Sitting of 8 March 1990

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

    REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Thursday 15 March.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February].
    That the Bill be now considered.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 15 March.

    TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 March at Seven o'clock.
    Mr. Speaker: As the remaining 14 Bills set down for Second Reading are the subject of blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall take them together.

    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 March.

    ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 February],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 15 March.

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Poultry
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the present state of the poultry industry.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): The market for poultrymeat remains firm and producer prices for eggs are at a very high level.
    Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister agree that it is extremely difficult for consumers to identify British eggs among imported eggs? Is he satisfied with the arrangements for the marking of British eggs? What is he doing about imported eggs that do not meet the same standards as British eggs in respect of salmonella, for example? British producers have suffered greatly as a result of the impositions that have been placed upon them.
    Mr. Curry: The British Egg Industry Council is conducting a programme to mark individual small packs of eggs, which is legal. There would be nothing to stop us marking packs of eggs with regional characteristics, for example. We cannot mark individual eggs. I am advised that when that was done in the past, it tended to denote that the product was not absolutely fresh. There is not a good case for that form of marking in marketing terms.
    As for imports, we have discovered only eight incidents of infection in over 500 consignments that have been tested over the past 10 or 11 months. There is not a high enough incidence to justify the taking of emergency action, even if that were not to be illegal. I believe that the British consumer knows that he or she is well advised to purchase eggs that have the best guarantee of having gone through vigorous testing procedures.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to ensure that the poultry industry is not disadvantaged. Is he aware that there is substantial concern in the poultry trade that the British producer may be disadvantaged because of the different standards of hygiene that are being applied in the United Kingdom and the European Community? What steps has he taken to ensure that there are uniform standards of hygiene in operation throughout the Common Market?
    Mr. Curry: I accept my hon. Friend's point. The industry is concerned, although it is co-operating well with the measures that we have introduced. We are seeking to obtain from the Community proposals that will be on the table by May. The proposals will set down a programme for achieving standards across the Community that are equivalent to those that prevail in the United Kingdom. We may not necessarily have to reproduce in every detail what we are doing. We shall be looking for something that

    987
    gives just as strong a guarantee to the housewife, and which will be applicable and enforced throughout the Community.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister accept that it is grossly unfair that British egg producers have to produce eggs that conform to high standards while other egg producers are allowed to import contaminated eggs that are sold to the British consumer? The hon. Gentleman has conceded for the first time that there is a possible course of action. Will he invoke clause 36 of the treaty of Rome and hold up at the port of entry the contaminated eggs until imported eggs have been found to be clear?
    Mr. Curry: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is categorically no, because he is wrong on all counts. First, the action that he suggests would be illegal. At a time when we are lecturing the rest of the Community on legal behaviour, we can hardly engage in illegal actions ourselves. Secondly, the level of infection is not enough to justify such action. Thirdly, the correct course of action is to obtain a sensible and enforceable EEC-wide standard that protects all the housewives in the Community.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is no good having common regulations if they are not enforced equally, and until that happens, will Her Majesty's Government consider putting a mandatory notice on imported eggs that are not subject to the same safety standards, to the effect that they have not been produced in accordance with British regulations on consumer safety?
    Mr. Curry: No. That would be illegal. We would not contemplate that course, but my hon. Friend is right to say that we must ensure that whatever is agreed is enforced, and we shall pay particular attention to that when we come to the negotiations.

    Sheep
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the present state of the sheep industry.
    Mr. Curry: The United Kingdom sheep industry remains well placed to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the new sheepmeat regime, as the increasing level of our exports demonstrates.
    Mr. Howells: When will the Minister make a decision about the ending of the sheep variable premium in Great Britain, or will the scheme operate for the next two years or so?
    Mr. Curry: We shall shortly consult the industry on that. The advantage of an earlier ending of the scheme is that we would move to the Community system, which would rapidly benefit our exports. At the same time, we must bear it in mind that the buoyant French market is the major market and we wish to to be able to continue our expansion there without causing disruption to it. Exports have risen by 96 per cent. since 1985 and our overwhelming concern is to maintain that growth in the market. We shall consult the industry and we must bear both factors in mind when we do so.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent increase in hill livestock compensatory
    988
    allowances for sheep farmers in less-favoured areas is welcome support for the sheep industry in the uplands, as is the arrangement that was negotiated for British sheep farmers by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which was much better than what was originally proposed by the European Commission?
    Mr. Curry: That is true. We were faced with proposals from Brussels that we felt were discriminatory. We opposed them in a determined manner and, as a result, we have a good outcome. We recognise that sheep farmers provide the main support for the uplands in economic and environmental terms and we are determined to maintain their livelihood.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that one of the major problems facing sheep farmers is dogs worrying sheep, which is particularly acute at this time of year when there are pregnant ewes and young lambs? Is he aware that the problem has been solved to a major extent in Northern Ireland by the introduction of a proper warden system paid for out of dog licensing? Is not it high time that that scheme was extended to the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Curry: The answer does not lie in a universal scheme of dog licences. A farmer is at liberty to take action against animals that can clearly be shown to be causing damage to his livestock. The bureaucratic course that the hon. Gentleman outlined would be a considerable imposition and we do not wish to go down that route.

    Milk
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to extend the definition of milk to include sheep and goats milk; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): The definition of milk in the Food Act 1984 is somewhat restricted, but the Food Safety Bill will remedy this. That will allow us to make hygiene regulations on sheep and goats' milk.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present definition of milk in our legislation is not logical or uniform and that it would be in the best interests of food safety and hygiene to modify that definition, to give confidence to all who purchase sheep and goats' milk? In particular, does my hon. Friend agree that microbiological tests on herds of a reasonable size would also help to restore such confidence?
    Mr. Maclean: I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend. Sheep and goats' milk is already produced to consistently high standards. We have issued voluntary codes of practice and guidance, but it would be in the best interests of the industry for sheep and goats' milk to be produced to the same high standards that already apply to cows' milk. We shall introduce regulations on sheep and goats' milk, but we shall make sure that they are not so over-regulatory that we have a nanny society.

    British Food
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contribution his Department is making to improve the marketing of British-produced food.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The Government are firmly committed to improving the marketing of British food. I recently announced further funding for Food from Britain and I am looking to the industry to make marketing a major priority.
    Mr. Coombs: What visits has my right hon. Friend made to European exhibitions of food and farming to assist and underline the marketing and excellence of British food?
    Mr. Gummer: I had the pleasure yesterday of being in Spain to see the Alimenteria exhibition and I was impressed by the way in which a whole range of British firms are presenting British food especially for the Spanish market, which is growing. We doubled the exports of sheepmeat to Spain last year. There is a great deal more for us to do and I believe that British industry can do it.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the development of co-operative marketing ventures between farmers will form an essential part of improved product marketing in the 1990s? Can he tell the House what steps he is taking to encourage such ventures, bearing in mind the opportunities that will arise in eastern Europe?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right that co-operatives will be one of the better ways of encouraging marketing throughout Britain and with the rest of the Community. We already give help to co-operatives. Under the diversification scheme, we provide extra help for farmers who need to do feasibility and marketing studies. My hon. Friend asked about eastern Europe. I took a group of business men and farmers to Poland to seek new opportunities for industry. They were pleased with the reception that they received and with the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and our diplomatic posts in Poland and helped them. I hope to undertake further such trips.

    Green Pound
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding the level of the green pound.
    Mr. Gummer: I have received a large number of representations pressing for the green pound to be devalued.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at present the green pound constitutes an unfair burden on the British farmer? Is he aware that the efforts that he is making to have that penalty removed command the enthusiastic and total support of farmers in Suffolk, South?
    Mr. Gummer: I am glad that my neighbouring constituency supports that, because I believe that it is of great importance that farmers in Britain should be able to compete on equal terms with farmers in the rest of the Community. The green pound means that they work at a
    990
    considerable disadvantage. We are fighting for a substantial reduction in that disadvantage, and I take every opportunity to press the Commission for a more realistic proposal than the one that it has put on the table so far.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is not it ludicrous that British farmers have been working under a green pound disadvantage ever since we entered the Common Market, which means that the unfairness has now lasted almost two decades? Does the Minister agree that British farmers want to compete fairly, especially at a time of high interest rates, and that that fairness can commence only when green pound anomalies are eliminated?
    Mr. Gummer: What the hon. Gentleman says is not true. For some time we had the benefit of a green pound that operated in the opposite direction and there was much less concern among British farmers to right the difference on those occasions. The fact remains that in recent years there has been a major disadvantage, and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right about that. We know that it must be eliminated, and it has to be eliminated by the end of 1992. The quicker we redress the unfairness, the better. After 1992 we must have a system that is fair to all farmers in the Community, because British farmers will compete if they are given a fair chance to do so.

    Sugar
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the European Economic Community sugar regime.
    Mr. Curry: The European Community sugar regime is due for review by the end of June next year.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the EC sugar regime is immoral because it encourages overproduction, it forces consumers in the Community to pay well over the world market price and it pauperises the Third world by encouraging dumping? Does he believe that national quotas are consistent with the 1992 philosophy?
    Mr. Curry: I believe that we must make a distinction between the effects of the regime on cane sugar and its effects on beet sugar. It is satisfactory that the Community imports 1·3 million tonnes of raw cane sugar from the developing countries, and that concession is valuable to them. We have never disguised our belief that the price of beet sugar is far too high. We have always argued that the price should be cut. We did so yesterday in the Council of Ministers and we shall continue to press for that reform.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), I believe that British sugar farmers are the best and most efficient in Europe. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, whatever happens to the. sugar regime, there will be no reduction of sugar quotas in Britain?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the United Kingdom is not self-sufficient in sugar: she depends on cane imports for a good half of her supplies. If we are to begin to reform the Community regime and cut quantity, the process should not start in the United Kingdom.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current level of farm incomes.
    Mr. Gummer: We estimate that in 1989 farm incomes increased by 16 per cent. over the low levels of 1988. There were, of course, considerable variations between various types of farming and various regions.
    Mr. Cran: I welcome the Government's determination to eliminate the green pound gap by 1992. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that a case can be made for faster action, to enable the farmers of east Yorkshire to begin to invest now and to take advantage of the opportunities that the internal market will undoubtedly present? Fixed capital investment in the agricultural sector fell by more than 40 per cent. in the six years to 1989: in any other industry that would be regarded as disastrous.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will know that the offer on the table is "one third, one third, one third", leading eventually to the elimination of the green pound. We do not think that that is enough; I agree with my hon. Friend that faster progress must be made. I also agree that the green pound needs to be eliminated if British farmers are to take full advantage of the single market. That is why we remain adamant that there must be no green pound once that market comes into line.
    Mr. Molyneaux: When the Minister met the combined farmers' unions of the United Kingdom recently, was he able to give them an assurance that he would do his best to ensure that the beef sector in particular was placed on an even footing with its European rivals, especially in view of the present high interest rates?
    Mr. Gummer: I told the unions what I have told the House on several occasions—that the aim of the battle that I am conducting with our European Community colleagues is to receive an answer that will substantially reduce the gap for United Kingdom producers. I use the word "battle" because I believe that we must fight hard. No other country gains any advantage from the change to a smaller gap; every other country gains an advantage from the change to a wider gap. Any hon. Member who thinks that this is not a battle has clearly never gone in for negotiation.
    Mr. Marland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that dairy farmers' incomes are now enormously higher than any of them would have imagined a few years ago? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that his excellent scheme for the extra 1 per cent. of milk quota, 50 per cent. of which is to be given to the small farmers, has been accepted by the European Community?
    Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that, after several discussions, the Community has accepted the overwhelming majority of our proposals for the extra I per cent. I shall be able to announce the details in the week beginning 12 March, which means that the quota will be allocated before 31 March, to the benefit of producers as a whole. The one part of the scheme that will have to wait is the part that we are still discussing—new entrants.

    Animals (Slaughter)
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about monitoring of the welfare of animals at slaughter.
    Mr. Maclean: It is the responsibility of all involved with the slaughter of animals to ensure that it is carried out humanely and in compliance with the law. Local authorities enforce the legislation, and officers of the state veterinary service also visit all slaughterhouses to monitor standards and give advice.
    Mr. Howarth: Does the Minister accept that, because the inspections by local authorities and MAFF officials are, as it were, by appointment only, the findings and figures resulting from such inspections are somewhat artificial, as the slaughterhouses can prepare for the visits? Would not it be better if the officials had the power to make snap visits? They could then obtain a more accurate picture, and ensure that the regulations are being observed.
    Mr. Maclean: We are confident that the regulations are being properly enforced throughout the country. State veterinary service officials and local enforcement officers already have sufficient powers to visit slaughterhouses and catch out anyone who is committing a misdemeanour. However, we hope soon to be able to lay more detailed regulations dealing with further aspects of animal welfare at the point of slaughter. If we need to take further powers, we shall do so.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Several of my constituents, and others elsewhere, are concerned about the possible arrangements for the export of live horses for slaughter. Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to encourage the Government to retain the minimum value system for the export of horses?
    Mr. Maclean: I do not need to encourage the Government. We have said time and again that we want to retain the minimum value system. We are arguing for its retention in our European Community negotiations. My hon. Friend may have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently published a statement calling for greatly enhanced welfare treatment throughout the EEC for all farm animals, including the welfare of animals in transit. That would include horses and ponies.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I congratulate the Minister on the recent favourable publicity for his Department in respect of farm animal welfare, in particular the welfare of animals at slaughter. We shall support his negotiating stance in Europe and shall look carefully at what he brings back from Europe. If, however, he is so concerned about animal welfare, why has his Department chosen to ignore 33 of the 51 recommendations in the Farm Animal Welfare Council report on the welfare of animals at slaughter? What does he intend to do about the recent Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals report, which showed that 53 per cent. of young bulls slaughtered in British slaughterhouses were not properly stunned before slaughter?
    Mr. Maclean: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assurance that aspects of animal welfare and improved

    993
    standards at slaughter and at other times during animals' lives will unite both sides of the House. That is a very important matter. It is a shame, therefore, that his later criticism was slightly unfair. The Government have accepted 104 of the 117 recommendations in the Farm Animal Welfare Council report on the slaughter of red meat animals. We are unable to accept the other recommendations at the moment because we need to introduce primary legislation before they can be implemented. Other recommendations will require the agreement of the European Community. That is a matter which we are also keen to pursue. The report to which the hon. Gentleman referred was financed largely by my Department. We are anxious to follow up its recommendations. Therefore, when regulations are laid, dealing with the welfare of animals at slaughter, we intend to include a paragraph dealing with head restraints, in order to ensure that animals are held properly and securely and are properly stunned before they are slaughtered.

    Flood Defences
    Mr. Key: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made a recent assessment of the state of flood defences.
    Mr. Maclean: The state of the country's flood defences is kept under continual review, and we have greatly increased the grants in recent years. The effects of recent storms are likely to lead to changes in the National Rivers Authority and local authority programmes. We intend to ensure that Government funding is sufficient to take account of necessary adjustments to programmes and priorities.
    Mr. Key: That is very good news. I hope that my hon. Friend will never lose sight of the fact that underneath every flood lies someone's home or livelihood. Will he listen sympathetically to the National Rivers Authority, which may wish to reorder its priorities for the funding of our defences? It is not just that there have been coastal floods; there have been massive inland floods—for instance, from Salisbury Plain to the Solent. When the National Rivers Authority has undertaken hydrological surveys, I hope that my hon. Friend will listen sympathetically to what it has to say about its needs.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right to point out that flooding causes awful problems for the unfortunate victims. I sympathise with his constituents because of the problems that they are having to endure. I assure him that MAFF flood engineers are anxious to listen to the National Rivers Authority's representations. We should like to encourage the relevant local authorities, with which we also work in partnership, to let us have their assessment of their needs. We shall happily listen to any request to reorder our priorities so that the massive amount of extra funding that we are making available for flood defence can be spent in the best possible way.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Minister draw to the attention of the NRA the fact that land erosion on many of our river banks contributes to the problems of flooding and, quite frankly, appears to have been grossly neglected for many years?
    Mr. Maclean: I shall certainly draw the attention of the NRA to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Ministry, in
    994
    conjunction with the NRA and the local authorities, makes an assessment of priorities. We have funding available and if the NRA and the local authorities determine that there is a substantial flood problem, the Ministry will make grants available.
    Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that we all have a responsibility to protect Britain's coastal heritage? Will he look particularly at the problems of smaller local authorities in putting together coastal protection schemes in conjunction with flood protection?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are particularly aware of the needs of local authorities. That is why next year we intend to increase the maximum amount of the staggered grants available to local authorities to 75 per cent. We usually operate a policy that if a small authority with small resources requires a large flood prevention scheme, we make more grant available than if a large authority with large resources requires a small scheme.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the level of compensation payable for cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
    Mr. Gummer: I have received many representations supporting my announcement of 13 February 1990.
    Mr. Boyes: The Minister will be aware that there has been a staggering increase in the number of cows notified as having BSE since he introduced the 100 per cent. scheme. Does not that show the reckless negligence of the Minister in not having introduced the schemes earlier, with the result that contaminated cows have entered the food chain? What new measures does the Minister have to protect the food chain and, above all, to protect my constituents who are extremely concerned?
    Mr. Gummer: The only recklessness is the hon. Gentleman's in believing a report in The Guardian without checking the facts. There has been an increase in the number of cows reported as having BSE since I made my announcement as there was before I made it. When I made my announcement I said that I was doing so because that increase had taken place and would continue to take place because of the nature of the disease and the time that it takes to come out from original contamination. II am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of any danger to public health because for extra protection we remove from every animal taken to slaughter the offal that might otherwise have been thought to harbour the disease.
    Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations from his hon. Friend on his decision to increase compensation? Will he confirm that the beef trade with West Germany is almost back to normal? Does not that vindicate those who kept calm during the recent media excitement and rightly pointed out that, given the range of measures that he has taken, British beef is perfectly safe to eat at home or abroad.
    Mr. Gummer: There is no question but that the first priority of Government is to protect the health of the public and we have done that. The second priority is for

    995
    the House not to create needless rumours or fears as the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) has done.
    Dr. David Clark: Has the Minister noticed that the number of BSE-infected cows notified is running in excess of 460 per week? Does he accept that that figure is considerably higher than the peak figure anticipated by his own advisory committee, the Southwood committee, which suggested a peak of between 350 and 400 per week? Does he appreciate that there is therefore deep concern on both sides of the House? Finally, will he do one more thing and undertake a random survey of 10 per cent. of all cattle slaughtered at abbatoirs and slaughterhouses so that we can gauge accurately how widespread this pernicious disease is?
    Mr. Gummer: As usual, the hon. Gentleman mixes up two wholly separate things and, not surprisingly, comes to the wrong conclusion as a result. What are the two different situations? First, there has been, is, and will be —over the next few months and, indeed, probably for the next year or so—a continuing growth in the number of cases of BSE. That is exactly what I have said and what I shall go on saying. It has not changed at all; it is in the nature of the disease. These are not new cases; they are coming out because animals ate contaminated feed. The second issue is whether the Southwood committee was exactly right in the number of cases that it predicted. The growth that it predicted was exactly right. That is what we are seeing. The committee predicted that the growth would be exactly as we have seen it; its figures were merely slightly lower than the ones that we have at the moment. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but the fact is that he is using figures to frighten people who need not be frightened. He is instilling in people a fear that they need not have. As so often, he ought to be ashamed of himself.

    Food Irradiation
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received from independent scientific committees regarding the safety of food irradiation.
    Mr. Maclean: The safety of food irradiation has been confirmed in the report of the independent Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods entitled "The Safety and Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods". This includes reports from other independent scientific committees on a range of matters, including toxicology, nutrition, microbiology and radiology, and concludes that irradiation can safely be permitted.
    Mr. Colvin: The House will be pleased to hear that those committees will be joining the Ministry, the World Health Organisation and 35 other countries in saying that irradiated food is safe, but my hon. Friend failed to get that message across to the women's institutes of this country, who lobbied Parliament in force last week. Will he do something to improve his publicity? When he gets a package together, will he consider including in it details of the regulatory framework for irradiation? He will be able to include those once the Bill that we shall be debating this afternoon is on the statute book.
    Mr. Maclean: Like all sensible hon. Members on both sides of the House, my hon. Friend is in awe of the women's institutes. I take on board the points that he has made. When irradiation is being used, there will be the tightest possible regulatory regime for it. The Bill that is currently before the House is not the end of the matter. The one issue on which the women's institutes are in complete agreement with the Government is the freedom of the consumer to choose. If 8 per cent. or 13 per cent. of the public want to buy irradiated food I cannot see why we should stop them.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: What does the Minister have to say about comments made last week by Professor Bevan Moseley, head of the institute of food research at Reading? The professor said that the number of cases of food poisoning in Britain could be halved if we were allowed to have irradiated poultry meat. Bearing in mind that only 21 out of 140 countries allow irradiation, that only 11 allow poultry meat to be irradiated, and that only two of those 11 have actually used irradiation for poultry, will the Minister take this opportunity to dismiss out of hand Professor Moseley's comments and assure the people of this country that the Government do not want to see the large-scale irradiation of poultry?
    Mr. Maclean: No, I shall not seek to dismiss the comments of one of Britain's most eminent scientists and experts on food irradiation. The extent of the reduction in the number of food sickness cases related to irradiation will depend on consumer uptake. If consumers want to use irradiated foods—and we all know that irradiation is a safe process—if there is a growth in demand, irradiation will certainly have a major part to play. If, as forecasts suggest, only a minority of consumers want irradiation, the part played by irradiation will remain relatively small.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. So that there may be no distress in the Chamber, perhaps I should explain that I am being heavily urged by the Procedure Committee to speed up Question Time. As those who are in the Chamber for agriculture questions know well, sometimes the sun comes out after the rain. If hon. Members do not remain in the Chamber it is difficult to call them.
    Mrs. Gorman: As the Ministry has proved to my satisfaction the safety of irradiation, will the Minister consider extending it to the carcases of chickens slaughtered under zoonoses orders because they may be contaminated with salmonella? Is not it an acknowledged fact that most chickens have salmonella, but that so long as they are properly treated they can be used in the food chain? Is not that better than wastefully slaughtering them and dumping the carcases?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is certainly the sun after the rain—she is often the calm before the storm as well. It is better not to confuse two separate issues. All that we seek to do is to make irradiation available to consumers if they wish to use it. I have no intention of extending irradiation compulsorily to any process or foodstuff. If consumers want to use irradiated chicken meat, poultry meat and carcases, they may do so, provided that the food is safe.

    Fishing
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the present state of the fishing industry.
    Mr. Curry: The most urgent need facing the industry and the Government is to work for effective conservation of fish as a renewable resource on a Communitywide basis.
    Mr. Taylor: While the Minister looks towards effective conservation, he will inevitably be aware of the great hardship being caused to some in the fishing industry and of the fact that bankruptcy threatens no small number. Will he consider again a decommissioning scheme to help the process take place naturally without the need for bankruptcy and the poverty that that brings? I hope that he will be able to bring better news to the House.
    Mr. Curry: No, I do not believe that the answer lies in a decommissioning scheme. I believe that it lies in better management measures, which would introduce a greater element of market forces, and also in effective conservation measures of precisely the kind that we have announced today for haddock.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that although the quota system has been with us for some time, fish stocks seem never to have been more inadequate? What is the cause? Is it that the quotas have been pitched wrongly or that they have not been adhered to?
    Mr. Curry: I think that there is an element of both. I think that the quotas have been over-generous in the past, but the way in which fishing has taken place has meant that there have been discards. Equipment has sometimes behaved in a different way from that expected. For example, we have a 90 mm net, but when it is operated it is equivalent to a 60 mm net in some cases. Therefore, the answer must lie in much more selective gear in the fishing industry.
    Mr. Morley: Is the Minister aware of the disappointment of fishermen that licences are still being issued for the dumping of toxic waste, even though the Government promised that it would be stopped by December last year? Is he further aware of the disappointment that licences will be issued for sewage sludge dumping for at least eight more years? I appreciate that there has been a decade of lack of investment in sewage outfall works, but will the Minister take steps to phase out licences for sewage sludge dumping and other dumping and stop our seas being used as a cesspit?
    Mr. Curry: First, no licences are issued to dump toxic waste, because the waste is not toxic. Secondly, within two years from now there will be only a couple of licences, and they will disappear very shortly after that. Thirdly, it is by no means an open and shut question that there will be a net environmental gain from incinerating sewage sludge rather than putting it into the sea. We have decided that that is the effective course to take and we shall do so at the earliest opportunity, given the problem of planning permission for building plant. We have an extremely comprehensive programme which the hon. Gentleman should support.

