds-up will match the general requirements for pension increases. In the event of a scheme winding up it will be a liability on the employer to provide increases at the level of prices up to maximum of 5 per cent. in respect of pensions accruing after an appointed day. For pension rights based on service before then, increases will depend on the extent of increases already guaranteed as a result of the new requirements and any additional surplus emerging when the scheme winds up.
That is a substantial improvement for the member of an occupational scheme if it does wind up. The employer will have to make good any deficiency in the assets of the scheme in order to ensure that the members will receive their entitlements under the rules of the scheme. Where the scheme has generated a surplus, it must be used to provide additional benefits.
The amendments moved by the noble Baroness would, however, go much further than that. Requiring that no refund should be made to the employer would, effectively, be giving greater priority to maximising pension provision before debts could be honoured to a number of creditors, who in a large number of insolvencies do not get back what they are entitled to. We do not believe that that is the right way to proceed.
Inland Revenue limits are not reached by the vast majority of schemes. The usual way in which schemes operate is that members pay a specified rate of contribution and the employer pays whatever contribution is recommended by the actuary from time to time in order to maintain the scheme in long-term financial balance. In this balance of cost approach, the employer has to meet any deficiency, but if he has over-funded, there is entitlement to some of the surplus. We believe that the Government's proposals in the Bill are a measured and responsible step towards improving the position of members in schemes which wind up. They strike a balance between the interests of employers and those of employees. I therefore urge the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I note what the Minister said. What the Government propose represents a substantial improvement for members of schemes and I welcome the suggestion. My amendment goes further on the basis that pension funds are there to provide for pensioners and for the scheme beneficiaries and that there should not be any return to the employer until commitments to
1320
the employees and the pensioners have been met. However, I see little point in pressing the amendment at this stage. It goes further than the Government's proposals, and perhaps we should be grateful for the improvements that we have obtained. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 47, line 15, at end insert:
("(5) Any restrictions prescribed in accordance with this section shall, insofar as compliance would require the disposal of shares or other securities or the recall of monies loaned, allow a period of 2 years from the date of their introduction to the date by which they must be complied with and, insofar as compliance would require the disposal of land or property (other than land), allow a period of 4 years from the date of their introduction to the date by which they must be complied with.
The Secretary of State, or such other person appointed by the Secretary of State, may grant an extension to the period within which restrictions prescribed in accordance with this section must be complied with to an occupational pension scheme for which compliance with such restrictions would require a reduction by 50% or more of the proportion of its resources invested in employer-related investment. When considering requests for such extensions, the Secretary of State or other appointed person will regard the future ability of the occupational pension scheme to meet its liabilities to its members as paramount.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am aware that at the Committee stage my noble friend said that he would consider some of the suggestions made on self-investment in a sympathetic light. I myself did not speak but I hope that the amendment will be helpful in concentrating our minds on the difficulties of disinvesting quickly, particularly in property.
The first paragraph of my amendment recognises that the disposal of property is more difficult than the disposal of shares. The second paragraph would allow time for funds with a high level of self-investment to remove that high level. With some assistance from the National Association of Pension Funds, I considered whether or not an attempt should be made to cover complete exemption from compliance. However, it was decided that not only would this exemption be difficult to remove if it were later decided that it was not necessary, but to give the Secretary of State the power to set a lengthened deadline would allow virtual exemption in suitable cases.
What is a suitable case? Many pension funds have investments in their own shares. Several others have recently undertaken in good faith investments in property of some significance. This was all quite properly done and without real concern at that stage. However, the Bill now places strains on these funds if they have to liquidate rather quickly.
I hope that, while recognising the importance of curtailing self-investment in the future, the amendment will go some way towards pointing out the direction and showing that there are difficulties in doing that immediately. I hope that my noble friend on the Government Front Bench will be able to respond favourably to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the type of problems that my noble friend has outlined. However I must reserve the Government's position until we have seen the results of the report that my noble friend may know we are commissioning in order to provide up-to-date information on the extent of self-investment, the sectors in which it is concentrated and, in particular, what the problems will be in restricting it. Some preliminary work has already been undertaken and the main study is due to begin early next month.
When we receive that report in the early autumn we will then be in a position to consider and come forward with firm proposals. I hope that in the light of those reassurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and pleased to hear that the survey is being brought forward in the manner that he has described. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 62B:
Page 48, line 33, at end insert:
("Contracting-out conditions: age at which pension or annuity is to commence under a money purchase scheme
5A—(a) In section 32 of the Pensions Act, in subsection (2B) (modifications of Schedule 1 to the 1986 Act in its application for the purpose of determining whether a money purchase scheme can be contracted-out) after paragraph (d)(ii) there shall be inserted—
"(iii) for the references in sub-paragraphs (3)(a) and (7)(a)(i) to the date on which the member attains Pensionable age there shall be substituted a reference to a date not earlier than that on which he attains the age of 60 nor later than that on which he attains the age of 65; and".
(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be taken to have come into force on 17th May 1990.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 62C:
Page 57, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is not a pensions matter, I seem to have left those behind now. I move the amendment rather late in the day because I have only just had a case brought to my attention that is important enough to be raised by way of amendment. It relates to occupational deafness. I have here the details of a case of a retired 74 year-old man who had worked with percussion hammers for a total of 17 years up to January 1981. As a result of the work upon which he was engaged, he became severely deaf. He claimed disablement benefit in 1981 but that claim was refused because under the rules then in force he had to have worked a total of 20 years in jobs carrying the risk of deafness.
In 1983 the number of years was reduced to 10, but a time limit was introduced preventing victims of
1322
occupational deafness claiming disablement benefit more than five years after they had last worked in a job with a risk of deafness. Little publicity was given to the new rules and the man in question did not find out about them until a few months after the five-year time limit had expired. He immediately reclaimed but the DSS refused to consider the claim, despite an Act of Parliament which at that time obliged the department to allow late claims where there was good reason for delay.
In a test case brought last October, the Court of Appeal said that the DSS had been acting illegally and sent the case back to a tribunal for further consideration. The DSS was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords. As I understand it, the Bill and the proposal in this clause of the Bill will mean that the law will be changed retrospectively so that despite the victory in the Court of Appeal, this pensioner will be denied benefit. I also understand that this could have an effect upon a number of similar cases. If that is so, I do not believe it is right that the law should be changed retrospectively in this way in order to prevent people who have won cases in the Court of Appeal from receiving benefit to which they might otherwise have been entitled.
For those reasons, I put down this amendment rather late in the day. I hope to hear the Minister's explanation of the case to which I have referred. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer the point that has been made by the noble Baroness. On the face of it, to change the law retrospectively and deprive individuals of benefit on which they have won a legal decision seems a somewhat oppressive action. It may well be that the noble Baroness has misunderstood the position and that my noble friend will be able to explain it. If he cannot do so then I feel that the Government might be subject to some criticism.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like some clarification as to how this operates. I understand that one can change the law by statute. It may be unfair or it may not. What I cannot understand—and I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could deal with this point—is how this can operate retrospectively from the time of Royal Assent. Can the provision do that or have I misunderstood the position?
6 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the individual, Mr.McKiernon, and whether he will be awarded benefit. We understand that his case will be heard by an appeals tribunal on 5th July, and that final adjudication and promulgation will occur soon thereafter. If his circumstances satisfy the current law, including the Court of Appeal judgment in his case, he will be awarded disablement benefit along with any arrears.
Following the Court of Appeal decision in this case, the law on occupational deafness reflects neither this Government's intentions nor those of any previous government. I remind the House that the original proposals suggesting a scheme for the

1323
payment of disablement benefit for occupational deafness, which operates under the industrial injuries provisions of the Social Security Act 1975, were proposed by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council as long ago as 1973. Those proposals were accepted and introduced in February 1975. They included a provision that a claim had to be made within one year of leaving the relevant occupation. Subsequently, in 1983, this restriction was eased so that a claim could be made within five years of leaving the relevant occupation, often described as the five-year rule. The scheme has operated on this basis ever since.
However, when in October 1989 the Court of Appeal considered the case of Mr.McKiernon it was held that Regulation 25 of the Industrial Injuries Prescribed Diseases Regulations, which deals with the five year rule, was ultra vires because it failed to mention specifically that it modified Section 165A of the Social Security Act 1975 which deals with time-limits for claiming benefits.
I must stress that the Court of Appeal made no criticism, explicit or otherwise, of the five-year rule itself. It was simply a matter of defective legislation. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal restricted its comments to Regulation 25. However, we have studied the implications for other regulations. Regulation 36, which deals with occupational asthma, makes a similar provision to Regulation 25, and requires a claim to be made within 10 years of a person leaving the occupation to which asthma is attributed before a claim can succeed. On the criterion adopted by the Court of Appeal, Regulation 36 is open to the same objections as Regulation 25. Less obviously, the vires of Regulation 6(2)(c) which deems the date of onset for occupational deafness to be the date of the claim is also questionable.
We have considered carefully the implications of this judgment. Without the provision which is the subject of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, a search would be necessary for all past claims for both occupational deafness and occupational asthma. Furthermore, awards which have been made following the judgment in Mr.McKiernon's case would continue beyond Royal Assent. We estimate that the public expenditure cost of this would be well in excess of £100 million. I must put it to the House that this is no time to indulge in unplanned and unintended expenditure of this magnitude on the basis of a technical legal deficiency. This is especially so when the underlying policy intentions which are involved have been accepted without quibble by governments over the past 15 years. I hope that, bearing those comments in mind, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I shall look carefully at what the noble Lord said as the matter is rather complicated. However, I must say that the legal advice I have received states:
"without giving any publicity to the proposal, the Department is using the Social Security Bill now going through Parliament to change the law so that the result of Mr. McKiernon's case will be reversed retrospectively. This means that despite his court victory, Mr. McKiernon's right to Disablement Benefit (and the rights of others in the same situation) will be taken away entirely".
1324
I found it quite incredible that the Minister should say that if my amendment were carried by your Lordships' House and reached the statute book it would cost £100 million to implement. That seems an extraordinary figure. I do not think the Minister has dealt with the argument that what is happening is an attempt to change the situation retrospectively following a decision of the Court of Appeal. As I understand it, the wording in sub-paragraph (3) which has this effect states:
"and any former regulations which they directly or indirectly re-enact with or without amendment, shall be taken to be, and always to have been, validly made".
As I understand that wording, it has the effect of taking away the rights of people who are in the position that Mr. McKiernon is in. I find the position quite unacceptable. In the circumstances I have no alternative but to test the feeling of the House.
6.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Blackstone, B.

B.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Denington, B.

Moran, L.

Ennals, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Galpern, L.

Northfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

[Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L.

Grimond, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Annaly, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Arran, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Auckland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Balfour, E.

Buccleuch and Queensberry,

Barber, L.

D.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Blatch, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blyth, L.

Carnock, L.

Borthwick, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

1325

Clanwilliam, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Manton, L.

Cox, B.

Margadale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cross, V.

Merrivale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Deedes L.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Munster, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elibank, L.

Nelson, E.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Quinton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reay, L.

Gridley, L.

Renton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Renwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Rodney, L.

Marylebone, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hanson, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shannon, E.

Henley, L.

Sharples, B.

Hertford, M.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hesketh, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hives, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hood, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Joseph, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Killearn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kimball, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Vinson, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wynford, L.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
6.13 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 1:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause:
("Application of Local Government Act 1972 to Regional and District Health Authorities
—(1) Sections 100A to 100C of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents of certain authorities) shall apply to a Health Authority established in accordance with section 8 of the principal Act as they apply to a principal council within the meaning of Part VA of that Act, but the references in sections 100B and 1000 to the proper officer in
1326
relation to a principal council shall be construed as references to the person appointed for the purpose by the Health Authority.
(2) In section 100H of that Act (supplemental provisions and offences)—

(a) any reference to any provision of Part VA of that Act or to any right conferred by that Part includes a reference to any such provision as it applies by virtue of this section or, as the case may be, to any right conferred by that Part as it so applies, except that references to section 100D shall not apply,

(b) in subsection (3) as it so applies the reference to a principal council shall be construed as a reference to a Health Authority and

(c) subsection (5) shall apply to any meeting of a Health Authority.

(3) The power conferred on the Secretary of State by section 1001(2) of that Act to vary Schedule 12A to that Act (exempt information) shall include power to vary that Schedule as it applies by virtue of this section.
(4) In that Schedule, as it so applies—
(a) Part I shall have effect with the insertion after paragraph 6 of the following paragraphs—
"6A. Information relating to the physical or mental health of any particular person.
6B. Information relating to—

(a) any particular person who is or was formerly included in a list of persons undertaking to provide services under Part II of the principal Act or is an applicant for inclusion in such a list; or

(b) any particular employee of such a person.";

(b) paragraph 1 of Part II shall have the effect with the insertion after the words "paragraph 1 to 5" of the words "or 6B"; and
(c) any reference to "the authority" shall be construed as a reference to the Health Authority.
(5) In this section references to a Health Authority include references to a committee or sub-committee of a Health Authority where that authority has delegated to such a committee or sub-committee the power to discharge functions of the authority.
(6) In the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (which makes similar provision to that made by sections 100A and 100B of the Act of 1972), paragraph 1(f) of the Schedule shall be deleted.
(7) A Health Authority shall maintain a register stating—

(a) the name and address of every member of the Authority and

(b) the name and address of every member of each committee or sub-committee of the authority for the time being.

(8) A Health Authority shall maintain a list—

(a) specifying those powers of the authority which, for the time being are exercisable from time to time by officers of the authority in pursuance of arrangements made under this Act or any other enactment for their discharge by those officers; and

(b) stating the title of the officer by whom each of the powers so specified is for the time being so exercisable;

but this subsection does not require a power to be specified in the list if the arrangements or its discharge by the officer are made for a specified period not exceeding six months.
(9) The register maintained under subsection (7) above and the list maintained under subsection (8) above shall be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours and without payment at the offices of each Health Authority and any person may, on payment of such reasonable fee as the Authority may determine—

(a) make copies of or extracts from any such register, list or summary kept by it; and

(b) require the Authority to supply him with a photographic copy of or extracts from any such register, list or summary.").

Lord Peston: My Lords, I speak to this amendment with some caution because I know how very keen

1327
the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, was to speak to the amendment. I see that the noble Lord has just walked in to the Chamber. Perhaps the most helpful thing that I can do for him and your Lordships is to sit down.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, before moving the amendment I apologise for not having been in the Chamber when my amendment was called. It was only when I was passing through the Division Lobby that I discovered that the Report stage of the Social Security Bill was about to finish early.
In a notable maiden speech 30 years ago my right honourable friend the Prime Minister moved the Second Reading of what became known as the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. The Act gave some public rights of access to meetings of public bodies, including local authorities and health authorities. The amendment would extend public rights of access in the case of health authorities, at the same time providing what I hope are clear and improved statutory provisions under which health authorities may exclude the public from meetings where the circumstances justify their doing so.
The amendment would extend public access to the decision-making committees and sub-committees of health authorities, to the agenda and minutes of those meetings which are open to the public and to the reports presented to those meetings. Additionally, it would impose certain other requirements on health authorities as to the way in which they conduct themselves, a subject that we have debated when the matter has been before your Lordships at earlier stages during the passage of the Bill and which are minor matters which I need not mention now.
The purpose of the amendment may be transparent but the drafting follows precedent and is, regrettably, opaque. I therefore remind the House that the amendment follows the trail laid by the Member for Hornchurch in another place, my honourable friend Mr. Robin Squire, when he sponsored the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, which added a number of sections to the Local Government Act 1972 to extend public rights of access to local authorities. Subsequent Private Members' Bills emanating from another place have extended public access in other fields. They have all been drafted by reference to the new sections in the Local Government Act. The amendment before the House this evening, although it has nothing to do with local government, is drafted in the same way.
Today I wish to deal only with that part of the amendment which covers the grounds on which a health authority may exclude the public. The existing grounds are to be found in Section 1 of the 1960 Act. That section provides that a health authority may, by resolution, exclude the public in one of two cases. The first is:
"Whenever publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted".
The second is where there are:
"Other special reasons stated in the resolution and arising from the nature of that business or of the proceedings".
1328
Those are vague and rather unsatisfactory criteria. They are frequently difficult to apply and difficult to challenge. They have been amplified in departmental guidance contained in Health Circular 6 of 1981, which explains that:
"It is a matter for the Health Authority to decide whether or when to close its meetings to the press and general public. It is, however, a general precept of public life that public bodies should not invoke the Act lightly, with a presumption of open and public discussion, whenever possible".
That such guidance was found to be necessary surely indicates that the 1960 Act is in too many respects an open invitation to public bodies to continue to conduct their business in private.
The amendment would allow for the exclusion of the public in two much more clearly set out and defined types of case. That would be for the convenience both of health authorities and of the public, not least because the correct application of the present criteria must often call for costly legal advice, which may be wrong. The first case provided for by the amendment is that the public may be excluded on grounds of confidentiality where information is likely to be considered by the authority which has been supplied by a government department on terms forbidding disclosure or where disclosure is forbidden by statute or court order. The second case is where there might be disclosure in a meeting of exempt information. That is defined in the amendment and in the Local Government Act by reference to a specific list of descriptions of information. It is a list which can be amended by the Secretary of State from time to time by order.
The debates that we have had on the subject during the passage of the Bill were not the first occasions on which improved public access to health authorities was requested. During the passage of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 in another place, Mr. Fearn, the Liberal Member for Southport, moved a late amendment in wide terms and embracing a wider list of public bodies in the health field than does the present amendment. The then Minister, Mr. Newton (now the Secretary of State), said that time would be needed in which to consider the matter particularly in terms of the administrative implications and the cost.
Six months later the amendment was moved in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. He probed the Government's intentions. The reply of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale was somewhat dismissive. He said:
"the Government have been doing much in the past six months, not least adding, mid-year, £2 billion to the amount of money they are prepared to make available for the health service. With that background, is this the moment to spend extra money on what is essentially … administration?".—[Official Report, 17/10/88; col. 998.]
It is a suggestion that public access to the decision-making processes is merely an administrative detail that grates.
In earlier debates on the subject the Minister referred to the Government's commitment to public access to health authority meetings. However, that is only within the terms of the 1960 Act which I consider to be inadequate. The provisions of the amendment are said to be incompatible with the reforms being carried out in health authority

1329
membership and the Government's aim to make health authorities into more efficient management bodies.
It is my principal submission that the character of the new-style health authority, including its new managerial function and the fact that there will no longer be district health authority members appointed by local authorities or members appointed on the nomination of universities, should provide the strongest reason for more and not less public access to the meetings and affairs of health authorities.
At various times during the passage of the Bill through this House the Minister, in answering amendments, has declined to commit district health authorities to the provision of this or that service in this way or to that standard. Whether it involved the provision of an integrated and comprehensive child health care service or an incontinence service, we were told that the decisions were to be made by health authorities on the ground and not to be pre-empted. That appears to constitute a nearly cast-iron case for health authorities to be as fully open to the public as are local authorities, notwithstanding the fact that local authorities are elected and health authorities are appointed.
Local authorities will inevitably be closely involved in any integrated child health care service. As regards public access rights, it makes no sense for them to operate under regimes different from those of health authorities. Irrespective of their accountability to the Secretary of State, it is right that the new-style health authorities should also be accountable in terms of openness to the public which they serve and that more appropriate and comprehensive conditions than now exist should govern the circumstances in which public policy or confidentality may be invoked to set aside that openness. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope that I may have your Lordships' indulgence to make my speech rather then performing the holding operation in which I was previously engaged in order to enable the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, to move his amendment. I congratulate the noble Lord for at last getting his amendment on the timetable in daylight. It appears to make the matter more serious.
The points to bear in mind are, first, that it is the application of the Local Government Act 1972. I hope that I do not have to remind noble Lords opposite that that piece of Conservative legislation was devoted to the idea of openness. The amendment applies that idea to health authorities. Secondly, openness—or "glasnost", as it is called—is in the spirit of the times and should apply as much here as elsewhere. Thirdly, central to the issue is the fact that the regional and district health authorities are not local authorities. However, they are authorities and we have not set them up as boards. I take the Government's word that they are fully committed to the preservation of the National Health Service. They have said that they are not using the Bill as a basis for privatisation and therefore do not regard the authorities as boards. As the noble Lord, Lord
1330
Coleraine, said, we must approach them in the spirit of openness. I hope therefore that the Government will accept the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has concentrated on the main issues before the House. However, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (7) of the amendment. It provides that
"the name and address of every member of the Authority and … the name and address of every member of each committee or sub-committee of the authority for the time being"
shall be available on a register. People who choose to accept appointment to such authorities which are in the public domain, and choose to make their contribution by way of public service, should be willing to have their names and addresses stated publicly as are other people in similar walks of life. I do not know of the Government's position: but if they do not intend to accept the amendment in detail, why should that not be a mandatory requirement? From these Benches, I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I am sorry that there has not been a little more give on the subject since it was discussed previously in this House. I hope that there will be more give tonight. From the beginning of the reform, as it is called, which the Bill represents, and since the publication of the White Paper, it has been said that its main purpose is to improve the service offered to consumers. The proposals for the internal market and other proposals are designed to improve the service to consumers—that is the patients and their families—and to do so at an economic cost.
If that is the declared and real purpose, I cannot see why representatives of the public—that is the consumers in one of their forms—should not be able to attend meetings of the district and regional health authorities. How are they to know in detail as well as in general whether the service is in their interest unless they are able to see and hear what the governors in their district are doing about the service? How can they know that unless they have access to the vital documents that will be available to members of the authorities?
It will always be the case that particular issues will arise in particular districts. Consumer and other groups will rightly wish to make their voices and opinions known. However, how are they to do so, and do so effectively, unless they have the information upon which the authority is acting and unless, in particular cases and in general if they are keen, they are able to attend the meetings of the health authorities?
As has been pointed out previously by other noble Lords, it is particularly objectionable that health authorities should be treated any differently from local authorities. Local authorities are at least elected. That gives the local public certain very important rights. Health authorities are not elected; they are appointed. There is therefore all the greater need for the public to have the right of access. If that does not happen—and I am afraid that it may not happen while this Government are in power, although we can always live in hope—much local distress may be caused to people who do not even

1331
know the basis upon which apparently unpopular decisions have been taken.
The district authorities need to have the full confidence of their local public even though they are not elected. One way to secure such confidence is to invite members of the public to see how well the authorities are doing their job and so to encourage the highest possible standard of local debate.
Margaret Thatcher, when an MP, went a long way towards accepting the principle in local government. It has been accepted since the 1972 Act that local authorities are not to be cabals meeting in secret. Therefore how can it be stated, as the Bill provides, that members of the public are not to be entitled to know what goes on within district authorities or to attend meetings?
Arguments may be put forward against the amendment. It is unlikely that those who take the view so ably put forward on our behalf by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, will be persuanded by them, because so much is at stake. It seems absolutely straightforward that where a local authority is appointed by the Secretary of State it should be open and accessible to the public. I hope that there will be some signs of give on the issue. If not, in a small way it will be a disgrace to the Government, although it will not be one that lasts forever because another government will eventually change the position.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, my honourable friend the Liberal Democrat Member for Southport moved an amendment which was rather more extensive in its application than this amendment. I should like to support the amendment as it has now reached your Lordships' House.
It seems quite extraordinary that the Government should resist the amendment. Only last Friday they accepted the need for access to medical records. They are therefore moving at a snail's pace towards greater openness. The Government have stated repeatedly that the public have misunderstood the reforms in the legislation. Some of us believe that the public have understood them only to well. However, if the public have misunderstood them, then surely there is everything to be said for giving the public access to the committees which will be dealing with the results of the legislation. There is all the more reason because the committees are not elected.
As the Government know, some of us are not without apprehension that certain of those committees will not be as strictly apolitical as we have been led to believe. I should have thought that the Government would wish to disperse that fear by allowing people to see how those non-elected committees operate. They will be dealing with a largely unpopular piece of legislation. In the interests of public accountability, of the ordinary people knowing what action is being taken on health, and of the Government establishing the correctness of their policies (if that can be established), I should have thought that they would be only too glad to accept the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as the National Health Service is funded from taxpayers' money, it seems right that they should know how the money is spent. Will trust hospital meetings be open to the public? They again are funded from taxpayers' money.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord upon having his amendment discussed at a civilised time of day. We have twice previously discussed the amendment at a very late hour of the day.
I explained at Report stage that we recognise that the noble Lord has endeavoured to meet some of the Government's concerns about imposing additional burdens on health authorities. I shall not repeat the arguments that I put forward at Report stage as to the differences between local authorities and health authorities. It is because they are very different types of body that we believe it is not appropriate for health authorities to be subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act.
At Report stage my noble friend Lord Coleraine made the point that the requirements of the 1960 Act are not clear on the exact circumstances in which a health authority may exclude the public. It is true that, unlike the local government provisions, the 1960 Act does not impose a straitjacket. Rather, it provides a flexible approach giving scope for considerable openness when combined with unequivocal guidance from Ministers—currently contained in circular HC(81)6—that there is a firm presumption of open and public discussion wherever practicable.
During the Committee stage of the Bill my noble friend Lord Coleraine quoted research from the Community Rights Project which alleged that contravention of the 1960 Act by health authorities was widespread. I stress again that those allegations are of real concern to the Government. If evidence of misuse of the 1960 Act is brought to our attention, we shall look at it very closely.
My noble friend made reference to the particular Act saying that those breaches are difficult to challenge. I have to repeat again that, so far, no attempt to bring evidence before my department has been made. If there is evidence available I invite that it be brought to the attention of the department.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that the Government have listened carefully to my noble friend on this issue. We shall certainly take all the detailed comments that he makes fully into account when framing our guidance to health authorities, which will be issued over the coming months. We share his determination to ensure that the local community is aware of and involved in the deliberations of their health authority which should operate in as open a manner as possible. However, at present we have no reason to believe that the current legal framework is faulty. We do not wish to introduce extensive and burdensome statutory provisions when a simple and clear cut one is sufficient.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, made reference to health authorities being willing to have the names

1333
and addresses of their members made public. Many local authorities are already doing that. They issue booklets which contain names and addresses of health authority members. It is my department's intention to put in the guidance that all health authorities should do that, though we do not agree that it should necessarily be a legal requirement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about National Health Service trusts. I am advised that trusts will have an annual public meeting at which their accounts and plans will be discussed. It is a step forward from the present situation, where no management meetings at unit level are open to the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, said that under the reforms the public would somehow have lees access to meetings and therefore less access to information. I am not absolutely certain how he comes to that conclusion, because that simply is not the case. The present arrangements are not changed by the reforms. In other words, the presumption of openness both for information and for meetings is not changed by the new legislation.
In the light of that explanation I hope that I have convinced my noble friend that he should withdraw his amendment.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I argued that the Government have said on various occasions that the reforms will improve matters in various respects for the consumer. If that is so, as surely it must be, then it seems very odd that representatives should not be able to attend meetings.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I believe that that intervention is out of order.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Noble Lords will appreciate that this is not a party political matter: it is a matter in which those who are interested in democratic processes take a very great interest.
My noble friend the Minister took the point, as she has done before, that local authorities and health authorities are different kinds of bodies. I submit that that is a logical misapprehension. What is significant is not the type of body that they are but the work that they do and the way in which they are perceived by the people they serve.
There is no doubt in my mind, and I am sure that there is no doubt in the minds of noble Lords who have supported me, that in the opinion of the public—the consumers of health services—there is this difference between a health authority and a local authority: a health authority is appointed by Whitehall whereas a local authority is directly accountable to the electors. Therefore, those who are interested in the provision of health services expect a greater standard of openness from health authorities then they would from local authorities.
I have suggested that breaches of the 1960 Act are difficult to challenge. The noble Baroness invited
1334
me and those advising me to draw to her attention any breaches of which we may be aware. I am not so much concerned with breaches of the Act as with the plain difficulty of interpreting a very general and difficult clause. The idea of confidentiality being in the public interest is bound to be subject to many interpretations by different lawyers. It would be a hardy member of the public who would say: "this is a breach"; he would say: "this seems to be a rather odd way of behaving but it may well be covered by the wording of the 1960 Act and there is nothing more I can do about it".
We have debated the matter on three occasions during the passage of the Bill. It is a subject that has previously been before Parliament and it is a matter upon which the opinion of the House should be sought.
6.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Allesbury, M.