    NFU Speech
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has placed in the Library a copy of his speech to the National Farmers Union annual general meeting.
    Mr. Gummer: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: Conservative Members are always grateful when my right hon. Friend puts a copy of his speech in the Library. Will he note that all farmers in the Esher constituency were delighted with that speech, which showed a forthright approach to all the problems of agriculture but in particular the Government's determination to make sure that the green pound was phased out by the end of the 1992 programme? Will he continue to reinforce that determination?
    Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that the green pound should be substantially devalued as quickly as possible. I am sure that farmers in constituencies other than Esher —and even some Opposition Members—will support that.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: As farmers who suffered were compensated following Chernobyl and such matters must have been dealt with at meetings and speeches to the National Farmers Union, why cannot the same principle be applied to the fishing industry? Why should fishermen lose thousands of pounds through storm damage while farmers are compensated when they suffer from things like. Chernobyl? Cannot action be taken, especially as the Isle of Man Government now pay compensation to their fishermen?
    Mr. Gummer: That really is a collection of things shoved together without a theme. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that farmers are not compensated for insurable storm damage. To compare Chernobyl with storm damage at sea is to compare two totally different activities and thus not surprisingly results in a wrong conclusion. The hon. Gentleman should accept that the British farming industry is helped to look after 80 per cent. of this country's land area and produce food for this nation. Year after year for the past 10 years, except for one year, the British fishing industry has enjoyed an increase in returns from its fishing activities. Many fishermen would recognise the past 10 years as being among some of the best that they have had.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. After my duties in the House I shall depart for a visit to Scotland.
    Mr. Redmond: Bearing in mind the decision of the Doncaster health authority, the community health council and a recent MORI poll which showed that the people are opposed to Doncaster royal infirmary and the Montagu hospital opting out of the Health Service, for the sake of democracy will the Prime Minister support a local referendum before that decision is implemented?
    The Prime Minister: No hospitals are opting out of the National Health Service. They are being given the chance to become self-governing and, therefore, to have far more say in decisions about the resources available and much better management, much closer to the consultants and nurses. Many people will want it that way. The hon. Gentleman should see how the system works; I think that he will find that many self-governing hospitals operate far better than those which do not choose that path.
    Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Militant violence has no part to play in the fixing of the community charge in our town halls?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly confirm what my hon. Friend says. Any violent or intimidatory demonstrations —organised, I understand from an excellent article in The Times today,by the Militant Left—are the negation of democracy. People should pursue their protests peacefully and in accordance with the democratic process. It is quite wrong for hon. Members to suggest that people should disobey the law by not paying their community charge.
    Mr. Kinnock: First, I agree with everything that the Prime Minister has just said, as I have made clear for a long time. Will the Prime Minister say why her Government think that it would
    "not be in the public interest"
    to use their powers to seek the disqualification of the proven liars who now head the House of Fraser?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry answered a question—[Interruption.]—or rather, made a statement yesterday in which he answered many of those questions in detail. I have read fully the replies that he made. The prosecution is a matter for the prosecuting authorities and the other powers are a matter for the regulatory authorities. The quasi-judicial decision is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Indstry; he has made it and answered to the House.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Financial Times that in the Harrods case
    "the real issue … is public confidence in the business and financial system"?
    If the Government will not use their power to disqualify directors who have been shown to be guilty of deliberate and persistent dishonesty, in what circumstances will she ever take action?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said, that is a quasi-judicial decision for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave yesterday. He said:
    "I have considered the matter carefully and have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to seek such an order in this case. Those who read the report can make their own assessment of the conduct of those involved. The provisions of that Act are intended not as a punishment, but as a protection for the public. I can add nothing further to that."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 875.]
    My right hon. Friend gave many detailed replies, some of which I have read, and some of which were technical. I rest my reply upon his.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister has still not answered the questions from both sides of the House about why the Secretary of State did not use the powers that he so clearly has. The Government have the powers to act. By their
    1000
    inaction, they are contradicting the public interest in the honest conduct of business in Britain. Is not that an open invitation to others, who could employ the same dishonesty as that shown by the directors of Harrods? Why do the Government so favour those who are very guilty when they happen to be very rich?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, if there were any fraudulent offences, they would be matters for the prosecuting authorities. Any question on that would therefore lie with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said yesterday, he has answered the questions about the report in full, and I must rest upon them.
    I have not, however, answered the right hon. Gentleman's first comment, that he agreed with me fully about condemning Militant—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: Will the right hon. Gentleman also condemn the 28 Labour Members who are urging that people should not pay their community charge?
    Mr. Barry Porter rose——[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter).
    Mr. Faulds: It is an abuse.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.
    Mr. Porter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a gentleman came to my surgery the other day who advanced some mild reservations about one or two details about the implementation of the community charge? What concerned him was that he could not understand the alternative, and I was unable to give him that information. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has any information from Walworth road which might lead her——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for what happens in Walworth road.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Prime Minister's attention been called to the cost of collecting the poll tax compared with the cost of collecting the rates? In Wales, for example, the cost will rocket from £9 million to more than £25 million. All the additional bureaucracy, new equipment and even new buildings will have to be paid for by the community chargepayer. In the circumstances, is not it sheer hypocrisy for the Government to lecture our local authorities on financial stringency and cost cutting?
    The Prime Minister: If more people pay community charge than were paying rates—which is part of the object of the exercise, as 17 million people were not paying rates and many of them will pay the community charge—it will cost more to collect, but nothing like so much as it would to collect both a roof tax and a local income tax.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend utterly condemn the disgraceful and dangerous scenes that we have witnessed in various council chambers across the country, orchestrated by various Left-wing groups and encouraged by those Labour Members who decline to obey the law by threatening to withhold payment of their community charge? Will my right hon. Friend also——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question, please. It is not fair on others.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I utterly condemn the violent scenes which seem to have been organised by the Militant tendency. They show precisely the same violence as we have seen before at Grunwick, in the coal strike and at Wapping, and they are the negation of democracy. We also condemn anyone, especially an hon. Member, who chooses to disobey the law by refusing to pay his community charge. That is totally wrong and means that Opposition Members obey the law only if they make it, not when another Government do. That is undemocratic.
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Orme: The Prime Minister will be aware that today is international women's day, which is being celebrated throughout the world. In this country, however, millions of women are suffering from the Conservative Government's economic policies? Will the Prime Minister now take steps to help many of those women by increasing child benefit immediately?
    The Prime Minister: No, but I am happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman, as it is international women's day, that thanks to the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) —women will, for the first time, be taxed separately which will be a great advantage. I must also add how grateful we are that our small number of Heads of Government have been added to by another woman Head of Government, in Nicaragua.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: In view of the criticisms levelled against the United Kingdom at The Hague yesterday in relation to
    1002
    the proposals to cease the dumping of industrial waste, albeit non-toxic, by 1992, and of treated sewage sludge by 1998, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of pollution of the North sea is due to those current practices and what proportion is due to the emission of untreated waste of every kind into the rivers Elbe, Weser, Rhine, Moselle and Schelde?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about these matters, knows that trace elements contained in sewage sludge account for only 1 per cent. of the total North sea load. The great amount of contamination in the North sea comes from the rivers that he mentioned. The Rhine, the Meuse and the Elbe deposit about 65 per cent. of contaminants into the North sea, which is more than three times the whole of that deposited by our own rivers. My hon. Friend mentioned sewage sludge being dumped in the North sea. That will have to be replaced by burning it on land and we shall require planning permission for about 10 incinerators to comply with our undertaking.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ashdown.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime M inister—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Ashdown, who is the leader of the second largest Opposition party.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise how welcome was her statement over the weekend that she would reconsider some aspects of the poll tax? In that process, will she think again about the advantages of a local income tax, which would be fairer, more efficient and simpler? Does not that enjoy exactly the same level of accountability for local government as that to which she must answer nationally? Does she appreciate that if she will show an open mind on that, she will give hope to many who will suffer under the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: What I said at the weekend repeated what the Secretary of State for the Environment had said in a debate in the House—that if there was any fresh evidence, he would look again at the calculation of the standard spending assessment. That was the undertaking that I repeated at the weekend.
    As for a local income tax, that would be just about the most unpopular and bureaucratic way of raising money for local authorities. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that when the community charge has been working, it will be realised that it is the best way of collecting money for local authorities, bearing in mind that one in four people will have a rebate and that there is also transitional relief, all expenditure on which will be met by the taxpayer.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take business questions first.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I would take business questions first.
Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after business questions, in the usual way.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows——
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)—he knows this well —that we are still in the middle of Question Time. I am now taking business questions. I will take points of order——
Mr. Nellist: It is about the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order, about the Prime Minister or anyone else, after business questions.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 MARCH—Until seven o'clock motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.
Afterwards motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order which is a consolidation measure.
Proceedings on the Capital Allowances Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
TUESDAY 13 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
Motion on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order
WEDNESDAY 14 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
THURSDAY 15 MARCH—Until seven o'clock completion of remaining stages of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
Consideration of any Lords amendments to the Coal Industry Bill which may be received.
Motion to amend schedule 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 16 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 19 MARCH—Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill.
Dr. Cunningham: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Monday evening his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy placed in the Library a copy of a departmental minute seeking to indemnify Nuclear
1004
Electric in the sum of £2,500 million? It is made clear in the privatisation Act—the Electricity Act 1989—that any sum in excess of £1,000 million that is so used must be debated and approved by the House. That is a large sum of public money. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the matter will be debated before any confirmation of the decision of the Secretary of State for Energy can be approved?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the widespread astonishment and anger, not only in the House but outside it, about the report on the House of Fraser/Harrods scandal? Is it not clearly inadequate that Parliament should have only a brief period—about 30 minutes—to discuss the matter, on a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Is it not in everyone's interest—not least in the interest of the Government, who commissioned the inquiry—that these matters should be fully debated in Parliament, and may we have an early opportunity to debate them in Government time? I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the support for that proposition on both sides of the House.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the activities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the chairman of the Conservative party, in relation to poll tax? Will he arrange for the chairman of the Conservative party —instead of erecting bogus figures about responsibility —to come to the House and bring with him his 12 Cabinet colleagues, of whom the Leader of the House is one, who represent constituencies in Conservative counties, where in every case the poll tax is hugely in excess of the Government's recommended level?
Why do the Government blame Labour councils when, under Cabinet Ministers' very noses, these huge poll tax figures are being set? Can I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I ask the Leader of the House to explain why in Tandridge, in his own constituency of Surrey, East, which has a Tory council, the poll tax is £79 above the Government's recommended level?
Hon. Members: Come on.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I was on the point of interrupting the hon. Gentleman, so perhaps I may do so now. Business questions do not provide the opportunity to make a statement.
Dr. Cunningham: I am coming to the question, Mr. Speaker.
Why, in Mole Valley, is the poll tax £85 above the Government's level and why in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Defence, is it £93—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must ask business questions.
Dr. Cunningham: My question is simply this, Mr. Speaker. As, in the face of public outcry, so many Conservative Members appear to have changed their minds about supporting the poll tax, will the Leader of the House organise an early debate so that we can vote on the matter again and throw the whole thing out?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no intention of arranging an urgent debate about that, although if such a debate took place it would provide us with yet another opportunity to ask Labour Members why 28 of their number are trying to incite people not to pay a tax put in place by the House.
Mr. Nellist: It is 31, not 28.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That makes it three times worse.
Such a debate would also provide us with an opportunity to make it plain that, under Labour councils, taxes will inevitably be higher than under Conservative-controlled councils.
Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's more serious points. He inquired about the electricity industry. The departmental minute deposited by my right hon. Friend gives notice to Parliament that it is his intention to bring forward, if necessary, an order to increase the current limit of £1 billion for liabilities under schedule 12 of the Electricity Act 1989 to £2·5 billion. As you, Mr. Speaker, made clear yesterday when this matter was raised, the order would be subject to parliamentary approval.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement yesterday about the report on the House of Fraser. I note the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate. Clearly there is no opportunity for a debate next week. Moreover, I understand that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is currently examining the investigative powers of the Department under the Companies Act 1989. It may well be thought appropriate to await its report before considering a debate. In any event, the matter can be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for an early debate on early-day motion 659?
[That this House views with grave concern the serious allegations made against the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers by the Daily Mirror and Thames Television Cook Report Special on 5th March that moneys from foreign countries were accepted in order to prolong a national industrial dispute and that one of those same countries, namely Libya, was at the same time supporting terrorism within the United Kingdom; notes that allegations of fraud and embezzlement were made to the effect that some of these moneys were used by officers and trustees of the National Union of Mineworkers for their own personal gain and that allegations of dishonesty were made against officers of the National Union of Mineworkers still in office; calls upon Mr. Attorney General to refer all these allegations forthwith to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and requests and requires assurances from those honourable Members still sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers that none of the money they receive in election expenses is derived from Libyan or similarly tainted sources.]
It concerns the National Union of Mineworkers and allegations made by a former Labour Member of the House, Mr. Robert Maxwell, that £5 million came from the terrorist regime of Libya shortly after WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead by the same people, and that the money was then misappropriated by union officials. May we also in that debate examine why no Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), have said a word about this scandal when they would be so quick to do so if it concerned a City institution?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend understands, the investigation of matters of that kind is, in the first instance, a matter for the police service rather than for either of the Law Officers' Departments. Anyone in possession of
1006
evidence to support the point he has made should, of course, place it in the hands of the police, who will be very ready to investigate the allegations. I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for having brought the matter to its attention.
Mr. Greville Janner: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing that the War Crimes Bill is to be introduced so swiftly. May I ask him whether we are to have a statement on the setting up of a special investigative unit such as the units that have been created in Canada, Australia and the United States so that justice may be done, so that those who are guilty and against whom there is sufficient weight of evidence may be brought to trial and those against whom there is not such evidence may be freed of anxiety?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his appreciation of the prospective legislation. It will, of course, be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to answer questions of that kind in detail in consideration of the Bill, but the hon. and learned Gentleman can be sure that appropriate arrangements will be made to ensure that the most effective investigations can be undertaken with the objectives that he has in mind.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: In view of the recent Consumers Association report revealing malpractices by some estate agents, linked to the feeling that investor protection may not necessarily be working out in precisely the way in which the Financial Services Act 1986 intended, would my right hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of initiating, not a narrow debate on the House of Fraser, but a much wider debate taking account of these concerns?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad that my hon. Friend has returned to the House, which we all welcome. The report gives us an opportunity of broadening the field of inquiry. I shall draw the point that he raises to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Frank Field.
Mr. Tony Banks rose——
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry if there was some confusion, but the House should know that I always give precedence at the next opportunity to those who were called last at the previous business question time. I thought that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was rising.
Mr. Frank Field: Following the statement by the Leader of the House last week on the future of the Social Services Committee, may I ask him whether he has had a chance to consult again more widely on the desirability of splitting the Committee so that it more accurately reflects Government Departments? May I invite him to make a further statement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The matter has been raised through the usual channels. I am considering how best to take the matter further, and I shall seek to inform the House in due course.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the arguments for dividing the Health and Social Security Departments apply equally to the case

1007
for dividing the Select Committees responsible for monitoring them, and that there is concern on both sides of the House about the delay in making this change? It is important that the departmental structure should be maintained, not least in this area, which accounts for almost half the total of Government expenditure and where the Committees have an onerous task. Will my right hon. and learned Friend see whether he can do something about this matter next week? The delay is a matter of concern.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even in the face of this formidably bipartisan combination of pressure, including the energetic support of my right hon. Friend, I do not think that I can promise that there will be a reaction next week. I take note, however, of the points that have been made.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House afraid of having a debate about the House of Fraser because of the connections with the Sultan of Brunei? Does he recall that in 1985, when the pound was worth $1·08 and sinking through the floor, the sultan found £5 billion to prop up the pound? As a result, the Government decided to lay off the House of Fraser and its surrogates, the Fayed brothers. That is why we have the cover-up. As for the Libyan connection, the only one that I am aware of during the miners' strike was the millions of barrels of oil that came from Libya to prop up the Tory Government.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not an expert on diversion. He should be ready to tell the House a great deal more about the Libyan connection in the strike. We shall look forward to hearing from him. If the publication of a report as extensive and as critical as that which the House discussed yesterday is a cover-up operation, the hon. Gentleman is even more extraordinary than I think he is.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Delighted as I am to acknowledge my right hon. and learned Friend's acceptance of the work of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on company investigations, the terms of reference of the Committee do not include, nor are they intended to include, the study of any particular company and its problems. As I feel sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would like to have more time to give us the background of his opinion, I commend to my right hon. and learned Friend the suggestion that a debate would be right and proper.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Obviously I take account of the proposition that my hon. Friend has put before the House, without being able to make any commitment.
Mr. David Alton: Following the reply which the Leader of the House made on 26 February about the funding of political parties in the emerging democracies in eastern Europe, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he has had the discussions which he promised to have with the Foreign Secretary about the nature of the funding, the timetabling of the resources and the methods by which moneys can be paid to the parties in eastern Europe?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), is
1008
undertaking, or will undertake, consultations with the various parties about the best way of taking the matter forward in pursuit of the sort of objective which is shared by both sides of the House.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. and learned Friend find time to debate the fact that this week the Liberal-controlled Richmond upon Thames borough council opened a new town hall that has been built at a cost of £12 million? Over the next 20 years it will add £10 per head per year to the community charge. Are not my constituents and their Member of Parliament right to protest about this reckless and indefensible civic extravagance?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having focused so precisely the grounds on which he and his constituents are objecting to characteristic Liberal extravagance.
Mr. John McWilliam: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his replies about a debate on the House of Fraser? The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) made a reasonable point about how limited the inquiry of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will be. The task that faces the House cannot adequately be dealt with in a statement. Nothing more nor less than the probity of British business is at stake, and we should have an early debate.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I said in answer to the first question on the subject that the matter can be discussed through the usual channels. It is always open to the Opposition to select the matter as a topic for one of their debates.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give further consideration to the possibility of a debate on the affairs of the NUM, not so much just so that the House can get to the bottom of the matter, as to give Opposition Members the opportunity to explain why they are suddenly so eager to dump a man to whom not so long ago they were all busy paying court as a great hero of Socialist labour? Is not this a possibly unique example of the rats trying to throw one of their own kind overboard?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has put the matter extremely compactly. I shall see whether any opportunity is likely to arise for the further discussion of that interesting insight.
Mr. Donald Coleman: Is the Leader of the House aware of the anxiety felt in Wales about the unclearness of the situation with regard to the announcement concerning the Secretary of State for Wales, especially in view of the breadth of the portfolio of the Welsh Office, which includes health, education, housing and local government? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made before the Welsh Grand Committee meets next week so that we may have a clear picture of the position in regard to his right hon. Friend?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I see no reason for any such statement. The hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend's predecessor as Secretary of State for Wales also gave substantial advance notice of the likelihood of his departure from that office. That did not prevent him from fulfilling the duties of that office with great

1009
distinction, as he did throughout his time there. He has been followed with equal distinction by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State, and he will continue to be an excellent Secretary of State until the time comes for him to leave the office.
Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the substantial public interest and concern about the revelations on funds paid to NUM sources during the strike some years ago? Is he further aware that that is a legitimate matter of concern to our constituents, upon which they expect the House to cast the maximum possible light? In those circumstances, will my right hon. and learned Friend bring forward a resolution next week to establish a Select Committee with the power to take evidence and call witnesses and so get to the bottom of the matter, which remains desperately unclear?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend adds to the clarity with which the House is being informed about a matter which clearly deserves to be followed closely.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Would it not have been more dignified for the House last Friday if one of the main contributions to talking out the Bill that seeks to help the victims of nuclear tests had some from someone other than the Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister whose Department seems to want to dump the Bill without debate? May we have a statement next week on the humane and important Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay)? Is there anything that the Leader of the House can do to facilitate consideration of the Bill?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Bill has so far taken its place in the ordinary way for consideration along with other private Members' Bills. I see no prospect of it receiving any different treatment from other Bills in the queue.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the War Crimes Bill, which I support, raises some of the gravest issues that could possibly come before the House of major changes in British justice? Is it not important that the Bill should be dealt with in a non-partisan way and that there should be a free vote?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the issues raised in the Bill. He will recollect that when it was considered in embryo, as it were, before Christmas, the House had a free vote, and that will continue to be the position.
Mr. Nellist: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement later today by the chairman of the Tory party because some hon. Members have been smeared by this disgraceful press release, yesterday, to which several hon. Members and the Prime Minister have referred today? Is he aware that the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation, while it understands that tempers can boil over when millions of families will be pauperised by the poll tax, does not organise, advocate or condone premeditated violence of the kind that has taken place recently.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that what has really upset him today is the news this morning, based on official figures, that 42.5 per cent. of people liable for the tax in Glasgow have still not paid it after 11
1010
months? When those people get 10 million reinforcements from England and Wales, the Prime Minister's flagship will be turned into a Titanic.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's question does not relate to the business of the House, but it gives me the opportunity of commenting yet again on the way in which so many Opposition Members—the number seems to increase with every report—are encouraging people to refuse to pay a tax which has been lawfully and effectively put in place by the House. That is the matter for concern, together with the violence of the opposition to the tax which has been generated.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us thought yesterday that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was too languid and laid back about the Al-Fayed/Harrods report? Does he not also accept that for the reputation of this country and the City there can be no neutrals as far as fraud is concerned? Does he also agree that the idea that the 750-page report should be sent to a Select Committee, when the Chairman of the Select Committee has said, "It ain't me, guy," is not on? The report is before the House. I believe that the country and the City will demand that there is a debate on it in Government time. If we can debate the conduct of one Member for six hours, why can we not spare three hours to talk about the conduct of these discreditable and loathsome creatures?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already said that the possibility of a debate on that topic must be discussed through the usual channels. I have taken note of the fact that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged upon me the case for such a debate. I can do no more than that.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the Leader of the House recall that a couple of weeks ago I asked for a statement about the threat to the jobs of some 2,000 workers at the James Seddon clothing factories, including some 1,000 jobs in the Falkirk district? Now that that company has gone into receivership and more than 100 people have been made redundant in Denny and Falkirk, will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement or, more important, to take urgent action to intervene to stop what could be one of the most serious threats of redundancy to affect Falkirk district for many years?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: While there can be no presumption that the Secretary of State can or should intervene in every matter of this kind, I know that he will be following very closely the events referred to by the hon. Member, and I shall bring to his attention the matter the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Sir Hal Miller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend try to provide time at an early opportunity either in the context of the EEC or of industry to discuss the moves which were taking place in the Commission even on Tuesday during our debate on the economy, whereby Japanese firms building cars in Britain with a British content will have those cars deducted from their quota, whereas cars built in America by the same Japanese firms will not have them deducted? How are we to view the Common Market and the operation of the single market if,

1011
as a member state, we are to be discriminated against in this fashion in favour of a non-member state? That is a serious question for people in the midlands in particular, and we want a robust statement of Government policy on that issue. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will seek to provide an opportunity for it.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The only reason for our resisting demands for a debate on that subject is that the Government's position—and, indeed, that of the House —is already clear. It would be quite improper for British cars produced by British workers in Britain to be treated differently from other cars produced in the Community. There is no case whatever for treating such cars as though they were produced in Japan.
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The case is being pressed energetically in the Community by all my right hon. Friends, and is receiving substantial support from a number of partner nations. It is important that that case should prevail.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Leader of the House consider the question of education in the London borough of Newham, where a huge increase in population is projected as a result of docklands developments? As he knows, when similar circumstances arose in the new towns, special arrangements were put in place to finance the infrastructure, including schools, and I feel that such arrangements should be introduced in Newham. Deputations from the borough have been unable to persuade Education Ministers, however: they say that the money will be allocated when the population is there.
Building schools involves a lead time of five years. Unless something is done, people moving into the brave new world of docklands will find that their children are bussed out of the area for five years before the schools are built. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate so that the matter can be properly discussed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House will certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's commendation of the prosperity and successful expansion in and around his constituency that has resulted from Government initiatives. We welcome his support, and I shall certainly draw the aspect that he has mentioned to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Sir Alan Glyn: We are all very grateful that at last there is to be a debate on war crimes, but is not a war crime a war crime wherever it is committed? Surely the agenda should not be confined to German territory which might well have been occupied temporarily by the Russians.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The scope of the Bill—which my hon. Friend will be able to study before long—has been shaped after careful consideration, in the light of the report by Messrs. Hetherington and Chalmers. If my hon. Friend wishes to suggest that that scope be extended, he can no doubt do so when the time comes to debate the Bill.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to the possibility of a debate on the poll tax? Does he recognise the growing anger and resentment that is felt all over the country and
1012
is reflected in our postbags? I entirely repudiate any violence perpetrated by a few outsiders; Opposition Members have no time for violence of any kind—[Interruption.] I am surprised that I should ever be accused of condoning violence. Why does the Leader of the House not recognise that the tax is the most unpopular that has been introduced for centuries, and that hundreds of thousands of people all over the country—many in Conservative constituencies—are expressing their views and will continue to do so? Now is the time for a debate —in Government time.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: By definition, the matter has been debated in the House many times. The tax is in place as a result of the very recent passage of the legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be supported by more of his colleagues in his condemnation of the violence. I also hope that he will deliver the message to his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who was reported yesterday as saying that the violence had been generated by the actions of the Government. That is precisely the wrong way in which to condemn violence.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: May I revert to the question of the War Crimes Bill? My right hon. and learned Friend's answer was not entirely clear to some of us. Will he give us an absolute assurance that there will be a free vote?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot speak for the Opposition —but I see hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench nodding. A silent intervention has been allowed to inform me: there will be a free vote on both sides of the House.
Mr. Eric F. Heifer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and those of my hon. Friends who have asked for a debate on the poll tax? Many of us are totally opposed to the use of violence, but the chairman of the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), has suggested that the violence is the result of the activities of Militant Tendency. Some of us have had, unfortunately, to live with members of Militant Tendency for many years. However, whatever criticism we may make of them, we have never found that they support violence.
[HON. MEMBERS: Oh.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has the right to express his opinion about the matter.
Mr. Heifer: Therefore, I ask the right hon. amd learned Gentleman to provide time for a debate on the issue so that those of us who have known members of Militant Tendency for quite a long time can express our opinions and talk of our experience. Does he not agree that the most militant people on the picket lines at the moment are those people who on television have said that they voted Tory in the past and that they are now ashamed of having done so?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House can find ample opportunities to debate the matter, should it wish to do so, as it has done on many occasions. According to my experience, not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency the most alarming demonstrations that I have ever encountered were on Merseyside, when the demonstrators had substantial support from members of Militant Tendency.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members would not be afraid of a debate on the community charge? Those who deliberately encourage the flouting of the law by non-payment and encourage violence at council meetings when the community charge is to be set support a party that intends to raise local authority expenditure by up to 25 per cent., thus causing hardship for those who have to pay the community charge. It could amount to an increase of as much as £100 per person in Lancashire. Therefore, we should welcome the opportunity to place the blame where it should lie.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for offering support for that proposition. He is right to draw attention to the extent to which high community charge levels are being imposed overwhelmingly by Labour-controlled councils.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the threat to public order from the introduction of the poll tax? Does he not agree that such a debate would allow the Government to understand that people in all political parties—including Conservative Members of Parliament, Conservative councillors and people of no political party —are protesting against the hated poll tax? Would it not provide an opportunity for the Prime Minister, the chairman of the Conservative party and the Leader of the House either to substantiate or to withdraw the serious allegation that 28 Labour Members of Parliament, including myself, are promoting the disruption and disorder?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government of course support the right of people to demonstrate peacefully in respect of or against any action by the Government, or anyone else. However, we do not approve of the action taken by the 28 —or was it 31?—Labour Members of Parliament urging resistance to the payment of a tax that had lawfully been put in place by this House. As the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) boasted not many minutes ago, no fewer than 31 Labour Members of Parliament are seeking to resist the payment of the tax.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an urgent debate on the holding of ballots for the purpose of electing trade union executives? I raise this matter on behalf of one of my constituents, Mr. Alf Mycock. He is a self-confessed Labour moderate who has turned to me for help, and for the help of the House, because he failed with his own general secretary, Mr. Ron Todd, despite the fact that Mr. Mycock had evidence of ballot rigging and serious complaints. He is very concerned, as we should be, in the interests of the general public, because their money was used for the holding of the ballot.
I ask for a debate for the simple reason that Mr. Ron Todd failed to involve the police. I am pleased to say that the police have now reacted to my constituent's request, and I am sure that the House will wish to debate the issue because public money was involved, and we should look to the House to take appropriate action on behalf of my constituent and the public.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure whether I can arrange an early debate on that topic, but the way in which my
1014
hon. Friend has put the matter so clearly and comprehensively will serve to put it on record. It deserves to be investigated.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. In the interests of time and the subsequent debate, may I remind hon. Members that the object of business questions is to ask for debates next week and not to make speeches that might properly be made in those debates.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Leader of the House recognise that the casual indifference that he is showing to the problem of low wages in the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons is causing deep concern among staff? May we have a debate on the matter, particularly in light of the fact that many people working in the Refreshment Department will have to pay poll tax bills of perhaps as much as £600, depending on where they live in London? They cannot afford it. They want action.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Like other members of the House of Commons Commission, I am aware of some anxiety about the rates of pay of some of the industrial staff in the Refreshment Department, but I am assured that basic wage rates do not compare too unfavourably with those in the catering industry in general. Moreover, Refreshment Department staff now benefit from a non-contributory pension scheme, a four-and-a-half-day basic working week and comparatively lengthy holidays. Of course, the Commission takes account of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but he should not continue to present the matter in such a fashion.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On the War Crimes Bill, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the principle of the English common law, affirmed as recently as Tuesday by the divisional court in the matter concerning the actions of police officers at Wapping, that delay in bringing a prosecution making a fair trial impossible is an abuse of the process and will not be tolerated by English courts? If that applies to a five-year delay, how can Parliament possibly authorise overruling that rule when the delay has been 50 years?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend draws attention to one of the points which will require careful consideration in the debate on the Bill. No doubt he will wish to take account of the fact that countries in the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition, such as the United States, which has set aside the Limitation Acts, and Australia and Canada, have legislated in respect of such crimes, notwithstanding the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the fact that there is to be a two-and-a-half-day debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that tomorrow the Government will not object to the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) proposing that primary legislation of that nature for Northern Ireland can be dealt with in this House, because the community aspect of the White Paper in Northern Ireland has not yet been properly published?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until tomorrow to see how matters transpire.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider initiating a debate on the community charge next week, so that the Secretary of State can explain to the House whether he is being even-handed in his grant treatment of different London boroughs, such as Lambeth and Wandsworth, and why, despite the fact that the amount going to every adult in Lambeth is £324 more than the sum going to every adult in Wandsworth, the community charge in Labour-controlled Lambeth is nearly four times as much as that in Wandsworth?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend would relish the opportunity to explain that. In the meantime, he will be grateful to my hon. Friend for having made an important point very clearly.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: When do the Government, having been seized of the problem for the best part of 10 years, intend to fulfil their promise to introduce legislation to deal with the problems of maritime archaelogy? It is some time since they received the recommendations of the joint nautical archaelogy policy committee.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government may have been seized of the problem for 10 years; I am afraid I have not. However, I shall look into the matter in the light of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has expressed his case.
Mr. Michael Jack: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to try to find an opportunity for the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to come to the House and rebut the scurrilous attack on my local authority—the Conservative-controlled Fylde council—by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)? In an article in The Times, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the Fylde council had exceeded the Government's target by £110. That is not true; the figure is actually £7. Excessive expenditure in Lancashire is down to Labour-controlled Lancashire county council.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking yet another opportunity to make clear the spendthrift policies of Labour-controlled Lancashire county council.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Leader of the House recognise that the greatest poll tax problems arise not from what the local authorities are doing or from the number of people choosing not to pay, but from the fact that millions of people cannot afford to pay? This is because of the basic unfairness of the poll tax and of other policies that the Government are pursuing. Will the Leader of the House therefore reconsider the need for a debate on this matter? Will he give the House an absolute assurance that, if there is to be any local government poll tax capping, there will be a full debate beforehand on the serious implications of such action?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: When any question of capping comes to be considered, my right hon. Friend the Secretary
1016
of State for the Environment will act properly in accordance with the law that applies. I take note of how the hon. Gentleman's intervention, like the interventions of many other hon. Members, underlines the extent to which the community charge focuses attention on the level of local government expenditure.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find an early date for a debate on the scenes that occurred in the Walton-on-Thames town hall and in other town halls last night? Walton-on-Thames is within the borough of Elmbridge, which is part of my constituency. Militants incited people to intimidate councillors. It was disgraceful behaviour. These people are now commonly assumed to have been incited ultimately by the 31 Labour Members who are encouraging people not to pay the poll tax. Will my right hon. and learned Friend find a suitable way to bring this matter forward for consideration—perhaps by the Committee of Privileges—so that we may have a decision on how Members who are inciting people to break the law should be treated?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not for me to decide what matters should be put before the Committee of Privileges. As my hon. Friend knows, such matters have to go through the Chair. However, I take note of the important point that my hon. Friend has raised.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House satisfied with the way in which the House conducted its affairs yesterday in respect of the Department of Trade and Industry report on the House of Fraser? Is it not very strange that a 750-page report that was the No. 1 item on all the national news bulletins and is on the front pages of all the national newspapers today should have been the subject of a 29-minute statement in the House? Does the Leader of the House agree that the order of priorities that was adopted yesterday makes us look ludicrous, ridiculous and out of touch? Will he please give us an assurance that there will be a debate on this matter?
Mr. Speaker, You, said yesterday that the statement was the first stage and that there could then be a debate. Will the Leader of the House make sure that when that debate takes place the Attorney-General will come and listen to it? For some reason, the Attorney-General was not present for the statement yesterday, although he turned up to hear the statement by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). When it comes to what is really important in this country, what sort of priorities do the Government have?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will understand that this matter came before the House yesterday because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry chose to volunteer a statement on it. Conclusion of that item of business yesterday was a matter to be determined, quite properly, by the Chair in the light of the pressure to consider other matters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was not here at that time, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was here throughout the statement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to answer questions on the matter in the House on Monday.
Mr. John Marshall: May we have an early debate on the Post Office monopoly? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, during the past week, no

1017
collections or deliveries have been made in my constituency? That is causing grave inconvenience to many people. I have yet to receive the Whip for this week but I am here. The monopoly should be broken quickly. May we have an early debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am impressed by the way in which my hon. Friend moves from one item to another. Having asked questions week after week about war crimes legislation, he now moves on to the Post Office monopoly. I dare say we shall have to look forward to questions on that topic for a number of weeks because there are at present no plans to end the monopoly. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to attend the House, notwithstanding the non-delivery of his Whip.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Prestwick airport and the allocation of North sea haddock quotas are of vital importance to specific sectors of the Scottish economy, yet important statements on both subjects have been made this week through the medium of written questions, thus minimising scrutiny. Does the Leader of the House accept that that is a disgraceful way to treat Scottish matters? Will he consider again the use of written answers to deal with important Scottish matters, and will he arrange for suitable debating time on such matters?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman will understand. I and others concerned with the business of the House always try to identify the right way for announcements to be made. I shall take account of the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. I hope that he will share the general satisfaction and the policy consequences of the announcement about Scottish airports.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Bearing in mind that the European Community must be the most important force for stability in a changing Europe, and given the extraordinary way that it is set up so that it is difficult to hold it accountable to the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend bring forward next week his response to the very large number of requests that he has received for improvements in the procedures by which Members of the House can keep in touch with Members of the European Parliament and with the business of the European Community?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am always grateful to hon. Friends who emphasise the importance of improving co-operation between Members of the House and Members of the European Parliament and Community institutions. As my hon. Friend knows, some of those questions are being covered in my consideration of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, whose recommendations will no doubt be considered by the House in due course.
Mr. Ray Powell: Despite his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), will the Leader of the House reconsider having a debate on early-day motion 653?
[That this House thinks that Wales should not be burdened with a Secretary of State who, as a result of his announcement of his intention to resign at some unspecified future date, is limited in his ability to make decisions which bind his successor; points out that this would be an intolerable situation in any Department, but is especially so
1018
in a Department with such wide-ranging responsibilities; and calls upon the Prime Minister to end this Whitehall farce by immediately appointing his successor.]
Is he aware of the concern expressed on these Benches about the contempt with which the Secretary of State for Wales treated the House last Thursday, St. David's day, by not announcing to elected Members for Wales his intended resignation? There is great demand in Wales for a successor to be appointed. We do not wish to have a lame duck hanging on; we want a Secretary of State for Wales.
If the Government are in trouble about whom to select, may I suggest that, with his knowledge of foreign affairs and with his clout as deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might consider offering his services so that we can have a Secretary of State at an early date?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is odd to hear a Welsh Labour Member suggesting that one qualification as Secretary of State for Wales should be a knowledge of foreign affairs. As I have already said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales dealt with the matter as effectively and as sensibly as he could on Sunday. He had no case for doing so on the preceding Thursday. He will continue to serve in his office with the distinction that he has shown in his time there so far.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Home Secretary to make an early statement on the mass rioting which has been taking place around town halls all over the country, with people bussed in often from miles away? Clearly the rioting has been fomented by a statement issued on House of Commons notepaper and signed by 28 Labour Members.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the part played in that discussion, and the way that it was conducted, by the declared opposition of Labour Members to payment of a tax lawfully in place.
Mr. Tom Cox: The Leader of the House will no doubt be aware that the talks on Cyprus under the auspices of the Secretary-General have again broken down. As Cyprus is a Commonwealth country and this country is one of the guarantor powers, when are we to have a debate in Government time on that island and its future?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the prospect of a debate on that matter in the near future. I assure the hon. Member, and those who naturally follow this important matter, that the House will continue to maintain a close interest in it, as do my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's concern to their attention.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time in next week's business to arrange for the Attorney-General to make a statement to the House on the report of the Department of Trade and Industry published yesterday? As there was less than half an hour to discuss that important issue yesterday, many questions are left unanswered, in particular, how 1,000 illicit copies of a stolen volume of the report were printed by someone called Mr. Sam Evans. He happens to be Adnan Khashoggi's American attorney. That is one issue that should he pursued. It is a matter of grave importance

1019
because it circumvented the report's publication yesterday. Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for the Attorney-General to make a statement next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that the existence of copies of a document, which has now been published with the authority of Her Majesty's Government, can be said to circumvent the publication which has now taken place.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I cannot hear.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure whether publication, in the way described by my hon. Friend, of copies of a document that has already been published with the authority of the Government, can be said to circumvent publication that has now taken place. If my hon. Friend wants to ask questions about that matter, he will have a chance to do so when my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General answers questions on Monday.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House note that I am adding my voice to that of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry? As one of its members, I think that any debate on the House of Fraser should not be held up because the Committee is looking at the question of company investigation. Will the Leader of the House take on board the disquiet shown on both sides of the House at the shortness of yesterday's statement and the fact that there are many questions still to be answered? As well as wanting the Leader of the House to speak to the Attorney-General to see if he will take part in the debate, many hon. Members will listen with interest to what the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has to say about his role in that sorry affair.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already said, there will be no scope for a debate on that matter next week. The following week we shall be entering the period of the Budget debate, when some aspects of the matter may be raised. I cannot do more today than say that I shall take note of the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised the issue.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On reflection, does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that he was less than characteristically generous in his response to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)? Surely we should have a statement, preferably a debate, on the number of Labour Members who are allegedly telling people not to pay their community charge—there is some doubt as to whether the number is 28, 29, 31 or 32. That would also give Opposition spokesmen the opportunity to denounce those hon. Members who encourage people to break the law.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to my apparent lack of generosity. I always try to deal generously with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who has certainly done us a service in emphasising yet again the need for the Labour party to repudiate opposition to payment of a tax which is lawfully in place.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Is the Leader of the House aware that, before the militant tendency of the
1020
Conservative party demonstrated in Richmond, the Liberal-Democrat councillors there undertook the most comprehensive consultation anywhere in the country about the budget of that council? Were the Leader of the House to provide time for a debate, that might provide a useful lead in encouraging such consultation in other councils on the setting of their budgets.
While considering such openness and consultation, did the Leader of the House note that the Conservative broadcast on television last night that boasted of the Government's environmental record was immediately followed by a news broadcast citing the criticisms of our European neighbours of the Government's environmental record? That at least seems to be a subject for debate. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the complaint of many people appears to be that the Richmond councillors to whom he referred took insufficient account of the consultations on which they embarked. As for the North sea conference, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will no doubt report further to the House and will answer questions in due course.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange an early debate on the relationship between inflation and local government taxation, so that I can put my constituents' case before the House and point out that, although inflation since 1986 has totalled about 20 per cent., during those four years Ealing Labour council has raised its rates and local taxation by nearly 300 per cent.? In addition, that same Labour council has borrowed £200 million, and will have to start repaying that next year. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is on the Front Bench, will have to share that repayment.
Is it not time for a proper debate on the appalling, wicked and unfair expenditure of a Labour council that has raised local taxation by 300 per cent. in four years, and has still not had clearance from the auditing officer for any of its accounts for the past four years?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to his constituents' concern about the high-spending, high-tax policies of the Labour-controlled Ealing council. I believe that I am right in saying that it is the council area where we find the residence of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps it is his presence there that is encouraging such fiscal extravagance.
Ms. Mowlam: In view of the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who this afternoon have stated their concern about not having a debate on the House of Fraser report, will the Leader of the House give a clear commitment that such a debate can be held the week after next? As he said earlier, it is a critical report. Indeed, the Prime Minister said at Question Time that the buck stopped with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. All that hon. Members on both sides of the House want is the chance—which is our democratic right —to get him to answer the questions raised in that report.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already undertaken to consider that question in the light of the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised the matter. I cannot do more than that today.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is real and widespread concern in the country—including among many members of the National Union of Mineworkers—about the recent allegations that the leadership of their union sought arms and money from a terrorist regime to undermine the United Kingdom? If my right hon. and learned Friend cannot find time next week for a debate on that important subject, and as an internal union inquiry would do nothing to allay public concern, and given the sudden, belated enthusiasm of the Leader of the Opposition for distancing himself from Mr. Scargill, will my right hon. and learned Friend inquire through the usual channels whether an Opposition Supply day might be made available to debate this important subject?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly make such an inquiry, because I am sure that the Labour party wishes to do everything possible to condemn the matters raised in this way.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Government find time to respond to Chancellor Kohl, who put conditions on the recognition of the existing German-Poland border and alluded to Germans living in Poland? Was that not a most unhelpful and unpleasant statement, which brought back memories of Hitler's claims? Was it not ominous for the future, and does it not put German unification at risk?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Leader of the House may be multi-faceted when answering business questions, but that does not include the making of instant comments on rather far-fetched observations such as those that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. Graham Riddick: We have heard a number of calls for a debate on the House of Fraser affair and on the shenanigans in the miners' strike of the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers. May I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that it would be wholly appropriate to have a single debate covering both topics? We need to clear the air on the NUM fiasco, because the leader of the NUM is now giving Yorkshire and Yorkshiremen a bad name.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am always open to imaginative suggestions for reforming the procedures of the House, but I am not immediately persuaded by the charms of a debate on both those topics at the same time. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the serious implication of the allegations now made about the affairs of the NUM.
Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Leader of the house accept that we understand that he could not commit himself off the cuff to a debate on the allegation voiced by his hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) about 1,000 copies of a report being produced by an American? Will he equally recognise that it is an important allegation? May we ask him, therefore, whether he will make inquiries between now and Monday to establish the accuracy of the allegation and, more importantly, whether that publication took place before the Government's publication of the report? If it transpires that publication took place before the Government published the report, will the Leader of the House ensure on Monday that we have a statement to explain how that arose?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If and in so far as the way in which the point is put by the right hon. Gentleman means that I failed to detect or to acknowledge a substantial point in the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), I shall see that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General so that he may be able to answer questions about it, as far as he can, on Monday.
Mr. James Couchman: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the reports in the newspapers in the past few days about the growing practice of breeding bandogs—mixtures of pit bull terriers, ridgebacks and Rottweilers, for example—with the express purpose of breeding an especially savage and vicious large dog, and about the apparent liking of the criminal classes for such dogs? Will my right hon. and learned Friend invite the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider the matter and to tell us what he proposes to do about it?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend knows that legislation about dangerous dogs was placed on the statute book as recently as last summer. However, recent incidents such as those underlying the reports to which he referred are being examined closely by my right hon. Friends. I shall draw my hon. Friend's question to their attention.

Press Releases
4.38 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you make it clear that for a Minister to issue a press release in which he makes serious allegations against a group of unnamed Members of Parliament without producing any evidence to substantiate those charges is a practice that you repudiate?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I am not responsible for press releases.

Press Releases
  BILL PRESENTED
    WAR CRIMES
    Mr. Secretary Waddington, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Brooke and Mr. John Patten, presented a Bill to confer jurisdiction on United Kingdom courts in respect of certain grave violations of the laws and customs of war committed in German-held territory during the Second World War; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the Matter of Welsh Office Policies and Provision far 1992, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Orders of the Day

  Food Safety Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  [Relevant documents: The Sixth Report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1988–89, Food Poisoning: Listeria and Listeriosis ( House of Commons Paper No. 257, 1988–89), the Government's reply to that Report (Cm 848) and the First Report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90, Food Poisoning: Listeria and Listeriosis; Follow-up ( House of Commons Paper No. 93).]
  4.40 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is a joint initiative between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and the Scottish Office. It seeks to cover the entire food chain. There is no doubt that the safety of British food depends on covering the whole of the food chain, for the chain is only as safe as its weakest link.
  We in Britain have safer food now than has been the case in the past. People are able to enjoy a wider variety of diet and they are living longer than ever. So in bringing forward a measure of this kind, we seek to build on the present law, to find ways of meeting the new problems that new techniques of food preservation and handling bring to us and to meet the requirements of the greater accuracy with which we can now discern the parts of food that may be contaminated by such things as listeria.
  We now know much more about the composition of food and, because we are aware of the presence of substances about which we did not know previously, we cannot ignore them and we must find ways of meeting the much more stringent demands that the public rightly places on us. To do that, the first step must be to ensure better enforcement. Historically, enforcement in Britain has been through local authorities and I am convinced that there are major advantages in having a local enforcement service.
  But there is still the problem that if there is only a local enforcement service, there can be a considerable difference between the way in which the law is enforced in various places. I recently attended a meeting of the Guild of Food Writers and heard a prominent restaurateur describe her experience. Before opening a restaurant, she was told to tile the kitchens in a certain way. After she had opened the restaurant, another representative of the same local authority told her to remove the tiles. Within a year, a further representative paid a visit and told her to replace them.
  That sort of dislocation advice given in certain circumstances—even in the same place, let alone as between places—brings the food safety law into disrepute. So although enforcement should be through local authorities, a change is needed to even out the standards over the country as a whole.
  We propose to do that through codes of practice by which we hope to bring local authorities' actions and mechanisms into greater conformity without removing the need for local action on local problems, which vary from one outlet to another. That will mean better enforcement,
  1024
  better codes of practice, better training for enforcement officers and, in some local authorities, more enforcement officers.
  That will involve more expenditure by local authorities. The Secretary of State for the Environment has agreed that £30 million will be taken into account in next year's rate support grant settlement, enabling us to let local authorities have the necessary resources to do the job properly.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: What does that mean? Does it mean that £30 million will be coming from central Government to cover those costs, or will additional sums have to be raised through the community charge? If the latter, how much of that £30 million will have to be raised in that way?
  Mr. Gummer: The money will come from central Government, but, because of the block grant, it is not possible to direct that particular part of the money directly for spending in each local authority. Local authorities will have that extra resource, but they will have to use it and we will seek to make sure, by the codes of practice, that it is used. So the answer to my hon. Friend's question is that it will be an additional resource from central Government.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: All £30 million?
  Mr. Gummer: Yes, the £30 million will be taken into account from central Government provision by way of the RSG settlement.
  Mr. Conal Gregory rose——
  Mr. Gummer: I will give way to my hon. Friend shortly.
  What I have described will be paralleled by providing tougher powers for enforcement officers. We must achieve a balance between having the required additional powers to enable local authorities properly to protect the public and avoiding the temptation of having all sorts of fiddling rules being enforced on ordinary business men who are trying to run a reasonable service in a cafe, restaurant or small shop outlet.
  The balance between those two is important. The priority must be the safety of the public. We seek to ensure that safety in as unonerous a way as possible, for it would be wrong to encourage the view that every action and movement of people who are trying to provide a public service and earn a living should be monitored in a way which they would find oppressive and which would be counter-productive.
  Mr. Gregory: My right hon. Friend is right to refer to the need for environmental health officers to have adequate powers to enforce the law. Has he had discussions recently with the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the inadequacy of environmental health places at polytechnics? If we could overcome that difficulty, the vacancies for environmental health officers in many parts of the country would be filled and the vital piece of legislation that we are considering would be properly enforced.
  Mr. Gummer: I have had discussions with the Secretary of State for Education and Science covering a range of matters, including not only the training of enforcement officers but, equally important, how best to ensure that the training of youngsters in the use of food in the home can