Jeger, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Attlee, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bottomley, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe,

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McNair, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Coleraine, L. [Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Molloy, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Monson, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Denington, B.

Peston, L.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Erroll, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx L.

Jay, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Blatch, B.

Allerton, L.

Blyth, L.

Arran, E.

Borthwick, L.

Balfour, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Barber, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Beloff, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry,

Belstead, L.

D.

1335

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carnock, L.

Margadale, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mountevans, L.

Cox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Deedes, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elibank, L.

Pender, L.

Elliot of Harwood B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elton, L.

Quinton, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rodney, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Soultoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Shannon, E.

Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Hanson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar- Nicholls, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henley, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Hertford, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Hives, L.

L.

Holderness, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hood, V.

Swinfen, L.

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Joseph, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kaberry of Abel, L.

Ullswater, V.

Killcarn, L.

Vaux of Harrowdean, L.

Kimball, L.

Vinson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Woolton, E.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Young, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.50 p.m.
Clause 3 [Primary and other functions of health authorities etc. and exercise of functions]:
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the primary function of a District Health Authority to ensure that budgetary provision allows for an integrated comprehensive child care service which links effectively with services delivered by the local authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships have read the amendment before. It is a text presented to this noble House on 7th June. Maybe the repetition has caused the obvious good attendance, as those present have said, "This has got to be seen through".
The finale I presented on 7th June requested a meeting with the Minister or a Department of Health official. The meeting was arranged for 22nd June but was rearranged at short notice, so I was unable to attend. Fortunately the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and others qualified to speak about child
1336
care had a rescheduled meeting with the Minister on Wednesday, 20th June. The results are inconsequential unless they are followed through.
When talking about the health of children—the next generation—we are considering, in the words of so many businessmen, an investment. The manner in which we handle or manage this investment is up to certain parties to decide, and the most important of those parties is the parents. But this House and the other place have been given the opportunity and power to dictate, or to alter, how best the nation's health is managed through the national health system or the system of care for the health of the nation.
Politicians and businessmen talk about employing more mothers and establishing a crèche at the workplace. That is absolutely marvellous. But what if a child falls ill? Britain is the only member of the EC that does not give a statutory right to a parent or parents to paid sick leave when a child is ill. What about parents with permanently disabled children? Those children are very expensive to maintain, and, it seems, very much at risk under this Bill where contracts, incentives and trusts are major factors. In 1989, the Secretary of State for Health considered the sensitive subject of chronically sick or disabled children who were referred almost instantly from secondary to tertiary hospitals. He stated:
"The question of who authorises payment for the referral from secondary to tertiary hospital has not been resolved."
Let us help the good gentleman and ensure that paediatric advice to health authorities leads to each district health authority having a strategy to ensure a system where paediatric care in the hospital is integrated, and closely and regularly monitored wherever necessary, with community and primary health services. It may be of interest to your Lordships to ask whether hospital trusts will regard children as a profitable commodity.
Just over 9,000 beds were available for special care baby units and paediatrics in 1988, with 55 per cent. and 67 per cent. occupied respectively, demonstrating the unpredictable nature of child health care demands. In the same year, almost 55,000 beds were available for geriatrics—I ask your Lordships please not to take offence, but we know that geriatrics have a vote—and 89 per cent. of those beds were occupied.
We all understand that low bed occupancy in hospitals is uneconomic, but surely it is appreciated that a child of between zero and four years of age is as fragile, as delicate and sometimes as desparately disabled as a geriatric. In the financial year 1986–87, £280 per head was spent on that age bracket of children who were in need of hospital and community health care, as well as family practitioner services, while £1,190 per head was spent on the same services for those 75 years and over.
During the many stages when we have debated this National Health Service and Community Care Bill, many Members of the House expressed displeasure about the speed with which such a sensitive subject as national health is being rushed through and forced upon the beneficiaries, the electorate, the taxpayer. Many noble Lords feared the misuse of funds and urged that a definitive

1337
percent age should be ringed for specific needs, such as child health care.
At a hospital that I recently attended, the staff were appalled at the careless use of money. They said this to me and I did not ask them about it. That hopsital displayed inside the front door a sign saying that £38,000 had been spent on redecorating the reception area. Surely hospitals are functional facilities and not hotels. I am sure that the nursing staff would have appreciated a penny or two of that sum. The doctors and surgeons would dearly have loved to see more facilities available. Visitors to patients of all ages would have appreciated a larger parking area or accommodation for low income parents with acutely ill children in the hospital. It was somewhat sickening to see recorded in the local press that a casualty had driven himself to the hospital and had been admitted. When released he found that his car, which had been left in haste in the car park, had been clamped. Is that just desserts?
The electorate, the consumer, has every cause to be concerned about the proposal in the Bill, which we have just heard, that the only member of a health authority who is accountable to the public by election—that is, the local authority representative—is to go. Such people are no longer to be members of health authorities.
In this amendment I wish to underline the importance of the word "budget", for, as your Lordships are aware, the general practitioners' contract introducers three different payment fees for child health. The first is capitation for child health; the second is the incentive payment for immunisation; and the third is the optional fee for child surveillance. I ask your Lordships to recall the emphasis I laid on prevention rather than cure, and on immunisation, in my maiden speech on 3rd April 1990.
As child health care will depend upon fees paid—this figure is still under negotiation—it is clear that the world health authorities' target of 90 per cent. immunisation will be unattainable and a lower figure of 70 per cent. has been regarded as realistic. As I stated on 31st April, the greater the number of children without immunisation the more severe the cost to the National Health Service; the greater the number of children in tertiary hospital care the greater the unhappiness of the public, the taxpayer, the voter. Surely it is clear that an integrated service between hospitals and community and primary health services must be maintained; that a specialist child care team in all districts is vital; and that a comprehensive budget must be reserved for acutely ill children and for community and primary care services where specialists are required in the care of children.
We applaud and support the Government's insistence on medical audits, a procedure which our professionals can use to optimise their services following examples in other health districts. We also applaud it because it will engender healthy competition and naturally encourage commitment to improve the outcome of medical services.
The architects of some of the clauses in the Bill need a prescription themselves—a prescription to be taken daily after each meal and a prescription
1338
that will improve the patient's sense of responsibility and respect. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Clifford. When he moved the amendment on 7th June, it was supported by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, by the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Peston, by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and myself.
Responding to that debate, my noble friend the Minister, Lady Blatch, said:
"there is no question but that it will be the duty of district health authorities to promote comprehensive health services for children as the amendment proposes".
She went on to say:
"The Secretary of State already has a clear duty to provide a comprehensive range of health services under Section 1 of the 1977 Act".—[Official Report, 7/6/90; col. 1585.]
At the moment there is no comprehensive service, although it is said in the 1977 Act that there should be. It is not underlined in the Bill that there should be a comprehensive health service for children and the position will therefore be much the same.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for arranging at short notice a meeting with her, her civil servants and medical adviser. I must apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Clifford, Lord Ennals and Lord Winstanley. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, was in Devon, so he could not come except by helicopter, and I could not find the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Winstanley. I hope that they will forgive me. We were grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for arranging that meeting and I was greatly assisted by the presence of Dr. Logan of the Institute of Child Health to whom I give thanks for the help that he gave me.
Perhaps I may speak to the final sentence of the amendment which refers to a:
"comprehensive child care service which links effectively with services delivered by the local authority".
We are worried about the future. Perhaps I may refer to a report entitled Public Health in England which is the report of the committee of inquiry into the future development of the public health function. That report gives no hope of a better service. On page 32 it is recommended that the public health doctor should not be an advocate. The report states:
"We therefore reject the view … that public health doctors … have a duty or a right to advocate or pursue policies which they judge to be in the public interest".
We do not yet know whether that proposal will be accepted, but it will be the duty of the doctor responsible for the management to take up social issues. I quote, as I quoted last time, the issue of bad housing and bed and breakfast accommodation about which the health visitors said that there was not much point their visiting cases involving those terrible conditions and that, in any case, they were nervous about doing so. If the doctors are not able to take up such matters, it is a cause for great concern.
Paragraph 5.24 on page 34 of the report, which recommends the policy for the future, states:
"It is at regional level that there will need to be the greatest degree of specialisation and flexibility within the speciality of public health medicine".

1339
Epidemiology and communicable disease control, among other things, are mentioned, but child care and paediatrics are never mentioned. The only possible mention of them is in line which refers to:
"services for particular care groups".
Paediatrics is a specialist subject in itself and special notice should be taken of children.
In the amendment we recommend that an overall manager with responsibility for all child health services should be appointed within a district; that there should be a clear organisational unit for children; that there should be a comprehensive budget for community and acute services; that there should be specialist staff trained in the care of children; that there should be an internal information system; and that there should be an information and contact point for families.
I realise that it may not be possible for my noble friend the Minister to give way on this amendment, but we all know that draft guidance forms or booklets have been printed. If my noble friend is unable to accept the amendment, perhaps she can assure us that the contents of the amendment will be included in draft guidance, as have other matters. I support the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I want to be very brief in giving my total support to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and so well argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I do not need to set out the arguments; I simply want the Minister to accept the amendment because she has said that it is government policy. The Secretary of State has said that it is government policy. The Minister cannot be against an integrated, comprehensive child care service; nor can she be opposed to the links with the local authority. It would be nice if on this day—this celebratory day—she were to accept what we know is already government policy and put it on the face of the Bill. I support the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Winstanley, I too should like to say briefly that we on these Benches give the amendment our strongest support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, during our discussion of this subject at Report stage, my noble friend Lady Blatch made clear the priority that we attach to the development of effective child care services, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford. On that occasion, she quoted the Secretary of State's letter of last year to the president of the British Paediatric Association which reaffirms our commitment to the proposals of the Court Report and in particular to the importance of co-ordination of child care services delivery by general practitioners, community health services, hospitals and local authority social services departments. I hope therefore that it is clear that, as I think has been admitted by those who have spoken this evening, we approach the amendment in a spirit of agreement on the way in which we all want those important services to develop.
1340
My noble friend Lady Faithfull has cleared up the misunderstanding of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, about the meeting which we had with my noble friend and a representative of the Institute of Child Health when I believe some progress was made. However, our discussion today must focus not on the objectives, on which we are all agreed, but on whether this amendment will help us to attain them.
The amendment refers to the responsibilities of district health authorities. It is the district which, under our reform proposals, will play the leading role in securing services geared to the needs of its resident population—children, adults and elderly people. Districts will be able to concentrate on deciding what health care services are needed and how these can best be dovetailed with primary and community care services. I would expect GPs and social services authorities to be closely involved in this process. The newly appointed district directors of public health will have a key role to play in drawing up specifications for services which draw together the hospital and continuing care needs of children.
Contracts are the mechanism which will give effect to districts' assessments of their residents' health care needs. I should emphasise again the impact of the new distinction between health care acquirers and providers. As acquirers districts will be able to set out in some detail their service requirements. Having accepted those requirements in the terms of NHS contracts, providers of services will be held to them. The contractual system puts the needs of the patient at the centre of health care delivery. Providers will need to meet contractual terms and not allow themselves to be put off course by the short-term operational problems encountered in delivering services.
I said earlier that we should focus on the need for this amendment. The amendment would make it a specific primary function of district health authorities to ensure adequate funding for an integrated child care service. It will certainly be a primary function of districts to provide comprehensive services for children. I should say specifically to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that regulations made under Clause 3 of the Bill will specify districts' primary function as providing a comprehensive health service for all its resident population—children, adults and elderly people. I have no doubt that if it proves necessary that will be spelled out in guidance. The amendment would add nothing to that broad power. Indeed, we cannot accept the amendment because we fear that it would cast doubt on whether it covered other vitally important services not mentioned in such specific terms. Cancer services and maternity services immediately spring to mind, as do the needs of elderly people and others to whom I have referred.
The amendment refers specifically to the need for effective links between health authority and local authority services. Since publication of the Court Report in 1976 it has been recognised that effective co-operation between these two bodies is indeed a prerequisite of a comprehensive child care service. We are planning to issue to health authorities examples of good management practice in the

1341
organisation and delivery of integrated services identified in a recent research project. But I doubt whether a reference in legislation exhorting all to greater efforts in this area would have much impact. It is surely at local level, in the development of close working relationships between the different planning and providing agencies, that the key to co-operation is to be found.
I find the drafting of the amendment a little confusing. It specifies only that districts' budgetary provisions should allow for, and not require, an integrated child care service. If this is indeed a permissive provision, which simply suggests that districts should proceed in this way, then its rightful place is surely in good practice guidance, and not in legislation. If, despite appearances, it actually places a requirement on districts, we would be prescribing operational arrangements in legislation in an unprecedented way. The function of legislation is to set out a framework within which regions and districts can provide services tuned to particular local circumstances and needs. It is not to tell them precisely how to deliver services.
The use of the term "integrated" provides a further example of the difficulty which can arise from a detailed provision such as this amendment. "Integrated" has no legal definition. At best, it would be taken to mean all things to all districts, depriving the amendment of any effect. At worst, it could be interpreted very narrowly in a court of law, casting doubt on the legality of services in districts where effective ad hoc co-operative arrangements have been built up over the years.
I have dealt at some length with the amendment because I recognise the importance which is attached to it. I have indicated some of the ways in which work is continuing to improve the delivery of child care services. I believe that that work will receive additional impetus following implementation of health service reforms. However, I repeat that this is a framework Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, and supporters of the amendment will recognise that, as well as recognising our commitment to their underlying objectives, if not to the amendment itself. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the Minister for her remarks. One particular statement epitomised the fact that so many features of the Bill are too airy-fairy. The noble Baroness said that she "expects". We have been arguing that our children expect us to make the right decisions; hence this amendment.
I am very grateful to the Minister—as I am sure are other noble Lords—for enlightening me as regards the sometimes unsympathetic nature of the machinery which engineered the Bill. We have been talking about children. I know that the noble Baroness has given your Lordships absolute assurances that the Government will do their very best to see that child care will be looked after in the best possible way. However, nothing is in writing or
1342
in law to ensure that parents can have confidence in those assurances.
The answer is not couched in vague terms, unlike the phraseology of so many parts of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness for that. When I proposed the amendment on 7th June I warned that we should deserve the title "careless" should we pay no heed to it. From listening to the noble Baroness it would appear that Her Majesty's representatives do not care two hoots.
I beg all noble Lords: listen to your consciences; not to the Whips, but to your consciences; not to the party allegiance, but to your consciences; listen to the story you tell yourself of your own childhood; think of your own children and the children of future generations; abstain if you cannot vote against your party's wish, but live with your vote if you forget the meaning of the amendment. I must divide the House.
7.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe,

Ardwick, L.

B.

Attlee, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff B.

Bottomley, L.

[Teller.]

Butterfield, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Monson, L.

[Teller.]

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Denington, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Erroll, E.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Richard, L.

Falkland, V.

Ross of Newport, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Auckland, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry,

Balfour, E.

D.

Barber, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Beloff, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Blyth, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Coleraine, L.

1343

Colwyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Orkney, E.

Elton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Flather, B.

Pender, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reay, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Gridley, L.

Renwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Rodney, L.

Marylebone, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hanson, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hertford, M.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hives, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal L.

Holderness, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Swinfen, L.

Joseph, L.

Teviot, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trumpington, B.

Liverpool, E.

Ullswater, V.

Long, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vestey, L.

Lyell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wynford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Young, B.

Margadale, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.28 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 18, after ("functions") insert ("and subject to section 70 below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on moving Amendment No. 3 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. The objectives of these amendments are to postpone for 12 months the starting date for the new system of NHS contracts for health authorities, the new NHS trusts and the fund-holding practices, and the new provision for community care in Parts III and IV of the Bill.
Perhaps I may deal first with community care. If the Government intend to accept the crucially important decision taken by your Lordships' House to provide adequate resources to enable local authorities to fulfil their responsibilities under this Bill and to ring-fence the funding, then there is no case for postponement. Earmarked funding for community care will be crucially important from 1st April 1991. At that time local authorities will be trying to contain the cost of the poll tax at the beginning of a year in which I suppose we are bound to see a general election campaign. Moreover, they will be involved in the implementation of the Children Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Food Safety Act.
So far as I can gather, local authorities are eager to assume the new responsibility for care functions
1344
as soon as possible if funding is available. But they face enormous problems. They are expected to plan services without any indication of the resources available and no indication of the minimum standards required by the Government which are set out in legislation but only in a sense in circulars.
If the Government are not prepared to commit funds for the crucial new role for the care of the elderly and the handicapped then the commencement date should be postponed. The Secretary of State implied in a speech he gave last week that he doubted whether local authorities would be ready. These doubts about the readiness of local authorities to move into action on 1st April 1991 are reflected also in the letters sent recently on behalf of the No. 10 policy unit to members of the London Boroughs Association.
As regards the health service changes, the House will be aware that from these Benches there have been very grave doubts expressed about the Government's plans. These doubts extend to noble Lords in all parts of this House and to Members of another place, not least to Conservative Members who know what chaos is likely to occur and the effect that will have on their electoral prospects. It is quite clear that there is a bitter row now going on between the Prime Minister and her Secretary of State for Health, Mr. Clarke.
The Economist said last week:
"Surgery has been postponed. The government has quietly ditched its plans to begin a radical shake-up of the national health service next April. The Health Service and the Community Service Bill will still get the royal assent within the next few weeks as scheduled. But it will bring few changes of substance in its wake. Mrs. Thatcher has ordered that nothing should happen in 1991–92 which would spark a political conflagration over the NHS and risk losing the Tories the next election".
Week after week some of us in the House and others in another place have been insisting, with mounting evidence in support from those in the services, that Mr. Clarke's implementation timetable for these untried organisational nostrums is hopelessly unrealistic. The planning is still in its early stages in some areas. Staff training is inadequate. The information base is simply not available. Preparations are being made at a time of very serious service reductions and the freezing of important staff posts.
Again, according to the Economist, which is not known for its irresponsibility or Left-wing bias, the new strategy was agreed upon at a series of meetings early last month between the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and assorted officials. These were set up by the Prime Minister after representations by the chairman and deputy chairman of the 1922 Committee. They had told her that Back-Benchers were terrified of another big row with the doctors which they think would spell electoral disaster.
In spite of the Prime Minister's worries, Mr. Clarke went public at the National Association of Health Authorities' conference in Scarborough when he tried to scotch the rumours. He told the health authority members that the rumours were all nonsense, and that self-governing hospital trusts and other NHS changes would be up and running as planned. In contrast to a more cautious estimate by Mr. Duncan Nichol, the NHS chief executive, that

1345
40 or 50 hospitals would opt out in favour of self-government, Mr. Clarke stuck to his earlier estimate of about 80.
Significantly, the Prime Minister has not been willing to give her Secretary of State for Health any public support since his pugnacious speech. It will be interesting to see on which side the noble Baroness comes down; namely, whether she is supporting the position of the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. Regardless of these internal arguments, thinking Members of your Lordships' House know that the whole process is being rushed in a thoroughly irresponsible way which I have no doubt will do grave damage to the National Health Service.
If we are going to proceed with the proposal made by the Government, then the planning for it should be effective. It should start in a proper and efficient way. If that is to be done, then there has to be a delay. It is irresponsible for the Government to rush ahead, as has been said not only by myself but by other Members of your Lordships' House, without careful planning and preparation. I beg to move.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, at every stage of this Bill and in the debates before it, I have always coupled my continuing very strong support for the principles of this Bill with warnings about the dangers of going forward too fast. However, despite that I wish most strongly to oppose the amendment that the noble Lord has just moved.
In my view, he is getting practice and politics hopelessly mixed up. We want to start the implementation as soon as we can so long as we do not rush it unduly. There is nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost potentially by saying that nothing must happen before April 1992. For my part, I shall be happy to see something start happening next month if it were ready to happen in any particular district, but it is not.
I do not believe that it is too early to give the Minister authority to start as from April 1991. That is what should happen if we want to improve services to patients as quickly as we can. That is what this provision is all about. In order to improve services to patients, we must move down the road chosen with very great deliberation and care and step by step.
I have been saying that all along. I can see no argument in favour of putting off taking the first steps. They need to be taken at the earliest possible moment so long as they are properly prepared and pushed forward with great care, determination and supervision. That is what your Lordships' House should request of the Government and not put a block on anything being done for the good of patients for another year.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I too oppose this amendment. Amendment No. 3 is nothing but a tag to bring us to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. That is where the real essence of the argument lies. Amendment No. 48 is specifically designed to delay implementation. My noble friend Lord Carr put very well the case for the patients. What is important is that if you are proceeding with
1346
an improvement of some kind, you should get on with it.
Another aspect which I consider is equally important is one that I have come across in my own experience of the health service; namely, the staff. They want the certainty of knowing exactly what is going to happen, and that it will happen soon. To delay matters any longer would simply increase the great anxiety that some people have regarding their future. It is extremely important that this measure goes through.
I am sure that noble Lords all recall the delay that occurred when the paving Bill for the abolition of the GLC was lost. For another year there was uncertainty as to whether the GLC was to stay or go. Setting aside the argument of whether that was right or wrong, and all the political argument of that time, I remind noble Lords of the agony caused to staff. The GLC was run down and the staff demoralised. The staff did not know whether there was to be a new system or retention of the old. The situation was very unfair. It also resulted in a lowering of the standards of service. There should be no delay now that the Bill has reached this point and people are geared up. I do not accept the noble Lord's remark that people have given no thought to what is to happen—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I did not say that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the noble Lord said that many people are not ready. But they have given great thought to what is to happen. They have made tentative plans and are waiting for the go-ahead. We had assurances at earlier stages. I was not present for the Report stage but I was here in Committee when we were told that matters would progress slowly and that after the implementation date there would not be one mad rush to change everything overnight. I accepted that statement. I believe that that is the wise way to approach the matter and I believe that the amendment is nothing but a wrecking amendment. I oppose it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I too hope that the Government will not be tempted to go down the road suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has just said, though my memory of the events on the paving Bill for the abolition of the GLC may be a little different from hers. The Bill was not lost. An amendment was passed which made life a great deal more difficult for everyone concerned, including the staff. She was quite right on that point.
There is in these matters a momentum. The process of reform was started not just with the Bill but three or more years ago with the original Green Paper, with the discussions, with the then revised White Paper which has been the subject of considerable comment and discussion, and then through the process of legislation of which we are now nearing the end. Both my noble friends Lord Carr and Lady Gardner of Parkes were absolutely right in saying that expectations are now moving ahead sharply. Of course it will not all happen at the same time. That would be ridiculous.

1347
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has assiduously and often with great skill sought to build up a case that somehow a massive transformation will happen overnight on 1st April next year. No one has suggested that that is what will happen. The proposals for health trusts, whether for units or for, as one is hearing rather more of now, the idea that entire districts should become health trusts—a concept which I and many others find attractive—are moving forward logically. People are working out the necessary steps regarding whether it will be first phase or second phase. I cannot conceive of a more damaging spanner to throw in the works than for the House to decide to accept the amendment and suddenly to stop the whole process, saying that it will have to wait until 1992. That would be an immensely retrograde step. I hope that the House will not accept the amendment.
I make my next point perhaps with some rashness as a fairly recent arrival in the House. This Bill has been debated for a great many hours in another place and for a great many hours spread over many weeks in your Lordships' House. It has been considered in minute detail at every stage. I seriously question whether it is appropriate at Third Reading in this House to propose an amendment which would have such a fundamental effect on the whole passage of the Bill. As I have always understood it, Third Reading is essentially for minor last minute changes and for tidying up the Bill. It is for matters of drafting and for following up undertakings which may have been given at earlier stages. It is not an occasion for, as it were, inserting an entirely new provision which would dramatically affect the implementation of the Bill. However, that is my view on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has been here for rather longer than I have. It may be that he has satisfied himself that such an amendment is entirely within the conventions of the House. I venture to doubt it.
I hope that the amendment will not be carried. To halt at this stage the process of progressive change on which we are now embarked and for which detailed preparations are moving ahead—timetables have been prepared and a mass of information collected and analysed in order to implement it—would be immensely damaging. I hope that the House will have none of it.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be so kind as to tell me when the Green Paper to which he referred was published. I have never seen one.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord. I do not have that date to hand. It was in fact some while back—two years or more.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, there never was a Green Paper. It was a White Paper.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, there was the original Green Paper before that, was there not? My recollection is that there was a consultative paper. But I stand corrected from all sides. I am told that it was a White Paper.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, was rather missing the point in telling us how many hours have been spent in this House and in another place discussing these reforms. It is not hours of debate in Parliament that matters—those can go on for ever. What matters is whether there has been sufficient consultation and discussion within the various professions which will in the end have to do the work. I do not accept his argument about how long we have had to debate these matters.
One of the principal complaints was the amount of notice we had of all these changes. The noble Lord will remember that when the White Paper and the eight consultation documents were published it was specified that responses had to be in within two months, which was quite impossible. The department accepted that it was impossible and that period was extended.
I rather regret the extent to which our discussions on the Bill have recently become more and more party political. I am not saying that in the direction of either side of your Lordships' House. I am sorry that that has been the case because I believe that so many of us in all parts of the House have the interests of the National Health Service at heart. I wish that we could talk about that rather than about who argued on which side in Cabinet and who made the mistake politically.
I have to say to the noble Lord. Lord Ennals, that a sudden delay now of a whole year would be very damaging. The only amendment that counts is Amendment No. 48. If we were merely discussing Amendment No. 48A, which seeks a delay in the establishment of NHS contracts, I would certainly support him. As I have said before, and as the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, implied earlier, one cannot have contracts unless one knows the price. It is my opinion that the actual work—it is highly technical work—of costing the various procedures within the National Health Service has not been completed. How can one enter into contracts when the prices are unclear or have to be guessed at? I accept the argument that to delay the matter for a year would be a mistake. Progress has been made in certain areas with the establishment of National Health Service trusts—I should say that discussions about the nature of trusts and how they will work in certain areas have been proceeding. It is possible—I shall not go further than that—that some of those trusts will in the end prove to be advantageous. We do not yet know.
I am sorry that we should suddenly have a great upheaval in the National Health Service. It has served us pretty well for 41 years. That does not mean that in 41 years we have not learnt lessons and that certain improvements could not be made. Many improvements could be made. It is possible that some of those improvements will come about as a result of the Bill. But as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, those improvements will not suddenly be manifest on 1st April 1991. It will take a long time for some of the new procedures to work themselves into the system. That in itself may be damaging.
All I am saying—I am not sure that it has been worth saying—is that the whole procedure has been

1349
too hurried. However, having said that, to say here and now, "Let's stop"—because we will not be able to stop and start again—is not necessarily very helpful. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if a mechanism were to be found now whereby this business of the contracts could be deferred.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will say that contracts will be deferred in many areas where people have not assessed the pricing. Perhaps it will all be delayed and carried out on a general basis. However, I wait to hear the noble Baroness's response. In conclusion, I merely say to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that I support paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 48 but I could not support the rest of what is proposed.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I trust that I am right in assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is speaking to all three amendments in this grouping. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, pointed out, Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 contain the essence of the argument.
As has been said, we discussed the pace of implementation in one way or another on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Therefore, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, feels it necessary to return to the subject yet again on Third Reading.
The Government always made clear that they intended to take a careful evolutionary approach to the implementation of their plans in both the health and community care spheres. Much legitimate preparation has already gone on ahead of legislation. Enactment of the Bill will allow further action to be put in hand. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said only last week in another place:
"It remains the Government's intention that the changes will get underway this coming year, as from April 1991".
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also taken every opportunity to make that clear. Therefore, I am happy to be in the position of being able to support both of them. I suggest that it would be advisable for all noble Lords to concentrate on those messages coming direct from government, rather than on press speculation.
It is not necessary to repeat all our debates on the subject. Suffice to say that I can confirm that work is being taken forward gradually. I can assure my noble friend Lord Carr that we shall not rush it through. It is being taken forward in this way in consultation with those in the field.
As regards the length of time for discussions, we asked for responses to our working papers within four and not two months and discussions have continued since that time. To my knowledge there have been well over 100 meetings between Ministers, senior officials and the medical profession. National Health Service managers and authorities are working hard on their plans. They regard our timetable as feasible. At the same time, as has been said, a great deal of enthusiasm has been generated. For example, only last Friday in Oxford I was taken to task by a group of doctors who were extremely enthusiastic about their preparations. They asked for stiff resolve
1350
on the part of the Government to bring about the opportunity for much needed change in accordance with the timetable to which we have always held.
On the subject of contracts raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I repeat assurances given on previous occasions. In some cases the initial contracting arrangements will be block contracts and these will be built upon and refined over the years. Similarly, we look forward to making gradual and evolutionary progress on the community care front. We look forward to hearing comments on our draft guidance from local authorities and others concerned with community care. We believe that April 1991 remains practicable as a major milestone in taking our plans forward. But it remains a milestone from which we shall continue to make further progress in future years.
I know that the head and the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, are in the right places. I am sure that he will not press his amendment to a Division. After all, he has spoken throughout our debates on the Bill of the areas where action is necessary to improve the quality and delivery of services to patients of the National Health Service and to users of the social services. The Government agree that there is much unfinished business and that we cannot be content with the present situation.
I do not believe that any government charged with responsibility for the caring services and believing that they have a strong future, as we do, can afford to concede to a policy of delay and inaction. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind words about my head and my heart being in the right places. It was reassuring to hear that because sometimes one wonders whether they have been overturned.
I must say that every time the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, speaks I find his remarks intensely interesting. I always follow what he says with great interest. However, I must point out to him that it would have been rather absurd to table this amendment at any stage other than Third Reading. I say that because during the course of the debates we have to ascertain what progress has been made. In fact, we did not make much progress on the health service part of the Bill. As time has passed, we have seen the extent to which the National Health Service is not really ready to implement the proposals.
As regards enthusiasm, I do not know whom the Minister met in Oxford. As I visit different parts of the health service I find people insisting that they are not ready, that they do not yet have the required information available and that they have not carried out the costing referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. It may well be that we meet different people in the service. Most of the people I meet are not involved in politics; I do not go around being political when I visit different areas of the service. I see that the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord McColl, find that remark amusing. I repeat: I do not go around being party political. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, misunderstands me. Most of my

1351
visits to the National Health Service are not carried out in a party-political capacity. I concede to the noble Baroness that there has been a great deal of thought about the proposals. However, most of the people I have met thought about them and turned away from them. There is very little enthusiasm. Indeed, everyone in the House and in the country knows that there is very little enthusiasm for what is proposed except among a small minority who have particular interests.
I am always fascinated by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. He thinks that there should be no politics in the matter. In my view, the whole Bill is a political Bill which comes from a political government who reached a certain conclusion which I think was politically wrong. It would be extraordinary if the Opposition, who have had as much experience over the years of the health service, did not react in a very positive way, bearing in mind the reaction of the doctors, the nurses and the other professions in the service. Of course, it has become a highly political issue. The Prime Minister is a highly political Prime Minister. She has the ability to act behind, under, around and over her Ministers. And whatever Ministers may say, it is the Prime Minister who finally decides what is to be done.
Some people may say that the passing of this amendment—if I can persuade your Lordships to accept it—would be in the interests of the party opposite in that it would escape for a year the chaos I prophesy will come about if these measures are implemented in the sort of timetable proposed. I do not believe that this will help the health service. Indeed, most of the people in the service and the public do not believe that it will help. I hope that colleagues will support the amendment.
7.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe,

Bonham-Carter, L.

B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Denington, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

[Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

1352

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Balfour, E.

Joseph, L.

Barber, L.

Killearn, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kimball, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Blatch, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blyth, L.

Liverpool, E.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry,

Mancroft, L.

D.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Munster, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Napier of Ettrick, L.

Coleraine, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cox, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rodney, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Seebohm, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sharples, B.

Dilhourne, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Elton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Faithfull, B.

Teviot, L.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Flather, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Henley, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hertford, M.

Wedgwood, L.

Hesketh, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hives, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 49, at end insert ("and
(c) where the condition of the individual is such that he requires a service where maintenance of open access and strict confidentiality is in the interests of public health, with particular reference to Genito Urinary Medicine, Drug Dependency Units and Family Planning Services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to what I regard as an important topic and one which I raised previously on Report on 7th June. The essence of the argument is that there is an omission in the contractual arrangement upon which the Bill is based of a whole category of services where there is not necessarily urgent individual need, but where encouraging early contact with the service is in the interests of wider public health. For that group, the open access or self-referral services, include, in particular, clinics for genito urinary medicine, sexually transmitted diseases, drug dependency and family planning. In each case the open access nature of the service has developed for a good reason.
Widespread provision of open access, confidential, self-referral clinics for sexually transmitted diseases has been the corner-stone of the control of infectious diseases in this country since the 1916 venereal diseases regulations.
It is only by encouraging individuals to seek treatment at their earliest suspicions that they might have contracted an infection, that we can prevent diseases such as gonorrhoea, syphilis and herpes being passed on to subsequent partners. The clinics for genito urinary medicine and drug dependency, while attracting self-referral on the basis of personal need, also allow the high-risk users to be brought into contact with health promotion and disease prevention services. That is the basic case. The question is whether the Bill provides adequately for the continuation of these important services.
On the previous occasion when we debated this matter the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in opening his reply stressed:
"The Government fully accept the importance of open access to services such as genito-urinary medicine, drug dependency and family planning services".—[Official Report, 7/6/90; col. 1610.]
He also accepted the need for confidentiality in these cases. Both statements are welcome so far as they go. However, he went on to state that there was no need to include specific provisions in the Bill. I cannot entirely accept that.
The Bill establishes that under the proposed arrangements most of the tasks that the district health authority will fulfil are the primary functions for its own residents or for the residents of other authorities for whom it has been contracted to provide such functions. There are two major exceptions to this: first, where the urgent need for care precludes the possibility of negotiating a contract in advance. That is dealt with in some detail in Clause 3(5)(b), and also in Clause 3(6). That covers the accident and emergency cases.
With regard to the group that I am addressing—the self-referral services—in my submission there is no provision. I believe that there is a major inconsistency here. These days the departments of genito-urinary medicine, for example, provide an important gateway for admission to hospital for patients such as those with AIDS. Some such admissions may be in the urgent or emergency categories, but others are elective. If these are to be billed respectively on a case by case basis with the authorities of residence as is set out in Clause 3(6), how can confidentiality possibly be maintained?
The second major issue making these amendments necessary in my view relates to the funding of block contracts by DHAs. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his response, unfortunately only highlighted the need for concern. He stated that the,
"DHA will be expected to provide funding in the same way as for accident and emergency services; that is by placing contracts which cover all patients who present themselves for the service regardless of district of residence".—[Offical Report, 7/6/90; col. 1610.]
Is it realistic to expect this when DHAs are only given a capitation based budget? Why should they be expected to pay for non-residents attracted by their services? While there is some suggestion that in the case of accident and emergency departments
1354
regions might increase the allocations to districts where there is a substantial cross-boundary flow, nowhere in the Government's guidance is any such statement made with regard to the self-referral services, except in paragraph 4.25 of the working paper in which RHAs are expected,
"to ensure that relevant units are funded in a way that allows patients to self-refer".
However, there is no suggestion as to how this might be done. It is contradicted by the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on 7th June at col. 1610 where he stated that the Government,
"expect DHAs to decide themselves the most appropriate arrrangements for funding self-referral services".
This suggests a lack of real understanding of the problem. The point is that for many self-referral clinics district residents are very much minority users representing only 15 to 20 per cent. of those attending inner city facilities. Thus DHAs in these areas will be running and funding clinics mainly for the benefit of other authorities. Can such funding decisions therefore be the responsibility of DHAs? It is vital for the wider public health that a less parochial overview is maintained of the provision of such facilities. Otherwise, what are essentially regional and in some cases national resources may be threatened by the local need to balance the budget.
Surely the regional level, as suggested in these amendments, is a far more appropriate one for these funding responsibilities. Such an arrangement would also give regions the possibility directly to implement strategies; for example, gradually rolling out knowledge and skills needed for looking after AIDS patients from the specialist centres to the smaller districts' GUM clinics with a view eventually to reducing the necessity for so much cross-boundary movement. Such strategies are vital if the main centres are not to be swamped by the spread of that epidemic.
Can the Government intend such programmes really to depend on funding-based decisions of individual DHAs operating on a capitation based system? I suggest that this is simply not realistic. Self-referral and open access clinics are a vital tool of public health policy. I cannot believe that the Government really intend to surrender this tool which has been constructed so painstakingly over the years. But this is what will happen unless these amendments or something like them are written into the Bill. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I supported similar amendments at the previous stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House because they address significant problems spanning both individual and public health issues. Despite the reply given by my noble friend the Minister to similar amendments at Report stage, which I have since read carefully, I still believe that there is a need to ensure provision of these facilities because of the implications for confidentiality and anonymity. I shall not repeat the arguments that I and other noble Lords made previously, particularly with regard to family planning or drug dependency

1355
circumstances. I wish by way of example to re-emphasise the great importance of maintaining open access clinics attended by people from distant localities who choose them precisely because they will not be recognised, because anonymity and confidentiality will be assured.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has already pointed out that some inner city genito-urinary medicine and sexually transmitted disease clinics take up to 80 per cent. of their clients from distant places for reasons of anonymity and confidentiality. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has spelt out the concerns on funding under the new dispensation, and I shall not repeat those concerns. I just wish to highlight that should problems of uncertain funding lead to a diminution in services it could have serious implications not only for the individuals at risk themselves but also for public health. Such diminution or uncertainty would be ironic and tragic at a time when so much is being invested in attempts to contain the spread of viral STDs.
It would be tragic in human terms and could ultimately be more expensive in the financial cost of care. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give more substantive reassurances than her noble friend Lord Henley felt able to give at Report stage on these important issues of public and private health.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment on the grounds that everything possible should be done to encourage early diagnosis and treatment of the kinds of diseases that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, mentioned. It would surely be a tragedy—and in this I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—if any district health authority were to say that it would not provide the services because it could not obtain repayment at a time of perhaps great economic and financial stringency.
The amendment would make it quite clear that it is in order (and to be encouraged) for health authorities to provide services to people who, on the ground that confidentiality must be preserved, do not disclose their names and addresses, so that repayment cannot possibly be obtained. These arguments which have been put forward before seem to me strong. I am therefore happy to support the amendment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench will be seized of the great importance of this subject. Both the availability of open access to clinics and the fact that they should be undeniably associated with confidentiality are factors of great importance for the future health of this country in many areas. I am afraid I have not had time to reread what was said on 7th June. However, I recall that while I was quite satisfied with the desire and the determination of the Government to provide both open access clinics and confidentiality, I felt that the statement of good intent did not go far enough in order to give the assurance which is needed. One must remember that the people who want to use these clinics will, to a large extent, be deeply suspicious about whether
1356
confidentiality is assured. That is why I believe the Government must find some way of going further than they felt able to go on the previous occasion that we discussed this matter.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in the interests of brevity, I wish merely to say that we on these Benches totally support the amendment, and particularly the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley.
Baroness Masham of Mon: My Lords, for the people who have to attend these genito-urinary clinics and drug dependency units, it is important that the clinics are confidential. That has been said, but it needs to be stressed over and over again. If the patients who attend these clinics think that their details will be fed into a computer and bills will be passed across districts, they will not turn up at the clinics. Many of these people have infectious conditions such as gonorrhoea and syphilis. They may also be infected by HIV and hepatitis B. If patients keep away from treatment and counselling because of the billing process, they will become a serious public health risk. The Minister would be wise to spell out to us in detail how these clinics will work. This is a very important matter. However, there is a problem, because due to the hour at which this amendment is being discussed, most Members of your Lordships' House are having dinner. Their thoughts will unfortunately be far away from the problems of venereal disease.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I also wish to support the amendment. I have a feeling that where a health authority has a department that is serving a high proportion of people who do not come from its area, that department will say, "These are not our people. Let someone else look after them". Such a department could well be cut. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that by the time I have responded to this amendment I shall have addressed three important points. I believe those who refer themselves to centres should receive treatment, and that confidentiality should be observed in all cases. I shall also address the point of funding.
As was said on Report, the Government fully accept the importance of open access to services such as genito-urinary medicine, drug dependency and family planning. We also recognise the particular need for confidentiality in such cases. Therefore there is no need to include specific provisions in the Bill.
Guidance to health authorities on contractual funding has already stressed the need for district health authorities to give particular consideration to services which patients use on a self-referral basis. Contractual funding is no less appropriate for genito-urinary clinics or other self-referral units than for any other service. Patients can only benefit from the specification of quality in contracts and a close link between workload and resources.

1357
Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts has made it clear that, unless alternative arrangements are agreed with regional health authorities, then district health authorities will be expected to provide funding in the same way as for accident and emergency services—that is by placing contracts which cover all patients who present themselves for services regardless of district of residence. This would avoid the need for a contract or exchange of information with the patient's own district health authority.
Different considerations may apply to different services in different districts, and we believe it is important that decisions as to what arrangements should be made to secure access to self-referral services should be made by districts themselves, in the light of local needs and circumstances. In view of the particular importance of these services however, Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts places a specific responsibility on regional health authorities for ensuring that district health authorities make satisfactory arrangements for all such services.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was worried that the point was not covered adequately in the Bill. As I have explained, we do not believe that this is an appropriate subject for primary legislation. However, I can assure the noble Lord that if serious problems arise, directions given under Clause 3(4) could be used to deal with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and other noble Lords said that funding was unrealistic. Again, I can assure the House that we expect regional health authorities' funding of district health authorities to reflect the usage of self-referral services. Therefore the funding of district health authorities will have to take into account accident and emergency services as well as self-referral services for all-corners and not just for residents.
The important point on confidentiality is that treatment will begin and end in one local authority. There will not be a cross-boundary flow of information back to the home authority of the patient who is receiving services.
I hope noble Lords will be reassured by what I have said and accept the Government have taken adequate steps to ensure that open access and confidentiality are secured in the case of self-referral services. I hope they will also accept that our approach, which aims to be flexible and not over-prescriptive, is preferable to the proposal for regional contracts contained in the amendments. I trust therefore that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this short debate. It certainly has been a genuine cross-party issue. I am happy to count among my supporters three noble Lords on the Government Back-Benches. That encourages me to think that I am on the right track. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said, the issue of confidentiality is vital to many aspects of the future health of the whole country. Statements
1358
of good intent are not sufficient to encourage us to believe that that anxiety is met. The noble Lord also asked the noble Baroness whether the Government could not go some way further on that point.
My difficulty is that I am not sure how much further the noble Baroness has gone. I believe she has gone a little way. She has spoken about guidance to health authorities. If I am permitted at this stage before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to ask her whether the only guidance is that which is contained in the statement which I read out from the working paper on self-referral services which is contained in col. 1608 of Hansard of 7th June which states:
"'RHAs will be expected to ensure that relevant units are funded in a way that allows patients to self-refer'",
or whether further and more specific guidance is likely to follow that. So far as I can see, that is the only relevant text that we have at the moment.
The noble Baroness made the presumption that exactly the same system can be used in this case as that which covers accidents and emergencies. I did not think that that was entirely convincing because, after all, accidents and emergencies can be traced back to their districts of origin, whereas the cases of those who self-refer for confidential reasons cannot.
I was also a little worried about the phrase "local needs and local circumstances" which the noble Baroness used. To take an example, the Middlesex Hospital genito-urinary clinic clearly does not fulfil only local needs. If one talked to consultants in that unit one would find that the majority of patients for whom the unit fulfils a need come from outside the district. Local needs are not the only considerations in this important field of public health.
The noble Baroness said that she thought such a provision not suitable for primary legislation. I would probably be prepared to accept that, provided that I can be assured that the Government have taken on board what has been said from all sides of the House on this topic.
The noble Baroness referred to Clause 3(4) which would allow the Secretary of State to,
"give directions with respect to the exercise by health authorities or Family Health Services Authorities of functions under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990".
That is a permissive clause. I hope very much that it will be brought into operation if there is any evidence of a collapse or serious diminution of the services concerned.
It occurred to me that I might have been too specific in the wording of my amendment. It reads:
"where the condition of the individual is such that he requires a service where maintenance of open access and strict confidentiality is in the interests of public health, with particular reference to Genito Urinary Medicine, Drug Dependency Units and Family Planning Services".
I can see that the Government might consider that too specific for what is essentially a framework Bill. I should not have been too unhappy simply to take the first part of the amendment as far as the words "public health", so that there was a guarantee that that was the issue on which attention was focused.
Can the noble Baroness give me any further comfort regarding what I have said?
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord seeks reassurance on three points: access to services, confidentiality and the mechanism for funding and whether there will be guidance. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be guidance. Work is also continuing on the making of contracts and the role of district health authorities in the making of those contracts. I can also give an assurance that all points that have been made throughout the debate on this subject will be taken into account.
My final comment is that should authorities not take cognisance of the guidance the Secretary of State has reserve powers to direct.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She has gone a little further than her noble friend did on an earlier occasion. I shall obviously read with very great care what she has said. Once the Bill has become an Act I shall keep an eagle eye on these issues and return to the matter in other parliamentary forms if it comes to my notice that matters are not going as well as they should. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 4 [NHS contracts]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert:
("(2A) It shall be the duty of each health service body acting as an acquirer to take all reasonable steps to consult any relevant Community health council as to the general arrangements by which it shall secure goods or services under NHS contracts.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the whole question of consultation with consumer interests has been a bone of contention throughout the debates on the Bill. The amendment would place a duty on each purchaser of health care to consult its local community health council regarding the contracts that it places for a service. The intention of the amendment is that the consultation will be of a general nature on the strategic decisions behind contracting rather than the day-to-day business decisions.
This is the third time that I have taken up the issue. Each time I have taken account of the Government's reply and redrafted the amendment accordingly. At Committee stage I moved an amendment which required that the local CHC should be consulted on all contracts. The Government responded that that would be impractical in respect of, say, emergency contracts. Okay. At Report stage I moved an amendment to allow consultation with the CHC on most contracts where possible. The Government replied that it was inappropriate for the CHC to be involved in the day-to-day decisions of the contracting but that it should be involved in the formulation of the general strategy used by a health authority to draw up contracts. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, in replying said at col. 1627 of Hansard of 7th June:
"CHCs should expect to be consulted along with other interested parties on the strategic provision of services".
1360
The amendment seeks to put that commitment on to the face of the Bill.
The chairperson of the National Consumer Council, Lady Wilcox, has taken up the issue very strongly. I felt that we in your Lordships' House should take notice of what is being said. Addressing the annual conference of the National Association of Health Authorities, Lady Wilcox said:
"Just as individual patients have no real influence on choice, neither do their representatives, community health councils. In fact there are no formal means of consulting consumers at all, about where they shall be treated or what sort of quality they want".
Lady Wilcox said that, instead, the choice would be made by district health authorities who would decide where to buy the services they thought were needed. Patients could be sent anywhere for treatment without anyone taking into account whether relatives should be able to visit. Lady Wilcox said that customers expected GP contracts,
"to bring services up to a standard not down to a price".
The main message coming from the National Consumer Council is that consumer health councils should be consulted. Since the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that they should be expected to be consulted with other interested parties on the strategic provision of services, I hope that the Government will consider it appropriate to include that in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. The arguments advanced by Lady Wilcox on the occasion to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred were extremely powerful. They have been put forward before. They were put forward when I was the first chairman of that body, the National Consumer Council. And have been put forward on many occasions by the Consumers' Association, of which I am president.
Consumers have had a rough deal in the health service. Community health councils are their standard bearers. It would be in line with the whole purpose of the Bill if it was made quite clear that the community health councils were to be given the kind of information which the amendment, if it were included in the Bill, would require the authorities to provide.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the principle underlying the Bill is that district health authorities should seek advice from a wide range of authoritative sources before determining a pattern of services for their resident population.
The task of assessing local needs and demand for health care is by no means foreign to district health authorities. It builds on valuable work undertaken in the past by local directors of public health. Much work is under way to develop that role and relate it to the new commissioning responsibilities of districts. Consultation will form a key part of that process. The department's paper on the future, Role of District Health Authorities, makes clear that districts will need to seek the views of users—including consumer organisations, such as community health councils—on the provision of services. I would also expect districts to take account of community health