  1025
  adequately be provided within the schools system. All such matters are under review and I hope that that meets the concerns of my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise rose——
  Mr. Gummer: I will give way to the hon. Lady when I have given more details concerning enforcement officers.
  Up to now we have been able to take from the shelf, technically speaking, only the product that has been proven to be dangerous, and no other product from the same batch. Happily, that has not caused real problems because in almost every case—as far as I know, in every case—the companies concerned have willingly removed from their shelves any product about which there has been concern.
  But that might not always be the case. There may be circumstances in which a company would be unwilling voluntarily to do that. So I feel that I should have power, and give enforcement officers the ability, to insist on the removal of the whole of a batch from the shelves, and of goods that are ready to go on the shelves. There are a number of places in which we have not had those powers. While we have not needed them, because there has been voluntary compliance, we should have them lest such voluntary compliance is not forthcoming.
  It is also important to have improvement and prohibition notices. The environmental health officer should be able to demand necessary improvements for the protection of the health of the public and, in severe cases, to say that where there is real danger to public health, a premises must cease trading.
  We must, of course, protect individuals from the misuse of such powers. It is of little help to say that it will take us a week or two before we can stop somebody poisoning his customers. So we must have an emergency system, to be used only when utterly necessary. That will be part of the tougher powers that the Bill will provide for enforcement officers.
  Mrs. Wise: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to his reference to the £30 million and ask on what basis the Government arrived at that figure?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady is right to ask that question. It was a difficult matter. As she may know, environmental health officers are concerned with housing conditions, noise pollution and a whole range of other matters. So we had first to try to estimate the amount of time and resources necessary for the part of their work that is concerned with food safety. We had also to consider the wide discrepancies in the importance that different local authorities place on food safety and the amount of resources that they already devote to it. We then had to bring into account the money already allowed for.
  After that process, and following consultation with various authorities and experts, we decided on the figure of £30 million, which was widely considered to be not unreasonable. I was pleased to discover that that decision had support from all sorts of sources and from bodies that do not normally support the Government. It seems to me that the figure is not far out and it is pretty widely felt that we have tried to meet the requirements. We intend the Bill to work effectively and it will enable us to involve some local authorities that do not use enough resources—even out of block grant resources—for this important job.
  1026
  Then there is the question of emergency control orders. Suppose that there is a serious danger—the possibility that an outbreak may reach epidemic proportions. That is not necessarily as frightening as it sounds; it could mean circumstances in which a succession of people might be affected by contaminated food. In such circumstances, we need a simpler, clearer, more comprehensive form of emergency control orders, and that is provided in the Bill.
  It is vital that we should continue and elaborate the conditions that apply to labelling and to misleading claims. The House knows that extensive work is already taking place in the European Community. We have asked the Food Advisory Committee to consider labelling generally. We also want to ensure that labels provide information that is necessary to protect health. When I deal with irradiation, I shall point to the important part that labelling must play.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: If it is about irradiation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait until I deal with it in my speech.
  Mr. Cohen: It is about labelling. Why have the Government dragged their feet for a decade on the labelling of fat, sugar, salt and protein? Will there be measures to ensure that those items, which are crucial for health and diet, are listed on labels?
  Mr. Gummer: The Government have done nothing of the sort. We have spent a great deal of time trying to reach an agreement in Brussels—that agreement was finally concluded on 23 February—to ensure that there is comprehensive labelling. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to attack the Government, but he would be the first to complain if food manufacturing firms in his constituency had to label their products, when imported, competing, products were not labelled. The hon. Gentleman should aim his darts at the right target, and not attack the Government, who have taken the lead in trying to improve labelling and give the public more information.
  Enormous changes are taking place in the scientific and technological world. We need to be able to deal with questions arising from genetic manipulation and with the emerging obligations of our membership of the European Community. If we are to do that, we need flexible regulation-making powers so that we can make changes as soon as they are necessary and so that we do not find ourselves lagging behind others. Contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Leyton, we have been in the forefront of food safety and we intend to remain there. The Bill will give us the opportunity.
  Mr. Churchill: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, and in view of the great change that would be involved in lifting the ban on the sale of irradiated foodstuffs, will he consider amending the Bill to require at least an affirmative resolution of the House before irradiation can be permitted? At present, the Bill provides for the negative procedure to be used.
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to hear what I have to say about irradiation. I do not agree with him about the enormity of the change; it merely puts us in line with a large number of major countries. Every piece of irradiated material will be clearly marked, and if

  1027
  my hon. Friend does not want to buy it, he need not. I do not see why we should be too concerned about irradiation. The question is clear, and I hope to deal with it clearly.
  First, though, let me deal with the registration of individual companies. I am concerned that in some cases local authorities have been unable properly to protect the public's health because they have not known of the existence of some food outlets. That is a major problem. On the other hand, we must be careful to place only the necessary burdens on industry because otherwise it will not have the flexibility to provide what the customer wants. We need to strike a balance. We are therefore introducing a straightforward procedure whereby food businesses will give their local authorities a few key details on a standard form. They will not have to pay to register.
  The register will assist enforcement authorities to assess their task and set their priorities, and under clause 27(2)(c) we have powers to make such registers open to the public. We hope that that will enable us to ensure that a person wishing to open, for example, a sandwich bar will give the authority notice at a reasonable time in advance of its opening—perhaps at the same time as making arrangements for building or planning permission. That will give local authorities the opportunity to take such action as they wish.
  Where there is a need for an especially tight control, a licensing system can be used. We have already made it clear that this will apply to dairies and dairy farms, which have licensing-type controls at present, and to premises where the irradiation of food is to be carried out.
  The Bill allows us properly to control the irradiation of those foods for which treatment could bring benefit to consumers. It does not, however, usher in irradiation; there is no question of that. That will be achieved by detailed regulations put out to public consultation and laid before Parliament. The regulations will ensure that food irradiation will be allowed only under strictly controlled conditions, which will include the labelling of food both in retail outlets and in restaurants to give the consumer genuine choice. We are already consulting on how that should be done.
  Irradiation is a valuable adjunct to our armoury in the fight against food poisoning. It has been confirmed as safe by the World Health Organisation and numerous expert committees around the world. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities' report on the irradiation of foodstuffs says at paragraph 143:
  "Irradiation could serve as a useful means of raising the margins of food safety by reducing the contamination of some food by certain organisms".
  If people do not want irradiated food, they need not buy it. I am not in the business of forcing or chasing people to buy irradiated food. But, if they want it, they ought not to be prevented from buying it because somebody decides that they ought not to. I want these decisions to be made by the consumers, not the Consumers Association. It is the right of the consumer to decide. Therefore, irradiated food must be properly labelled.
  This advantage is already being enjoyed in more than 20 countries. Consumers in France, Belgium, Italy, the United States, Japan and the Netherlands are all able to make a choice, although in many of those countries it is not as clearly defined as we will make it. I believe that our consumers should be permitted the same opportunities.
  1028
  Irradiated food will be labelled and people will be able to choose. It is not for me, as the Minister, to choose; it is for them to do so.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister cited the World Health Organisation in his support, yet the European Parliament working documents say that the WHO expressly stated that the committee of experts had not considered the general safety aspects of the food irradiation process, nor had it claimed that food irradiation was safe or that it had no harmful effects on human health. And, of course, the British Medical Association board of science has objected to the food irradiation process.
  Mr. Gummer: WHO not only says that food irradiation is safe but is actually encouraging it; it says that it wants more of it. The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party which used to rejoice in the name "Liberal" and liberal means giving other people choices, not arrogantly asserting that one's own prejudice must be enforced by the law. I am sad that his party of all parties is not going round the country saying that we should give the consumer the choice.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am certainly not against irradiated food, but I am concerned, as is my right hon. Friend, that people should know when they are eating it, because many people will have fears, whether they are justified or not. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could explain what safeguards he will give so that people do not eat irradiated food in restaurants and public places, where they may not have an opportunity of seeing a label.
  Mr. Gummer: When we produce the regulations it will be necessary for shops and restaurants serving finished food, if I may put it like that, where the label will not be obvious, to state that they are using irradiated food, and the customer will therefore be able to decide. That seems to me to be not in any way unreasonable.
  In a world in which more and more people are seeking to make decisions for themselves, it would be a great pity if we decided, in the very important area of food, to take away their right to decide, when it is perfectly safe for them to decide.
  I think that it would be extremely difficult not to come to the conclusion that there is no danger to health. I shall certainly buy and eat irradiated food myself and so will my family. Those who do not want it need not buy it.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I think that there is an enormous loophole here. How would this work in practice in, say, fish and chip shops, restaurants or dining rooms in the House of Commons? Does it mean that when I order chicken and chips I shall be given a choice of irradiated or non-irradiated chicken? There will not be labels on the food in a cafe; food cannot be advertised in the menu as irradiated or not irradiated. It is completely impracticable.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will know, because the law will say that that information has to be made available in a satisfactory manner, and we shall quite properly be consulting the various bodies and people interested in the matter, including the hon. Gentleman, if he so wishes, on the best way of providing the public with a choice. It is difficult to understand how people can say that, because some people do not want irradiated food, nobody shall have it; because some people happen to be

  1029
  wholly opposed to the scientific evidence, everybody else must give way to them. It is the Jehovah's Witness approach to science—that no matter how preposterous a proposal everybody has to accept it because a small number of people take that particular view.
  Mrs. Wise rose——
  Mr. Gordon Oakes rose——
  Mr. Alan W. Williams rose——
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy rose——
  Mr. Gummer: No, I cannot give way; I really must move on at this point.
  Circumstances change as our knowledge improves. If we had taken the view that some people are taking now, milk would never have been pasteurised. Every argument we hear about irradiation was used against pasteurisation. Yet nowadays we mark only those products that are not pasteurised. I am suggesting that we should mark every product that is irradiated.
  There are some areas where those who care most about food safety—and I am one of them—are very concerned that we should have irradiation. At the moment we make safe the herbs and spices that we use by a mechanism which is dangerous and which we have sought to ban but have not been able to ban because there is no alternative method that renders those herbs and spices safe. I am not prepared to continue to endanger operatives and, to some extent, consumers by persisting in the unsafe system. I seek to ban that system once it is possible for people to choose an alternative. This is the only way to meet the changing technology; not to say no to newness from fear of novelty, but to say yes to what is safe and allow others to choose for themselves.
  Mr. Gregory: My right hon. Friend says that there is no distinction between a product that is pasteurised and one that is irradiated. I fully take his point about labelling and the importance of that, but scientists are able to undertake a test to show that a product has been pasteurised. How can he, with hand on heart, promote irradiated foods when, in the event of a court case, there will be no test to show whether the product has been irradiated? That invalidates the fundamentals of his argument.
  Mr. Gummer: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not right about that, for these three reasons.
  First, if one irradiates food one does something much less to it than if one pasteurises it. It always seems to me to be an amazing argument that, on the one hand, irradiation does so little to food that it cannot be detected and, on the other, what it does to food is so dangerous that it cannot be allowed.
  Secondly, there is irradiated food around now. Many countries irradiate food and, because it is illegal to irradiate food in this country, it is much more likely that irradiated food will come into this country, because there is no way that it can legally be controlled. I should much prefer to ensure that if food is irradiated it is done under the very strict conditions that we will lay down, rather than have food irradiated elsewhere sneak in in the way that Opposition Members tend to suggest has been happening.
  The third reason why I think that the argument is nonsense is that if I had a scintilla of doubt about whether irradiation was dangerous I would not allow it. But, as there is no doubt that irradiation is safe, I am allowing it.
  1030
  We will have the tight controls under the Bill to make sure that, where the benefit is clear, irradiation is properly carried out. But there are some other areas in which I would want to move in the opposite direction. With irradiation, I want to make legal something that is at the moment illegal.
  There are other areas where I am especially concerned about mechanisms for dealing with food, which I do not think are properly controlled. That is why I have already announced that we shall be issuing draft regulations. The Bill provides the flexibility to introduce the most appropriate controls in all such cases.
  One of the areas of which I have spoken in the past, and on which hon. Members on both sides of the House agree, involves mechanisms for preserving food such as sous-vide, where I believe that we must have much tougher regulations. The need for a constant temperature in the entire chain is such that I do not think it is a satisfactory procedure to be used without the strictest of controls, and that is why we shall introduce them.
  The involvement of consumers is the most important matter with which my Ministry deals. It is important that consumers should not feel that food safety matters are left to technicians in white coats and bureaucrats in bowler hats. We should not have a society in which the public feel that it is only experts who make decisions and that the people have no part to play. That is why I decided, first, that it was necessary to involve in food safety an organisation that clearly covered all aspects of food safety in the Ministry. That is why we set up the food safety directorate.
  Secondly, I decided that we should bring into the directorate the expert scientific panels that advise Ministers, the officials who spend so much time and expertise in advising Ministers, and a consumers panel. I have already announced that there would be such a panel, and today I am able to tell the House that the list of members of the panel will be placed in the Library. The members of the panel will have been selected or chosen by outside consumer organisations, not by myself, so there is no question of their having been hand-picked.
  Mr. McAvoy: Of course!
  Mr. Gummer: I knew that Labour Members would think that I would do it in that way, so I was careful not to do so. I asked only that the members of the panel should be normal consumers. Most of us want to have the advice of real consumers and not that of those who are becoming professional advisers to all sorts of organisations. I approached a range of organisations, and I am happy to say that all of them have provided me with names, every one of which I am happy to have accepted. There will be coverage of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Therefore, we shall have geographical coverage. Organisations including the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council have been asked to submit nominations.
  Mr. Oakes: How many people will be on the food safety directorate? What will be the total number?
  Mr. Gummer: There will be nine representatives from outside organisations, and they will sit regularly with the food Minister, who will listen to their views and put them forward. I hope very much that this system will work effectively.

  1031
  There is a wider consumer concern to which I attach a great deal of importance. I believe that too often and for too long many of the decisions made, especially in the European Community, are not informed by the views of consumers. Therefore, I have established a regular meeting with the leaders of the major consumer groups. They will meet me and consider the changes that are recommended by the Agricultural Council of the Community and in the GATT round, for example. I do not believe that the consumer voice has been listened to properly and regularly on major issues and matters of real priority.
  Successive Ministers have met the major consumer groups. Indeed, the first meeting that I had when I was appointed Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was with the chairman of the National Consumer Council. I met him before I met anyone else. I have since met the new chairman of the council. I have met also the chairman and senior members of the Consumers Association. I have sought to set an example in that way.
  I do not believe that ad hoc meetings are sufficient. It is important to have regular consultation with the leaders of consumer opinion on the major matters that face the industry and consumers generally. I speak of matters of general food safety as well as issues that arise in the Community and in the GATT round negotiations. I hope that the first meeting of the panel of the food safety directorate will take place on Monday 12 March. I am grateful to the members of the panel for accepting membership, and I look forward to a fruitful and open dialogue.
  I have written to the leaders of the consumer groups inviting them to attend the first meeting of the wider sort, of which I have spoken, on 3 April. The aim is for Ministers and consumer bodies to discuss constructively and regularly a wide range of complex policy issues that are not restricted to food safety. I hope that in this way we shall find it possible at two levels in the Ministry to have a much more regular association with consumer bodies to ensure that we are making decisions with those organisations' views fully in mind.
  It is true that Ministers draw heavily already on independent expert advice, which would never be available to them unless they were part of the body responsible for the entire food chain. For that reason, I end on the point with which I began. There is no point in the Bill, or in any food safety legislation, unless it reflects the food chain from before the seed right through to the finished product on the plate of the consumer. That is why only a Ministry that is integrated—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—can do the job properly.
  The Bill will ensure, with the Ministry working at local level with the environmental health officers and at national level with territorial Departments and the Department of Health, that Britain has food that is safe and which meets all the new requirements that international legislation will demand. It will enable us to face new challenges such as the different sorts of salmonella which now concern us and finding better ways of discovering the presence of disease. We need to have the resources and the ability to take action rapidly in the few cases where there is a real danger to the health of the individual or of groups of people.
  I pay tribute to the fact that Britain is, and has been for some years, the leader in food safety in the European
  1032
  Community. I am the only Minister among the current Agriculture Ministers who puts food safety at the top of his priority list. Anyone who suggests otherwise should sit in on some of our debates. In so doing he will learn that often I am the only Minister who raises the matter. I hope that anyone who speaks in opposition to the Bill will bear in mind the fact that Britain is leading the world in food safety. Our job is to put the matter at the top of our priorities in Britain and to ensure that fellow members of the Community put it at the top of their priorities, so that food that is imported from the rest of the Community will be as safe as food that is produced in Britain.
  5.18 pm
  Dr. David Clark: The Bill has the stated aims of improving the safety of food and protecting the consumer's interest. The Labour party identifies itself wholeheartedly with those laudable aspirations, but we have serious doubts about whether the Bill can meet those desirable aims and we question whether the present Government, of all Governments, have the commitment or the determination to protect all of us as consumers of food. I concede that this afternoon the Minister made a somewhat more conciliatory speech than we are used to hearing from him, and I hope that that marks a U-turn in Government policy. If it does, he will have the Opposition support.
  I was somewhat astounded to hear the Minister say that Britain has the best record on food safety. In the light of the position in which we find ourselves today, that is a staggering claim. How can the Minister make that claim when we are in the middle of the worst food poisoning epidemic since the war? In the past 10 years, food poisoning incidents in Britain have quadrupled to more than 54,000 reported cases in 1989. It is not logical to say that Britain has the best safety record in the world. That reeks of complacency, which has been the Government's record throughout.
  The Government's handling of food safety is a classic example of crisis management. They have stumbled from one crisis to another. I hope that the Bill is an admission that they will try to address that problem seriously and come up with a coherent strategy for dealing with food safety issues.
  The Government have a lamentable record. They have managed to achieve the almost impossible: they have alienated the consumers and the farmers at the same time, which is an unusual achievement. I was staggered to see that the Cumberland News, the Parliamentary Secretary's county paper and not exactly a red-hot Socialist paper, highlighted that fact last week. The article starts with the headline:
  "Farmers hit rock bottom. Biggest crisis for 50 years."
  That is the opinion of the principal newspaper of the county of Cumbria which is represented by the Parliamentary Secretary. That is a recognition of the position in which the Government have got themselves. The Cumberland News has printed that because it knows the difficulties that the Government have got themselves into.
  The Labour party will not oppose the Bill at this stage because, as I have said, we hope that the Bill will be improved, and we hope that the Government have changed their course. However, it is unrealistic to attempt to enhance food safety without reforming the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I agree that we need a

  1033
  food safety policy which stretches from the plough to the plate. That is the Labour party's philosophy. It is our view, and I think that it is a generally held view, that the Ministery has been producer-led for too long and it is time that we had a consumer-led "Ministry of Food and Agriculture". That is the only way to move forward.
  I also welcome the Minister's half announcement today of what he calls a food safety directorate. Why does he not go the whole hog, accept the Labour party's policy and have an independent food standards agency? That policy is now supported by a wide range of organizations—environmental health organisations, consumer associations, trading standards officers, and so on. Almost every organisation involved in food health and consumer protection is in favour of an independent food standards agency, at arm's length from the Government. The Minister seems to want change, but he does not want to do anything for the first time. I urge him on this occasion to go the whole hog and to create an independent food standards agency.
  Mr. Gummer: How does the hon. Gentleman square that with his statement in "Rural Socialism" that what we need is a Ministry which deals with everything? He said:
  "from the pre-seed stage right to the plate, there is the risk of contamination, and every one of those points of risk must be blocked up, so it is important to keep food and agriculture together."
  If it is the Ministry that is to block those up and if it is the Ministry that is to stop the risk of contamination, how will it deal with an independent body outside?
  The hon. Gentleman is trying to do two things. As usual, he is trying to lead people outside to think that they have an independent body, but he would have a Ministry which was in charge of it because he knows that it has to be answerable to the House. It cannot be independent, because in the end the Minister is the independent person answerable to the House and to him, and he would not have it otherwise.
  Dr. Clark: The Minister read his intervention, prepared by civil servants, amazingly well, and I congratulate him on his diction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer, but the Minister's contrived intervention does not make sense. The Minister rightly said that we have a plough-to-plate policy, but at the end of the day the Minister is responsible for regulations. However, the advice on which the Minister acts will be from an independent body on the lines of the Health and Safety Executive, which is independent of Parliament and which makes recommendations and carries out certain executive functions while being answerable to the House. That is the way to obtain independent advice, not by regarding the Minister as independent. Only a few people in Britain would regard the right hon. Gentleman as an independent person.
  Mr. Gummer: What independent advice that I receive from civil servants or independent bodies does the hon. Gentleman claim is biased? Which of the scientists and independent bodies from whom we receive advice is not honest in that advice? I am sure that the professors and scientists who give us such advice would like to know whom the hon. Gentleman is accusing of giving other than independent advice.
  Dr. Clark: It is remarkable how easily the Minister gets worked up. He did quite well in his speech, but he has got
  1034
  worked up very quickly since I have started my speech and the weakness of his case is beginning to show. I thought that towards the end of his speech he had made some progress. He spoke of the need to bring consumers in and made the point that there was another dimension to advice which was not necessarily scientific. In criticising me for wanting more independent advisers, he suggests that I am saying that scientists are dishonest. I am not saying that, but different scientists take different views on the same issue. At the end of the day, the Minister may have to make the decision and sometimes he will have to take into account consumer opinion.
  I will give an example. I understand that there are to be 15 members of the Food Advisory Committee and that only two are consumers. That is an advance, because in the past there have been fewer than two. Even the Minister occasionally listens to non-professional advice. In saying that he wants to take the decisions and to be independent, the Minister is beginning to show that his commitment to consumer power is thin. Few people would regard the Minister as independent.
  I will move on, as I may be able to get the Minister worked up again later. The Government's record during the past 10 years shows that the Minister has sided with the producers over and over again. The time has come to emphasise the role of the consumer. Chernobyl is an issue close to the Minister's heart—he always likes to get involved in a discussion on that—but it was seven weeks after the Government first learned of the dangerous levels of radioactivity that they actually took action. In those seven weeks, tens of thousands of sheep from contaminated areas went into the food chain. That is the sort of inaction that we have become accustomed to from the Government.
  The litany continues. Food poisoning has been a cause of concern throughout the 1980s. Figures for different types of salmonella poisoning—the main cause of food poisoning—show that in the eight years to 1989 salmonella cases doubled. Salmonella enteritidis cases have more than doubled in three years and cases of salmonella enteritidis phase 4, which is associated mainly with eggs. have quadrupled in four years. That has resulted in many deaths. We are not talking about food scares, but about incidents in which people have died. Two hundred people died from salmonella in 1988. In November 1987, the Government knew that there was a problem with salmonella enteritidis in eggs, but no warnings were issued to hospitals—where outbreaks of food poisoning had been linked to raw eggs—for nine months until July 1988, and the Government did not bother to warn consumers about the possible hazards of eating undercooked eggs for 10 months, until August 1988. Again, there were many months of delay.
  On the subject of listeria, documents that we are discussing today in conjunction with the debate, such as the Select Committee on Social Services report on food poisoning, mention that public concern about the presence of listeria in food and its health consequences was aroused in February 1989. The number of cases of listeriosis trebled between 1978 and 1980. The Government knew about the problems of listeria in ready-cooked poultry and in some cheeses as long ago as 1987, but no action was taken until the public were warned of the problem in February 1989, which put pregnant women and other vulnerable groups of people at risk. Again, there was a long delay.