1361
councils' views on the services delivered by providers as part of their monitoring of NHS contracts.
There is no doubt that community health councils have an important role to play in representing patients' views under the new contractual arrangements. Districts are already required by regulations to consult the relevant community health council whenever they propose to make a substantial development in services. In future, that requirement will certainly cover any substantial changes in the pattern of services that districts acquire.
The amendment is also selective. Districts will be expected to consult closely with general practitioners over the services they propose to acquire. Indeed, the contractual system provides a unique opportunity for improving still further the integration of primary and hospital care. Yet this amendment would give community health councils a quite misleading position of primacy over all other sources of advice, GPs included.
I hope that what I have said reassures the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that community health councils will have an important input into future decisions on the overall pattern of a district's services. The noble Lord referred to comments made by Lady Wilcox about there being no choice for patients. Lady Wilcox's remarks ignore the key role of the GP to which I referred. The pattern of contracts placed by the district health authority will need to reflect patients' preferences as reported to their GP. That will make hospital services far more responsive to patient choice than at present. I hope that the noble Lord is persuaded not to press his amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her forthcoming response. I should not wish to give primacy to community health councils as opposed to GPs. I appreciated what she said about the role of GPs. However, I do not believe that their role is simply to convey the views of patients; it is to convey their own views as a result of their contact with patients.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that consultation with community health councils will be included specifically in the guidance. That is reassuring and, as the Minister said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Transfer of staff to NHS trusts]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 11, at end insert ("and no NHS trust shall alter the terms or conditions of any contract for a period of twelve months from the operational date without the consent of the person to whom the contract applies (or the relevant organisation representing employees in the case of a contract agreed in connection with a collective bargain).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships are aware of the deep anxiety felt by those who work in the National Health Service as regards the Government's plans to allow NHS trusts to have a free hand in tearing up national agreements on pay and conditions and in allowing the trust hospitals to
1362
compete for staff in the open market. Trust nurses, doctors and members of other professions have said clearly that they fear that the route will lead to a two-tier system within the National Health Service; first, the go-ahead, high-paid, hi-tech independent sector, and, secondly, the poorly-staffed, poorly-equiped second tier.
The amendment does not tackle the problems in a fundamental way. We tried to do so in the early stages of the Bill but did not succeed. However, it will ensure that carefully worked out agreements on pay and conditions will not be effected for an initial period of 12 months after the establishment of a self-governing trust. Trusts will be able to change contracts of employment within that period but only with the consent of the staff member involved or the appropriate staff organisation in the case of contracts agreed under a collective bargain. The amendment will prevent any unilateral action on the part of a trust in respect of the treatment of staff. Given the reckless timetable for the establishment of trusts, to which I have already referred, the amendment allows a sensible transition period in order that negotiations and careful planning on staff matters are conducted in an orderly way.
In my view, the amendment is fully in line with the thinking of the Secretary of State. In an interview in the Independent on 21st June 1990, he said:
"There is a need to get the balance right … without allowing change to get out of control and cause difficulties".
In another part of the interview he said:
"The message to everyone is don't try and drive this engine"—
that is, the NHS reforms—
"at high speed".
I was trying to say that in respect of the amendment, and perhaps I should have quoted the Secretary of State then. At a time when staff recruitment and retention, especially among nurses, is high on the NHS agenda the amendment would bring an element of stability and reassure staff in what is becoming an increasingly uncertain situation. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at what lies behind the amendment even though she may not accept its wording. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, although we have covered the ground before I wish to repeat that I am in favour of the right for changes in staff terms. The board on which I served for many years, and which is now a special health authority, found that in London it was almost impossible to obtain and maintain good nurses because it was unable to compete in the open market. It was unable to design its employees' conditions in a way that would have been to the employees' advantage as well as to that of the hospital. One of the good aspects of the Bill is that there will be an opportunity to look at the staff situation differently and to reassess it. One can decide where the need lies and where there should be more pay. One can also decide where the need does not exist and where people are being paid to do something which is of no benefit to patients or to anyone else. The provisions in the amendment would be restrictive and I hope that the Government will not accept them.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that throughout the passage of the Bill we have given categoric assurances that the employment rights and contractual terms of staff being transferred from the employment of a health authority will be protected on transfer. Clauses 6 and 7 already provide for that. We certainly expect trusts to act in accordance with good employment practices when negotiating any changes to contracts and setting up the industrial relations machinery for doing so. There is no need to place them under a special legal requirement not applying to any other employer. Trusts are in the same position as any other employer as regards employment legislation. There is also no justification for requiring changes to be approved by trade unions when the individuals concerned have said that they are willing to accept them.
I do not wish to go over ground which has already been covered. However, I point out that it is fundamental to the whole concept of NHS trusts that they should have scope to formulate local employment packages which will attract staff and encourage them to develop their skills so that the highest quality of patient care is assured.
The evolutionary approach on which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, sought assurance is one that we have discussed. It will not be achieved by such an amendment but by gradually accepting hospitals for trust status and in future increasing their number and building on the experience which has been derived from the first wave. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I profoundly disagree with the conclusions of the Government. I said that during each stage of the Bill. I have had consultations with bodies such as the Royal College of Nursing and other nursing bodies, with the British Medical Association and other trade unions representing groups within the National Health Service, and with a number of bodies representing professions allied to medicine. They are all deeply disturbed by the proposal. They all believe that the Government are going in the wrong direction. I promised them that at every stage of the Bill I would argue their case. I have done so and I have failed and achieved nothing. However, the Government will rue the day that they took the decision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 28, leave out ("solely") and insert ("(whether solely or otherwise)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 14 and 15. The amendments complete the amendment to Clause 6 of the Bill which your Lordships agreed on Report. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, line 34, after ("if") insert ("he were a person to whom this section applies and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Indicative amounts for doctors' practices]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 20, line 18, leave out ("the amount specified") and insert ("that indicative amount").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 to 20. When on 12th June we debated the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, about changing the name "indicative budget" to "indicative amount", my noble friend Lady Hooper promised that I would bring forward parallel Scottish amendments to achieve the same effect. The first four amendments to Clause 35 fulfil that undertaking.
The final amendment to Clause 35 and the amendment to Clause 18 in the name of my noble friend are slight consequential drafting changes which my noble friend mentioned would also be needed. Taken together, the amendments complete the task of changing the name of the indicative prescribing budgets to indicative prescribing amounts. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Schemes for meeting losses and liabilities etc. of certain health service bodies]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved the Amendment No. 11:
Page 24, line 12, leave out from ("scheme") to end of line and insert ("by the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 21 to 24. At Report stage your Lordships agreed new clauses in Parts I and II of the Bill giving the Secretary of State powers to establish schemes for meeeting the liabilities of defined health service bodies including National Health Service trusts. The amendments make small changes to new clauses. They bring the power for the Secretary of State to pay for or contribute towards the discharge of liabilities within the scope of the money resolution in Clause 67 of the Bill.
They give the Secretary of State a power to direct health authorities, health boards or National Health Service trusts to assist him with the administration of a scheme under the clauses. Such assistance might involve, for example, the collection of premiums from participating health service bodies. The new power will give the Secretary of State flexibility to choose the most efficient means of running a scheme.
Finally, the purely Scottish amendment defines correctly the liabilities that fall within the meaning of the new clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 12 and 13:
Page 24, line 14, after first ("State") insert ("(a)").
Page 24. line 15, at end insert ("and
(b) where a scheme provides for it to be administered by the Secretary of State, a health authority or NHS trust shall carry out such functions in connection with the administration of the scheme by the Secretary of State as he may direct").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 31 [National Health Service trusts]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 35, line 49, leave out ("solely") and insert (", whether solely or otherwise,").
Page 36, line 8, after ("if") insert ("he were a person to whom this section applies and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 were spoken to with Amendment Nos. 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 31 [Indicative budgets]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 20:
Page 44, line 8, leave out ("by way of a budget").
Page 44, line 10, leave out ("budget") and insert ("amount").
Page 44, line 32, leave out ("budget") and insert ("amount").
Page 44, line 35, leave out ("budget") and insert ("amount").
Page 44, line 37, leave out ("the amount specified as that budget") and insert ("that indicative amount").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 16 when moving Amendment No. 10. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 16 to 20 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 41 [Schemes for meeting losses and liabilities etc. of certain health service bodies]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 24:
Page 49, line 23, after ("damage") insert ("(including solatium)").
Page 49, line 45, leave out from ("scheme") to end of line 46 and insert ("by the Secretary of State").
Page 50, line 2, after ("State") insert:
("(a)").
Page 50, line 4, at end insert:
("and
(b) where a scheme provides for it to be administered by the Secretary of State, the Agency or a Health Board or NHS trust shall carry out such functions in connection with the administration of the scheme as the Secretary of State may direct.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 21 with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 43 [Timetable for implementation]:
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 50, line 38, at end insert:
("(3A) In making any determination as to the adequacy or otherwise of resources under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall have regard, in particular, to the need to secure the continuation of the provision of residential care services provided by voluntary organisations to persons who are now, or have been in the recent past, dependent upon drugs or alcohol, and shall consider how to use his powers under section 44 below to assist in securing the continuation of those services.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment builds on the principle that community care provision can be implemented only if adequate
1366
resources are available. Particular concern has been expressed by drug and alcohol projects, and confirmed by many social service departments, that resources will not be available to meet the needs of these clients because of the low priority generally accorded them. The amendment recognises the potential problems which may be encountered by drug and alcohol projects and requires the Secretary of State, in exercising his powers under Clause 44, to have particular regard to their needs and circumstances in order to ensure their continued existence.
Residential services for people with drug or alcohol related problems are presently funded predominantly by income support allowances paid by the Department of Social Security on a per resident per week basis. The 1,041 alcohol beds and 820 drug beds provided nationally by the voluntary sector are funded in that way.
From April 1991 social security payments will be reallocated to local authorities through the standard spending assessment mechanism. Unlike services for the elderly, the effect of the loss of income to alcohol and drug concerns are immediate. The average client turnover in drug residential places is 20 weeks, and in relation to alcohol 33 weeks. Therefore it is the total present level of income support, presently paid to alcohol and drug projects, which needs to be redistributed to local authorities in year one. The standard spending assessment, however, will phase in the transfer of income support payments over several years on calculations of turnover in elderly and mentally handicapped residential homes.
There clearly will be an immediate shortfall in the funding available to local authorities to provide residential services for people with drug and alcohol problems. That shortfall, given the existing lack of priority afforded by local authorities to people with alcohol and drug problems and the insurmountable difficulties presented by the timetable for implementation convince Alcohol Concern, Turning Point and SCODA that services will have to close.
The standard spending assessment mechanism, used to allocate funds to local authorities, does not take account of the incidence of drug and alcohol problems. Nor can it take account of the fact that residential projects are not spread evenly around the country. In many areas one project will serve eight or 10 surrounding local authorities and will also take clients from further afield.
For local authorities, the responsibility to provide drug and alcohol services is a new one. For most of them, with the pressures that they are facing, it is also unwelcome because of the extra burden that it places upon them. Social service departments have no statutory duty to provide drug and alcohol services and those contacted by Alcohol Concern have indicated that even though they will be obliged to put them in their community care plans they will not be allocating any resources for the provision of those services.
Alcohol and drug problems have never been a high priority for social services departments despite the massive harm caused to both individuals and families by substance misuse. Problem drinkers are a largely hidden population who because of the

1367
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, children of course being of paramount concern.
With the added pressure of new systems and new responsibilities, the evidence from all sides is that this history of neglect is certain to continue with the result that funds currently being allocated to drug and alcohol projects through the Department of Social Security payments will be lost to this client group. All that is being asked is that these funds should be safeguarded during the period of uncertainty that will occur during the transitional phase.
Voluntary organisations and no doubt local authorities would be very pleased to evolve mutually acceptable ways of working. But evolution is a slow process. Given time, no doubt satisfactory arrangements can be evolved. The purpose of the amendment is to afford the time to prevent the unnecessary closure of over 100 projects around the country.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. If they do not, I shall be very interested to hear their reasons. Substance abuse, unless tackled, is a menace to society. The work with addicts is both difficult and draining. The people working in this field need encouragement and a certain amount of security. The most tired and drained person I have ever seen in my life was a young charge nurse working at City Road's drug centre. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. Unless something can be done along the lines of the amendment I am concerned about the future of a number of voluntary organisations.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has explained, drugs and alcohol do not rank very high on the priority list of local authorities. The financial help that has been referred to on previous occasions would not be in point in that context. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to that situation as being a possible hiccup, but it is much more than a hiccup. The future of approximately 100 organisations is at stake and there is a real possibility of most of them having to close down unless something is done. I assume that the Government would like those organisations to continue to operate, although when I put that question in a different context on an earlier occasion, I did not receive a categorical reply.
It may be said that that situation will be covered by the guidance. It is tucked away in one line at the end of a long paragraph. It states:
"Plans must include services for mentally ill people and those who abuse drugs and/or alcohol".
To find the words "and/or" in an official document fills me with alarm, but I shall not pursue that matter. It states that the plans must include services for
1368
mentally ill people, who are covered by the Bill, and those who abuse drugs or alcohol, about whom the Bill is silent.
I very much hope that the Government will be able to offer something in relation to the proposal which is designed to provide safeguards during the uncertainty of the transitional phase.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was very pleased to add my name to the amendment. I apologise to the House for not being in my place initially when the noble Baroness ably moved the amendment.
The alcohol and drug agencies are not seeking additional funding; they are trying to secure their existing funding for drug and alcohol residential services.
It is extraordinary that the Minister should have stated at Report stage that the organisations that she had met intimated that they had been considerably reassured by what she had to say to them, when we learn that no fewer than 118 projects in the voluntary sector are at risk if the Bill is unamended.
We do not believe that the standard spending assessment can provide the funding protection that the projects require if they are to continue. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have all been concerned about the problems of mentally ill people being discharged into the community before proper provision is made for their community care. I think we can all agree that it would be tragic if people with drug or alcohol problems were to be discharged without proper provision for community care, but only because the Government refuse to accept the force of the argument that lies behind the amendment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I appreciate that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is a very important one in regard to the care for those who are on drugs or suffering from problems with alcohol. However, I should like to ask the Minister to clarify how the situation would work under the Bill. I may not be right in my reading of the Bill, but when social services departments draft their plans I understand that they would have to include provision, where there are such services, for the continuation of those services. As I understand it, they could not make a plan and decide to take them out. That would be a serious matter. Clearly a provision which is extremely important would then disappear. I cannot conceive that that is the intention of the legislation. If that is the case, in determining the amount of resources that are required the local authority must include resources that are required to look after various establishments, wherever they may be.
If that were the case, I should have thought that the amendment was unnecessary. An important point has been raised and I hope that my noble friend can reassure us.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is right, why has such an anxiety grown up in over 100 institutions? There must be some way of bridging the two statements. I ask for information.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has raised a very important point and

1369
indeed answered the most important point; and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, leapt up—she being more nimble than I—before me and asked the question which I was going to answer.
The problem that was debated in Committee and on Report is the problem of communication between voluntary organisations, local authorities and the Government. To give my noble friend her due, when I first spoke to her about the Bill before it came before the House, she explained to me the Government's thinking. I have no doubt that she will do so now much better than I can. I repeated what the voluntary organisations with which I work were saying to me about their worries and concerns. They had developed those worries and concerns from the local authorities. Such organisations exist on a very fine edge of funding. That is why we have debated the matter and are quite right to be doing so again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, spoke about the length of stay. In many of the places with which I am connected—and I am trustee of eight of them, for their sins and mine—the patients stay for six to eight weeks but never more than that because after that period of time they become institutionalised. That is another problem. If the new community care Bill came in on the first bang, by the end of April the pre-changeover patients would have gone through and out again and new patients would have come in. If there was a hiccup in funding, those places would go bust overnight because they exist on a shoestring. That is what they have been frightened about. If I were them—and I represent them and I am them in some very small way—I, too, would be very frightened. As an ordinary citizen, if I thought that my finances would dry up within a month, I would start to be very frightened. That is where the problem has occurred.
It is rather like this matter of budgets and the GMA stirring things up and frightening patients with misinformation—whether deliberately or not does not matter in this context. But certainly these organisations have, and still have, enormous worries over this area which transmit through the whole field.
Though my noble friend has in many ways assured me—and I am delighted that she was able to bring forward her own amendment at Report stage on the emergency assessments—the voluntary sector is still worried, which is why it is seeking assurance. I very much see this amendment as an insurance policy. If the system works as my noble friend thinks it will work, and says it will work—and I have no doubt she is right about that—then the insurance policy will never be called upon. On the other hand, if it does not work the insurance policy will be called upon. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, this insurance policy is no more expensive than it has been up till now because it is the same sum of money. That may be so—I do not know.
But if my noble friend can assure the House, and therefore the voluntary organisations, that, as she said, the Government will be watching this matter like a hawk; if local authorities really have to put their policies forward for examination in good time; and, if it appears from those statements that
1370
they issue that the voluntary organisations are not included, the Secretary of State will then jump in and say, "Hang on, you have got to include them", then this insurance policy will not be needed, because the problem will be solved before it takes place.
On the other hand, if that does not happen we have a problem. But my noble friend has assured us that that is what will happen, and the result of that is that voluntary organisations have said, "Yes, we see that. But we are still frightened".
So this exercise is back to the old point of reassuring a very frightened group and—the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, quite rightly put the case—they are very important. They carry a very large burden of the responsibility in this area, and we need to ensure that they go on fulfilling that work. Otherwise, it will cost a great deal more if they go bust and if that area of care has to be picked up by the statutory bodies. So it is in all of our interests that they continue. I think that the Government realise that now. I believe that some of them did not realise it at the start, but they realise it now.
But if my noble friend can assure us that the mechanism by which the community care policies are scrutinised before they come into force is there and will work, then this insurance policy will not be necessary.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, briefly may I say that there seem to me to be two problems. One is the here and now of people in a home, and the other is the future. Under past amendments to the Bill, a local authority will have to agree to somebody going somewhere so that they will always be able to pay. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, a lot of people are in homes at present, and that is where there is great anxiety and worry.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have listened to this debate, and I am slightly puzzled by it. Are we talking about voluntary organisations that are funded through local authority voluntary grants, such as the London boroughs grants body, that determine where they will give their money? If that is so, I think that they would very much resent the fact that their right to decide where the money should go would be taken away from them. Or are we talking about different types of organisations?
This amendment is slightly confusing. We all have great sympathy with the classes that are described as being urgently in need, but I could go through another dozen classes that local authorities think are also urgently in need. There is always a very difficult decision as to where local authority grant money is given. But if it is not grant money, and is community money or ring-fence money, that is a different matter. I shall be grateful for some clarification.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, these are people for whom local authorities have responsibility to provide community care. Generally speaking, that care is not available within the local authorities themselves and it is the voluntary organisations which provide that care, and which are then paid by the local authorities for the care of the individuals for whom the local authorities are responsible. That does not mean to say that local authorities dictate

1371
to the voluntary organisations how that money must be spent and how they operate. They have to be satisfied that the money is well spent and wisely spent, but not exactly how it is spent. It is like me as a husband being satisfied that my wife has bought a dress that she can wear on more than one occasion, rather than just on one occasion. A dress that is suitable for only one occasion and is then finished with is a total waste of money, whereas one that can be used on several different occasions in probably an investment. That is similar to the way in which local authorities consider the funding of voluntary organisations.
I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will assure the House that there will be proper funding by the local authorities for the work that the voluntary organisations do on their behalf.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am sorry to have joined the debate on the amendment at so late a stage. Things moved rather faster than I had expected.
I should like to speak as a general practitioner who has to deal with the problems that drug addicts and those who have an alcohol problem present. Residential care rehabilitation is often the only course that is open and likely to help the people involved. I have a great deal of difficulty in finding places for those people. They often have to wait weeks, if not months, before a suitable place for rehabilitation can be found. I am advised by many people who work in those institutions that things are not very good at the moment. They are extremely worried that, unless a special provision is included in the Bill, such as is suggested in the amendment, their future will be very difficult. They have pleaded with your Lordships to ensure that, if the amendment is not incorporated in the Bill, it will at least elicit from the noble Baroness an extremely helpful answer.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall do my best. We have been over the ground of this amendment on a number of occasions, and I have paid tribute to those of your Lordships who have throughout our debates made the case so effectively and eloquently on behalf of those who may be or have recently been dependent on drugs or alcohol. As my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, we responded by meeting specific anxieties on emergency treatment.
I understand that, in spite of our reassurances, a number of voluntary organisations continue to be concerned that local authorities and/or health authorities may not continue their support facilities, although those fears are not fully justified. I also know that they have been largely reliant upon the social security system to provide financial support for their clients, and that, under our new funding mechanism, they fear that resources will not come their way so readily. I can only confirm again that those dependent on drugs and alcohol are very firmly and clearly among the client groups for whom local authorities have to plan and make arrangements in their social care services, as my noble friend Lady Young said.
Now that our draft guidance on plans has been published—I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord
1372
Allen of Abbeydale, that those plans are still in draft form—it is clear that we make specific reference to those groups and that the Secretary of State will direct local authorities to cover those clients in their plans and in the execution of their duties. I can give a firm assurance on that point. Those clients who are eligible to receive support via the social security system for residential care provided by the voluntary sector will continue to be eligible for that support.
Reference has been made to there being 118 projects at risk. As my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, they already operate on the fine edge of funding. The new system will be better for them because it gives greater transparency in relation to the plans on which consultation will have to take place and which will have to be published, and because they will in turn be backed up by contracts. In the long term, there will be greater security for those groups.
However, I agree that there is a problem as regards the transitional period and that it is important that the transition is handled smoothly. To assist that, we can bring the provisions on assessment in the Bill into force before the appointed date so that authorities can manage the run up to the new arrangements with a greater length of time at their disposal.
When we discussed local authority powers on Report, we said that we would be issuing new guidance to local authorities explaining their powers under Schedule 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to provide services for those groups. We intend to do that.
Local authorities will need to agree to fund care in residential centres, although in an emergency case care can be given without such agreement, as we have established. Those in residential care on 1st April 1991 will have preserved entitlement to income support on the same basis as currently exists. As I have said, that means that local authorities will not be required to agree to treatment in those cases.
I can go no further. I reconfirm that those client groups and the organisations which provide support for them are very much part of our policy towards community care. On that note, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, let us suppose that a local authority is required to provide services in an area where that is not now the case. If the standard spending assessment is unable to take that into account, is not the only way in which the local authority will be able to provide the service by an increase in the poll tax?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have always said that adequate resources will be provided for the community care provisions in this Bill. I stand by that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. There is anxiety, and that has arisen because these projects are funded by social security. There is to be a changeover. It is as regards that changeover that there needs to be some security.
This is a new venture for social services departments. They have not hitherto had that

1373
responsibility. Drug abuse is still on the increase and is a world-wide problem. As regards alcohol, that is a huge industry involving a great deal of money. Alcohol is pushed at society through advertising. Is it not an ethical duty to provide a service for those who become ill through that legal drug? Is not the family important? Alcohol and drug abuse break up families, destroy relationships and cause violence and unhappiness. This amendment would help social services departments to organise themselves during the changeover period.
With every respect to the Minister, she does not sound very convincing. There is such strong feeling outside this House and such anxiety that I would rather go down fighting, as many of us will do this evening. Therefore, I wish to ask the opinion of the House.
9.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 71.

DIVISION NO. 7

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Longford, E.

L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mancroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B. [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Faithfull, B.

Seebohm, L.

Glenamara, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Swinfen, L.

[Teller.]

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Winstanley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Ferrers, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Balfour, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Beloff, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Belstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hesketh, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hives, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry,

Johnston of Rockport, L.

D.

Joseph, L.

Butterfield, L.

Lindsey and Abington, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Liverpool, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Lyell, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mountevans, L.

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

1374

Napier of Ettrick, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Pearson of Rannock, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Pender, L.

Teviot, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renton, L.

Tryon, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sharples, B.

Wynford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.32 p.m.
Clause 49 [Local authority plans fOr community care services];
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 56, line 17, at end insert ("giving consideration to the religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background of inhabitants").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we revert to a matter I raised at Report stage on the desirability of including both in Clause 49, the community care plan, and in Clause 50, which is the assessment clause, something to the effect that consideration must be given,
"to the religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background of inhabitants".
I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who said in response that these factors would be stressed in the guidance and that the guidance could be reinforced by directions.
It may be that I have the wrong document, but I do not see anything very specific in that area. There are many nice professions of intent in the paper CCI No. 8, which is the Draft Guidance: Assessment and Case Management. Paragraph 7.2 states that one of the objectives is to treat people with dignity and respect and to provide equal opportunities for all. Paragraph 8 states that services need to respond flexibly and sensitively to the needs of individuals and their carers. There are various other perfectly decent aspirations. Paragraph 16 says that procedures should be sufficiently comprehensive and flexible to cope with all the various kinds and levels of need presented in a variety of ways by all client groups.
We do not find anything very specific such as the requirement to publish the community care plan in minority languages or anything of that kind. This matter cannot be brushed under the carpet. The Commission for Racial Equality has noted that in its experience many local authorities would take little or no account of racial origin in performing their functions without being reminded of their duty under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. A further example quoted by the commission is a survey in 1988 of 116 social services departments in areas of substantial ethnic minority populations, of which only 70 responded. Of those only 26 per cent.—18 authorities—had a written policy which made any reference to the needs of ethnic minority children and appropriate placements. The record is not all that brilliant.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, also suggested, when I mentioned the question of people with AIDS

1375
facing discrimination, that they should invoke the Race Relations Act. It is highly unlikely that anyone with HIV or AIDS would seek to invoke an Act in the courts which would attract mass publicity. In particular black people with HIV and AIDS are often less visible in HIV and AIDS organisations and so would not pursue this avenue.
The invocation of the Race Relations Act would not be particularly appropriate in those circumstances. Not to consider the need for confidentiality of people with AIDS is seriously to underestimate the complexity and emotional trauma involved in invoking the law, particularly if one belongs to an ethnic group whose first language is not English. I do not believe that that suggestion was quite as helpful as it was intended to be. The inclusion of my amendments in the Bill would leave no one in any doubt that discrimination is not acceptable and it would give added strength to the guidance, which, if it were left alone, would leave room for authorities to avoid dealing directly and unequivocally with these difficult issues.
We debated this matter before the noble Baroness invoked the guidance. She also invoked the Secretary of State's power to enforce that guidance. She has already pointed out to me that that power is contained in Clause 3(4). That perhaps is a small step forward. The guidance on which I have been able to put my hands is extremely vague and unspecific. It does not mention ethnic minority problems. The only comfort I can draw is that it is described as draft guidance. Therefore I take it to some extent to be a consultation document and that it is not the final version. Am I correct in saying that; and if I am correct, and a final version is to be issued after consultation, will it take into account the matters that I am raising in these two amendments? I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord has set out the arguments clearly. I rise to say that I support the case and I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, evidently I was not quite persuasive enough at Report stage to deter the noble Lord from raising the matter again today. On the earlier occasion the noble Lord argued that the need to take into account religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background was not sufficiently recognised. He mentioned the importance of information being available in languages the local community could understand and that services were offered in a way which was sensitive to cultural, religious and ethnic differences. We fully accept that there are some short-comings in these respects which need to be rectified. What divides us is whether it would be helpful to expand the text of the Bill in the way the noble Lord proposes.
The Government have long recognised that personal social services should be delivered in a way which takes account of the sometimes different needs of people from ethnic minorities. For example, for some three years they have funded the work of the Race Equality Unit which, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has carried out valuable
1376
work in advising local authorities and in disseminating good practice. Perhaps I should also mention the new arrangements being introduced for the operation of Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. As many noble Lords will know, under this power grants are payable to local authorities for extra staff where, because of the presence of significant numbers of people of Commonwealth origin, special provision is needed. The new guidance, recently issued for comment, includes policy statements for each area in which the grant may be payable. The policy statement on social services makes particular reference to the community care proposals that we are discussing today.
There are, of course, all sorts of individual needs. On the previous occasion, and again this evening, the noble Lord referred to people with particular diseases who might be victimised. These people could be members of any community. The Bill is not the place to list all these individual needs. I spoke at Report stage about the strength that the guidance we are producing will have and I remain convinced that reliance on the guidance is the best way forward.
I should say that the draft guidance which we have issued is subject to consultation. If, as a result of consultation, it seems that the guidance should be expanded, or made specific, we shall revise it. If the noble Lord wishes to make contact with the department as regards the guidance, we shall of course welcome his comments. The noble Lord and the Government share the same goal. It is one which the Government are determined shall be achieved—that in both planning and assessment, the particular needs of individuals, including those arising from religious, racial, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, will be properly considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made reference to ethnic minorities in the guidance and also referred to those suffering from AIDS and those who were HIV positive. The planning guidance mentions specifically the need to identify the core needs of the local population, including those ethnic minority groups in paragraph 29 of the section on assessment and services. Services for people who are HIV positive and those who are suffering from AIDS are also mentioned in that paragraph. I hope I have convinced the noble Lord that this issue is taken most seriously by the Government and that expanding the text of the Bill in the way suggested in the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. In fact, it is the second occasion this evening that I have been grateful to her. I hope that we shall continue in this manner throughout the rest of the Bill's proceedings. She has gone a considerable way towards allaying some of my concerns. I was especially encouraged to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who is sitting behind me in the Chamber, is chairing a unit which is looking into such matters. I was also glad to hear about the extra staff among whom there are significant numbers of people of Commonwealth origin.

1377
We have many policy statements and guidance documents to digest. I am glad that the noble Baronss has confirmed that this guidance is a draft document and that it is in effect a consultation document. I shall be most happy to take up her offer and make some suggestions for the final version. She referred to paragraph 29 where some reference is already made to these needs. However, because of the plethora of documents available to us I was not quite clear as to which document she was referring. However, no doubt when I read the report of her remarks in Hansard I shall be much wiser. I shall look closely at what was said before I get in touch with the department as she suggested. I am grateful for the reply. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 45 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 56, line 33, leave out ("a substantial amount of care on a regular basis") and insert ("care").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, heavy burdens can fall on carers—burdens which could not always be described as substantial or regular but which are nonetheless severe. Those arguments have been advanced on many occasions. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment from these Benches.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to accept the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. Our intention in relation to Clause 49(3) has always been to ensure that local authorities consult the appropriate bodies when drawing up plans, and the amendment helps that process.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the Minister for accepting the amendment and for keeping the proceedings so short.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 56, line 34, leave out ("who are living at home and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendment No. 41. The amendments will enable local authorities when preparing their community care plans to consult organisations representing all carers and not merely those caring for people living at home. I commend this small improvement to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Assessment of needs for community care services]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 57, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) In the event of change of residence any existing assessment shall apply in whichever local authority the person becomes resident for a period of 28 days in default of a new assessment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again I return to a matter to which I referred on Report. I have of course read carefully the Minister's reply on that occasion. The amendment relates to the effect of a portable assessement when people have to move in a hurry. I have narrowed the scope of the amendment from its previous version and have put a limit on it so that:
"In the event of change of residence any existing assessment shall apply in whichever local authority the person becomes resident for a period of 28 days in default of a new assessment".
The commitment is not open-ended or unlimited. The measure is designed to take care of the type of cases of harassment that I mentioned. I went into the matter at some length on Report, and I shall not repeat the arguments. The cases were sufficiently harrowing to be picked up at some length in The Times. They obviously had some effect on that journalist.
The amendment addresses circumstances in which people need to move in a hurry because of harassment and where the person's medical condition is such that continuity of care is vital. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Henley, agreed that there should be a continuity of provision, but he did not like the form of the amendment as I then advanced it. As I said, I have since modified it.
The suggestion made by the Minister on that occasion, that people who contemplate moving across a boundary should see the prospective authority in advance to arrange for an assessment of their needs, does not meet the problem when some of those moves take place at great speed. Again, I consulted the draft guidance as to the time lag in the assessment process that one might expect to have. There was nothing there except a sentence in paragraph 14 which suggested that the assessment arrangements should ensure that reasonable time limits can be maintained and performance should be monitored. The proposition about negotiating one's move in advance, if one is being harassed or threatened by neighbours, is not realistic.
I have not been able to find anything of great comfort in the draft guidance. It seems to me possible that a consortium of authorities might conceivably agree to honour one another's assessments for a limited time. That would both give a safeguard to the person needing to move in a hurry and would also in the long run probably save money. Failing anything that encourages local authorities to behave in that way, it is much less likely that such liaison will happen. Again we return to guidance country. I hope that following the noble Baroness's response to my last amendment she will say that the draft guidance is susceptible of amendment and that she or the department will be prepared to receive a further approach from me on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the proposition that the person in need of community care services who happens to move—perhaps only a few miles—into the area of another local authority should obtain a fresh assessment within 28 days surprises and, I must confess, worries me. I should have thought that one local authority could have sufficient confidence in the assessment of another local authority to allow

1379
that assessment to continue indefinitely until such time as the new, receiving authority thinks that a fresh assessment might well be made.
Naturally I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about this, but we must not only consider the feelings of the people in need of community care. We must also be careful not to be over-zealous in causing extra trouble and expense to local authorities.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to think that assessments are portable. At Report stage I mentioned the possibility that when an assessment is carried out, it should state when the next assessment is likely to be needed unless there is a serious deterioration in the individual's condition.
I wonder whether my noble friend can confirm, first, that the assessment will be portable; and, secondly, whether the Government will recommend in regulations that when an assessment is carried out, a time should be set for the next assessment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will be kept busy responding to the draft guidance—I hope so, because he raises many important points. As I explained when we discussed the issue previously, we think that the best arrangement would be for the receiving authority to be approached before someone who needs community care services moves into its area.
My noble friend Lord Renton hinted that one assessment should prevail until it is necessary and appropriate to have a second assessment. It is necessary for one authority to liaise with another in order for there to be continuity of treatment. However, I appreciate that, as the noble Lord has again explained, there may be circumstances where it is not possible. In that event, the amendments which the Government have already made to the clause to provide for urgent treatment could be invoked if the person required care as a matter of urgency. I agree that continuity of provision is essential and that every effort should be made to maintain this where it is required for an individual's continued well being. However, I think that the arrangements already in the Bill are about as far as
1380
we wish to go in this connection. The amendment lays upon local authorities not just a provision which I believe would be burdensome to them but also an automatic continuation of treatment. That would not be appropriate in all cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked about review assessment. Our guidance on assessment specifies that the timing of the review should be decided when the assessment is made. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, on this occasion the noble Baroness has given me a little less joy than she did on the previous two amendments. I suppose that I cannot expect to be lucky all the time. However, this is an important point. I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there is no obligation in the amendment to make an authority carry out an assessment within 28 days. It simply means that a person has 28 days in which his existing assessment can apply. The new local authority obviously cannot be dragooned into providing an assessment before it is ready or able to do so. The intention of the amendment is to provide a period of grace or a breathing period for someone who is trying to escape from intolerable conditions of harassment or threat. That is the point of the amendment.
I hear what the noble Baroness has said about the provisions that are already contained in Clause 50 and I shall have to read them again as they did not strike me as covering this case. As regards the guidance, the idea that the noble Baroness has reiterated about people approaching another authority in advance is not by any means always a practicality. That is the point behind the amendment. If one is suffering intolerable conditions in one authority, one will want to move very fast. Therefore the idea of setting up a meeting and an assessment which may take place several days later is not terribly helpful in those conditions.
However, the noble Baroness has shown sympathy with some of the points that I have put forward this evening and therefore I am led to hope that she and her noble friends will consider this matter when they come to determine the final state of the guidance. I shall read carefully what the noble Baroness has said and for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Provision as to court orders
.—(1) Where it appears to a local authority that a person is suffering from grave chronic disease or, by reason of age, illness or disability is living in conditions which give rise to an immediate and serious risk to the life and safety of that person, the authority may apply to a court for an order under the following subsection.
(2) Following an application made under subsection (1) above the court may—

(i) make an order for the removal of the person to suitable premises under section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948 as amended;

(ii) order the provision to the person of any service under Part III and Part IV of this Act.

(3) (a) An order made under subsection (2) (ii) above shall be applicable for a period not exceeding seven days;
(b) at the expiry of seven days the court may direct that an order be extended by such period not exceeding seven days as it thinks fit;
(c) an order made under subsection (2) (ii) above may only be extended once.
(4) Where an order is made under subsection (2) above a local authority shall be required within a period of seven days from the granting of the order to make an assessment of the said person's need for services under section 50 above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with emergency protection for vulnerable adults. It was discussed in Committee and on Report. However, this amendment places an additional power but no duty on a local authority. There is a significant difference here in that this amendment would open up the possibility of intervening in a crisis by delivering services to the home.
In as much as it is possible to categorise people, this amendment deals with three different types of persons. There is the type of person who is living in his own home and who is known both to the social services and to the health authority to be dangerous both to himself and to other people. Such cases can be dealt with under Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948. My noble friend Lady Hooper said at the previous stage of the Bill that the main problem with Section 47 of the National Assistance Act is that it offers no interim action and no halfway house. Section 47 provides only for removal from the home. There are very few such cases. Local authorities do not use Section 47 to any great extent. However, there are two other types of cases. There are those people who are known to neighbours, relatives, doctors and to the social services and who are living in their own homes but are dangerous. At the same time they are not so dangerous that they should be moved. In such cases it is possible to ask the courts for an order to provide help for such people in their own homes. That does not happen very often.
There is another type of case, in which it is well known to the social services, to doctors and to health visitors, that people need help but are unable to ask for it for themselves. The Beverley Lewis case was such an example. The girl was mentally handicapped and was looked after by her mother. The mother
1382
died. The girl simply remained in the house, never going out or asking for help. She subsequently died.
The amendment would make it possible for such cases to be helped by the social services. As a social worker who has had to deal with such cases, I know that it is extraordinarily difficult to help in such matters when one has no terms of reference under any Act of Parliament. Such cases can be helped in their own homes.
I know that there is a difficulty over the question of civil rights. However, if anything ever infringed civil liberties, it seems to me that it is Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948. I should have thought that a permissive power to help people in their own homes would be far better. Helping people in their own homes is a far gentler way of delivering what might be a life-saving service. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am very pleased to support the amendment from these Benches. Indeed, I had intended to add my name to it. As the noble Baroness said when she moved the amendment, we discussed similar amendments at both Committee and Report stages. The Government, while recognising that a very real problem exists, felt unable to accept them.
The new clause provides an alternative means of support and care to a Section 47 order, and provides the half-way house which the Minister said at Report stage was missing. It envisages a more acceptable means of providing support than either a Section 47 order under the National Assistance Act 1948 or the relevant sections of the Mental Health Act 1983 by providing the urgently needed services in a patient's home.
As we know, the Minister expressed concern about the effect on civil liberties when the subject was discussed at Report stage. It is a question of a balance between civil liberties and the care of the patient. The provision of a seven-day limit in subsection (3)(b) of the new clause should deal adequately with that particular fear. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I have a real doubt or two about the amendment. The first point is that my noble friend Lady Faithfull mentioned people who are dangerous to themselves and others—to their neighbours. There is nothing in the amendment which refers to that situation.
What worries me about the amendment is that under its terms people who are sane—not dangerous but very ill, and perhaps dying—could be taken from their homes against their will under an order of the court. It is unfortunate that the court should be placed in the position in those circumstances of necessarily having to make such an order.
I should have thought that there are some cases, perhaps more than our imagination enables us to contemplate, of people who have lived in the same house for years, and through age, illness or disability, or a combination of all three, their lives may be at risk as a result of their living conditions. Other

1383
people may believe that they should be taken from home. However, in my opinion the person concerned has a right to continue to live at home if he wishes, even if his life is in peril. We should not contemplate placing the court in the position of having to take such a decision.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I speak from personal experience. On about three occasions during my professional lifetime I have had to invoke Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948. It was an extremely difficult performance requiring the permission of a justice of the peace and the medical officer for environmental health. Often those people are not available in the middle of the night when a crisis arises.
As the noble Baroness said, there are many occasions on which the problem could be dealt with by the provision of services to the patient in his home. I am not a lawyer but I am fully aware of some of the pitfalls and difficulties mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as regards the infringement of civil liberties. I can see nothing wrong with the amendment. I believe it to be excellent, and from the point of view of a doctor practising in the community I should wish to see it passed. However, I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response. I support the amendment as it stands. I believe that it would make the lives of doctors and patients and their relatives a great deal easier.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, if the Government had a mind to do so they could accept the amendment. The only way in which it can be improved is to accept it and send it to the other place. Members there can reject it or improve upon it and send it back to this House.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is a difficult situation. I know from earlier discussions that my noble friend Lady Faithfull is concerned that civil liberties should not be infringed by expecting people to receive services that they do not want. However, she is also concerned about the provision of care for those who are unable to ask for the services that they may require. I recognise that my noble friend has altered the drafting of her amendment in order to achieve that. However, I am advised that there remain deficiencies in the drafting. For example, subsection (2)(ii) would be unworkable.
My noble friend is suggesting that it should be possible for a local authority to apply to the court for an order requiring it to carry out a community care assessment. That provision is unnecessary. The provision that we are making for community care assessment in Clause 50 states:
"where it appears to a local authority that any person for whom they may provide or arrange for the provision of community care services may be in need of any such services, the authority … shall carry out an assessment".
1384
In other words, if a person's case is drawn to the authority's attention it must assess him or her. That is my noble friend's objective. That includes personal application but it is by no means limited to that alone. The local authority is required to carry out an assessment of anybody who appears to it to need community care services, regardless of how that person is drawn to the authority's attention.
I agree that there is a problem as regards people who do not present themselves to the local authority and whom, it appears, no one else knows or cares about. But surely that remains a problem and will not be resolved by my noble friend's new clause. The local authority must become aware in some way that a person is in need of care before it can consider applying to the court for an order. That is the crunch issue as to how we overcome the difficulty in the case of someone who is not under constant attention or in constant contact with people.
I believe that our proposals for community care and for assessment in those conditions and the last resort measure to be found in Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948 are as far as we can reasonably go in ensuring that the people who need help receive it. I must therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she will clarify a point for me. She states that under the legislation an assessment has to be made if the authority is told about a person. Let us suppose that the person who needs to be assessed says, "I'll not let you in," and slams the door in the visitors' faces. What will happen? Do they force their way in? That is the reality. The kind of person about whom we are talking will not let them across the doorstep. What will the position be then?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in that case there would have to be the fallback of the last resort situation of Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Renton that he has somewhat misunderstood the position. The amendment lays emphasis on keeping people in their homes, not taking them from their homes. That is the main point of the amendment.
Perhaps I may also take up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. No social worker or health visitor has a right of entry into anyone's home. Therefore if the milk bottles pile up outside the door, representatives cannot enter, and they know that someone is inside, someone has to go to the court to ask for a right of entry into that home. If a right of entry is obtained, it does not mean that one wishes to remove the person but that one wishes to help him in his own home so far as is possible and practicable. Beverley Lewis died in her home. No one had gone in. She could not have asked for anyone; she would not have understood who to ask for even if she had been told.

1385
This is a most important amendment. It would save a number of people and bring a certain amount of richness to the rest of their lives if it were possible to gain entry. Of course no social worker, health visitor or doctor would wish to go to court, and would not go to court, unless he could not enter the house. However, if one sees milk bottles piling up and cannot get into the house, knowing that someone is there, then it is right that one should be able to go to the court for an order to enter the house.
I hope that I have made the point clear to everyone at all stages of the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? It is important to ask her this question before she reaches a conclusion. She states that the objective of the amendment is to keep people in their homes. But the priority that is given in subsection (2) is to invite the court to make an order:
"for the removal of the person to suitable premises under … the National Assistance Act".
That is the first suggestion made to the court. The alternative—which comes later, and therefore I should have thought is of less priority—is to:
"order the provision to the person of any service under Part III and Part IV of this Act".
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Renton. Perhaps we ought to have put it the other way round. The emphasis would then have been on keeping people in their homes instead of taking them out.
However, honesty compels me to say that there are times when it is absolutely essential to move somebody from their home. I have lately been dealing with a man who turns on the gas throughout the house. If something is not done, that man will blow up the house and himself, and goodness knows what he will do to the neighbours. I regret to say that there are cases when it is necessary to move a person from their home for the sake of themselves, their house and their neighbours. However, they are very few in number. The practice of health visitors and social workers is, wherever possible and practicable, to keep a person in their own home.
We have debated the matter throughout the various stages of the Bill. I realise that my noble friend the Minister will not accept the amendment. We have made our point. We hope that the Ministry will take note of what has been said. I see the noble Baroness nodding her head. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 50, insert the following clause:
("Payments for care of disabled persons in receipt of attendance allowances
. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 29(6) of the National Assistance Act 1948 or of paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977 a local authority, having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, may make payments for the purchase of care or personal assistance services to a disabled person who is in receipt of an attendance allowance payable under section 35 of the Social Security Act 1975.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would allow local authorities to make payments directly to those relatively few and severely disabled people who have the will and ability to make their own care arrangements and achieve more independence and control over their lives. A number of local authorities currently make such payments either directly or through a third party and, therefore, the scheme works well. The amendment is required to make the legality of their position clear, since Section 29(6) of the National Assistance Act 1948 prohibits cash payments.
During the passage of the Bill through both Houses Ministers have expressed a great deal of sympathy for the purpose behind the amendment. However, at Report stage the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, stated that Ministers had reluctantly concluded that they could not enable direct payments to be made. I am most grateful to the Minister for arranging a very useful meeting last week. I hope that we have resolved some of the problems. I should like to sketch in some of the things that we discussed and leave others to fill in the gaps.
The first point that was discussed related to accountability. I think that the Minister now agrees that that is no longer a sticking point. The independent living fund makes direct payments and there are no problems in that regard. The same situation applies to local authorities which make direct payments. I was given an example of how the situation worked. The client receives £15,000 per annum. There is a written contract with the local authority which has a right to inspect the client's books over five years. The client has to produce an annual financial statement and the local authority can ask for an audit of the accounts. That answers objections about the bureaucracy required to run a dual accounting system: the same procedure is employed for private or voluntary service providers.
I hope that the Minister now agrees that there should not be difficulties in determining who are suitable clients. In the case of the independent living fund, when social workers assess a client's care needs they also determine whether he could cope with direct payments. As one local authority which has been making direct payments for over 18 months said in a letter to my noble friend Lady Masham, it should be used in appropriate circumstances based on professional social work assessment which takes account of the individual's view, supported by an on-going accounting and review process.
The cost of the individual package would not change because it would be agreed by the local authority at the time of assessment. It would agree how many hours of care a person needs, the rate at which it would expect to pay for that care and then agree a sum on that basis.
Concern was expressed about possible abuse of funds. If the money were to be misspent it would be obvious fairly soon since clients have contact with social workers. In any event, it must be remembered that we are talking about very severly disabled people. If they do not spend the money on care, they literally will not be able to get up in the morning. One does not go through the hassle of contracts and