  1035
  Lead in milk is still a problem in the south-west of England. Early in November 1987 the Government were warned about cattle feed entering Britain, but they waited five days until 6 November before imposing restrictions and, most critical of all, they waited four days before notifying the Milk Marketing Board, which visits every dairy farm every day of the week, so the information was withheld from farmers for four days. For those four days, lead-contaminated feed was fed unnecessarily to cattle due to ministerial indecision and lack of progress.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Representing a constituency in the south-west I must rebut any accusation of incompetence by the Government on the lead incident. They reacted with remarkable alacrity to a serious and widespread emergency. Even the farmers most affected—one farm in my constituency suffered—will give the Ministry full marks for the way in which it acted. No affected milk reached the public.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that sheep affected by the Chernobyl incident had reached the public. He has obviously not read the Select Committee on Agriculture report, because that is not the case. He cannot go on repeating half-truths as truths. What he says is not true. We are well protected by our Government.
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman does well to try to defend the Government, but he does it without great success. He says that no lead-contaminated milk entered the food chain. In the four days that the Ministry withheld information from the Milk Marketing Board, tankers visited the farms and collected the milk, and the milk went into bottles and was sent to London, Birmingham and other parts of Britain.
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said that no lambs from the radioactive area went into the food chain. I can tell him which abattoirs they went to because 37,598 sheep from those areas entered the key auction mart in Cumbria in that seven-week period. That irrefutable proof has been collected by the Government's statisticians.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) did not realise that the Select Committee on Agriculture concluded that it was most likely that sheepmeat contaminated by radiation from Chernobyl had got into the food chain as that was in the Committee's report.
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) clearly has a better memory than the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, as I too know that that is in the report. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare should double-check the work of the Committee, on which he does so much good work.
  Mr. Gummer rose——
  Dr. Clark: I did not intervene during the Minister's speech. Last time I spoke, he intervened seven times. He has already not been able to contain himself for most of my speech today. I ask him to keep his cool for a little longer and to let us make a little more progress.
  The other burning issue of the day is mad cow disease. The Government have shown considerable complacency
  1036
  in their handling of that disease. The latest figure is more than 460 notified cases each and every week. Yet the Southwood report stated that between 300 and 400 cases per week was the expected peak. There is clearly a major problem and I wish the Minister to take it seriously. We know that he has been hesitant about taking action. We know that it took him 18 months to make it a notifiable disease and 20 months to introduce a compulsory slaughter scheme.
  We also know that it took him two and a half years to announce a ban on cattle offal for human consumption, and it was a further five months before he implemented the ban. Twenty months after making bovine spongiform encephalopathy a notifiable disease, the Minister has only just announced increased compensation to 100 per cent. of the value of the cow. If he had listened to the Labour party, the Liberal party or almost any other group and acted earlier, he would have been helping to tackle the problem.
  We realise that this is a serious issue, and my final plea to the Minister is to try to get a more accurate estimate of the amount of BSE in our cattle by using random sampling of cattle slaughtered at abattoirs so that we can see how serious the problem is. The Minister may not regard it as serious, but the majority of British farmers and a large number of consumers do, and the Opposition believe that the Minister should be more responsible about this.
  I do not criticise the Government only for inaction. Problems have been made worse by cuts in staff made by the Government[Interruption.] The Minister may grunt, but let us consider the actual figures. The Minister rightly says that the main thrust of his food safety policy is being carried out by local authorities through environmental health officers and trading standards officers. We think that that is a sensible approach and we endorse it, but that approach is not made easier—I think that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) mentioned this—when there are more than 400 vacancies for environmental health officers even before they have to cope with the extra demands of the Food Safety Bill and the Environmental Protection Bill.
  As the hon. Member for York rightly said, insufficient numbers of new EHOs are being trained, let alone retrained. That situation has been brought about by the pressure that the Government have put on higher education institutions to cut back training courses. I hope that the Government will do something about that, and that the Minister will talk to his colleagues and get them to break the log jam. It is a similar story for trading standards officers—there is a shortfall of 350 at present, before the new demands of the Act are placed upon them.
  How does the Minister intend to make up that shortfall? Members on both sides of the House would like to know. He cannot keep giving more duties to local authorities if he will not give them the wherewithal to carry out those duties.
  There is also a drastic shortage of trained veterinarians. Although their role in ensuring that animal diseases are kept in check and not transmitted to humans is increasingly crucial, education arrangements—yet again —have not kept pace with demand. It is ludicrous that only six months ago the Government were actually proposing to close two of our veterinary colleges, at Glasgow and Cambridge.
  Mr. Gummer: It was not the Government.
  Dr. Clark: It was a Government-appointed body.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may wonder why I sometimes get a little hot under the collar, but it is because what he has told the House is very far from what really happened. He knows perfectly well that that advice was given by a specialist committee. The Government did not accept the advice and, in fact, did exactly the opposite. As always, the hon. Gentleman presents the public with half-truths. Hardly a sentence of the document that he has read out to us, the contents of which he has spread around the country, stands up to examination. That is why Conservative Members are so angered by his speeches.
  Dr. Clark: The Minister is rapidly gaining a reputation as a jack-in-the-box, and it is an apt description.
  The committee was set up by the Minister's colleagues. It was asked to make a report, given the financial constraints placed on the universities by the Government. Even after that, it took massive campaigns in Scotland and Cambridge and a great deal of pressure to make the Government stop vacillating and finally change their mind.
  As a result of the Government's policy, we are so short of vets that last year we had to import 345 foreign vets —almost one per day—to make up the shortfall deliberately caused by the Government. Closer to home, let us examine the Government's own state veterinary service, which has been at the forefront of the handling of problems such as BSE and salmonella. Between 1979 and 1989, the Ministry has allowed the number of vets employed by the service to fall by 27 per cent. In 1979 there were 580; in 1989 there were 422. The Minister cannot wriggle out of that. It is his direct responsibility, and he has failed in it, as he has in most of the other matters that I have mentioned.
  The practical effect of the decline was outlined in a 1989 report by the Ministry itself, which revealed that the efforts devoted to BSE work by the Government's hard-working, assiduous and expert vets had
  "been diverted primarily from welfare visits, disease surveillance work at markets and disease contingency planning. Also affected have been medicines visits and visits to meat export plants."
  I see the Minister acknowledge that ministerial document. It is clear that vital food safety work has gone by the board due to insufficient staffing under the Government's tutelage.
  I hope that it will not embarass the Minister too much if I continue to quote from the report, which reveals a further snapshot of the chaos that the Government have caused:
  "a large number of vacancies have been carried in the Division, through recruitment moratoria and delays … This has resulted in a serious contraction in our science databases from which policy is developed and in providing scientific evidence in response to safety issues."
  The Government have ignored the advice of their own internal staff, and have allowed both education and staffing to fall behind the nation's health and hygiene needs.
  When we start looking into food research, the story gets worse. The House has, of course, debated the issue. The Government-funded institute of food research at Bristol is due to close at the end of the year, and all the staff have now received their redundancy payments. The closure decision is highly regrettable, and the country will rue it.
  1038
  Even if our Government do not recognise the importance of the institute, others do. Only six weeks after the announcement of the closure of what is probably the premier meat institute in Europe, the Japanese announced that they were to establish an exact replica, and they have written to the authorities at Bristol asking for advice. In a sense, that proves my point better than anything else. I have to say, albeit with some sadness, that the Japanese have an uncanny knack of predicting future demands and needs. Certainly, their predictions are much more accurate than those of the British Government.
  Even if the Minister will not take advice from me, from other Opposition Members or even from some of his hon. Friends, perhaps he will take the advice of his own Consultative Committee on Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Research, which has called for
  "a substantial increase in the resources available to food research in the light of the social and economic importance of food research and the lack of adequate scientific knowledge on which to base policy."
  The committee also voiced
  "unease about the standards of food safety within the country…Food poisoning is a preventable disease not being prevented. In order to reverse the increase in microbiological foodborne illness and dispel public alarm, there is an obvious need for a significant increase in a co-ordinated effort to control the contamination of food at every point in the food chain from the very start…through to consumption."
  That brings me back to the whole issue of the Government's failure to tackle the problem. The Bill states that they will work through local authorities, and we approve of that. According to the financial memorandum,
  "The additional cost for local authorities is likely to be of the order of £30 million a year from 1991–1992 onwards. This will be taken into account in next year's Revenue Support Grant Settlement."
  I ask the Minister to come clean. He seemed to skate over an earlier intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise). What exactly does that quotation mean? Does it mean that £30 million will be given to the local authorities as a whole, or will they be given only a proportion of that sum? It may have escaped the Minister's notice, but there is at present some national disquiet about the whole subject of local payment for services. I understand that in his own local authority, which I believe is Conservative-controlled—as, indeed, is the county—the poll tax is £103 above the Government's recommended level. It will be difficult to blame Labour authorities for that. There is some local curiosity about where the money is to come from. Perhaps the Minister will also tell us how it is to be dispersed among the various local authorities.
  Is the Minister aware—the Parliamentary Secretary certainly is—that some authorities, such as Cumbria, contain a number of food establishments but are very thinly inhabited? Will he ensure that they are given extra help, and also that no authority is penalised financially because it already operates a superior food safety regime? The Minister said that he hoped that the Bill would lead to standardisation of the services provided by locall authorities. I hope that that means a levelling up and not a levelling down of services, which has been the hallmark of the Government so far. Can the Minister reassure the House that local authorities which provide excellent services will not be penalised? It is a simple request. If he can give us such an assurance, I shall be pleased.
  When the Minister made his announcement, it was generally accepted that £30 million might be about right,

  1039
  but has he been approached more recently by local authorities? We have carried out a detailed examination and our figures show that the Minister is about 25 per cent. out. Has any work been done to find out the total cost? The city of Birmingham believes that if it is to implement the provisions of the Bill it will need to appoint at least 26 additional qualified staff. With accompanying back-up facilities, that will add about £725,000 a year to the city's budget.
  The only contentious provision in the Bill relates to irradiation. Clause 18 enables the Minister to approve irradiation. He has said on previous occasions, and again today, that if the Bill is passed he will allow food to be irradiated. Why does the Minister want to jump the gun? He referred to the very good report prepared by the Select Committee in the other place, which questions why the Government want to legislate in such a hurry when the subject is under active consideration by the European Commission.
  The Minister made great play, as he always does, of the need for harmonisation. After 1992, that will not be a luxury—it will be a fact of life. Why is the Minister not prepared to wait for the European Commission to reach a decision on irradiation? West Germany, which does not allow irradiation, Holland which does allow it, and all the other EEC countries will then have to operate under the same conditions. I hope that the Minister will address that serious question.
  The Minister also made great play of the Jehovah's Witness approach to irradiation. He is the last person to bring religion into politics. He has the reputation of being a xenophobe. To that reputation he has now added another—that of being a zealot. He is not prepared to wait for a European Commission decision on irradiation. He wants to push ahead on his own because he thinks he knows best. I ask the Minister just to consider whether he might have got it wrong. Australia, Sweden, New Zealand and even the much-vaunted United States are moving away from that technology, but the Minister is trying to persuade us to rush like lemmings into using it.
  The Minister frequently refers to the fact that irradiation is permitted in the United States, which is true, but the only items allowed to be irradiated are herbs and certain tropical fruits, and a number of states, including the populous ones of New York and New Jersey, have decided not to allow any food to be irradiated.
  We shall wish to discuss the details of irradiation during later stages, but there is massive consumer opposition to it. I understand that only yesterday the Tory-controlled Norfolk county council passed a resolution to the effect that even if irradiated food were permitted in this country, the council would not allow it to be served in any of its school canteens. I suspect that Norfolk will be in the vanguard and that other counties will decide to follow its lead. If our food is so good and wholesome, as I believe that it is, why do we need to irradiate it? That is the $64,000 question.
  There are many other issues, such as secrecy, licensing, registration, training and labelling, which we shall seek to raise at a later stage if the Bill receives a Second Reading. However, the catalogue of delays and mismanagement that I have already outlined reflects, in part, the Government's desire not to invest in food safety. I have
  1040
  already suggested that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food needs to be more consumer conscious and more aware of consumer interests. I regret that the Minister did not understand my point when I referred to a food standards agency, but those who write about such an agency and who are connected with the food trade understand it.
  As I have already said, we do not intend to oppose the Bill. It is a step in the right direction and we shall try to improve it. Food safety is vital and necessary, but the Government ought to have gone a stage further and been more positive. By means of the Bill they should have promoted the concept of a healthy as well as a safe food policy.
  5.55 pm
  Dame Peggy Fenner: I am very pleased to have this opportunity warmly to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister. We need this Bill. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to the time when we first learnt about salmonella in eggs. We have to act on the new scientific knowledge that is now available to us.
  For part of my parliamentary career I was concerned with the production end of agriculture. It will be obvious to all hon. Members that I greatly appreciate food. I was also concerned with the drinks trade, but perhaps I ought not to boast about that.
  The Bill began its passage through Parliament in the other place. The public have already had an opportunity, therefore, to comment upon it. Amendments to the Bill were made in the other place which have gone some way towards improving it. I have to declare an interest in a food federation. It is to be found in the Register of Members' Interests.
  It is unfortunate that by trying to improve food safety we are maligning the nature of our food. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for South Shields say that our food is good and wholesome. I should like him to repeat that statement on many occasions. Later this evening we shall all have a meal and I know that we will not worry about the safety of the food that we eat. People are confident about the safety of our food. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is right to take comfort from the fact that our food safety standards are among the highest in the world.
  Anyone who travels in Europe—I know that some Opposition Members, who are not in their places at the moment, boast about not having a passport—and goes into the kitchen of a French restaurant, the land of haute cuisine, the land which is fussy about good food, will find his hair standing on end because of the bacteriological implications of the manner in which the stock is boiled. Our food is good; our standards are high. Food is there to be enjoyed and we can be confident about its quality and safety. However, we have to contend with such tragedies as Chernobyl. The current regulations do not always cover sufficiently the emergency powers that the Government will have to take in those circumstances.
  In many ways the Bill is an enabling Bill because we must have regulations as we must be able to take action quickly in an emergency or a crisis. Although that is covered by clause 17, my right hon. Friend will be more likely to use clause 18 if irradiation is not prohibited in Britain. I know that a Ministry must take account of expert scientific advice based on highly qualified

  1041
  knowledge. A Government Department cannot really take advice from anywhere except such a superb source. We are bound to accept that experts offer qualified advice. I chide the hon. Member for South Shields because I believe that scientific experts offer impartial and independent advice.
  My right hon. Friend has left the Chamber, but I should like to chide him a little too about Jehovah's Witnesses. I could not possibly accept that a Jehovah's Witness attitude would be exhibited by, for example, the women's institutes or the townswomen's guilds as they represent the real consumers. They are the people who do the shopping and, for the most part, cook the food. I do not deny that hon. Gentlemen cook food, but they will know what I mean. Even women such as myself, who have the privilege of being among the few women in the House, spend some of their time making sure that their husbands are well fed and, by and large, buying and cooking the food. Some of my hon. Friends think that I ought to be doing that all the time, but I like to do other things as well. I am a good cook, and I am also immodest.
  There is still public concern about what we accept as the evidence of the experts and the qualified scientists. My right hon. Friend will have to take account of the public perception. It may be an erroneous perception, but we still have to deal with it; we cannot bulldoze it. I am much relieved because I know my right hon. Friend and I applaud what he has done to ensure that the consumers' panel will have a genuine role on his food executive because I want real consumers to be involved. There is a danger that consumers can become highly professional. To avoid that we must take account of the perception of the real consumers. I number the women's institutes and the townswomen's guilds among those real consumers.
  I know the consultation processes of my right hon. Friend's Department. The hon. Member for South Shields is fair and knowledgeable about that and I know that he will join me in applauding the consultation processes that are involved by statute in that Department. I welcome the way in which my hon. Friend will bring in the consumers' view. The regulations must come before the House and the consumers' panel will have an input. Whatever the expert view on irradiation, we must, with education, information and consultation, ensure that the public understand the advantages and the assurances that have led Ministers and experts to reach their conclusions.
  I am the chairman of the all-party retail trade group and I approve of the way in which the new regulations will take into account production as well as retailing and the consumer. Environmental health officers have always felt that it is valuable to get at the production end before the products reach the retail trade. That is extremely important. I have no doubt that some parts of the Bill will be hotly debated in Committee. "Deemed due diligence" is a mouthful which is still of some concern among those who will be confronted by the legislation. It is marginally better than "due diligence", but I have no doubt that it will be thoroughly debated in Committee.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend has brought to the Ministry a great personal feel for listening to consumers. I applaud that. I was sent to serve in the European Parliament briefly when consumers really did not have too much voice in Europe. The European Parliament was a producer-oriented organisation. At least now consumer organisations are allowed to look at the proposals of the CAP early in each of the pricing years. I counted that as a small victory, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I
  1042
  am not sure that the rest of Europe has moved along too much, and it is most significant and right that we should set our partners in the Community a high example, as we do in food standards.
  My right hon. Friend referred to labelling. My first concern was that irradiated food should be labelled so that people could choose. I seek an absolute assurance from my right hon. Friend that people will not be able to eat something that is irradiated and not properly labelled. That worries consumers. People must have the ability to choose not to eat food which is irradiated and they must be certain; otherwise, labelling will be brought into disrepute. I have no doubt that in the Minister's reply to the debate and in Committee those reassurances will be forthcoming.
  I welcome the clause about training. There is a very big gap. I worry about the teaching of home economy in schools. Although I know that the Ministry produces a helpful educational book on food and the handling of food, it should liaise closely with the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science in relation to new food technologies and the new hazards. Schools should concentrate on the handling of food and food technologies. We all know about the scare involving microwave ovens. I often speak to people in the food business who tell me that they even have to advise their own wives on the correct temperature for the refrigerator. I have had to ask questions about chilled foods. These new technologies are not understood instinctively, so it is necessary that home economics courses in schools should provide a good programme to fill the gap.
  I do not often share my worries with the Opposition, but I say today that one of my worries concerns the need to be certain that we have enough enforcement officers. If we are to reassure people about irradiated foods, including correct labelling, those foods will have to be tested occasionally. I welcome my right hon. Friend's promise that £30 million will go towards the provision of more enforcement officers. I hope very much that he and the Department will be able to secure the necessary training and retraining of professionals in this very important career.
  I wish the Bill a fair wind. I do not think that it will have many opponents, and I am sure that any small disagreements will be ironed out in Committee.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: I agree with very much of what was said by the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and especially with her remarks about education in food and food hygiene—a matter about which I shall say more later. I agree even with the hon. Lady's welcome for the Bill. Indeed, I think that the legislation is welcomed by most Opposition Members. However, the function of an Opposition is to concentrate on the bits of legislation that they do not like. There are in this Bill considerable improvements on the existing situation, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, the Department is to be congratulated on that. If it were otherwise, why should we have a one-line Whip? The fact that we have a one-line Whip implies Opposition agreement with what the Bill sets out to do.
  I am not as happy about the idea of a food standard.s agency as my hon. Friend seemed to be. The Government

  1043
  have increasingly brought this difficulty on their own heads because of the suspicion that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is an utterly producer-orientated Department. Opposition Members, the press and Members of Parliament certainly feel that the Ministry is the mouthpiece of farmers and producers. It may not be so, but that is the impression that has been created, and events of just over a year ago reinforced the view.
  When the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) spoke up and told the truth, a hail of vituperation descended upon her, and in the end she lost her job. Clearly, that was the result of the stand taken by producers, aided and abetted by the Ministry—indeed, the Government—and by the National Farmers Union. The hon. Lady is a redoubtable political fighter, and, like any other political fighter, she can be a political in-fighter if her back is to the wall. The action that she took caused horror among some hon. Members, but if she had not acted in such a dramatic way, we might not have got this Bill. It might have been left on the shelf somewhere. In any case, it would not have been so forceful and so strong.
  The public and the Consumers Association have talked about an independent food standards authority. I am attracted by the idea, so picturesquely put, "from the plough to the plate". I wonder whether the Ministry, could help itself in this respect. If it is genuinely interested in the consumer, if it has turned over a new leaf, if the consumer is its foremost concern, let it have a look at its own title —the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. "Food" seems to have been dragged in almost as an afterthought.
  When I was a youngster during the war we had a Ministry of Food. Why is this Ministry not called the Ministry of Food? "Food" is the generic term and would bring in agricultural and fisheries. That title might remind Ministers and civil servants that their primary duty to this House and to the nation concerns food itself, and not necessarily food producers, processors, retailers or, in the case of fisheries, catchers.
  I pay tribute to the Government for the way in which the Bill was handled in Committee in another place. I am an honorary vice-president of the Association of County Councils and an honorary vice-president of the Environmental Officers' Association. In view of yesterday's debate, I lay heavy stress on the word "honorary". The Association of County Councils is certainly well satisfied with the progress made in another place. As hon. Members will know, the county councils, along with the district councils, are to be food authorities. The Minister will decide eventually which duties should be allocated to which councils, and the sooner the better, because a local authority likes to know fairly well in advance what it is to be doing in the future.
  The Food and Drink Federation, which I realise may well consist of the big boys of the industry, is also basically very satisfied with the legislation. Indeed, it has given the Government considerable co-operation. It does, however, have one nagging doubt. as, even without legislation, it has been so co-operative in allowing whole batches of food to be taken away, at loss to its members, the Government should look again in Committee at the question of compensation. We are not dealing with the odd tin but,
  1044
  possibly, with a whole batch of food. The compensation ought not to come out of the £30 million, though that is a matter about which I shall say more in a few moments.
  The Government should display some sympathy towards the Food and Drink Federation, which has been so co-operative on the Bill. Indeed, it has co-operated whenever there has been a food scare, whether as a result of a maniac threatening to put glass in baby food or as a result of some genuine fault.
  My primary worry concerns finance. Last autumn the Government allocated £30 million to local government for the purpose of implementing the Bill. Presumably that figure, like others, was based on an inflation rate of about 4 per cent. per annum. I do not think the figure has been revised since the autumn, when the Bill went to another place. Perhaps it could be looked at again.
  As the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and others have said, there is a severe shortage of environmental health officers in this country. It is not just a question of our being unable to train officers; it is also a question of the salaries that they receive for the enormously onerous job that they do. They are concerned not only with food, but with housing standards and all manner of other things. People qualified to do all these things cannot be found for the sort of salary that environmental health officers are offered. We really must give some thought to those salaries and to whether the £30 million that I have mentioned is appropriate.
  Clause 24 encourages food authorities to provide education and training for all those who are connected with food. That is imperative. As has been said, a lot of what has gone wrong has been due to ignorance of modern food processes. How many people know that chilled food that has been taken out of the freezer must not be put back? The hon. Member for Medway may know that kind of basic thing, my wife may know it, and I may know it, but many youngsters do not. The clause refers to
  "persons … involved in food businesses, whether as proprietors or employees or otherwise."
  Surely the words "or otherwise" imply all of us. As we all eat, we are all in some way involved in the food business.
  The hon. Member for Medway rightly mentioned education. It is a question not just of training employees, or proprietors, or cooks, or waitresses—of course, it is important that all those people be trained—but of training everyone in the education system in food hygiene as a basic science. In my day at school it was called cookery; that shows how near my "sell by" date I am. Then it became domestic science. Now many schools do not have the subject on the curriculum. It used to be confined almost exclusively to girls.
  Every girl and every boy should be trained at school in food hygiene, for various reasons. On the sad side, we have a divorce rate of nearly one in three. After divorce we have the sad prospect of men with no idea of what to do about food. In the past they have left it to their mothers, and then to their wives. They do not know how to cook, and they know nothing about food hygiene. On the good side of the equation is the fact that most young people, when they get married and even when they have youngsters, share the preparation and cooking of food. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) pointed out at Question Time, this is international women's day. Whether or not their wives go out to work, it is right that men should do their share of the housework.

  1045
  It is not in the direct province of the Minister of Agriculture, but I plead with him to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to consider the inclusion of food and food hygiene in the curriculum for every boy and girl. Many of the present difficulties arise from a complete lack of understanding not only of modern techniques but of ancient techniques. People know nothing about food. Training in food hygiene at school would help to solve the problems of food authorities. If youngsters had a basic knowledge there would be less difficulty in training them as chefs or to work behind a meat counter on a market stall.
  On the vexed question of irradiation, I share the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. There is no need to irradiate good, wholesome food. If the food is not good and wholesome, we have no business to be selling it to the public. So the whole thing becomes a vicious circle. I am surprised at the tenacity with which the Minister holds to his views on irradiation. He mentioned particularly herbs and spices. I would not go to the stake over the irradiation of herbs and spices because there might be a need to irradiate them. What worries me is the irradiation of fish, chickens, meat and fruit. In the United States irradiation is confined to specific categories of food. The Minister should consider, when making regulations under clause 18, limiting severely the number of categories to which irradiation may apply.
  I was dissatisfied with what the Minister said about consumer choice. The consumer will not have a choice unless food is marked in a supermarket. Certainly the consumer will not have a choice in a cafe, a restaurant or a pub. The Minister said that food would have to be marked. Will the proprietor of a cafe, restaurant or pub do that? It may happen in large restaurants but not in a small cafe. The pub landlord will not do it. The consumer will not have a choice between irradiated chicken and non-irradiated chicken.
  Mr. Paul Marland: Why not?
  Mr. Oakes: Because the proprietor will not say; if he does not tell the consumer that the food has been irradiated, how is the consumer to find out? The Minister admitted that there is no way to test whether food has been irradiated. He used the example of pasteurisation. Any scientist can tell whether milk has been pasteurised but no way has yet been discovered for an environmental health officer to find out whether food has been irradiated. Until that is possible, regulations should not be brought in. We should at least wait until we see what Europe does. The Minister is acting with undue haste, and certainly against the views of the public.
  The hon. Member for Medway mentioned women's institutes. Earlier today we heard about people being militant. Women's institutes are not usually militant but they feel militant about irradiation because people will have no choice. The Bill is not giving choice to consumers; indeed, it is taking choice away from them. We do not want to store up difficulties and problems for the future under the guise of a Food Safety Bill which may be known as the food danger legislation in 10 years, after further research has been done. Therefore, I plead with the Government to consider again the vexed question of irradiation.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Churchill: I welcome the broad sweep of the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his recognition of the enhanced role of local government environmental health officers. I thank him for the £30 million that is to be provided.
  However, there is concern that the Bill, if unamended, will make possible the sale of irradiated foodstuffs without Parliament having any further opportunity of debating the matter and voting on it. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that the matter is of too great consequence and public concern to be dealt with under the statutory instrument procedure provided for in the Bill. For that reason I ask him to agree to accept an amendment which would require at least an affirmative resolution of the House before the irradiation of foodstuff was allowed.
  Irradiation of food arouses understandable concerns which have been articulated, as my hon. Friend mentioned, by the Consumers Association, townswomen's guilds, women's institutes, the London Food Commission and the public. Although the Minister may attack those who voice concern, the Ministry itself has viewed the potential dangers as sufficiently serious for his predecessors to ban the irradiation of foodstuffs. That ban continues to this day. The Minister has announced his intention of lifting the ban and, indeed, has gone out of his way to make himself the champion of irradiated food.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends who are in charge of the Bill to pause for thought before going ahead with these proposals and to consider whether this is the moment to stir up a new hornets' nest of potential anti-Government discord. Are the Government really riding such a crest of a wave of popularity that they can afford to have arrayed against them an entirely new and wide-ranging coalition of forces? Where is the groundswell of public opinion demanding the irradiation of food? The Minister mentioned that the World Health Organisation is in favour of it and it has been suggested that possibly a single supermarket chain will also welcome the move. However, there is no popular demand for it. The overwhelming majority of individuals who have been polled on the issue state that they would be unlikely to buy irradiated foodstuffs.
  Food growers and manufactuters, together with supermarkets, have gone to enormous trouble and expense to supply the housewife, on a day-to-day basis, with a vast range of fresh and wholesome food. It would be regrettable if the House were to do anything to undermine that arrangement. Inevitably, there is concern that allowing irradiation will provide the cowboys of the food trade with an opportunity to extend the sell-by date of foods or, in other ways, allow food to be sold which could not be sold legally today. That would provide unfair competition for those supermarkets which refused to carry such produce.
  The Secretary of State has made much of the requirement for clear labelling, and I warmly welcome that commitment. However, he well knows that a significant majority of consumers want nothing to do with irradiated foodstuffs. Therefore, there is a clear commercial interest for a manufacturer, unscrupulous retailer or restaurateur to remove the irradiated food label. How can the consumer be protected against such sharp practice unless some test is available to establish whether food has been irradiated?

  1047
  Our greatest anxiety must focus on the safety of irradiated foods. Not enough is known of the potential dangers to humans from continued consumption of irradiated food over a significant period. The Minister's experts advise that the process is entirely safe, but they can give no evidence to show that such food has been consumed by humans on a regular, long-term basis over a significant period. I beg my right hon. Friend to consider that the advice of his experts may be flawed and in 10, 20 or even 30 years' time his successor in office may be given entirely different expert advice about the safety of this process.
  We cannot ignore the experience of Sellafield over the past 30 years. There, the experts' advice about what constituted a safe level of exposure for workers engaged in the nuclear industry has had to be drastically revised recently in the light of experience—an experience that seems to have left a legacy of children stricken with leukaemia.
  My right hon. Friend declares that if he had a scintilla of doubt about the safety of irradiated food he would not be recommending it to the House. I am sure that he is sincere when he says that, but he cannot deny that scientific data on the effects on humans of eating irradiated foodstuffs over many years is non-existent. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility that, in years ahead, there may prove to be unforeseen side effects of the introduction of irradiated foods into the national diet? I urge caution.
  Will my right hon. Friend at least consider delaying going ahead with these proposals until there is an agreed European Community directive on the subject and an effective irradiation test? Certainly both those moves would be warmly welcomed by the various groups outside the House who are concerned about the process and to which reference has been made today.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I represent the political arm of the Co-operative Movement and am sponsored by it. That fact is declared in the Register of Members' Interests, just in case any Conservative Members are in doubt.
  The Co-operative trade movement, particularly its consumer-owned wholesale and retailing arm, welcomes the Bill because it intends to increase consumer protection and encourage reputable food businesses. It welcomes the way in which the Bill strengthens the powers of local enforcement officers in the clauses covering improvement notices and prohibition orders, with a wider definition of unfit food and a new emphasis on safety enforcement in factories as well as shops.
  As a Scot I welcome the creation of a single Bill covering England, Scotland and Wales. I know that the orders will also cover Northern Ireland. I share the Co-operative Movement's view that the Scottish system of enforcement is superior to that in England and Wales. I particularly welcome the introduction of compulsory training for food handlers, mentioned by the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner). The Co-operative Movement, in common with other reputable food retailers, has long campaigned against the current position
  1048
  where someone can set up in the food business without the slightest training, even in basic hygiene. That must be wrong, and we welcome the change.
  Some questions still remain to be answered. Debates in another place and tonight's debate have given considerable time to the issue of food irradiation. However, there has still been no satisfactory answer to why the Government want to jump the European gun and legalise the process before they are forced to do so by the European Commission.
  I echo some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). There is a limit to the assurances that scientific research can give about irradiation. Ultimately, the effect of long-term consumption of irradiated food by humans can be assessed only over a long period. In addition, some minority groups may choose diets with lots of irradiated foods, but that can only be tested practically. I do not like to refer to him when he is not present, but the Minister kept saying that there must be choice. Surely the Government have a duty to ensure that they give the public a safe choice. That is starkly missing from what the Minister has said so far.
  Undoubtedly, there is considerable consumer concern and opposition to the irradiation of food. At the Co-operative congress, several Co-operative members stressed that concern. People are people, and those doubts and fears could well override the scientific arguments on safety—we have seen that demonstrated in the move for additive-free food. The consumer will need to be convinced of the benefits of irradiation and assured that irradiated foods are not harmful. I again echo the sentiment of the hon. Member for Davyhulme that today's assurances may be tomorrow's liabilities. The Minister has still not addressed that worry. I hope that he will respond to it later.
  Some new questions have arisen since the debate in the other place. The Richmond report on the microbiological safety of food calls for the licensing of some food shops. That seems to be contrary to assurances given by Ministers that food shops would have to undergo only a simple registration process after they had opened. I support the licensing of all food production premises. Do the Government intend to license anything other than irradiation?
  There are other issues that are not covered by the Bill. Consumer education—enabling shoppers to keep up with the ever-increasing pace of change in food technology—is not even mentioned in the Bill or, as far as I can make out, in ministerial statements.
  My greatest concern is that there is a great hole at the Bill's centre—it has been well emphasised even in the short debate we have had—down which all the Government's good intentions may disappear. There is no guarantee that any of the new powers will be used. There is every probability that in some parts of the country they will not be used and that where they are used they will be applied inconsistently.
  The Government do not enforce the food safety laws; the local authorities do. Powers old and new are split between the relevant local authorities, and enforcement officers are divided between the three professions—environmental health officers, trading standards officers and public analysts. The European Community is about to add to that by insisting on the involvement of vets. The Government are giving this diffuse and unco-ordinated enforcement structure a whole set of new powers and

  1049
  priorities, but they have not taken a single step to interfere with the patchwork of local authrity powers and bring about a single profession of food safety inspectors.
  All they are doing is putting another £30 million in the revenue support grant for local authorities. I have yet to hear what assessment was made to reach that figure. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) mentioned how much the city of Birmingham, as one authority, would require. We have still not heard from the Government what criteria or assessments were used to arrive at the figure of £30 million. That seems to be a drop in the bucket. It is a reflection of the Government's rhetoric that they are concerned about food safety, but they are not willing to ensure that it is enforced correctly.
  I support the democracy of local government. Bearing in mind the importance of food safety, there is nothing in the Bill—although I stand to be corrected—to ensure that local authorities spend the amount that they receive on food safety inspection. That is the weak link in the Bill.
  In short, the Government can put the Bill on the statute book, but they can only hope that it will be implemented. That is a reflection on them. The gap in the Bill between intention and implementation is the essence of the case for an independent food safety agency—a proposal that has wide support from consumers, retailers and enforcement officers. Such an agency could be given powers of co-ordination of local enforcement effort, of suggesting to the Government how regulations should be drafted, and of allocating resources so that districts with a larger number of food factories are not overstretched in the allocation and distribution of their resources. The agency would be a sharing of power by all those directly involved—consumers, local authorities, the enforcement professions and food businesses. Those are the people who know about food. They depend on each other for the food chain to work and for it to be safe.
  Ministers seem to resist that idea, partly because of dogma. Part of the reason for that dogmatic attitude is that they are clearly afraid to go to the Prime Minister and suggest public involvement in that area, as it would be viewed in the narrow tunnel vision pertaining in No. 10 Downing street as another quango, and the Minister who had the guts to say that would be sacked.
  The Government cannot ignore two facts. The model of an independent agency answerable to the Government and to Parliament already works in the comparable area of health and safety at work. The Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive have proved their worth, even though they are starved of the Government funds that they deserve. They operate by using the local authorities as their agents. That model would work for food safety.
  The other fact that the Government cannot ignore is that the job of co-ordinating the level of enforcement—the number of inspections made by each local authority—will be carried out soon. The Government accepted the responsibility for doing that when last June, in the European Council of Ministers, Britain voted for the official inspection of foodstuff directive to become law. That directive lays down in article II:
  By 16 October each year, and for the first time in 1991, the Commission shall transmit to the member states a recommendation concerning a co-ordinated programme of inspections for the following year."
  Within 18 months, the Government will have to set down a co-ordinated programme of food inspection. They
  1050
  will have to take powers to compel local authorities to do what they say. That is what clause 18 of the Bill is a bout. The Government cannot pose as defenders of local government autonomy. They will have to do the job of co-ordination. How much better it would be if that job had been handed over to a properly accountable body consisting of all the people and interests involved. Instead, the power imposed by the European Community will be handed to the same Ministers whose secrecy and complacency were the biggest single contribution to the food safety scandals that the Bill is supposed to resolve.
  6 46 pm
  Mr. Paul Marland: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on making the best fist he could by using only half the facts and one or two lines from the Select Committee report. He laid great emphasis on the fact that 38,000 lambs were sold between 2 May and 20 June. As he may remember, his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and I served on that Select Committee. He was right to say that 38,000 lambs were sold, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in evidence:
  "the animals who were going to slaughter were mature animals who had put on most of their body weight before the Chernobyl cloud arrived; these animals were not showing high caesium levels."
  In fairness to the hon. Member for South Shields, I point out that that section—for the benefit of the hon. Member for Carlisle, it was paragraph 33—then said:
  "the balance of probabilities would tend to indicate that some lamb above the limit entered the food-chain before 20 June. But we do not believe that significant numbers are likely to have done so, for the circumstantial reasons given by the Ministry."
  I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that we took only the word of the Ministry on that, because we went into it thoroughly. The Select Committee went to Carlisle and Bangor and also took evidence throughout the country to determine exactly what had happened, and that was the Committee's conclusion. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who was the Chairman of the Committee.
  Mr. Martlew: I do not wish to mislead the House, but examination of the evidence led the Committee to conclude that lambs above the irradiation limit may have been slaughtered. Therefore, it is highly probable that some were.
  Mr. Marland: I am not denying that some were; it is the number that I am disputing. The hon. Member for South Shields claimed that 38,000 lambs went into the food chain——
  Mr. Keith Raffan: It is misleading.
  Mr. Marland: I agree.
  Dr. David Clark: I said, very carefully, that 37,598 sheep from areas of high radioactivity entered the abattoirs in the restricted area. It does not matter about the numbers, because the hon. Gentleman and I are at one on the probability that some contaminated sheep entered the food chain. However, the Ministry knew seven weeks in advance about the statistical radioactive level. If it had imposed restrictions then rather than dilly-dallying, no contaminated sheep would have entered the food chain.
  Mr. Marland: The hon. Gentleman has a silver tongue and, once again, is doing his best to exaggerate the position. There was a great deal of exaggeration throughout his speech. I have the facts, and they put a quite different light on the matter from that suggested by the hon. Gentleman. One reason for much of the concern about radiation and irradiation is that people are not 100 per cent. sure of the facts.
  The hon. Member for South Shields heavily criticised the Government for doing too little too late, which is a tune that we often hear. I represent a Gloucestershire constituency, as the hon. Gentleman may know. As other hon. Members have done, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the way in which he reacted on the question of lead in animal feed. A representative of West Midland Farmers, a large agricultural co-operative in my constituency, telephoned me to say that the Minister had over-reacted massively and that the restrictions were too strict. My right hon. Friend has said rightly that we want to be sure in these matters. That has been the way in which he has sought to run his Ministry, so the Opposition's criticism is unfair.
  We all agree that fresh food is the best; there is no doubt about that. Nevertheless, there is a place for the irradiation of food. My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) said that her husband did the shopping. I do the shopping sometimes. If I buy fresh prawns and put them in the refrigerator, they do not seem to last long. If I bought irradiated prawns, they would last a couple of extra days and I should welcome that. Irradiation does not make bad food good because it does not change the nature of the food. If food is to be preserved through irradiation, it must be good food before it is irradiated.
  We have received letters on irradiation and I am sure that Opposition Members have, too. Many of those who have written believe that the irradiation of food is a fundamentally sound practice and it is widely approved by the trade, although I accept that there are a few doubters. The word "irradiation" does not even appear in the Bill and it does not give permission now for food to be irradiated. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary agreeing.
  There has been massive overstatement in the Opposition's speeches. I accept that groups such as the National Federation of Women's Institutes are concerned. The NFWI has lobbied me, as it has other hon. Members. It has listened too much to the speeches of the hon. Member for South Shields, which are enough to terrify anybody. He has obviously had a strong effect on the NFWI. The London Food Commission was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). We must look for a slightly more accurate and reliable source of information than that. It is so discredited that it has even changed its name.
  My right hon. Friend is merely making it possible for irradiation to take place at a later date. I agree, as other hon. Members have said, that if we are to irradiate food, it must be carried out to the same standard. We should have Euro- standards. There has been a heck of a lot of disadvantage for our farmers. As we have to declare our interest in debates, I must say, as many hon. Members know, that I am involved in farming. The fact that we have higher standards than those in Europe has put our egg producers in a difficult position. We have been through the
  1052
  dreadful problem of finding salmonella in eggs, yet British eggs are now unidentifiable from imported eggs in the shops.
  I was extremely pleased to read recently in The Daily Telegraph always a reliable source of news—that the Israelis have discovered a way of spraying advertising messages on to eggs. I read that one can now buy Israeli eggs that have the words "Drink Coca-Cola" sprayed on the shell. I am hopeful that that technology will be used by our egg industry to enable it to put "Laid in Britain" on British produced eggs.
  There is an undoubted need to take extra precautions on food safety and the move towards that is consumer driven. Much consumer feeling has been caused by an inaccurate understanding of the situation, as was the case with eggs, and I hope that some action will be taken. Consumers are interested in a system through which they can feel that food is 100 per cent. safe. Irradiation may be one way to achieve that.
  The microbiologists have much to answer for on this matter. There is no doubt that some microbiologists—and we come into contact with a few in the Select Committee —are a good deal more interested in promoting themselves than in promoting safe food. We hear a great deal of drivel from some microbiologists. Most recently, they said that we should ban tomato ketchup and brown bread because there was something wrong with those products. How ludicrous! Furthermore, there is confusion in the minds of many consumers because they believe that if they eat irradiated food it is like eating nuclear waste from Sellafield. It is utterly different. Consumers need to be educated about the benefits of irradiating food.
  How many hon. Members and how many members of the public know that surgical dressings are regularly irradiated? If one cuts oneself or suffers an injury, the surgical dressing will have been irradiated before being applied to the arm, or whatever. What reaction was there when salted beef was first introduced? I bet that there was a heck of a response from some consumers who believed, for some reason, that it was probably dangerous. Perhaps in the fulness of time the hon. Member for South Shields will tell us about that. The industry and informed opinion believe that irradiation probably has a part to play in keeping food in this country and in the rest of Europe safe.
  As other hon. Members have said, labelling is vital. I am not sure exactly how restaurateurs will label chicken, for example, if it has been irradiated. Without doubt, an answer to that problem will be developed in the fulness of time. Those who produce organic food are quick enough to label it if they think that there will be some advantage to them. I am sure that, even in the most difficult circumstances, we shall find a way to label irradiated food. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister say that the World Health Organisation approved of irradiating food.
  As other hon. Members have said, training in the shops and in the home on how to handle food in various circumstances is vital. Frozen food is sometimes thawed too quickly. Food is sometimes handled with dirty hands or is stored incorrectly in the refrigerator which gives rise to a great deal of infection in food. I do not know about the future training of environmental health officers, but I believe that they should be trained as well. Some environmental health officers came to tell the Select Committee about salmonella in eggs, and I was shocked to realise how little they knew about the subject.

  1053
  The registering of food premises will also help to raise standards. Our standards must be Euro-standards, and all local authorities must abide by the same standards. There is nothing more confusing than for local authorities to be left to their own devices in interpreting regulations as they see fit. My hon. Friend the Member for Medway spoke about one officer telling a restaurant to fix tiles in its kitchen and another telling it to to take them down. Such woolly thinking is no good to anybody. We must have regulations that everyone can understand.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I wholly agree with what my hon. Friend says. However, the anecdote that he recounted was told us by our right hon. Friend the Minister. He told us that the two incidents occurred in the same restaurant, so it is not a question of national standards, and where the standards are set will not alter that fact. What is important is that an adequate standard is set for all environmental health officers to follow, wherever they are.
  Mr. Marland: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has put the position more clearly than I did.
  I welcome the Bill. It is important to remember that it will not allow the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food automatically to introduce food irradiation. I hope that the passing of the Bill will reassure consumers about that and that people generally will become educated about irradiating food.
  7 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The issue that we are debating has been in the public eye for a considerable time. Following the passage of the Food Act 1984, the then Minister issued a consultation paper for possible further legislation, but not until 30 October 1987 were the areas of such legislation identified.
  It was all the more disappointing when, in July of last year, the resulting White Paper was issued, for it was almost devoid of content. It contained 68 pages of self-congratulation and only five pages of proposals. As I read it, I was not filled with optimism about what would be in the Bill that was to follow.
  I confess that when the Bill appeared it was an improvement on the White Paper. I was surprised at that, because one would normally expect a White Paper to give an idea of what would be in a Bill. Nevertheless, although the measure is a great improvement over the White Paper, it does not go anything like far enough. The public were led to expect the Government to introduce a major measure in response to difficulties that had arisen, particularly over food poisoning.
  The Bill contains only one fundamental flaw, and that has been the subject of most of the debate. It opens the way for food irradiation and for other new processes to be introduced, an issue to which I shall return. I wish first, however, to note some of the major elements of the Bill, many of which I welcome.
  The Bill would revise the main offences in the existing Food Acts and would include the offence of supplying food that fails to comply with food safety requirements. The existing provisions relating to unfit food are unsatisfactory and the changes proposed by the Bill—removing the necessity to prove that food was intended to be sold for human consumption—are welcome.
  1054
  The new power to detain suspect food for investigation, where one or more items in a batch has been proved to be unfit, is necessary, as is the introduction of rules that provide that, if one part of a batch fails to meet the requirements, the whole batch will be assumed not to meet the requirements. I am particularly concerned about that, following incidents in my constituency about a year ago involving imported Irish beef. Environmental health officers had to write off, in effect, whole batches, because of the quantities of unfit meat that were coming in. The meat processors put them under intense pressure not to take that action, but simply to go through each batch in detail. The Bill will represent a major improvement in such cases.
  The changed prosecution procedures will enable enforcement to be more effective, and I welcome the fact that penalties are to be increased to more realistic levels, bearing in mind the sort of profits that unscrupulous people and organisations are able to make.
  The registration of premises, however, is an area where the Government are falling short of what should be done. The introduction of registration represents only a bureaucratic step. By itself, it will achieve nothing, whatever the public might think about the need for premises to be registered. I shall table amendments to require the licensing of all food premises.
  An interesting debate took place recently in the Committee that was considering an EC document entitled "Health Food Rules, Products and Animal Origins." That document appeared to drive a cart and horses through the Government's arguments in refusing to take action on licensing. Indeed, the Minister accepted during that discussion that much uncertainty existed about how the references concerned with registration should be understood, because they seemed to involve prior notification, in effect, licensing. I would welcome such a step, although there was much else in that EC document with which I disagreed.
  Registration has the benefit of letting a local authority know what is happening so that it can check that food is being prepared and sold in a satisfactory manner, but only after the premises are open and operating. It would be more sensible for such observations to be made, through. licensing, in advance of premises opening. The local authority could then satisfy itself that the necessary health requirements would be met. That would enable unsuitable premises to be ruled out before they were opened. Licensing would also mean that premises that were continually proving to be a public health risk could lose their licences.
  I worked for a time, after leaving school, in a restaurant. I am not aware of any problems that that establishment had in the preparation of food. It was probably much like any other restaurant—not perfect but not bad. Down the road was a so-called health food restaurant—purportedly selling the best of food—which regularly had enforcement action taken against it. It had appalling standards, but nothing much happened, apart from a continual process of minor offences receiving minor penalties. I am sure that, if the public had had any idea of what the trade was saying about that restaurant, or were aware of the action that the environmental health officers were regularly having to take, nobody would have eaten there. Without a licensing system, it was not possible properly to deal with that case.

  1055
  The Richmond committee, which reported recently on the microbiological safety of food, said:
  "As we have made clear in our letters to Ministers, we believe a system of formal licensing involving prior inspection should in due course be extended to a wide range of food operations."
  The Minister's reluctance to accept that does not accord with what the public expects. Ministers probably think that they can avoid taking such action because of the public belief that when we say we are introducing a system of registering food premises, that involves the licensing of premises. People think that before an operator can open for business, the establishment and its activities will be checked out. That is not the case.
  I will not go in great detail into all the provisions of the Bill. I agree with the decision to widen the controls over contaminants and residues, and with the decision to allow Ministers to make emergency control orders. I am also glad to see some Crown exemptions being brought to an end. That will apply, for example, to prisons. I hope that it will apply equally to the House of Commons. I do not know whether any Duchy of Cornwall properties and tenancies are currently exempted. If they are, I hope that they, too, will no longer be exempted.
  Although I welcome many of the Bill's provisions, can we be sure that they will be enforced? That brings us to the allocation of finance for enforcement, and the Minister spoke of £30 million being made available.
  That sum is far from unwelcome but I am afraid that it is unlikely to be adequate. I agree that any debate on the subject is likely to be sterile: one side will say that it is adequate and the other will say that it is not and both sources of information—the Department and the local Authorities—have vested interests. It is difficult to be sure about the adequacy or otherwise of the figure. But I am very concerned and I know that those who will have to enforce it are very concerned.
  I ask Ministers to ensure that adequate funding is provided in advance so that the Bill can be properly enforced from the word go as there will inevitably be a set-up cost. Something that may be found necessary in the long term may be missed at first and that can discredit the provisions that have been made. I do not want to argue about whether £30 million is enough or whether a further £10 million should be added, but I hope that Ministers will respond to the important need to ensure that adequate money is properly allocated in good time.
  As I said, the Bill falls seriously short of what is required, and I should like to draw the attention of the House to many of the matters omitted from the Bill that the public could reasonably have expected from a food Bill so loudly trumpeted by the Government in advance of its publication. There is nothing in the Bill to encourage organic or less intensive farming. There is nothing on pesticide residues in food, although opinion polls have highlighted the fact that that is a matter of enormous concern to the general public. There is no national food policy on nutrition and diet, despite the known links between poor food and illness.
  I feel particularly strongly about the fact that there are no measures to speed up reviews of older pesticides, many of which have been banned elsewhere but are still legal here and whose clearance data are still shrouded in secrecy. There are no measures to improve hygiene in abattoirs
  1056
  —a subject of which I have become especially aware through my work with local environmental health officers who have expressed their concern about BSE and cross-contamination that can arise from procedures in abattoirs and food processing plants. There are no proposals to label foods treated with pesticides or to itemise their saturated fat and sugar content. There is nothing to deal with new products such as so-called "superglue meat"—the blood enzyme products that may be coming into our shops later this year.
  The Minister says that labelling is a matter for manufacturers in the first instance and for environmental health officers if the manufacturers do not proceed with it. But there is an enormous gap between the theory and the reality. Many of the descriptions that are used are all very well for those who are well-informed but they rarely meet the ordinary consumers' need to understand readily what they are purchasing and to decide what they want to avoid. There is no provision to eliminate unnecessary additives.
  Finally, there is no intention to deal with a matter that could properly be dealt with in such a Bill—the labelling of animal feedstuffs. Farmers all round the country have expressed strong concern about the lack of labelling, but the Bill specifically excludes animal feedstuffs as food products, so none of its clauses will be relevant to them.
  As I said at the start, the major issue in the debate has inevitably been food irradiation. I welcome the considerable concern that is evident on both sides of the House, although there are varying views on the extent to which that concern needs to be articulated and what action needs to be taken. No doubt we shall have an interesting debate on the subject in Committee. I welcome what the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, said today, but I think that he will agree that what was said by Labour in the other place was by no means as forceful, which I found disappointing.
  In the Lords, Labour failed to support an amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats to prevent the legalisation or irradiation until a diagnostic test had been established and an independent review had been carried out into the effects of irradiation on pesticide residues, vitamin content, food additives and food packaging. Speaking from the Labour Front Bench, Lord Gallagher said:
  "My own view is that we can live with irradiation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 1990; Vol. 514, c. 770.]
  That is not my view and it is not the view advanced by the hon. Member for South Shields today. I hope that we shall agree in Committee.
  Dr. David Clark: Perhaps it will help the hon. Gentleman if I give him a categorical assurance that the official Labour party line is that we oppose irradiation. We shall be fighting it tooth and nail and we shall welcome his support.
  Mr. Taylor: I suspected that the Labour party's line would not be quite the same as that taken in the Lords, although I do not suggest that Labour entirely welcomed irradiation there. There was a difference of opinion and I am glad that we have been able to clear it up.
  It is not only the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats who are opposed to irradiation. It is opposed by almost all retailers, by the environmental health officers, by the British Medical Association board of science, by the National Farmers Union, by the women's institutes and by all the major stores except Sainsbury's.