1387
accounting simply to get ill with pressure sores. That is not a realistic situation.
The amendment was always intended to apply only to very severly disabled people who need large amounts of care. As a result of a very useful discussion at the meeting, we have redrafted the amendment to exclude people who may only need a few hours' support. I stress that in no way would all attendance allowance recipients be suitable for the scheme, or wish to be suitable. It is merely that the few who are suitable must come from within that group.
The amendment allows further modification and guidance. One matter that we discussed was that it could appply only to people who need more than X amount of care per week. That category could be specified. I hope that the Minister feels able to accept this more narrowly defined amendment. It is, like its predecessor, only an enabling amendment. It is for the local authority to make the final decision.
I feel very strongly that direct payments should be an option for severly disabled people who are able, prepared and keen to take on management of their care arrangements, and that we need to make it clearly legal for those local authorities who adopt the scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if accountability is the stumbling block of this amendment, it does not seem a strong argument as it would be the choice of the local authority to allocate funds in this way. If they found that the system did not work, they could discontinue direct funding and provide care in a different form. The amendment just gives the local authority some flexibility, and as my noble friend Lady Darcy said, it gives the disabled person the chance to be more responsible for his own life.
My noble friend has said a little about the very great cost of severe disability—£15,000 a year. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say how very important it is to do something about accident prevention. With the summer holidays coming along, how many young men will dive into the shallow end of a swimming pool or into the sea or a river and break their necks? Such people are the very severely disabled, and if such accidents can be avoided so much the better. I should like to support this amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support this amendment. I am very surprised that local authorities do not already have the power that the amendment proposes to give to them. But if local authorities do not have such a power, then we need the amendment or something like it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I, too, support this amendment? I want first to say that I admire the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has plodded on and has taken this amendment through each of the stages, but always in conjunction with the Minister. I hope that she has totally satisfied the Minister, but this has all been
1388
done within the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The amendment is very much limited now to those in receipt of an attendance allowance.
I do not know what is the sticking point. I think that we have dealt with the question of accountability. The Minister knows that it is a very small matter, and she and her honourable friend Mrs. Bottomley obviously think that, in principle, it is all right. I have seen statements made by Mrs. Bottomley in which she has supported what is being done.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right. Local authorities that are doing this need to be given the legal cover to do what is obviously right. No one can doubt that, if one is very severely disabled, one wants the freedom to act in this way, the freedom to make a choice about whom to employ.
I was pleased to be at the meeting between the Minister and the noble Baroness; but, as to the question of cost of care for a given number of hours, it is cheaper for a disabled person to make his own arrangements with his own staff, rather than use private or voluntary agencies which have the additional cost of running an office and providing the care. I should have thought that the cost factor worked the other way. I should have thought it was cheaper to do it in this way, rather than have an intermediary. I hope the Minister feels that this time she can support the amendment.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. The amendment would give severely disabled people the independence and, above all, the dignity which can sometimes be missing or denied them with other types of care schemes. It may not suit everyone, but it should be an option for those who are able to manage this kind of scheme. In order that the local authority can check, if they so wish, how money is spent, the recipient could have a specific bank account open to inspection. This would enable the local authority to be accountable for the money that is spent.
If this amendment were accepted, it would be consistent with the Government's aim in the White Paper Caring For People, by giving people a greater individual say in how they live their lives and about the services they need to help them to do so.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, a fortnight ago I went to a conference at the King's Fund Centre and sat between two severely handicapped people. Neither of them had legs, but they lived in a flat on their own. The woman was a writer and the man was in the publishing business. They were perfectly capable of looking after themselves mentally and of ordering their own lives. I should have thought that, in such circumstances where people are able to look after themselves, the amendment would meet the case.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment because, by chance, I spent a full day last Wednesday at a seminar on community care. There was a lady speaker on the platform who spoke from her wheelchair. She spoke about case management and said, "The first thing I want to say

1389
is that I do not like being called a case. The second is that I do not like being managed".
When I returned from the conference, I looked up the draft guidance to see what it said on assessment and care management. It states that local authorities are to improve and extend their present arrangements for users by,
"treating them with dignity and respect and providing equal opportunities for all".
The next paragraph goes on to state:
"Local authorities are to intervene no more than is necessary to foster independence".
That seems to prove the case for the amendment, but there are other reasons. If the user engages and pays the carer, he or she will have some authority, if the situation proves unsatisfactory, in getting rid of that carer and employing another. On the other hand, if the carer is engaged and paid by the local authority the situation is very different. This is therefore an important amendment and should certainly appear on the face of the Bill.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I have now heard that argument several times. Every time I hear the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I feel that it becomes stronger. Every time I hear my noble friends on the Front Bench resisting it, I feel that their case becomes weaker. I simply do not understand why a government who have as one of their main principles to help people to stand on their own feet and manage their own lives should so obstinately refuse the amendment. Even at this last stage, I beg the Government to give way.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment. It is exactly the kind of encouragement that we need to give to disabled people.
Those of us who were involved in the McColl Report of 1986, regarding the provision of artificial limbs and wheelchairs, became aware of the problems and obstacles in introducing some form of new provision. The noble Lord, Lord Holderness, and I wished to provide special electrically-powered wheelchairs that could be used by severely disabled people, both indoors and outdoors. We soon came up against a brick wall. I shall not say where it came from but slogans such as "It will open the floodgates" soon came on the horizon. We got round that by introducing two pilot studies—one in Newcastle and the other in Manchester—for severely disabled people. Within a year, we worked out how much it would cost: throughout the country it was a mere £13 million.
We have the pilot studies going here. There are authorities which are doing that very thing, although it may not be legal. We should at least make it possible for them to continue and perhaps do even more.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment as my name is associated with it.
The Government have indicated elsewhere that they are interested in some of the unusual
1390
experimental schemes going on at the moment. The amendment will deal only with legalising some of those schemes—those where money is paid to individuals. There are other instances of disabled people in National Health Service-owned property who should not receive social security but who receive it. I hope that in due course that matter will be dealt with; but the least said about that at the moment the better because we all want those experiments to continue. They all improve community care and this amendment is a method of putting into practice what the Government want—to bring care out of hospitals and into the community.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I listened with interest and considerable sympathy to the points that have been made. This is an important area, as we established in our previous discussions on similar amendments. Indeed, the meeting to which the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), referred, and to which I agreed on Report, was useful and constructive. I very much appreciate the time and effort which has been put in to assist Ministers to understand better the aspirations of these groups and the practicalities of achieving them.
However, as I said during our earlier deliberations, reluctantly we have concluded that it is not possible to find a formula to enable payments to be simple and unbureaucratic for local authorities and recipient clients, on the one hand, and which, on the other, can prevent expenditure from running out of control.
I appreciate that the mood of this new clause has sought to meet some of these difficulties by limiting the scope of potential recipients, but the basic difficulties I have described on previous occasions remain. I am sorry to have to say that the Government are therefore unable to accept the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank all noble Lords—and I mean practically all noble Lords who are now in the Chamber—for giving me such terrific support from all sides of the House. The support has been overwhelming. We do not need to go into all the arguments again. The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I find her answer unsatisfactory, although I again thank her for the time and trouble she has taken in endeavouring to bring forward an amendment. The noble Baroness probably feels, along with the noble Lord, Lord Carr, that her argument gets weaker each time. I must ask the opinion of the House.
10.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 41.

DIVISION NO. 8

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Butterfield, L.

Cox, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

David, B.

Carter, L.

Dormand of Easington, L

1391

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McFarlane of Llanduff, B.

Ennals, L.

McNair, L.

Faithfull, B.

Masham of Ilton, B. [Teller.]

Glenarthur, L.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

[Teller.]

Rea, L.

Grey, L.

Renton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Seear, B.

Kilmarnock L.

Seebohm, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Lawrence, L.

Winstanley, L.

Longford, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Joseph, L.

Balfour, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Mountevans, L.

Borthwick L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Pender, L.

Carnock, L.

Rankeillour L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Gray of Contin, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hives, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to acccordingly.
10.40 p.m.
Clause 51 [Inspection of premises used for provision of community care services]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 58, line 22, at end insert—
("(1A) Nothing in this part of this Act shall give any power to any person authorised by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above, to have right of entry to any premises other than premises managed by a local authority, a voluntary organisation or a person other than a local authority providing or proposing to provide community care services professionally or by way of trade or business.
(1B) Any person authorised by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above may enter a dwelling occupied as the home of a person for whom community care services are or are proposed to be provided but only after obtaining the consent of that person.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 33 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36. I am sure that the Government will feel able to accept this group of amendments. They deal with an important aspect of civil liberties which are threatened by some features of the Bill. The Government are concerned about the civil liberties aspect of Amendment No. 31.
If accepted, the amendments would prevent inspectors having the right to enter the homes of private individuals to inspect those homes. At Committee stage in another place the Government appeared to accept the argument and undertook to deal with it. That does not appear to have happened and the amendments are intended to remedy that deficiency.
The present wording of Clause 51(1) allows an inspector to,
"enter and inspect any premises".
Clearly that would cover a person's private home where they were receiving home help or other domiciliary care. At Report stage the Government added the words,
"and the facilities and services provided therein".
That would enable the inspection of both the premises and the services. It is reasonable that the inspectors should be able to inspect the quality of the services provided, but they should not have the right to enter anyone's home without permission, except where the home is expressly providing residential care. Even a police officer requires a warrant to enter a home. It would be a breach of fundamental liberties if the arm's length inspectorate had such powers.
What is needed is that in a private home only the services and not the premises can be inspected, and then only with the client's permission. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am advised that this amendment is not required. Clause 45, which amends the various provisions under which local authorities can provide or arrange the provision of services, has the effect that services must be arranged either with private or voluntary residential care homes which are registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984, homes which are not required to be registered by various provisions in the Registered Homes Act 1984 and, for day and domiciliary care, voluntary organisations or persons carrying on, professionally or by way of trade or business, activities which consist of or include the provision of the services in question. That means that the premises to be inspected will be managed by one of the bodies mentioned in the first part of the noble Lord's amendment unless they are a private dwelling house.
In the case of private dwelling houses I am advised that the clause as at present drafted does not give the inspectors any right of entry to such premises. Private dwelling houses can only be entered, by common law, with the consent of the occupier unless access is specifically authorised by an Act of Parliament or by an order of the court. Any person who enters a private dwelling with the consent of the occupier must conduct himself in accordance with any instructions given by the occupier and therefore would be unable to carry out any inspection of the premises without being invited to do so. The effect of this is that where an inspector was invited into a private dwelling house by the occupier he could inspect only what went on there or the premises themselves with the consent or at the invitation of the occupier.
In the light of that explanation I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. That was exactly the assurance we required and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 59, line 7, after ("records") insert ("or other records identifying an individual's medical status except on an anonymous basis or with their prior consent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I come back to a problem that I aired at Report stage. It is concerned with the inspection of records on premises devoted to community care in one form or another. The Government's objections to the amendment that I tabled at the previous stage of the Bill were that the restriction in favour of confidentiality would extend to any record which identified an individual's medical status. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper said that,
"The amendment might in some cases inhibit the proper inspection of services". [Official Report, 18/6/90; col. 672.]
One has no wish to inhibit the proper inspection of services. But the Bill is somewhat draconian in its present form. Although the power of inspection provided for in the Bill may be intended to apply only to residential units, it does not specify the very wide power conferred by the Bill in Clause 51 on,
"Any person authorised by the Secretary of State"
to enter,
"any premises in which community care services are or are proposed to be provided",
and to obtain such information as he may request on,
"any person for whom community care services have been or are to be provided".
That gives some cause for concern. The Bill provides that medical records may only be inspected by registered medical practitioners.
However, there are other records held by local authorities and voluntary organisations which contain medical information. The very wide power of access to these records conferred by the Bill could deter those in need of community care who are particularly concerned about confidentiality. I am referring especially to people with HIV and AIDS whose legitimate concern about confidentiality is well documented and justified.
One needs to strike a balance between providing for proper inspection and respect for the right of privacy and confidentiality of medical information including medical information held in records other than medical records. The Bill does not strike that balance correctly. It is possible that the previous amendment I moved was defective in that respect.
To deny inspectors access to any records containing medical information might be denying them access to information they need to carry out their duties. Therefore, as a compromise, and in order to attempt to define the proper balance, I am suggesting that the Bill should be amended to provide that information disclosing the identity of individuals shall be deleted from the records made available to inspectors unless those individuals consent to that information being made available. If an individual is incapable of giving consent, then that consent can be sought from whoever has been appointed to take decisions on that individual's behalf.
There is a relevant passage in one of the many guidance papers. Guidance paper CCI 8 entitled Draft Guidance: Assessment and Case Management, states at paragraph 38:
"The Data Protection Act 1984 and orders made under it, the Access to Personal Files Act 1984 and related Regulations and obligations to safeguard health information will all affect the use authorities make of information they receive or hold, and the circumstances in which this can be disclosed. Proper assessment and the design of appropriate packages of care will sometimes depend on agencies being able to share information. The need for this should be explained to the user and his consent first obtained".
That is one of the provisions of the amendment. Detailed guidance is given in circulars: I shall not repeat their numbers. I see no reason why the provision should not be incorporated on the face of the Bill. It would be an improvement to get the informed consent of the person whose records are to be inspected.
I return to my original point. This could be a considerable deterrent to people who for one reason or another have a deep personal interest in preserving the confidentiality of their condition. Incidentally, so far as I can understand from the guidance on inspection, there does not seem to be a great need for inspectors to know in detail the medical condition of a resident, user or a client. The guidance paper on inspection units lays great stress on the quality of care and the quality of life. Those appear to be the two main features of any establishment—whether residential or a day establishment—which the inspectors are supposed to inspect. I cannot see why lay inspectors should necessarily need detailed medical information. I beg to move.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am concerned that the Bill does not make it difficult for those working for public health officers to secure information for epidemiological studies. What intrigues me about the noble Lord's amendment is the phrase:
"or other records identifying an individual's medical status except on an anonymous basis".
That is what the epidemiologist is looking for. I am anxious that we should not produce a Bill which blocks the very kind of work required in trying to assess general needs based on an epidemiological approach. If the noble Baroness cannot respond tonight perhaps she will write to me.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must point out that the persons authorised by the Secretary of State to carry out the inspections to which Clause 51 refers will be drawn for the most part from the social services inspectorate and from other members of the staff of the Department of Health. When such people are not doctors they are almost certain to be qualified in one or other of the caring professions—for instance, nurses, social workers or therapists. Such people would be bound by their own professional codes of conduct which place clear limits on the unauthorised disclosure of information gained in the course of professional activities. Even where this might not be the case the people concerned would still be covered by the codes of conduct covering the use made by civil servants of information gained in the course of their employment.

1395
At Report stage I said that some limited medical information could be essential if the inspector was to have sufficient understanding of the individual's condition to enable him to evaluate the appropriateness and quality of the care provided. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has now raised another issue in terms of epidemiological research. For those reasons I do not think that the amendment would make a useful addition to the clause. I feel that the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, are covered in the way that I have outlined. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, perhaps I may refer, first, to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. I do not think that the amendment would interfere with the extremely valuable collection of epidemiological evidence to which he referred. That would not be affected.
I am slightly less than happy with what the Minister said. She referred to the professional integrity of the social services inspectorate. But we have to remember that we are not talking about the social services inspectorate. We are talking about social services units which are being set up, under, I suppose, the general supervision of the social services inspectorate, by local authorities. The inspectors can be drawn from a wide range of walks of life. For example, people who have previously run homes may well be one possible element in the local inspectorate.
The guidance at which I am looking actually states that a local authority can depute another agency on its behalf. The noble Baroness did not mention that aspect of the matter; but that is referred to in paragraph 10 of the draft guidance. Therefore, it does not seem to me to be quite as water-tight as the noble Baroness suggested. As she will know, I have a deep concern for the preservation of confidentiality in the particular sphere in which I am involved; namely, HIV and AIDS.
I must confess that I am not 100 per cent. happy with what the noble Baroness said. But again I am pinning my hopes on the further development of these draft guidance papers. Therefore, if my fears are realised, I shall on future occasions be pressing the Government on this point in an endeavour to achieve some kind of amendment of the guidance. However, I shall not press this amendment to a Division at this time of night. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Powers of the Secretary of State as respects social services functions of local authorities]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 60, line 22, at end insert:
("(1A) In addition the procedure established under subsection (1) above shall be available to any person, whether or not a qualifying individual under subsection (2) below, where that person is dissatisfied by any finding by the local authority under section 50(1) that he is not a person for whom they may provide or arrange for the provision of community care services, or that he is not in need of such services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I have a certain difficulty because I understand that the Government had it in mind to accept it, or something along the same lines, but that there are now some problems. I am not clear as to whether the problems concern the drafting or another aspect of the amendment. In the circumstances, I think it would be best if I were to explain to the House very briefly the purpose of what is proposed and then wait to hear what the Minister says in reply before deciding how to proceed.
The amendment would provide a right to complain to a person who was refused pre-assessment for community care. At present the complaints procedure is not available to those who have been refused a pre-assessment. That is because such a person almost certainly cannot be a qualifying person and the making of a complaint is an option open only to such a person. A qualifying person is defined as someone for whom,
"the authority have a power or a duty to provide, or to secure the provision of,"
community care services and whose "need or possible need" has come to its attention. These words are almost the same as those which define the restrictions on pre-assessment.
It occurs to me that if there is in fact a problem over the wording of the amendment but the Government are, nevertheless, prepared to accept the principle, I should be happy to withdraw it on the understanding that they would proceed to amend the provision in another place. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendment before us tries to deal with two different cases: first, where the local authority decides that a person is not a person for whom they may provide community care services and, as a result, declines to carry out an assessment; and, secondly, where a person is dissatisfied with the result of the assessment. In the second case, the complaints procedure as set out in Clause 53 of the Bill already covers that contingency.
As regards the first possibility of a decision by a local authority that a person is not a person for whom they may provide services, as I understand it, that is a matter of law. Matters of law are to be decided by the court. It is not appropriate for a complaints procedure to be established, as is the case under Clause 53, by the Secretary of State.
I turn for a moment from the legal complexities. There is a real danger that widening access to the complaints procedure to include someone who is not a "qualifying individual" could open up the procedure to anyone who thought he ought to be entitled to receive such services, although he was not qualified in any way. In the hands of someone so disposed, the opening could be used vexatiously and thereby waste the authority's time.
It is perhaps worth adding that the complaints procedures, welcome and important as they are, will not be the only means by which clients and others will make representations about the actions and decisions of social services departments and other service providers. At present, people can have recourse to their local councillor or to elected members of the social services committee or, in cases

1397
of alleged maladministration, to the ombudsman. Such routes will remain open and may sometimes be the better option.
The debate has given us a welcome opportunity to examine in a little more detail the complaints procedure clause. We must qualify the word "qualify" in the amendment, because all people in a health authority area qualify provided that they satisfy the ordinarily resident qualification. I am aware that the noble Lord has been bored by a long letter describing that qualification. The measure includes of course the homeless and vagrants who happen to be in that authority's area at that time. It also includes, in any authority's area, people who were the subject of an earlier amendment this evening—the self-referrals.
Those people are entitled to a service and if there is a breach in the provision of that service, it is a matter for law. If such people are ordinarily resident and do not receive a service they can have recourse to law.
I am grateful to the mover of the amendment. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord that his thoughtful amendment is not necessary and that he will now be prepared to withdraw it.
11 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lord, until this morning I believed that the Government were going to accept the amendment. The Minister has produced a curious argument. The only thing that I can do is to withdraw the amendment. We have drawn attention to the problem. I was hoping that the Minister would say that they would take the amendment to another place. The Government still have the chance to do that and to amend the provision in line with the agreement that I thought there was on it. However, I have listened to what the Minister said. I thank her for the explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 60, line 27, at end insert ("; and
(aa) he is the private carer of a person to whom paragraph (a) applies;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 40 and 42. The purpose of the amendment is to extend to a carer the definition of "qualifying person". The carer is not included as a qualifying person and is therefore not allowed to use the complaints procedure, but there may be many circumstances in which it is the carer who believes that an assessment is needed. Circumstances may have changed from what they were when the assessment was orginally made. In our view it should not just be the person needing the service who should make the appeal through the complaints procedure for an assessment or re-assessment, but the carer as defined in Section 41 should be able to use the complaints procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment from these Benches. We have been
1398
over this ground before. I hope that as earlier today the Government were able to accept an amendment which related to carers, they will be able to accept this group of amendments.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, we have discussed at considerable length the role of carers in Committee and on Report. I believe that it is recognised that the Government want to ensure that carers receive adequate support. Let us consider what would happen if a carer was not given adequate support. The care that he could offer would diminish and the person for whom he was caring could have legitimate grounds for complaint that the local authority was not discharging its statutory functions properly.
The complaint could of course be made by the carer or by the person for whom he is caring. In short, the failure of an authority to support a carer adequately would clearly affect the person being cared for and would be grounds for complaint under the procedures envisaged by Clauses 53 and 55.
There is another angle to this issue which I mentioned on Report in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The needs of the carer himself or herself, may, merely because he or she is caring for someone else, qualify him or her as a:
"person for whom the local authority has a power or duty to provide, or secure the provision of, a service"—
to pick up the wording of Clause 55, line 17 on page 63. Let us take an example: we have an elderly couple with the wife frailer than the husband. The wife needs a community care service possibly to do with lifting or dressing her or sharing some of the cooking or shopping which the husband cannot do. The local authority may, in effect, be providing support for the family as a unit, thus the role of carers and the person requiring the care in their own right may coalesce. The provisions in the Bill as it stands are sufficiently flexible to allow that.
I should like to summarise what the Bill does. If carers have community care needs of their own, the Bill allows them to complain on their own behalf because under Clause 55 they would be,
"any person for whom the local authority have a power or a duty to provide … a service, and whose need or possible need for such a service has (by whatever means) come to the attention of the authority".
On the other hand, if carers have no community care needs of their own and cannot draw the authority's attention to any possible such needs, they can still complain on behalf of the person for whom they are caring.
I hope I have explained that the clause will cover anyone, including carers or persons acting on their behalf, for whom the local authority has a power or a duty to provide a service. This appears to me to provide all the safeguards envisaged under the amendment which the noble Baroness moved. I hope that my further explanation will satisfy her on the subject.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may raise one further point of clarification. As I understood him—and I was listening as carefully as I could—he spoke on the

1399
assumption that the needs and actions of the carer and the cared for would be the same. However, there could be a difference of opinion between the carer and the cared for. In those circumstances one wants to be sure that the carer has an independent right of access to complain, even if not supported by and in disagreement with the person being cared for. This can occur, and surely does.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am absolutely certain that, as I said last time, the carer, of his or her own volition, has a right to make representations to the local authority, irrespective of the views of the person for whom he or she is caring.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am very much reassured by that last statement of the noble Lord. I should be happier if it were on the face of the Bill in some shape or form. I am not fully aware that it is. However, I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord said. I am sure that it is his intention that the wishes of the movers of the amendment are stated in the Bill. I shall have to examine it carefully before I am absolutely certain that what the noble Lord said and what the Bill says are precisely the same. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Local authority plans for community care services]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 62, line 31, leave out ("who are living at home and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Clause 56 [Inspection of premises providing accommodation]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 43:
Page 64, line 5, at end insert:
("(1A) In subsection (1) after "place" insert "the facilities and services provided therein").
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will move this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, for the first time on this Bill, I have very great pleasure in accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful. This is the first time that my arguments have really convinced the Government! I am deeply touched.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Clinical Standards Advisory Group]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 72, line 18, after ("concerned") insert:
("(bb) to initiate and carry out its own enquiries into the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, as and when it deems necessary;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I shall have the same success with this amendment. I wish to move Amendment No. 44 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 58. From all parts of the House there has been a welcome for the initiative to establish the clinical standards advisory group. It was a response both to the discussions with the royal colleges and to points made by noble Lords in this Chamber.
There has throughout been concern that there should be a strong body to preserve and have a care for clinical standards in a new NHS which will be based more on commercial standards and perhaps cost cutting than in the past. Although we welcome that, there has been concern about the ability of the group to act independently. In explaining the amendment on 12th June the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said at column 246 of Hansard that the group will,
"have a wide remit to provide advice, carry out studies and submit reports at the request of the Secretaries of State on issues relating to standards of clinical care nationally, regionally or locally".
I asked:
"Is the Minister saying that the group will be able to act on its own or will it still act at the request of the Secretary of State or the health authority"?
The Minister replied that,
"there will be nothing to prevent the group initiating activity, though we would largely expect it to respond to requests".
Concern was expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Cox, about the question of independence. I asked whether the Minister would be prepared to have a meeting to clarify whether the group could initiate inquiries on its own and whether it could publish reports. I was grateful to the Minister for agreeing to see me. She was, as always, courteous and helpful, but she made it quite clear that the power of action would be dependent on the authorisation of the Secretary of State. If he said no, that would be that. Therefore there is no independence at all. That is not a satisfactory position.
Let us suppose that the group wished to inquire into some issue on which the Secretary of State may have taken a decision; for instance, the allocation of resources or the question of waiting lists or some other controversial matter. If the Secretary of State decided the group could not inquire into such matters, it would have to accept his words. The group's hands would be tied and it could only speak if asked to do so. That is not a satisfactory basis on which to establish a new initiative. It is a case of people being free to comment provided they agree with the Secretary of State and being able to speak up only if they echo the Secretary of State's words.
The Minister may say that the Government have an agreement with the royal colleges and they cannot go outside that agreement. However, she may know—if she does not know, I shall inform her of