  1057
  The Government argue that the World Health Organisation has cleared the process as safe but in the European documents the opposite view is adopted. The committee of experts had not considered the general safety aspects of the food irradiation process and it had not claimed that food irradiation was safe or that it had no harmful effects on human health.
  That is what the European Parliament working document said. The Minister did not deny that; he merely argued that the WHO had backed the proposal. In Committee, the Minister will have to go into much more detail about what the WHO actually said. He will have to refer to the small print rather than giving us bland assurances. If it had been the other way round—if all the organisations to which I referred supported irradiation but the WHO opposed it—I doubt whether the Minister would have said, "We certainly cannot have it because, although there is so much support, the WHO has told us that we had better not introduce the proposal." The Minister has made a rather weak case in praying in aid the advice of that one organisation.
  It is not merely a question whether we should allow food irradiation to go ahead. The words "food irradiation" do not appear in the Bill. I suspect that that is rather convenient. I suspect that Ministers were hoping that it would not be a subject for such lively debate here or in Committee. Worse still, clause 17 gives the Minister carte blanche to introduce any measures that he likes in respect of any new food process. The debate on food irradiation alone gives us ample reason not to accept the clause. We shall not have the opportunity to debate adequately other processes that may be developed even if they come under the public gaze to the same extent as food irradiation, because the Bill casts aside our powers to do that.
  I regret that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not stay beyond the first speech after his own. He was contemptuous and attacked those who oppose the process, including me, on the ground that we were denying choice to consumers. I have always been under the impression that when people say, "Choose your poison," they mean it figuratively and are not making a serious suggestion. I do not believe that the Minister would argue that line on any other process. It is just not the case that we allow people to choose their poison. We go to great lengths to ensure that products are safe before they go on sale and that we can check up on what manufacturers are doing.
  The point made by several hon. Members that there is no way of finding out whether foods have been treated by irradiation is one of the major factors to which the Minister has so far failed to respond. He will have to come up with a much better explanation of how we can allow this to go through when there is no way of checking what procedures a particular food may have been subjected to under irradiation.
  I would say also to those who argue that only good food can be irradiated that I am afraid they are wrong. Bad food should not be irradiated, but there is nothing to stop anyone doing it. One of the results of the irradiation process is to kill the bacteria that make it possible to tell that food has gone off. So irradiation can be used by the unscrupulous as a way of disguising bad food. Indeed, it is not uncommonly argued that that is precisely what happens at present: food that is produced in or shipped to this country is found to be going off, so is shipped to other
  1058
  countries for irradiation treatment and then brought back, when it is no longer possible to identify the problems that have occurred.
  Mr. David Ashby: Is the hon. Gentleman able to define what he means when he talks about bad food? Surely, food that is not of a high quality and is irradiated does not become bad food; it is still edible, and, indeed, perfectly healthy to eat, but it will not taste very nice. Is not that the real point?
  Mr. Taylor: No. The real point is that irradiation can be used to kill the bacteria in food that tell us that food is going off. Irradiation can be used on food that is already beginning to go off.
  Mr. James Couchman: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that food that has deteriorated to the point at which it can be described as bad and which smells and tastes bad does not suddenly become good-tasting or good-smelling as a result of irradiation? The bad taste and the bad smell persist.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member is right, if the food is allowed to get to that point. I am arguing about what happens before that. There is common anecdotal evidence that this is already happening with food coming in from the continent that has been treated with irradiation precisely for this reason.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: One of the things about irradiation that disturbs me enormously is the idea that one can get rid of a food poisoning epidemic by using irradiation. Over half the cases of offal poisoning come from poultry and the idea is that poultry is irradiated to kill off the salmonella. This is a case, therefore, of making bad food good. Over half the poultry produced has salmonella, and it is a case of using two wrongs to make a right.
  Mr. Taylor: My response to that is that I think that we will have an interesting debate in Committee. I certainly do not want to speak overlong now.
  I refer finally to a subject that is not tackled in the Bill, but which I believe should be—that is, labelling and whether we are really making the public aware of the things of which they wish to be made aware. For example, if somebody goes to a shop and buys a product described as "strawberry flavour" and then buys another product described as "strawberry flavoured", he or she is buying two completely different things. One of them contains strawberries, although perhaps not many, and one does not.
  I honestly do not believe that most people understand this. Looking at the way the products are dressed up to look wholesome and attractive and at their plastic packaging, it is clear that the food labelling laws that currently exist are not adequate. A similar thing could happen in future with blood enzyme meat products. I do not believe that the kind of labelling that has been mentioned would adequately tell customers what they are getting.
  I argue that, for all those reasons, the Bill is imperfect —not because, with the one exception of irradiation, it by and large does things that it should not do, but because it simply does not do the things that it should. It is inadequate. There will not be a vote against it tonight, I suspect, because there is not much in it to vote against, but

  1059
  in Committee there will, I think, be long and hard debate in an attempt to put into the Bill the kind of teeth that it should have had from the start.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Conal Gregory: A nation can be judged in various ways, but it surely owes two vital duties to its citizens: first, to ensure that they are properly nourished; and, secondly, to safeguard them with adequate defences. The Bill is concerned with the first of those duties and is to be warmly welcomed. Good food hygiene is vital and if we are here giving legislative teeth to a framework which should last for many years, it is the Conservatives who have not flinched from ensuring better food standards.
  The Bill revises the offences, modernises the statutory defences, imposes higher penalties for offenders, strengthens the powers of enforcement officers, introduces improvement notices and provides for the training of food handlers. It will give the Government greater control over contaminants and residues, as well as new technological advances.
  Although the fermented grape may be only peripheral to the Bill, I declare a possible interest as a master of wine by examination.
  Good food is intrinsically linked with good health and it must be a constant source of embarrassment to the Labour party to have let the British public down when in Government. Today we have more than 70,000 more nurses and 14,000 more doctors in our National Health Service and spending is set to rise by some £2,400 million in 1990–91, which means that NHS expenditure will have increased by more than 45 per cent. in real terms on Labour's last year, 1978–79.
  Just as the Labour Government neglected health care, so they gave no attention to the important matter of food control. The Conservatives have accepted that challenge, and the Bill is the result. It is substantial, as it will replace the existing food legislation in England, Wales and Scotland with one statute to cover Great Britain.
  The Bill provides, I believe, a good balance between the interests of the consumer and those of fair trade. Overall, public confidence in the food chain from the farm to the shop will be boosted. Already we are seeing good initiatives at the regional level. I draw attention to the Association of North Yorkshire Food and Drink Producers, which uses the slogan "The Yorkshire Pantry" and has already held two food hygiene forums which have brought together representatives from the independent and multiple retail sectors, the licensed catering trade and environmental health. The association is rightly concerned that legislation should be uniformly applied, with no loopholes for the unscrupulous trader.
  Some members of the public have been destabilised by certain academics with very sketchy research. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) was right to draw that to our attention. This is in stark contrast with proper research and communication based on solid documentation. It will be interesting to see how far the Opposition use that sketchy research from those quasi-academics in pursuing certain arguments. In this context, I commend the free food-line service provided by the food safety advisory centre, which has already received more than 8,000 calls.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us who the quasi-academics are, so that we have the information on the record. Their assertions can then be determined with certainty at later stages in the consideration of the Bill.
  Mr. Gregory: Both sides of the House will expect arguments to be substantiated. The hon. Gentleman and I are both entitled to make claims. I am sure that he will produce evidence, including research sources, to support his claims. We shall then be able to judge them accordingly. I shall be happy to be part of that process.
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gregory: In this year alone——
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gregory: I have dealt adequately with the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I can see that the Opposition are embarrassed by their use in the past of certain quasi-academics. We shall see whether they still rely upon them.
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gregory: I wish to refer to the amount of food safety research that is undertaken.
  Mr. Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When hon. Members wish to produce arguments for debate——
  Mr. Raffan: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Davies: I am being barracked from a sedentary position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suggest that whether I am raising a point of order rests with you, not with Conservative Members.
  If arguments are advanced in debate, and especially when hon. Members ask who has made the unsubstantiated claims and for evidence to be produced, is there not a clear responsibility for the hon. Member who has put them forward to produce his evidence?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): That is a matter for debate, not a point of order.
  Mr. Gregory: After that unnecessary intervention from the hon. Gentleman, I will try to make some progress. Despite the sparsity of Opposition Members in the Chamber, many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate.
  This year alone, the Government are spending £8·5 million on food safety research. There have been no cuts —indeed, extra cash has been provided. There has been an increase in provision of £500,000 on last year.
  Right hon. and hon. Members have referred to irradiation. I do not wish to take up too much time on that, but irradiation is not a new form of food preservation which has arrived in the past few weeks or months—it was introduced about 80 years ago. I understand that it is permitted in 35 countries world-wide and in use in 21 of them, including four member states of the European Community and the United States of America.
  The case for irradiation has not yet been well made out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said at some length. We know that the process

  1061
  reduces some vitamins in food, especially vitamins A and B, thiamin, pyridoxine and ascorbic acid. The changes caused by food irradiation, however, are extremely small.
  It is important—this has always been recognised by Conservatives—that there should be choice in food. Accordingly, if irradiation will increase our choice, I am in favour of it. I accept that the present system for handling herbs and spices is not satisfactory, and that is one of the cases for irradiation.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take up a worry which has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is felt that there should be a test to determine whether a food has been subject to irradiation, and that should be dealt with before we can consider legalising that food.
  Any system of control relies ultimately on the vigilance of enforcement officers and on adequate penalties. Some local authorities have not given adequate priority to those important considerations. I am delighted that extra resources of £30 million annually are to be provided out of central finance. That should ensure that extra enforcement officers can be employed.
  In November, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, on whom enforcement of the Bill largely falls, reported 418 vacancies in England, Wales and Ulster. That fact was pointed out by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). The figure means that, nationally, one in eight posts were unfilled. The major reason for the manpower shortage lies with education—there are not enough training places at our polytechnics.
  I understand that there are two methods of becoming a qualified environmental health officer. The first involves taking a degree in environmental health, which is a four-year course. The first two years are spent at a polytechnic, followed by one year with a local authority and a final year at a polytechnic. The other method involves a diploma in environmental health undertaken through a local authority by day release and/or block release. Too few individuals are able to undertake such a course due to lack of sponsorship by local authorities.
  In York, for example, the nearest course was at Hull. That course is no longer available. Accordingly, a good and experienced chief environmental health officer, such as I have in York in the form of Trevor Phillips, is thus unable to sponsor young people because of the distances involved. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to hold urgent discussions with the polytechnics so that the number of posts can be increased. We must ensure that central Government funds are channelled in the right direction.
  Anyone who reads the Bill will be aware of the importance of registration or licensing. The Bill provides for the registration of food premises and for such premises to be closed down immediately if public health is at risk. That is a balanced approach and the right way forward. One can imagine the power which could otherwise be given to a local authority to licence willy-nilly. Such power could easily be abused. A local authority could arbitrarily dictate how many Chinese restaurants or Indian takeaways should be allowed to trade instead of allowing the public to decide.
  Licensing in such circumstances could easily be misapplied. If we had had such a system in the past in York, only one confectionery company might have been considered adequate. I am pleased to say that, in the 18th and 19th centuries, there was no such red tape. Had such
  1062
  a system existed, it would have stopped the development of Craven, Rowntree and Terry. I am glad to know that similar initiatives in future will not be stifled in their infancy.
  The EHO must be informed that a food-related business is to start operating. He can then visit the premises and judge the level of risk. It is clear that a rnajor supermarket selling preserved foods needs fewer visits than a street trader. Products such as ice cream and milk deserve special attention.
  Good food handlers employ and train staff to understand hygienic practices. I hope that local colleges will develop and extend their courses to cater for that need, if they are not doing so already. In some authorities, the EHO runs a food hygiene course. Three such courses are run by the Yorkshire EHO.
  Better food hygiene should mean the separation of cooked and uncooked meats and the assurance that coins are not handled by the same unprotected hands which served the food. I believe that a person prosecuted for that practice should be disqualified for two years from operating the premises and that the technical move of having the business transferred to the spouse's name should be prevented. That is a problem in areas such as west Yorkshire where, with a large Indian ethnic community, the male is dominant in catering and other businesses. If he is found guilty of an offence and the business is transferred to the name of his spouse, that does not mean that she has the time and management skills to run it properly—it just means that there is a different name on the business notepaper.
  If an EHO is worried about food control, he needs the power to act quickly. By virtue of clause 12, the Bill provides for emergency prohibition where there is an imminent risk to health, and clause 13 provides powers to make emergency control orders.
  I believe in the carrot rather than the stick. Food retailers who are noted for care will attract good custom. The stick is the penalty of fines of up to £20,000 plus six months' imprisonment on conviction in a magistrates court, or unlimited fines or two years' imprisonment following conviction on indictment. There will be a tenfold increase in the present fine for selling unsafe food.
  It is right that we consider the legal concept of due diligence, which will be extended to anyone selling food. This means that shops, supermarkets and restaurants will have to take all reasonable precautions to ensure that the food that they are providing is safe. The Bill will not allow them to escape prosecution merely by blaming their suppliers. We should realise that the new powers will substantially increase the burden on retailers, but it is essential that the definition of due diligence in clause 22 should remain unaltered.
  I am concerned that there is no mechanism for public complaints. It is important that in any prosecution there is early disclosure of evidence. I recently heard of a peice of glass being found in a packet of soup. The prosecuting authority would not reveal that evidence to the company concerned. It was only when the company guaranteed to pay for an independent analysis that it became clear that the glass could not have originated in the company but came from the bowl in which the soup had been cooked.
  I am also concerned that there is no appeal against condemnation by a justice of the peace. That was considered in the other place and the Minister suggested

  1063
  that judicial review was the answer. I hope that that will not be the answer when we consider this subsequently, because it is inadequate.
  I welcome the Bill. It is tough. I urge the Opposition not to unpick it, because it strikes the right balance between the worlds of commerce and of the consumer.
  7.40 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I share the view expressed already by many hon. Members that there are huge gaps in the Bill. I noticed with interest that the Minister talked about the whole food chain, but the Bill does not cover that, as has been pointed out. That would not matter so much if the food chain was being dealt with adequately in other ways, but that is not so. There is more to food safety than food poisoning, such as salmonella, important though that is. Food safety is a much wider issue.
  For example, many parents changed to giving their children apple juice rather than the sugar or sweetener laden squashes. Then, to their horror, they learned about alar, the growth retardant chemical which interfered grossly with the growth of apples. It went right into the cells and could not be washed off. The healthy juice that they thought that they were giving their children was open to doubt. They got no protection from the Government on that matter, even though that substance was banned as carcinogenic in the United States and even though the manufacturers themselves have ceased to manufacture it. The Government have simply gone on saying, "Don't worry; it's safe." That kind of thing does more to alarm people who are interested in their food than many other utterances. Such experiences bring the wholesomeness of our food into question.
  When the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was challenged on television about a vet's comments that cows infected with mad cow disease but undiagnosed as such could be getting into the slaughterhouses and into the food chain, his comment was, "So what?" Then he said, "Oh well, we rip out all the central nervous system." An environmental health officer then pointed out that it is impossible to guarantee that all the dangerous organs would be ripped out of an animal in that way. But all we got from the Minister was, "So what?" Many people watching him on television would have had their confidence in his Department, if they had any, gravely shaken.
  There have been some attempts in the other place to improve the Bill. There was an attempt to amend the Bill, requiring food that had been subject to spraying to be labelled. Food may be sprayed as many as 40 times, but that amendment got short shrift. There was an attempt to ensure that alcoholic drinks should not be exempt from proper labelling, but the Government spokeswoman said that such detail was inappropriate in the Bill. The alcoholic drinks industry is large and not many people would regard it as a detail.
  A noble Lord tried to introduce an amendment about mechanically recovered meat, so that food being presented as containing meat when it really contained mechanically recovered meat would be labelled as such. Again, the Government spokeswoman said that once again she
  1064
  believed that that kind of detail was inappropriate to the Bill. When further pressed on both those matters, she hid behind EEC regulations. That is grossly inadequate.
  I am worried about the inadequacies of the Bill, but I am even more worried about funding. The figure of £30 million has been put forward and the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) referred to £30 million being dedicated to dealing with the matter. It is one thing to say, as the explanatory and financial memorandum does,:
  "The additional cost for local authorities is likely to be of the order of £30 million a year from 1991–1992 onwards. This will be taken into account in next year's Revenue Support Grant Settlement",
  but that is far from a guarantee of real money. If that sum is taken into account and at the same time there is an underestimate of inflation, such as we have seen this year, and local authorities are underfunded to the tune of £3 billion, £30 million will not go far among local authorities to fund this or any other of their functions.
  Lancashire county council has been deprived of £168 million. If we add to that the amount of which district councils have been deprived, simply by sharp practice in reckoning—underestimating for inflation—neither my constituents nor the people who will be responsible for reinforcement will be impressed by being told that £30 million is being taken into account. It might mean that they lose a few thousand pounds less next year, but not that real extra money is granted to them. Unfortunately, it is real extra money that will be required to pay the salaries of the extra environmental health officers who will be required.
  The funding arrangements are grossly inadequate. I do not understand why there cannot be some earmarking. I do not understand why local authorities cannot be guaranteed a real and identifiable extra sum in order to meet the responsibilities that are now being placed on them. I fear that we shall be treated to a great deal of fiction in this matter which will not help local authorities to enforce the new legislation.
  I said that there is a great deal more to food safety than food poisoning, such as salmonella or listeria, and that is true, Nevertheless, those are important matters. The most important contribution that can be made for the prevention, for example, listeria, is proper temperature control of food by retailers and in the home and the Select Committee on Social Services made some recommendations on that. They were straightforward recommendations—nothing elaborate, such as food irradiation. They were recommendations about which there could be no controversy about their safety. For instance, it was recommended that retailers should have integral and visible thermometers in refrigerators containing cook-chill food. We made that recommendation last June. Surely one would have thought that the Government would simply have said that that was a good recommendation. But they did not.
  We had a contorted bit of evidence when we subsequently interviewed the principal in the health service division of the Department of Health. We asked whether the new food and hygiene regulations would require retailers to have refrigeration equipment fitted with thermometers. He told us:
  "to comply with the regulations clearly a thermometer will be required … There may not in fact, in the regulations be a requirement to actually provide a thermometer, but the mere fact that to comply with the regulations they need a thermometer is sufficient in legal terms for it to be provided."

  1065
  Hon. Members will not be surprised that the Select Committee's response to that was that, although it might be sufficient in legal terms, it would produce total confusion among producers, retailers and consumers.
  If the Government want temperature control in cabinets, they should make a requirement that there should be integral and visible thermometers. It would be fairer to retailers and consumers, and to shop workers, who could then monitor properly the foods under their care as they might well be blamed for any bad handling. Yet the Government will not simply say, "Yes. Let's do it."
  There has been similar equivocation on other recommendations. That alone is sufficient to justify our great scepticism that the Government, who are so keen to introduce irradiation, are simply doing that because they are keen on safe food. Otherwise, good hygiene would be at the top of the list of their requirements.
  Many hon. Members have made good points about the subject of irradiated food and I do not intend to repeat them. However, the chief medical officer mentioned an important matter to the Select Committee last June. He told us that he believed that food irradiation should be given further consideration, but he pointed out that various safeguards would need to be developed to ensure that it was not abused. He said:
  "it is necessary for us to develop detection procedures so that it is not possible for a person producing food to irradiate food twice—to do it once, render it sterile and then when it gets to the expiry date to do it again."
  The chief medical officer said that last June, but no tests are yet available which can identify food which has been irradiated once, let alone twice. To those Conservative Members who think that there is virtually no difference in the food after it has been irradiated, all I can say is that their idea of a scientific approach is sadly misplaced. The fact that it is not possible to have reliable, cheap and available tests—for example, chemical tests—to identify irradiated food does not mean that the food has the same biological nature as it had before it was irradiated. We know that irradiation causes changes in the food, but we do not fully know the significance of those changes for human health.
  The Minister said in his speech that it will be safer to allow irradiation because, as long as we do not allow it, irradiated food will be, as he put it, sneaked in. What confidence can we have in the food manufacturing and importing trades if that is the kind of thing they will get up to, if they will break the law by sneaking in irradiated food when it is clearly banned? It is precisely those manufacturers and importers—whom the Secretary of State invites us to distrust so much at present—whose willingness and ability to label with total accuracy we would have to rely on. I could have no confidence in that.
  We have heard about the broad alliance of people who are opposing food irradiation. It includes most of the big retailing chains—all but one, I think. It includes those who earn their living from marketing fresh produce and foods, and I do not believe that it is accidental that they are so hostile to irradiation. They recognise that there is likely to be a consumer boycott of their products if irradiation is given the go-ahead and if people lose confidence. We have all seen on television the signs on doors of shops in the United States saying, "No irradiated foods here". That is because they know that they have to retain people's confidence if they want to keep their custom.
  Conservative Members have used a childish argument to challenge the notion that bad food cannot be made to
  1066
  seem safe. They have said that bad food tastes and smells bad. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said that, but he is not in the Chamber at present. Perhaps if the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) had used the term "dangerous food" rather than "bad food", it would have been more clearly understood. Food can be extremely dangerous and taste quite normal. If that was not the case, we would not have any food poisoning because people would take one bite and put their knives and forks away. We do not know whether food is germ laden until we get diarrhoea, or whatever.
  Food could be laden with organisms and then apparently made sterile by irradiation, but that does not remove the poisons and the toxins that the organisms have generated within the food, and it does not prevent it from becoming reinfected. It is a con to persuade people to part with hard-earned money to make profits for unscrupulous traders.
  I am pleased that traders and supermarket chains in this country are showing resistance to irradiation. They are showing more confidence in their own products than the Government are, and that is the one thing in this whole saga which gives me any hope whatsoever.
  Therefore, although the Bill takes some steps and fills in some of the gaps, it is hopelessly inadequate and leaves people undefended against the huge changes in technology which have taken place in agriculture and food processing, and which are making our food less wholesome than it was, and reducing its quality.
  If the Government really want people to feel confident that food is wholesome, they will bring forward not only this Bill, but another one which will take in the whole food chain and which will deal with the deplorable way in which animals are raised and our land is treated. If the Government start there, they may produce a Bill which protects food quality. If the Bill deals with all the other things that we have pointed out, it may deal with food safety adequately.
  Whereas we mostly get legislation which is uniformly horrific from the Government, the best thing about this Bill is that it takes some small steps in the right direction. That is very faint praise indeed, and it is intended as such.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I speak as the chairman of the all-party food and health forum, which has conducted a dialogue with many interested parties in the food industry about food and health, diet and nutrition, and which has recognised public concern following recent outbreaks of food poisoning.
  This is a good time for us to examine the broader context of the events that have led to the introduction of the Bill. I welcome it: I think that it takes some important steps, and I do not share the dismal forebodings of some Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise). The "due diligence" defence in clause 22 and the general safety requirement in clause 8 between them will, I believe, make for a balanced approach that will ensure consumer safety.
  I also welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister that he intends to widen the role of consumers in consultations on food safety matters. I have wondered for a long time why there is no place for a consumer representative on Government committees such as the committee on toxicity and the advisory committee on