1401
it—that the royal colleges want as much freedom as they can obtain. It is the wish of the royal colleges that they should have freedom to make their own inquiries. I hope that the Minister will feel that that is right.
The Minister said on 12th June at column 259 of Hansard:
"I expect that it will become normal practice for the reports to be published and made widely available in most cases, certainly as regards national issues. However, that matter must be decided between the group and the Minister or body commissioning a study".
When I discussed this matter with the Minister, she said that the group could only publish a report if the Minister agreed. I find that unsatisfactory. I should have thought that if there was to be a new initiative, it should hold out prospects for greater confidence. I believed the Government were trying to meet the concerns and the lack of confidence that was being expressed. I therefore think this amendment is necessary. I am grateful to the noble Lords who support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, apologised to me for the fact that he cannot be present this evening but explained that he totally supports the two amendments we are considering. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in favour of Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. I do so reluctantly because of my continuing dissatisfaction with the reply given by my noble friend the Minister on Report. As regards Amendment No. 44, I believe that the freedom to initiate inquiries or investigations is fundamental if the clinical standards advisory group is to have enough independence to respond to concerns which members may identify from their own or colleagues' professional experience at the front line of the delivery of care. Without this freedom there is a real danger that the group will be seen as a puppet of the Secretary of State. Given this freedom, the group will have much more credibility as the watchdog of clinical standards.
Regarding Amendment No. 45, I believe that freedom to publish reports is also essential, for at least two reasons. The first is public accountability and the opportunity to reassure the public of the Government's commitment to the safeguarding of clinical standards. The second is the very important need for the dissemination of information that is gathered by the group so that good practice can be disseminated and built on or, conversely, problems can be identified and remedied and perhaps prevented from occurring elsewhere.
If the Clinical Standards Advisory Group is to be able to perform and, equally important, to be seen to perform its functions effectively, I believe that the provisions of the two amendments are necessary. Any resources that might be involved would be well spent in terms of the enhancement of the work of the group and as insurance that clinical standards are being maintained. They would also do a great deal to reassure the professions and the public of the sincerity of the Government's commitment to the effectiveness of the operation of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group. Therefore I hope that at this very late stage my noble friend the Minister will
1402
be able to assure the professions, patients, clients and the public that the work of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group will be enhanced through the acceptance of these two amendments.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, this is another all-party series of amendments. I confirm that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, the noble Lord, Lord Walton—who had to leave to catch a train—told me that the conference of the royal colleges was concerned with three issues. Those were publication, that the advisory group should be able to initiate inquiries on its own initiative and that not enough importance is given to prevention under the general concept of clinical standards. However, the third point is not the subject of the amendments.
The question of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group being able to initiate its own work is by far the most important covered by the amendments. There is a possibility that that might creep in under Clause 65(1)(c), which refers to:
"such other functions as may be prescribed by regulations",
but that again would be dependent on the Secretary of State prescribing those regulations.
It is rather curious that such a power has not been given to that body. I agree that, as has been said, it is a step forward. There was some doubt when we first discussed these matters whether there would be any statutory provision in the Bill, and the Government have moved on the issue. That is welcome. However, the restriction of the powers and the freedom of movement of the group is still very considerable. It is possible that the royal colleges are being punished for their initial opposition to the Bill, but that is not a very grown-up way of going about legislation. Once the Bill is an Act I am sure that the royal colleges will do everything within their power to make it work successfully in the interests of the service and the patient.
I remind your Lordships that almost all foreign countries which run some kind of system of this type have completely independent bodies. That is the case in Canada, Australia and in parts of the United States.
There is a very real danger that without this power the body will be seen to be the poodle of the Government. Paper tiger is a term which the noble Baroness used on an earlier occasion when denying that.
More important than any of those considerations is the fact that it would go a long way towards allaying public disquiet. It is in the interests of the Government that the public should be satisfied that a truly independent watchdog is looking at these matters. I cannot see why the Government should not welcome the opportunity to give the advisory group that power and to obtain for it the credibility that would stem from the additional powers that are proposed here, which are not very draconian. I find it very hard to understand why, in simple self-interest—in terms of gaining acceptance for their reforms—the Government do not concede the point regarding the power of the body to initiate its own inquiries rather than the inquiries simply being

1403
triggered by the Secretary of State or health service units using it on a consultancy basis. I find that very hard to understand.
There is one other point. Subsection (2)(a) provides that:
"one or more members of the Advisory Group shall be appointed from persons nominated by such body or bodies as may be specified in the regulations".
We have heard about the negotiations with the great and the good of the royal colleges. However, it will be interesting to hear that the Government intend to incorporate some representatives of consumers and patients in order that their views may also be heard. That will go some way towards allaying some of our disappointment about the scope of the body. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I too support the amendment. There are three main advantages in giving the group the power to initiate and report. First, it would improve the quality of the people who could be attracted as members of the group or as staff to work for it. That would be the case if the group were entrusted with the power to choose its own subjects to inquire into in addition to acting on the remits of the health Ministers. Secondly, it would improve the confidence of the public, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, if it were made clear that the group had at least a degree of independence. Thirdly, it would improve the quality of the work that is done because it would raise the standing of the group in general. That would occur if it were accepted that the group had the degree of independence which would be implied if it were able to choose at least some of the subjects for inquiry.
Without those not very grand powers, the Government could, if they were so minded, make an almost complete cipher of the group by giving it a series of inquiries to undertake. I do not say that they would, but they could. The inquiries could be important but also relatively minor in character. The Government could keep them away from the big issues, particularly if they had any taint of politics about them or were thought of as being controversial and affecting the general structure and character of the health service.
For those three reasons, it appears to me and to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate during all the stages of the Bill, that it would be most advantageous for the reform, and the confidence that may be built up in the public in the reform, if the group were given that measure of independence. Several noble Lords have spoken of poodles, and the like. We certainly do not want a rottweiler which would attack the Secretary of State without provocation. Certainly, none of us want the group to be merely a creature of the Government. We could ensure that it was not such if it were given the ordinary powers of inquiry that one would expect any such group to have. This is the third occasion on which the measure has been discussed in your Lordships' House, and again I support the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches I support the amendment. Unless such powers are
1404
given go the group, it is improbable that it will recruit as members the kind of people who will command public respect. Without the ability to initiate and report, high-calibre people will feel that they are wasting their time.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, the Clinical Standards Advisory Group, whose powers and functions we once more seek to amend, was one of the glimmers of hope of what might have been in the Bill—I am sorry to have to say what I now say, but I shall say it nonetheless—if only the Government had been a little more prepared to listen to opinions other than their own. I welcome the group because it is a great deal better than nothing. It is a great move forward. It seems a pity that there is this grudgingness around the edge. I believe that at some point in the future that will be changed. It seems a pity that we cannot have a little more give now.
I am sure that the Secretary of State and his colleagues, and the Government, do not wish to make this body their own tame poodle. I have enough faith in the people of whom the bodies will be composed to know that their appointed members would quickly resign if they found that they were being treated in that way. The position may therefore be alright, but why not put it alright in the eyes of the people of this country? Why not show a little more confidence in the good will and desire of people to make it our National Health Service?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, Amendment No. 58 in this grouping is a government amendment. I hope that your Lordships will support the change in the Long Title to the Bill proposed by this amendment to take account of the proposed establishment of the group, as the proposal to set up a group has been generally welcomed.
I turn to two fundamental questions. First, on the origins of the group, as your Lordships know, the group was established in response to the concerns of the medical, dental and nursing royal colleges about clinical care standards following the reforms. Our view is that those standards will benefit from the greater stress on quality that the new contractual arrangements will bring. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State agreed the establishment of the group with the royal colleges as an additional means of safeguarding those standards. That agreement defines the group's remit as being,
"to advise and assist in the assessment and monitoring of clinical standards for all NHS patients".
This remit is faithfully reflected in the proposed new clause.
The purpose was not to create a watchdog—and certainly not a rottweiler—but to provide the Secretary of State and health service bodies with a source of impartial and authoritative advice on clinical care standards in the National Health Service. Advice and assistance works best when provided in response to a specific request. That is why the group's work will be determined in agreement with the Secretary of State. In that way it will have a programme of work looking at areas

1405
which it and the Secretary of State together consider to be most important for the improvement of clinical standards throughout the National Health Service.
As for the group's credibility, that will be established by the authoritative advice it provides on subjects agreed with the Secretary of State or health service bodies. Public confidence in the group and in the quality of care provided by the National Health Service will not be helped if the group sets off on studies without the support of the health service bodies or Ministers. Co-operation, not confrontation, is the key to an effective role for the group and to respect for its work.
Amendment No. 45 refers to publication of an annual report and individual reports as the group wish. As I have said on a previous occasion, reports produced by the group will normally be published. It is surely right that the decision on publication should be taken in conjunction with the body or person commissioning the report. I do not believe that it would be right to prescribe centrally the detailed working arrangements for studies commissioned by health service bodies.
For instance, it may be that a report for a health service body names one or more individuals. In such a case it may not be proper for the report to be published. An annual report would be little more than a summary of such ad hoc reports. In the early years of the group's work such a report might consume valuable time which ought perhaps to be spent on work in the field. Should the Secretary of State and the group agree in a few years' time—as my noble friend Lord Carr suggests as part of this evolutionary process—that an annual report would be useful, there is nothing in the Government's new clause to prevent one from being produced.
Amendment No. 46 would allow health service bodies to commission studies without bearing any proportion of their cost. That could mean that the group finds its time taken up sifting through large numbers of commissions, some of them possibly ill thought-out or inappropriate. Health service bodies would find it easy to commission studies as a panacea for problems relating to standards which should perhaps be tackled by completely different means or put to the group only as a last resort. The amendment could prejudice the smooth working of the group without bringing any tangible corresponding benefits.
The arrangements proposed by the Government's new clause follow the agreement between the Secretary of State and the royal colleges. They provide the basis for an effective, positive relationship between Ministers, health service bodies and the clinical standards advisory group. I fear that the amendments before us, other than the government amendment, would only damage that relationship and put in doubt the raison d'être of the graoup. I urge your Lordships to resist them.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, we must accept a very substantial gap between noble Lords who spoke tonight and in earlier debates and the Minister.
1406
If the Secretary of State has confidence in this group, and if he is confident that the Bill will raise clinical standards and health service standards in general, why does he not permit the group some scope for its own work? The noble Baroness said that the group would be impartial and authoritative. That is not so. It would not be impartial because its hands would be tied. It could only do what it was asked to do and report if it was agreed that it should report. The noble Baroness said that it was best that it should answer specific requests. Let us suppose that specific requests either from the Secretary of State or from health service bodies did not come at a time when the group felt it had a deep concern about some aspect of clinical standards in the health service. It shows an extraordinary lack of confidence in this group of highly reputable, professional people, to say: 'No, you must not think for yourself. Only do what you are asked to do.'
I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I find it difficult to think that people of high responsibility, competence and skill in the National Health Service would be prepared to take on a task which was so confined by the Government. If the Secretary of State had confidence in the people who would serve in such a group, he would give it some authority, freedom and independence to enable it to decide for itself.
The decision of the Government—I assume that it is not just the decision of the noble Baroness but that of the Secretary of State—is very sad. It is a very bad start. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, stated, this was a good initiative that we all welcomed. Some people thought that the group might be a watchdog. I have never used that word, but it was thought that it would be a protector of standards. That position has now been taken away as a result of the reply given by the Minister.
There is no point in pressing the matter to a Division. Time will tell. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carr, was right when he stated that the time may come when some future Secretary of State will see that it is best for the service to have a body with some degree of independence. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]
Clause 70 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Health Authorities and Family Health Services Authorities]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 77, line 45, leave out from ("is") to end of line 46 and insert ("appointed by the Secretary of State or a Regional Health Authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. These amendments correct an anomaly by allowing remuneration to be paid to all the non-executive members of an authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Natonal Health Service trusts]:
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 80, line 25, at end insert:
("(ee) the employment of medical practitioners, or dental practitioners, or any class or classes of such practitioners, or nursing staff, shall be on the National Terms and Conditions of Service from time to time applicable to the employment of such practitioners by a Health Authority,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry that I am moving this amendment so late at night, but I regard it as very important. This is the last opportunity that Parliament will have to ensure that our health service remains a National Health Service. Although the amendment refers only to medical and dental practitioners working in NHS trusts, the concerns I am about to express also extend to other staff working in the National Health Service.
In speaking I shall concentrate on the consultants, because they are the kernel of the issue, but the same arguments apply to other professional staff. The consultant is legally and professionally responsible for clinical decisions about the care of individuals, and the consultant must answer to the courts and to the General Medical Council if those decisions fall short of acceptable standards. Consultants therefore are central to any plan for an even distribution of health care.
We must look back before the advent of the National Health Service. In 1941, Ernest Brown, then Minister of Health, commissioned an independent inquiry into the state of the country's hospitals and their ability to provide adequate facilities. That inquiry confirmed the prevailing belief that there were great inequalities in provision, that many of the public's needs were not being properly met and, above all, that without thorough co-ordination of effort there would be insufficient improvement.
In an endeavour to resolve these grave inequalities and to meet the needs of the public, the introduction of a National Health Service was formally approved, and it was recognised that the proposal would require a supreme co-ordination of effort. The 1944 White Paper The National Health Service identified the need for a more even spread of consultants to improve standards in all areas of the country. I stress that fact. Therefore, from its inception a fundamental principle of the National Health Service has been a more uniform distribution of standards of provision, and a crucial factor in determining improved equality has been the distribution of consultants.
The 1948 report of the inter-departmental committee on the remuneration of consultants and specialists noted that equality could be achieved only by increasing the mobility of specialists throughout the service and facilitating the interchange of staffs between teaching and non-teaching hospitals. The report emphasised the importance of area hospital centres not being inferior to teaching centres, stating that both should be able to attract specialists of the highest calibre and concluding that the same range of remuneration for clinical work should apply to specialists in both teaching and non-teaching hospitals.
Equality of status between specialties was also examined in that report. It was concluded that all consultants should be remunerated on the same salary scale, and that the highest remuneration—merit awards—should be open to consultants in all specialties, stating:
"We are certain that, unless all specialists, in whatever branch of medicine they practise, have an opportunity of reaching the highest levels of remuneration, the ancillary specialties, however important, will find it difficult to attract sufficient recruits of suitable calibre".
In introducing equality of salary scales for all consultants, it was stressed that that would enable all hospitals and specialties to attract the best possible candidates.
Forty years later those considerations continue to apply. National salary scales lead to a more equal distribution of talent, both geographically and by speciality. A better spread of ability is advantageous to patient care. Inequality in the provision of health care was identified as a major problem before the introduction of the National Health Service. A movement away from national salary scales could result in the best consultants being concentrated in areas where the highest salaries are paid and a consequential reversion to inequality in standards.
However, although salary is probably the greatest attraction of all, it is not the only potentially variable benefit. National terms and conditions of service mean that consultants are employed on the same basis across the country. In addition to the protection offered to consultants themselves, national terms and conditions of service contribute to uniformity in standards of care by ensuring that individual hospitals are not able to offer greater attractions to consultants than other hospitals.
Thus, in all areas, consultants enjoy the same superannuation benefits, equal access to annual and other leave and are subject to the same restrictions regarding the right to undertake private practice. If employing authorities were able to vary those terms and conditions of service, that would affect the distribution of consultants to the detriment of patient care.
The national conditions governing consultant appointments are based on the principle that a consultant grade with professional independence and the corresponding professional accountability is a vital protection for patients. However, it is not only for consultants that national terms and conditions of service are essential; they apply equally to junior doctors.
Mobility is an important factor in ensuring that consultants are well trained through providing experience in different hospitals and related specialties. Junior hospital doctors have to be able to move between hospitals, secure in the knowledge that they will not suffer from fluctuations in basic salary. Potential extensive experience must be available to all hospital staff to provide equality of opportunity. Junior staff should apply to work in a particular hospital for the benefit of the experience that they would gain and not for the attraction of salary. That can happen only if salary scales are agreed nationally.
There is then the national negotiating machinery which makes economic and administrative sense. Local bargaining on pay and conditions will involve considerable manpower in terms of health managers and representatives of the various professions. Similar negotiations will be occurring across the country, using what is a major National Health Service resource—that is, the time of the people concerned.
Structures have evolved over many years to deal effectively and objectively with NHS salaries and terms and conditions of service. The independent Doctors' and Dentists' Review Board, for example, has an important role in looking at remunerations in the whole medical profession in relation to comparable groups outside the service in order to ensure the recruitment of high calibre individuals into the profession. It also undertakes a valuable task in adjusting internal relativities within the profession; for example, between general practice and the hospital service.
A single hospital board of trustees would not be in a position to take those wider factors into account in determining salaries for its staff. The argument that relativities will be determined by market forces cannot apply when recruitment is from a fixed pool of medical graduates within a controlled manpower structure.
Finally, there is the question of morale. One of the strengths of the National Health Service as an employer is the team spirit which unites its employees. Moving from national salaries and terms and conditions of service to local agreements could adversely affect that team spirit. Variations in pay and benefits are, because of the staff they attract, likely to lead to considerable differences in the standards of care that hospitals are able to provide. Widely perceived inequalities in hospitals and in the conditions for staff will be detrimental to the morale of staff working in the poorer centres. The supreme co-ordination of effort which was regarded as required in the early 1940s is still needed today in order to avoid a return to a fragmented health service.
The implications of the provision in Schedule 2(16)(d) which would give the hospital management in NHS trusts power to determine pay and conditions of service for staff without reference to national agreements is inconsistent with the principle in the National Health Service of uniform standards and should be rejected. The spread of medical staff throughout the country and by specialty has won international recognition and is one of the most impressive achievements of the National Health Service. We must not throw that away. National agreements for staff must be maintained. This amendment is essential. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I merely want to say that the Scottish amendment is almost identical to that moved by my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead, and I give my full support to his amendment. We have received representations from the British Medical Association and others in Scotland. I hope that the Government will see their way to accepting the amendments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should have liked to speak at length on this amendment. However, as the noble Lord has given what was almost a Second Reading speech which lasted 15 minutes there is not time to do so. I do not agree with him at all. He has overlooked the point that by paying people on national scales employees become hard to find in areas of great need. There is a strong case to be made for freedom of bargaining by which a better service would be delivered to patients because it would be possible to pay incentives in order to attract people to those areas in which they are really needed.
I shall not go further into the matter at this late hour but there are many arguments against what the noble Lord said.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the reverse would occur. Lower salaries are often paid in the areas in which there is the greatest need. Independent trusts are likely to be set up in the most attractive areas where perhaps the pay would be higher. I do not believe that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is valid.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in Committee we had a full discussion on a group of amendments including an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. On a Division, an amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, in similar terms to this amendment was lost.
These amendments add little to those already debated. It remains the Government's view that NHS trusts should be able to offer terms and conditions of employment which reflect their needs and priorities. We do not see a case for excluding any group of staff from that freedom. Your Lordships have already accepted that there should be a general power for National Health Service trusts to set their own pay and conditions. If trusts are capable of exercising that general power sensibly and responsibly, then there is no reason why it should not apply also to nursing and medical staff. To suggest otherwise makes a nonsense of your Lordships' earlier decision. I hope that the House will follow that earlier course of action. I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I shall not withdraw the amendment. I commend it to the House.
11.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,13; Not-Contents, 45.

DIVISION NO. 9

CONTENTS

Butterfield, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

[Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ennals, L.

Longford, E.

1411

Monson, L.

Rea, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Carnock, L.

Reay, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cox, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Swinfen, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trumpington, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12 midnight
Schedule 5 [Health Boards, the Common Services Agency and State Hospitals]:
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 91, line 8, at end insert—
("1A. After paragraph 2 of that Schedule (membership of Health Boards) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"2A. In the case of a prescribed Health Board at least one of the persons appointed under paragraph 2 above must hold a post in a university with a medical or dental school."")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where a Scottish health board has a teaching function, at least one of the appointed non-officer members must be a person holding a teaching post in a university that has a medical or dental school. The amendment will tidy up a situation which has arisen since Report stage. I am sorry that it comes so late in the Bill's progress, but matters have not been straightforward.
I shall not reiterate the very full discussions that we have already had on the joint management responsibilities of the National Health Service and the universities with medical and dental schools and how the decision-making bodies can best be equipped for that. For the purposes of this amendment it has to be emphasised that under existing legislation the position in Scotland has been very different from that in England and Wales, reflecting the different National Health Service structures.
In Scotland under Schedule 1 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, the Secretary of State is required to consult the relevant Scottish universities about membership of health boards. It is a requirement that has been fully implemented. The requirement still stands and it is not altered by the Bill that we are now discussing.
However, in England and Wales under Schedule 5 of the 1977 Act, there is a requirement that regional authorities include on district health authorities a specified number of members nominated by relevant universities. In addition, the Secretary of State has been required to consult universities on the appointment of members to regional authorities.
Your Lordships will remember that the effect of the present Bill for England and Wales was to remove both these requirements. That gave rise to concern. The matter was taken up, notably by my noble friend Lady Young. At Report stage she told us that she had received assurances from the Government that it was their intention to ensure by means of regulations that district health authorities with an important teaching role shall include a member drawn from a relevant university with a medical or dental school, and that the Government expected the regional authorities to include a university member, too.
Nevertheless, my noble friend felt it right to move amendments in respect of England and Wales which would put this expectation on the face of the Bill. In my view, the Government very sensibly accepted those amendments. The amendment I am now moving simply brings the Scottish arrangements into line with the amended arrangements in England and Wales. The Scottish universities are concerned that unless that is done they may be less well placed than their colleagues south of the Border to play their full part in implementing all the changes that lie ahead.
I share with my noble friend Lady Young the belief that health authorities will work best if members are appointed for themselves and not as representatives. This is not really a matter of representation. Some Scottish universities, by virtue of their medical and dental schools, share with health boards managerial and policy-making responsibilities in the National Health Service. That has to be reflected in the membership of those particular boards. I suggest that, as in England and Wales, that is best done on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment which I hope is uncontroversial. In my view it attempts to tidy up the Scottish provisions for university membership of the health boards to bring the position more in line with that in England and Wales. As the noble Baroness said, an amendment for England and Wales, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, at Report stage, was accepted. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, this is more than a tidying up amendment. Because of the special position of the university medical and dental schools, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, has always appointed to the Scottish health boards someone drawn from a university with a medical or dental school. This is indeed a two-way process: the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientist in the Scottish Home and Health Department have occupied chairs at Scottish medical schools. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no intention of changing these arrangements. The White Paper Working for Patients

1413
envisaged somewhat smaller health boards as my noble friend said, with members appointed on the basis of the personal contribution which they can make. Since the White Paper was published in January last year, we have already somewhat reduced the size of health boards. But neither that reduction, nor the insistence on the personal contribution of members, threatens the appointment of members from universities. The Secretary of State does not find it difficult to identify people from universities who can make the personal contribution that is required; and there will be a seat even on the smaller-sized "teaching" boards for the present and for the future.
I am somewhat reluctant to write this provision into the 1978 Act, the Act passed by the Government of noble Lords opposite. My reluctance stems not from any desire to change the present arrangements which I have described, but because of the very different wording of the Scottish legislation. Noble Lords will see from Schedule 1 to the Bill that the membership of health authorities in England and Wales is specified in very considerable detail. The equivalent provision in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 dealing with the membership of health boards is much briefer. It simply says:
"A Health Board shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State and such … other members so appointed as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
I take the point that this says nothing about the appointment of someone from a university. But noble Lords will see that Schedule 1 to the Bill says many other things about which the Scottish Act is silent. That includes the appointment of general managers to boards, which is a step we have already taken in Scotland. The Scottish Act also obliges the Secretary of State to consult, before making appointments,
"any university appearing … to have an interest in the provision of health services in that area".
Schedule 1 imposes no equivalent duty in England and Wales.
So the wording of the Scottish legislation is different. That is perhaps an explanation of why the Government did not move in line with the amendment for England and Wales of my noble friend Lady Young. However, I have looked again at the speeches of my noble friend and of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. I note that my noble friend (at col. 1536 of the Official Report of 7th June 1990) said that we should avoid representative appointments so as not to detract from the key management role which new authorities are expected to play. She went on to say that the role of universities is different and unique.
I have considered the matter carefully. It is a very nice judgment as to how we should approach it. On that basis—by that I mean my noble friend's speech and her understanding of what was wished for in relation to those appointments—and on that basis alone, I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. This is a very pleasant surprise indeed.
1414
I have been held in suspense until this moment. It will be very much appreciated north of the Border. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 52 and 53:
Page 91, line 10, leave out from ("to") to end of line 11 and insert ("such other members of a Health Board as may be prescribed".").
Page 92, line 17, leave out from ("to") to end of line 19 and insert ("such other members of the management committee as may be prescribed".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Schedules to be inserted after Schedule 7 to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Schedule 9 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 115, line 40, at end insert:
("The Child Benefit Act 1975
14A. In section 3 of the Child Benefit Act 1975 (meaning of "person responsible for child") in subsection (3) (certain days of absence disregarded) in paragraph (c) for the words following "under" there shall be substituted "section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, the Children Act 1989 or the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968."")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 56 and 57, removes what would be an incorrect repeal of Section 3(3)(c) of the Child Benefit Act 1975 and reinstates the effect of the current provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Enactments Repealed]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 56 and 57:
Page 129, leave out line 8.
Page 130, line 20, column 3, leave out ("and 63") and insert ("63 and 67").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 58:
Line 13, after ("authorities") insert ("to make provision for and in connection with the establishment of a Clinical Standards Advisory Group").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Your Lordships have, quite rightly, insisted upon examining every detail of this Bill in great detail and have made significant improvements to it, as well as raising issues upon which we have been able to give clarification and reassurance. The Bill has therefore received very thorough examination and its provisions have been properly tested and improved.
Perhaps I may now take this opportunity to thank all those concerned with the passage of the Bill. I

1415
should especially like to extend my thanks to my noble friends on the Front Bench. I refer first to my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden who, together with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has played a Scottish symphony. Then there is my noble friend Lord Henley whose specialty has been the social security side of the matter but whose brief has ranged much wider. Finally, there is my noble friend Lady Blatch. This has been the first major Bill with which she has dealt since coming to join us on the Front Bench. Much work has also been carried out behind the scenes and in the corridors. I thank all those involved.
Out of a number of improvements made since the Bill entered your Lordships' House, I should like to pay particular tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Young and those who have helped the Government to set out clearly on the face of the Bill their intentions as regards medical education and research, and in recognising the role of universities with medical schools. Many noble Lords also thought that it would be helpful to make clear the Government's intentions as regards consultation on the establishment of National Health Service trusts. Again, we have been happy to do so.
On the community care side of the Bill, we have responded to many points raised in both Houses, and have made a number of changes dealing with complaints procedures, consultation with carers' organisations on the making of community care plans, the right for the views of disabled people and their carers to be considered before a decision is made to hold an inquiry and clearer powers of inspection for the Secretary of State's appointees. I believe that some 27 concessions have been introduced.
We have not only responded to comments made in your Lordships' House, we have also continued to discuss our plans and proposals widely with interested parties. In this respect, I highlight in particular the amendment introduced on Report to establish the Clinical Standards Advisory Group.
The Government recognise that there is anxiety about the impact of their plans on the quality of care. However, we strongly believe that the anxiety is misplaced and that the changes in both the health and the community care fields will work to make further improvements in quality—and not put obstacles in the way of those striving to achieve this aim. Nevertheless, we realise that there is concern and therefore we have succeeded in reaching agreement with the medical Royal Colleges on the establishment of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group.
I have emphasised where improvements have been made. However, the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House has also been helpful in allowing us to dispel lingering misconceptions about the aims and purpose of the changes.
I hope that we have disproved the myth that implementation is being taken at breakneck speed. As I said on Second Reading and on many subsequent occasions, we are in the business of making revolutionary changes but it is revolution
1416
through evolution. I explained that the first wave of NHS trusts and GP practice funds would in effect be pilot projects. The pace of change and the introduction of NHS contracts will be carefully monitored and handled responsively and responsibly by the Government. I might add in that context that the additional resources, over and above the record sums already devoted to patient care, set aside for the review implementation in 1990–91 will further help smooth the path of implementation.
We have debated similar matters in respect of community care, and again we discussed the practicalities of implementation carefully with the local authority associations and other interested parties. As with the NHS, we shall be building on much relevant experience and good practice. Also, as with the NHS, we shall not be seeking to run before we can walk, but the Government believe that there is a need to put the framework for those important reforms in place as soon as possible. Your Lordships have urged upon us the need to ensure that adequate resources are available before implementation begins. We have always made clear that the implementation of those proposals will be resourced adequately. At this stage we must wait to see what the other place thinks about your Lordships' amendment in that area.
There are other misconceptions which I believe our debates have helped to dispel. I am pleased that the hoary old canard that patients will somehow be denied the drugs they need has finally been put to rest.
In our debate on the NHS trusts it has been made crystal clear that units are not being privatised. We have also been able to set out how they will continue to play their vital role in relation to teaching and research. I hope, although I am not entirely sure, that we have been able to reassure those concerned with drug and alcohol abuse that the interests of their clients will not be overlooked when the new community care plans are drawn up and implemented both in the planning process and in the provision of care in an emergency.
I have deliberately concentrated on hard examples of where the Bill has been improved and where the Government have listened and responded to valid concerns. I have deliberately not talked in general terms about objectives, because I believe that we are all in full agreement about what those objectives should be: better managed services and the delivery of a higher quality of care in a more flexible way to the individuals concerned.
Your Lordships' task has been to ensure that the Bill hits that target, and, as I said, I believe that our scrutiny has helped us to achieve the common goal. Thanks in no small part to your Lordships' efforts the Bill is now, I believe, the right vehicle to achieve our aims and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass —(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Ennals: My Lords, we have had more than 100 hours' debate on the Bill in your Lordships' House. I want to thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the time and the trouble they have taken during the course of those long debates. I want

1417
to thank my colleagues on the Front Bench, my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Carter, and noble Lords from all parts of the House with whom we have been able to work, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, but always with a good spirit and a positive will. I give special thanks to the government team—the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—who have always been courteous and concerned. If I say that they have done their best they will realise that I am not being condescending. Obviously, they were given no freedom to do just what they wanted. They fought for an extremely contentious and controversial Bill. They have listened to our arguments and responded sometimes with useful concessions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said.
I wish to add my thanks for the support of many professional and voluntary organisations which have kept us briefed and well informed on all the issues covered in the debate. I am thinking of the local government information unit, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, the British Medical Association and the royal colleges. The Royal College of Nursing played a particularly valuable role in helping to co-ordinate and to brief us in our activities. We have been well served. Apart from the concessions referred to by the noble Baroness, we have achieved some major victories which I hope will remain when they are debated in another place on Wednesday.
In conclusion, throughout the country, among those who work in the service, their patients and the public, there is a great deal of concern about the future of the health service and still much opposition. However much the Government have tried to win over the public, they have significantly failed to do so. At every opportunity the public have had of expressing their views, they have shown that they believe that the Bill will do damage rather than good to the National Health Service. I believe that the opposition is greater now than when the Government first put forward their proposals.
I attended an inter-disciplinary conference on co-operation in the National Health Service last weekend. I found almost total opposition from an entirely non-political group of participants. I fear for the future of the National Health Service and I believe that the passing of the Bill is the strongest possible argument for a change of government.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am sure that this is not an occasion for a long speech and I have no intention of making one. It is in a way a rather sad occasion—sad because it has become increasingly apparent, as we have discussed the Bill at great length, that all noble Lords in your Lordships' House, in all parties and in none, are committed to the preservation of the National Health Service and to its improvement. That is the point I was trying to make when I was so misunderstood by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when I was talking about policies. To that extent, we are united. It has become apparent that all noble Lords in your Lordships' House are committed to the National Health Service and would
1418
like to see it preserved in the form or on the basis on which it was originally introduced. Of course it is politics, but it does not need to be party politics if we all agree on it.
It is sad because while we are all committed to improving the National Health Service, few of us can leave tonight feeling that we know that we have done so. We may have damaged the National Health Service. Personally, I believe that it might have been possible to have made sure that some of the proposals would work before we finally committed ourselves. Without making sure, we run the risk of doing damage. However, time alone will show.
The efficiency of the National Health Service depends on four things: the number and quality of the people who do the work—that is, the doctors, the nurses and other people; the adequacy of the places in which they work—the hospitals, the clinics, the surgeries; the tools with which they work—the drugs, the instruments, the heart machines and so on; and finally, the administration through which the other three are moulded together and delivered to the patient.
Frankly, I doubt whether this Bill, as it is, will effect improvements in any of those areas, except possibly the last, administration. It is possible that some hospital trusts may make vast improvements in administration through being a little freer and away from the clutches of the department. It may be that some of the general practices will improve their administration. It is possible that there may be some clinical improvements as a result of audit, but that could have been introduced without the Bill. The medical profession asked for it. However, we do not know yet whether there will be any improvement.
There is a second part to the Bill which concerns community care. Really we should have had two Bills. We are all united on the principle of community care. We all believe it is right that more people should be cared for in the community than in institutions. However, despite all the time we have spent on that part of the Bill none of us can be certain that that principle will work unless we are also absolutely certain that the resources will be available to local authorities to carry the burdens which have now been placed upon them. For those reasons I am uneasy and a little sad as I think we may have caused damage in this area.
My real knowledge of the health service lies in general practice. I shall judge this Bill by what it does to general practice. Holding budgets may make certain general practitioners a little better off, but I do not think their patients will notice any difference. However, I should like to see patients notice a difference. At an earlier stage of the Bill I talked about what some patients thought of their doctors and what some doctors thought of their patients—the doctor-patient relationship. I have considered that relationship in a few practices recently. Frankly, in so far as I can detect any relationship it seems to me to have become one of mutual and undisguised hostility. That is because the health service lets people down almost every day. The patient blames his GP for that. If the hospital is deficient, he blames his GP. Therefore I believe

1419
it is inevitable that there has been a decline in the relationship because patients have felt unsatisfied.
I should like to see a change in that position, but we shall only see such a change when patients feel that the service is serving them better. I genuinely and honestly hope that this Bill will have that result. However, I cannot honestly say at the moment that I believe it will. I hope it will have that result, and if it can be improved I hope that will happen. I too wish to thank all the government spokesmen on the Front Bench for their courtesy and their help and for doing their best to answer the points that we made. Obviously the Bill will pass and I wish it well, but I wish I had more faith that it will do good rather than harm.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I wish the Bill well for the sake of the patients and clients it is designed to help and for the sake of those who work in the National Health Service and those who provide community care, who will be responsible for implementing it. I sincerely hope they will find it achieves its objectives of providing better quality and more cost-effective care. Therefore I welcome in particular those provisions which have been agreed to in your Lordships' House which will enhance patient and client choice and help to ensure high clinical standards. I especially welcome those amendments which establish the Clinical Standards Advisory Group. I express appreciation for that, but I regret the Government's parsimony this evening with regard to two of the key issues. I hope, however, those will be resolved de facto if not de jure.
In wishing the Bill well and in congratulating my noble friends the Ministers on all their hard work in taking it through your Lordships' House, I must confess that I still have profound anxieties especially on the lack of provision for a systematic evaluation of the implementation of the reforms and on many aspects of community care. I deeply regret that the Government were not more receptive to some of the concerns expressed by health care professionals as well as by those representing clients and carers. Many of those concerns were not party political and had nothing to do with party politics but were sincere attempts to build in safeguards for the most vulnerable people.
Finally, for conscience sake I must for the last time restate my own deep anxiety about some aspects of the implementation of the community care part of the Bill. I have not yet been reassured by my noble friends the Ministers that the health needs of clients will be adequately met, either at initial assessment or on a continuing basis. I have not been reassured that the needs of carers will be taken fully into account and I profoundly wish that there were some systematic method of monitoring community care. Without those safeguards I fear for vulnerable groups of people in the community such as the disabled, the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly. The latter group will increase both in numbers and in dependency over the coming years. I fear that in many cases the social services are not equipped or ready to receive those people.
1420
In the fields of health and welfare, administrative problems result in real suffering for those who are vulnerable and those who care for them. Those who are least capable of articulating their needs or asserting their rights are most likely to sink into isolation where their predicament may remain unidentified. I therefore hope there is some substance in the rumour that implementation of some of the community care provisions may be deferred until it is certain that local authorities are in a position to provide adequate care.
With that expression of a final, personal, perhaps faint hope, and with reluctant ambivalence, I support the Motion that this Bill do now pass.
12.30 a.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, these days I like to be in bed by half past ten but I have waited until half past twelve because I had a very important matter to raise concerning the whole question of the Government's attitude towards hospices. No one can say that hospices are not relevant to a Bill concerned with health and community care. However, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, for whom my respect is unbounded, has said in the famous words of Mr Attlee (as he then was) to Professor Laski "A period of silence on your part would be welcome". In other words, he has asked me not to speak. In deference to the noble Lord I shall not. However, as people concerned with hospices are interested in what I was going to say I must let them know that I shall raise the matter, which is a very urgent one, at the soonest possible moment.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Earl, with his customary courtesy, made a copy of what he was going to say available to the department and I had sight of it. It is true that I passed a note to the noble Earl reminding him that the Companion to the Standing Orders says that the debate on Third Reading and Bill do now pass should be relevant to the Bill in the form in which it has emerged. The noble Earl has not risen to his feet during the course of the Bill to mention hospices, and no other noble Lord has mentioned hospices. It was on those grounds that I suggested that a speech devoted entirely to hospices on Third Reading this evening would be inappropriate, despite the fact that support for hospices is to be found on all sides of the House.
Baroness Young: My Lords, at this late hour I shall be very brief.
Unlike almost all those who have already spoken on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I have supported very strongly the principles of the Bill. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Hooper on the way in which she has managed this long and complicated Bill. I should also like to congratulate her colleagues on the Front Bench.
I believe that it was right that 40 years after the start of the National Health Service we should have looked at it as fundamentally as we have. Like my other noble friends, I support the National Health Service. However, our National Health Service, like those of every other advanced industrial country,

1421
faces all kinds of complications, with an ageing population and almost unlimited demands being made upon it. It is right that we should address those major problems.
Your Lordships' House has had an opportunity to make a great many improvements to the Bill. It is right that we should do so. I should like particularly to place on record my thanks for the help that I have received from my noble friends and from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, particularly in relation to the amendments which have affected universities with medical schools. I believe that that is greatly appreciated in the university world, and I am sure that the amendments have greatly improved the Bill and will contribute to better patient care.
I make it a point never to speak about Scottish business as I am a mere Englishwoman. However, as I was referred to very kindly by my noble friend Lord Sanderson, I must also say on this occasion that I am very grateful that he was able to accept the amendment of my noble friend Lady Carnegy on the same point. That series of amendments, affecting all parts of the United Kingdom, not only improves the Bill but will ultimately improve patient care.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the Government team for their courtesy during the 100 hours of the Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned. I should also like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her first major Bill and the way in which she has handled it. She has been extremely helpful to many of us.
Some improvements have been made, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said. The upgrading of the role of the chief of research and development is important; so is what has been achieved for the universities. Some amendments at the community care end of the Bill are also important although it remains to be seen whether they survive their return to another place.
It is interesting to remark that the Cross-Bench peers have had the best batting average on this Bill, and that gives me some food for thought. I won no amendments but found some satisfaction in the response that I received to some of my anxieties, particularly this afternoon in relation to the self-referral and open-access services. I regard them as being crucial to the public health of this country. The Government went a little way with me in that view.
I regret that the Government did not listen a little more to noble Lords such as myself who are by no means wholly opposed to the Bill and who believe that some of the reforms can be beneficial. I hold that regret particularly in relation to the Clinical Standards Advisory Group. The Government could have reassured the public by dispelling some of the lingering misconceptions referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. In so doing they would have strengthened their hand but they have missed an opportunity to win hearts and minds.
I do not believe that as a result of the Bill alone the Government will lose the next election, although it may be true if combined with certain other measures. But that is not my concern. My concern is that the National Health Service continues and improves
1422
throughout the rest of the century and beyond. The Government are on record as willing that too and some noble Lords present will concentrate on keeping them up to the mark.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, during the passage of the Bill several of us have struggled to add more customer participation. Perhaps we should have been more successful if a few more Members from all parts of the House had had the energy and interest to stay after their usual going home time.
The National Health Service is a most important service for everyone throughout the country. Even those who are covered by insurance schemes use the emergency services and are generally exceedingly grateful for them. The new National Health Service will have greater emphasis on market forces and paid management. Of course we need a cost-effective service which does not waste money but the demands are great. As new doors open to advanced procedures and the increase of sophisticated technology, the costs of the service will rise.
I am sorry that we lost by only one vote the amendment that I moved providing more protection to patients who believe that they may be at risk in being accepted and retained on GPs' lists. I believe that 80 per cent. of general practitioners are caring and professional people. However, as in every profession, a few may not be so kind and willing to help and to tolerate patients with special, difficult and sometimes expensive needs. I wrote to the Secretary of State about the issue and today I received a reply. I am grateful for his courteous letter.
I hope that districts do not become too parochial and that if necessary they will continue to send their patients to the specialist expert services wherever they are. I also hope that the regional and supra-regional units will continue to provide the excellent service which is also important as a teaching and research resource. A serious situation will arise if costs take priority over quality when districts and GP fund holders draw up contracts with hospitals.
I shall quote from a letter that I received from a consultant physician at the Oxford Haemophilia Centre which treats many patients from many different health districts. He stated:
"If as a consequence of this Bill the Oxford region has to recover the costs from the different patients' home districts, I can foresee great difficulties. These home districts may be unaware of the costs incurred in treating the patients in their regions and may not have taken account of this cost in planning their budgets. As a consequence there may be little or no money to follow the patients and the home districts may opt, therefore, to treat the patients in their own locality".
He fears that this would lead to a reduction of service to the patients as it takes many years to build up experience and to establish facilities for comprehensive haemophilia care with all the relevant specialists keyed in. The same can be said for spinal injury specialties and many others. I hope that all these services will find a quick and efficient way of collecting the money from districts and that not too much will be spent on accounting and administration in a complicated and bureaucratic system.

1423
The health service must be user friendly. If there is only a hard-bitten business approach and all tender, loving care disappears, then I feel there will be problems. It will be a tragedy if the goodwill which many people give to the National Health Service is lost. I hope that everyone concerned will work together in harmony rather than at each other's throats. For the good of the patients a working balance must be found. I hope that there will be a working co-operation between health and social services.
As the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, several of us would have liked a few more safeguards written in. For example, the community health councils are waiting for clarification of their roles. There will be many people watching progress in the future.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like briefly to welcome the Government's efforts to bring community care genuinely into the community. However, I doubt very much whether their efforts for disabled people will work unless they put into operation, at the same time as the community care part of the Bill, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. That is slightly wider in scope and is designed specifically for such a purpose. It is not a catch-all measure as is the Bill that we are discussing tonight.
The Government also have to consider some way of legalising the innovative methods of providing care in the community that are being tried out on an experimental basis in many areas. Soon, someone will ask what is happening and who has authorised the spending of money, and there will be difficulty. We have to consider that aspect. It has to be legalised one way or another as soon as possible.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I rise with some hesitation but also with a great sense of gratitude to the Government for the way in which they have handled the matter in relation to the universities. That comes from me perhaps more easily as a Yorkshireman once defined as a Scot with the generosity squeezed out of him. Your Lordships can imagine my surprise when there was such a quick response from the Government this evening to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. That seems to me to typify the way the Government have met points that have been put forward. It was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that they were put on behalf of the universities. I do not think that points made by many speakers in your Lordships' House on education and research can or should be considered as being on behalf of the universities. Those of us interested in the issue have been trying to ensure the success of the National Health Service in its various forms 20, 30 or 40 years from now. That will depend solely on the quality of the doctors whom we produce and the resources which are available. Those resources include the knowledge that will be won by research.
It is in that sense that I feel extremely grateful to the Government. I feel a great deal more comfortable about the likely effectiveness and efficacy of the
1424
health service, not for myself at my great age, but for those who will follow. I wish to express my gratitude and, I am sure, that of other Cross-Bench Peers who have taken the same line but who are not present this evening.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should like to make a few remarks that will take half a minute. I make no bones about the fact that I am deeply unhappy about the Bill. There would have been widespread acceptance by those working in the National Health Service of many of the proposed changes if one or two regions or an equivalent number of districts had been chosen as pilot zones, as proposed in an amendment. In that situation the changes could have been fully and scientifically evaluated without a commitment to press ahead willy-nilly with those changes. In effect the Government have been forced to agree to a radical introduction of the changes because the data and the physical means of implementing them are not yet in place.
I believe that the Government will rue the day that they decided to press ahead on a national scale with these untried changes. I have a feeling that this measure will join the poll tax in being another albatross which will probably follow the Government to their graves.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the way in which she has dealt with the Bill in all of its stages and use this opportunity to remind the House how close the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and I were to making it possible for fund-holding medical practitioners to utilise the services of complementary therapists. There is no doubt that, had we wished to search the House for supporters, we could have easily won the vote. However, I did not feel that that was the correct way to press a point that will, without doubt, eventually become possible by public demand. I am sure that my noble friend will be pleased when the Bill is passed, but I ask her to carefully consider our arguments in favour of complementary medicine when she deals with health matters in the future.
We discussed the cost effectiveness of the therapies and reminded the House about the absence of side effects of the treatments. It still seems more sensible to me that practices that control their own budgets and buy services should be allowed to avail themselves of the best possible treatments for their patients. We all know that this should take account of the complementary therapies. The Government have lost a valuable opportunity to demonstrate their far sightedness. The complementary therapies will eventually become available for everyone, and I regret that the innovations of the Bill have not included measures to make that situation possible.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I rise simply to say, as a relatively new boy, how proud I have been to be a member of your Lordships' House during the debate. I congratulate the Minister and her colleagues for the manner in which they conducted the business. I offer my congratulations too to the Opposition on their presentation of important points.

1425
I do not want to make a bid for anything else or look back. The main concern now is the basic principle of the health service. It is necessary to infuse into all the people who work within it the principle of service for the patient. That was the concern at the beginning of the review and I hope that we shall be able to redirect our attention to that concern in the immediate future.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the community care aspects of the Bill. Those aspects have been my responsibility on this side of the House. We welcome the Government's agreement to some of the points that have been put to them—the consultation with the housing agencies, voluntary organisations and carers groups. We welcome the institution of the complaints procedure and of procedures to deal with emergency situations. We welcome the agreement by the House to the ring fencing of community care funding, the implementation of community care on the basis of adequate resources and the provision by the Government of help with start-up costs. We welcome the acceptance by the House of the requirement for the disclosure of criminal convictions of proprietors of residential homes. We cannot believe that the Government will reject that position in another place, particularly not on the grounds that the Association of Chief Police Officers does not like the extra work. We welcome the decision of the House that there should be a housing dimension in the planning process.
Of course, we feel that there are still some major deficiencies in the Bill. We still do not know exactly for whom community care is intended, and in many cases there are powers to provide local community care but no duties. We have tried hard and failed to get the Government to recognise the situation of those who are now in residential care, who lack the resources to meet the costs of such care and who perhaps face eviction, and our attempts to amend that situation have been resisted throughout. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, after four years the Government are still resisting attempts to bring into action the crucial Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons Act 1986.
One thing we have learnt is the difference between guidance and guidelines. We have been told that the Government expect that guidance will be followed but hope that guidelines will be followed. In regard to guidance and guidelines, it seems that we now have a new version—the triumph of hope over expectation.
We pointed out to the Government on Second Reading that with all the problems they face over public expenditure, such as the poll tax and all the rest of it, we are deeply sceptical, as I know a number of your Lordships are, there will be sufficient resources next year for the proper implementation of community care plans. If the Government would only accept it, this House has given them the opportunity they need to get themselves out of this dilemma. I am referring to Clause 43 which deals with the timetable for the implementation of community care plans.
1426
In conclusion, I should like to add my words of thanks and appreciation to the Government team for the unfailing courtesy and good humour that they have shown during the passage of the Bill, demonstrating, as this House usually does, that we can disagree quite strongly without falling out with each other.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, perhaps I may say how very pleased I am with this Bill. We can now move forward to implement it without further delay. I believe that these reforms will work, as I have already had personal experience of most of them for some years.
I very much look forward to the newly created district health authorities sitting down with the local general practitioners, and consultants, public health experts and nursing officers to work out the quality and quantity of the services needed for the local population. I hope that one of the first things they will do is to realise that, in a population of one-third of a million, there will be 120 severely disabled people who will require these special electrically-powered wheelchairs that can be used both indoors and outdoors. That will cost only £⅓ million.
I also look forward to doctors and nurses running their own hospitals without the practice of shroud waving, an unfortunate sport which makes patients apprehensive, demoralises staff and hampers recruitment. This Bill will change the attitudes in the National Health Service and make the patient the most important person in the service.
I add my congratulations to those already expressed to the Ministers for their stamina, their meticulous attention to detail and their courtesy in piloting this Bill through.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words which have been expressed, both on my own behalf and on behalf of my noble friends. I am grateful too for the more or less general welcome given to the Bill and very grateful for the brevity of the latest contributions.
I think that the reforms will prepare our National Health Service and community care system for the challenges that lie ahead and I am sure that the worst fears expressed by some people will not be justified. I know that we all regret very much that we have not had the benefit of the expertise and commonsense approach of the late Lord Trafford, who would no doubt have dealt with great authority with many of the issues raised.
I have already thanked my noble friends here on the Front Bench, and I am indeed grateful to everyone for their contributions. We have been fortunate in having contributions from former Secretaries of State for Health, including the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and from other giants in the medical world. As I said, I think that the Bill goes forward a better Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes before one o'clock.

  EMS: MUTUAL SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS
  EMS: MUTUAL SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS
  ERM: POUND STERLING ENTRY RATE
  ERM: POUND STERLING ENTRY RATE
  INTERVENTION PAYMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
  INTERVENTION PAYMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
  DEER SLAUGHTER: EC DRAFT REGULATION
  DEER SLAUGHTER: EC DRAFT REGULATION
  DEER: EEC GAME MEAT DIRECTIVE
  DEER: EEC GAME MEAT DIRECTIVE
  V & A AND NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUMS: COSTS
  V & A AND NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUMS: COSTS
  INDUSTRIAL WASTES: NORTH SEA DUMPING
  INDUSTRIAL WASTES: NORTH SEA DUMPING
  IMMIGRATION ACT: DETENTIONS
  IMMIGRATION ACT: DETENTIONS
  BOURNEMOUTH MAGISTRATES' COURT: FINES, 4th MAY
  BOURNEMOUTH MAGISTRATES' COURT: FINES, 4th MAY
  GATT AGRICULTURE NEGOTIATIONS: EC POSITION
  GATT AGRICULTURE NEGOTIATIONS: EC POSITION