  1067
  novel foods and processes. I wonder, also, why so many of those committees require the imposition of the Official Secrets Act on their members to ensure their smooth operation. I hope that my right hon. Friend's statement signals his recognition that consumers and their organisations can play a major role.
  I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that resources would be made available to enforce the greater rigour that is implicit in the Bill. I was interested, however, by the complaints of Opposition Members that £30 million was too little, and that the money was not earmarked for what they considered the most suitable purposes. I hope that, when he replies, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will explain whether the reference in clause 6 to Ministers' right to take over the responsibility of enforcement from local authorities extends to those authorities that are clearly falling down in their duties.
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who has left the Chamber, spoke of the importance of speedy action to provide the necessary extra resources and the environmental health officers to ensure that the new, more rigorous framework is effective. There is a risk that the shortfall will not be tackled in time, and I urge my hon. Friend to take account of that and act promptly. We need the resources to cope with both registration and inspection of new food premises. Although I do not go as far as some Opposition Members who have suggested that licensing would be preferable to registration, I believe that a registration system must be backed up with sufficient resources for the immediate inspection of new premises. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to convince the House—and, in due course, the Committee—that he recognises the validity of that suggestion.
  One of the key provisions is in schedule 1, which deals with training. We might accept that, however much we legislate, we shall always be bedevilled by human error. None of us is perfect; we all slip up from time to time. We can overcome the worst effects of that, however, by ensuring that good training is given to those whose work involves any part of the food chain.
  Food safety requires not just the training of others, but self-regulation and self-discipline. We cannot legislate for what happens in the homes of our fellow citizens, but we can exhort them to read the advisory material that is widely available, and to recognise that they are at the end of the food chain—the point of consumption. They are just as capable—some would say more so—of adulterating food in the process of cooking and serving as is anyone involved with an earlier link on the chain.
  Clear labelling of food, with which clause 17 is concerned, is crucial, not only in connection with irradiation but because it promotes healthy eating. I warmly welcome the progress now being made towards European harmonisation: the EC agreement of 22 December 1989, to which my right hon. Friend referred, was an important step forward. The Government must now act quickly to ensure that we are in the vanguard of the introduction of clear product labelling. Too many of us eat and drink our way to premature death or crippling disease; we owe it to our fellow citizens to give them every opportunity and encouragement to avoid such a fate.
  1068
  The Bill, and the regulations that will depend on it, must make allowance for novel foods. The other place added to the definition of food in clause 1
  "articles and substances of no nutritional value".
  What is the Government's attitude to substances such as Olestra, which have no nutritional value but which have dietary value in reducing the ingestion of other unhealthy ingredients? Food technology is moving on all the time, and we must be able to respond to its challenges quickly.
  Obviously, it is impossible for us to avoid referring to food irradiation. Here I must declare not a personal but a constituency interest, in that my constituency contains one of the foremost companies involved in the irradiation of products for which the process is now legal—Isotron. I do not speak on its behalf, however; my point is that the case for food irradiation has been made extremely well by organisations throughout the world.
  I have had an early opportunity to read a leaflet that is shortly to be published by the Food Safety Advisory Centre, which states:
  "The weight of scientific opinion considers food irradiation to be a safe process, and another useful tool for protecting our food. It is not a panacea, and will not eradicate all bacteria by itself. Food irradiation is to be seen as a partner with good manufacturing practice, good hygiene, packaging and temperature control.
  Irradiation has been studied since 1905, and no other food processing method has been subject to such close examination for so many years. Whilst some individual scientists may have reservations, the weight of scientific opinion agree this to be a safe process.
  Food irradiation has been accepted by the World Health Organisation since 1961, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and International Atomic Energy Agency who evaluated the process and their Joint Expert Committee on Food Irradiation declared that the use of food irradiation up to a specific dose of 10kGy is a safe process (when applied at recommended doses). In the United Kingdom the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods reported in 1986 that food irradiation is a safe process, presenting no toxicological hazard and introducing no special nutritional or microbiological problem."
  I could not have put it better myself.
  I hope that we shall not reach the point in this and subsequent debates where we say to those who are hostile to food irradiation that we shall allow irradiated food to be labelled because that will give people the chance to avoid eating such food. I hope that the Government will say that there is a case for food irradiation, that irradiated food is safe to eat and that people who wish to eat safe food should seek out those foods that are labelled as having been irradiated and enjoy eating them.
  I hope that, as the months and years go by, the general public will overcome their understandable nervousness in the face of so much hostile propaganda from the Opposition and others. I hope that in due course we shall take the same relaxed view about food irradiation as we now take about the motor car. Is not it significant that the Labour party's emblem is the same red flag as was paraded in years gone by in front of every motor car? We have moved on from those days. I believe that in a few years' time, we shall have moved on from this unnecessary concern about food irradiation.
  We have to work within the European context on food safety, but the United Kingdom can and ought to lead the way by responding to the problems and embracing new technologies. The Bill will help that process. I wish it well.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I was looking forward to a factual and enlightening debate. Then the Minister spoke. I was amazed to hear him say that pasteurised milk is so safe that we do not need to say on the milk top that the milk is pasteurised. That is not true. If a housewife picks up a bottle of milk and looks at the top, she sees, "Pasteurised." A cream carton also says that the cream inside is pasteurised. That shows the amount of ignorance on the Conservative Benches. It worries me.
  I welcome the Bill. It is much delayed; it ought to have been introduced six years ago. I am sure we shall debate that matter in Committee. The Bill is greatly flawed and I should like to deal in detail with why that is so, but that would upset hon. Members because we are short of time.
  The Bill is needed because food-borne illness has quadrupled during the last 10 years. I refer to food-borne illness rather than to food poisoning. Government statistics also do not cover those who are poisoned by eating food. They cover salmonella and a few other small infections that cause food poisoning. They do not cover campylobacter, which causes 40,000 cases a year, and was discovered only in 1976 to be a food poisoning organism. However, the Government do not class such cases as food poisoning. The statistics also do not cover listeria, so I hope that the Government will change their compilation of the statistics and include food-borne diseases.
  When all the figures are put together, there were 80,000 reported cases of people being made ill last year by eating food. If for every reported case, 10 go undetected, that means that there must be at least 800,000 cases of food poisoning a year. That is serious. I accept that the deaths that occur as a result of food poisoning are reported. Fortunately, there are only between 100 and 200 such deaths each year, but that is too many. Some of those deaths are due to the Government not having taken any action before now.
  As for campylobacter, the Richmond report and the letter sent to the Minister in response to the then proposal to ban the sale of raw milk—or what is called green top milk—stated in no uncertain terms that 80 per cent. of campylobacter outbreaks are caused by raw milk, although only 3 per cent. of all milk is classed as raw milk. The report also says that, during the last 10 years, 13 people have died as a result of drinking green top milk.
  Have the Government banned the sale of green top milk? No, they have promoted it. In September of this year, there will be new labelling. The industry will be placing a health warning on cartons or bottles of raw milk. They will carry the warning, "This milk can be dangerous." I know of only one other example of a health warning—that on packets of cigarettes. The only difference between cigarettes and green top milk is that cigarettes cannot be bought by children. However, the Government will allow milk that is potentially dangerous, especially to children, to be sold on the open market.
  In March last year the Government said that they would ban the sale of raw milk, but they have changed their mind as a result of pressure from the farming community. The Government capitulated. That is a disgrace.
  The Bill will provide the Minister with many powers. If the Minister is prepared to allow the sale of raw milk, how can we trust him to look after the nation's health and food safety?
  1070
  There has been a major Government cover-up over contamination by listeria. We are also discussing in the debate the sixth report of the Social Services Committee "Food Poisoning: Listeria and Listeriosis." According to the chief medical officer of health's written evidence, outbreaks of listeriosis have killed people in Boston, Los Angeles, Switzerland and France. Nowhere in that evidence does he mention that there was an outbreak in this country in 1981. Only when he was pressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) did he say that there was probably an outbreak in Cumbria.
  There was an outbreak in my constituency in 1981. Eleven people suffered from listeriosis and there were six deaths, which included four infants and two adults. The Government have never published that information, because they took no action on it. There has been action on listeriosis only during the last three years. However, the Government knew in 1981 that there was a problem.
  Statistical evidence proved that people had been infected by pasteurised cream sold by a leading store. The cream had come not from a local farm but from a national supplier. Although the blame cannot be put on the store or the local suppliers, the fact is that six people died in that outbreak. The Government did nothing about it; they did not even publish their findings. Page 134 of the Richmond report referred very casually to
  "a cluster of eleven cases in Cumbria in 1981 suggested the possibility that they may have been associated with cream."
  Nowhere do the Government say that there were any deaths. Only now is the truth emerging.
  I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Health is replying to the debate. Perhaps he will tell us, first., why that information was never supplied; secondly, what action the Government took to investigate the problem; and, thirdly, why under this Bill the same cloak of secrecy will stop the relevant authorities making such information available to the public. It is important that the public know about the problems involving food poisoning. The reason we know about cases in Switzerland, America and France is that their Governments tell us. Our Government hide everything behind a cloak of secrecy. I hope that the Bill will be amended to make sure that that is not the case in future.
  I worry about the Bill and the people who will administer it. The Bill is necessary, but it will be in safe hands only when we have a Labour Minister to administer it.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I wish to declare a financial interest in the food industry and, like all responsible people employed in the food industry, I have a big vested interest in food safety. The fact that there are so many people in the food industry with a vested interest in food safety is one of the greatest guarantees that the public have of the protection of their health and the food that they eat. It is a simple commercial fact that, if we poison our customers, we lose our businesses, so we have an enormous incentive to ensure that the food industry is safe and produces wholesome food.
  I venture to suggest that we in Britain are lucky to be able to discuss food safety. There are millions of people in the world who would prefer to discuss the question of their next meal. It is a great luxury that we can spend time

  1071
  talking about the quality, the standard and the wholesomeness of our food because of the abundance of food we enjoy, and let us thank God for that.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on introducing a sensible and workmanlike measure. To my mind, there is nothing in the Bill to which any responsible person working in any area of food handling could possibly take exception.
  Hon. Members have suggested reasons why the Food Safety Bill has been brought forward now. The low level of knowledge and understanding which exists among many sections of the British public has already been mentioned. I shall elaborate by saying that that low level of knowledge and understanding extends through the storage and handling of food to the preparation and cooking of food. If anything, it is the result of our modern living patterns. The housewife today is looking for something convenient and instant in which she does not have to get too involved. Lest I be accused by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) of being sexist, the same applies to men involved in the culinary arts.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the standards operated by local authorities. In commercial terms, that means that a company operating under the jurisdiction of a local authority which enforces standards rigorously is put to more expense and is thus at a competitive disadvantage compared with others in areas where the local authorities take a more relaxed view and do not enforce standards as they should. My right hon. Friend pointed out the need for greater similarity between the actions and mechanisms of local authorities. I am sure that that is right and I am convinced that if uniform standards are enforced across the entire country, the long-term effect will be to ratchet up standards in all aspects of food production, retailing and consumption.
  Today's debate has centred to a greater or lesser extent on the dichotomy between those of us who would prefer the registration of food premises and those who would go further and require the licensing of all food premises. Hon. Members will not be surprised that I favour registration as the correct measure to take. It is no longer sufficient or adequate that we do not necessarily know who is involved in food handling and where they are. The register will provide that essential information so that in future we shall know who is handling our food and where they are.
  That is not the same as licensing, nor is it intended to be. Our philosophy is to treat people as responsible individuals. We recognise that the majority of people, given that responsibility, will behave in a responsible fashion. I realise that there will be rogues in the food industry, as there are in all walks of life, but one of the essential features of the Bill is that it spells out a tariff of penalties for non-compliance. I do not think that anyone in the House today will argue that that tariff should not be rigorously enforced.
  The food industry is perforce highly labour-intensive. It is a people industry. We cannot expect to achieve 100 per cent. satisfaction by standing over everyone involved in the food process to see that they do the job correctly. We depend on individual responsibility. There are many welcome examples of the entire food industry trying harder to police itself. There are several successful self-regulation schemes where industries are deciding in
  1072
  advance of Government legislation to take the bull by the horns and to set standards acceptable to the general public and to the Government.
  The food industry and other industries have seen the introduction of the individual operative as the quality controller. Industry in general is moving away from the era when another person stood over the operative to make sure that the job was done properly. Now the operative is his own quality controller. That is most commendable and certainly in tune with the philosophy of the Government who want to inculcate individual responsibility.
  The mention of training in the Bill is very welcome. I foresee enormous problems for the food industry. I mention just one or two concerns. People working in certain sectors of the food industry tend to be peripatetic and there is a high turnover of staff. That may have something to do with the low pay which is traditional in that industry. That could present difficulties in making people available for training, but I am optimistic enough to believe that the Bill will go a long way to improve matters in the very important area of training.
  I want to say a word or two about inspection. It is impossible to believe that we shall ever get 100 per cent. supervision, 100 per cent. inspection, or 100 per cent. food safety. In my opinion, the inspectors, rather than congregating in offices attempting to license premises, must be out in the field inspecting. As a result of the register which will be available to them, they will be able to identify high-risk establishments. They must concentrate their efforts there, and use all the powers and resources available to them to raise standards. In that context, we must not forget the hazards ever present and ever prevalent in catering and domestic kitchens. I believe that the good Lord provides the food and the devil sends the cooks. We must ensure, so far as possible, that inspection homes in on problems of that sort.
  As practically every hon. Member who has spoken has referred to irradiation, I shall deal with it only briefly. In any case, I have already made two speeches in this Chamber in favour of irradiation. The reason for the subject being raised so often here currently is that it is such an emotive issue. There are genuine and recognisable fears, born of a lack of knowledge. I, for one, am prepared to put my faith in the scientific knowledge that is available and to follow the Government down this road. All food preservation depends on arresting the rate of spoilage, whether by curing or salting, which goes back centuries, by canning, by freezing, by dehydrating or, nowadays, by irradiation. It is not a matter of making bad food good —it is a matter of arresting the rate of spoilage. One cannot reverse the process of putrefaction.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), whom I invariably mention in debates of this kind, talked about consumerism. I was going to congratulate him on having been converted to consumerism, until he made his pronouncement on irradiation, saying that he and his party would fight tooth and nail against it. By doing that, they will deny the consumer the choice in which I and my party most passionately believe.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: This legislation is long overdue. It has been in gestation for six years, which is considerably longer than the gestation period of an elephant. During that time, we have seen a

  1073
  huge increase in food-borne illness. We have heard about salmonella, but there are also campylobacter, listeria, rotavirus and clostridium, the incidence of all of which has increased, especially in the last three or four years. So the Bill is too late, and it could also be said that it is too little. The enforcement provisions are much improved. The higher penalties and strengthened powers for enforcement officers are a great improvement. But will there be officers to use those powers? Will the £30 million that has been promised materialise, and will it be enough? I doubt it.
  I have grave doubts that the mere registration of food outlets will be sufficient. Could it be that this approach has been chosen because if licensing prior to opening were used there would not be sufficient environmental health officers to cope with licensing? And would registration merely serve to mask the continuation of the existing inadequate provision? I suspect so.
  If the Bill is not amended, there will be an order-making power to license certain food businesses—for example, dairies and irradiation businesses. The Minister said of such irradiation—I quote as closely as possible—"Radiation causes so little change that it is undetectable, but it is considered dangerous because of those changes." If I heard the Minister aright, either he has no knowledge of the subject or he is misleading the House. He should know that the changes caused by irradiation are sometimes extremely detectable in certain foods by organoleptic methods—"organoleptic" being a big word for "by taste and smell".
  For example, eggs are rendered totally inedible by irradiation. The fact that other foods do not taste bad after irradiation does not mean that radiolytic products are not present and are not potentially harmful. As the Minister should know, pasteurisation is quite different. That process is testable because the numbers and types of organisms left by it are detectable. In addition, in the case of milk there are simple tests—for example, the phosphatase test.
  There are other possible dangers. We do not know what effects radiation has on food additives, contaminants, pesticides or packaging materials. With all these question marks over the process, we might ask who needs it. There is no discernible consumer demand. I do not believe that that is due to ignorance. In fact, those consumers who know more about the process are the ones who are more inclined to reject it.
  We must therefore deduce that it is the producers who require it. But why? It is not a cure-all for food-borne illness. Most outbreaks of food poisoning have been related to eggs, pate and soft cheese, none of which can be irradiated, for the very good reason that I mentioned earlier—because they taste dreadful after irradiation. Botulism is resistant to radiation because it is a spore-bearing organism. But in the case of those organisms and foods for which irradiation can be used, often not all the organisms are killed. Quite a number of organisms are left and are able to compete in a freer atmosphere, not in competition with the less damaging organisms that are already there. Of course, toxins also survive irradiation.
  It cannot be sensible to introduce a process with so many potential dangers, and with the added danger that it would be treated by producers as a cleaning-up operation at the end of a dirty operation. I hope that this is not the real reason for introducing the irradiation of food, but I suspect that it is.
  1074
  Clause 26 provides for sampling from businesses. But how useful this can be if there is no test for irradiation, and how on earth the labelling of irradiated food can be enforced in cafes and restaurants if there is no test escapes me.
  Lastly, why is there no general-duty requirement in the Bill? Other recent consumer protection legislation has had this standard provision, and the draft European Commission product directive imposes a much wider safety duty that takes account of the
  "intended use, consumption, packaging, transport and storage of a product according to normal circumstances."
  Surely we ought to have some such clause to take into account unforeseen problems and to give legal force to what must be seen as a real duty to society of anyone who provides one of the necessities of life, be it from a mark et stall or from a huge food factory.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: The Bill is widely welcomed by the food and drink industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, it speaks volumes for the way in which that industry approaches food safety. By and large, those involved in it are a most responsible body of people. In saying so, I emphasise "large" rather than "by".
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow said, the debate has centred on the question of registration as against licensing. It may come as no surprise to hon. Members that I am in favour of registration. However, I believe that there should be more information on the register, including information about how each registered person proposes to handle the food. There should be a requirement to amend the registration when proposals are changed. This would be of enormous help to the environmental health officers, who would then know which retailers or carriers he should home in on as the ones employing fundamentally unsafe practices and the ones that, therefore, should be watched very closely.
  I hope that the Bill is part of a series of measures related to consumer protection. It is essentially a consumer protection Bill. We in this country have tended to congratulate ourselves on the way in which we handle food. As so often, we have taken the view that we are the best in the world. I think that we have been among the worst in the western world. We allow cash to be handled with food. Display counters are not cold enough. We often see flies and other insects on displays. There are no hygiene tests on those serving in food shops.
  We should contrast conditions here with those on the continent. We tend to look down on the continent, but standards there are far higher, and have been for a long time. In Italy, a person cannot sell food unless he has a regular health check. Someone who handles food has to go to hospital for a health check every three months. If someone is caught handling cash with food, he is immediately subject to a large, on-the-spot fine. A person cannot handle food unless wearing proper protective clothing, including a hat and a proper jacket; the clothing is supposed to be clean and of a given standard. There is an immediate fine of £250, £300, £400, or £500 if someone who is not properly dressed tries to sell food.
  I have a lot of contact with Italy because my sister-in-law runs a shop there that sells food. I know about the standards and the regular tests that apply. When I have been there and have asked, "Can I help you?", my

  1075
  sister-in-law has said, "No, you have to stay on the other side of the counter." I have not been allowed to go behind the counter because I have not passed the medical tests and I have not had proper clothing.
  The Bill is good, but it is cautious. I am sorry that it does not include tests such as I have mentioned, because we will have to have them in due course. They are common sense. People who come here from abroad are horrified at standards in our food shops.
  The other day I went into a baker's shop to buy some bread. The woman said, "Hello, love." She produced the bread, took my money, put it in the till, and wrapped up the bread. Everything was mixed up. I was horrified to think what I was getting. In addition, the bread was sticking out of the paper. We have all had experiences like that. We have to change our practices if we want healthy food. I can only welcome the Bill as at least going down that road.
  The Bill also covers labelling. We have a right to know what we are eating, how the food is prepared and what it contains. Misleading advertisements which are so beloved by some sections of the food industry must stop. The labelling must tell us if the food is 90 per cent. water and 1 per cent. flavouring. We must know what we are buying.
  We have to be careful about labelling. I am deeply concerned about people who cannot take certain substances and who must know what is in the food. We cannot have labels that are covered simply in E numbers. We must know exactly what is in the food or the labelling will be misleading to all but the most expert consumer. We want something that covers the middle ground. The regulations must be strong and enforceable.
  This is a consumer protection Bill. I am sorry that it does not cover weights and measures. I look forward to the next measure. When I went into the bread shop the other day and got my dirty bread, I was conscious of the fact that I was being ripped off. When wheat prices have been shooting down, bread prices have been shooting up. I cannot understand why consumers buy bread which is not weighed. We can buy a half a pound loaf for which we pay 40p, yet a baguette costs £1·50 a lb. It is time that everything was sold by weight so that the consumer is no longer ripped off, as happens from time to time.
  The debate on irradiation has been interesting. Interventions from the Opposition Benches show that irradiation is not fully understood. I suspect that we will have an interesting and exciting time in Committee as we debate irradiation. I am in favour of it. The scientific evidence that I have read is overwhelming; I think that all the safeguards are available. I accept that there is concern about it. I look forward to the day when I can buy irradiated tropical fruit which was ripe before it was picked. When it has been picked green it is tasteless. I should like tropical fruit to be irradiated so that it comes to me with all the taste and flavour that I remember from my youth.
  I cannot understand why the Opposition parties have taken a political stance on irradiation. I do not think that it is a party political matter. I look forward to the debate in Committee on irradiation.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: A few years ago, I was shocked to discover that three nations in the United Kingdom were in the top five for heart disease. I was doubly shocked because the Government were complacent about it. In June 1985 I presented a petition to the House on the subject. Since then there have been numerous food scares involving salmonella, listeria, and botulism. My petition is still a model approach to safer food and a healthier diet.
  I welcome the few morsels in the Bill, as do various consumer organisations and local authority enforcement officers. But, in the words of an election campaign in the United States a couple of years ago, "Where's the beef'?" in respect of protecting people? The Bill is a major opportunity missed to reassure the public on food safety and public health. It does not provide real legislative teeth or the resources necessary for local authority enforcement officers to do their job properly.
  Because of all the public concern about food safety and inadequate food quality, consumers deserve for the 1990s a comprehensive programme of action, funded by the Government, for food safety and public health. The public are not getting that in the Bill.
  The Bill includes a few positive measures—the strengthening of the powers of local authority enforcement officers on improvement notices and prohibition orders, the wider definition of unfit food and improved seizure powers for suspect food, the raising of fines and penalties by a factor of 10 in relation to food which is injurious to health, mandatory hygiene training for certain categories of food handlers, the ability to bypass the immediate offender when it is appropriate to prosecute the real offender, and the lifting of Crown immunity, although there is exemption for both the Queen and the national security services. I wonder why the security services should still have immunity to poison people. Nevertheless, there is much in the Bill to be welcome.
  However, many of the slices in this legislative sandwich are without filling from the point of view of consumers and enforcement officers. There is very little democratic improvement for consumers. The new consumer food panel will be small and toothless. The food safety directorate is just another name for civil servants and advisers. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food key Food Advisory Committee is one-sided, with eight representatives of the food industry versus five from medicine and local government and just one from consumer interests. That is bad. There is no independent food safety agency; the Bill ignores the chance to introduce one. It is necessary to get a new system of quality standard and co-ordinate the level of local inspection and enforcement.
  I favour a licensing scheme for premises instead of the registration powers in the Bill. There should be prior approval from the local authority before anyone can operate a food business, and that licence should be renewed annually. If someone buys a car, we expect him to pass a driving test before he gets a driving licence to drive. It should be the same for food, and people should not be able to set up in the high street and feed a mass of people without having a proper licence.
  From a London viewpoint, I support compulsory food hygiene training. There are special needs for those food handlers whose first language is not English. That is a case

  1077
  for extra resources, particularly in an area such as London, where there is a high ethnic minority population and a need for the translation of material and mutilingual training. My borough has made a start in this respect. I could give the House some examples, but time does not allow me to do so.
  We need extra resources and funds to ensure the success of mandatory training for food handlers. The funds of 30 million promised to local authorities will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said, be swallowed up by the poll tax. In any case, that is a woefully inadequate figure and will not enable the officers to perform their tasks and meet their responsibilities.
  The criteria for the distribution of those funds are wrong. I hope that they will not be distributed merely on a pro-rata basis—the number of food premises—or a system based on population because that would be unfair. The criteria should be based on deprivation and poverty indicators, taking into account a borough's housing, unemployment and other social issues. All those indicators reflect the standard of food outlets which those boroughs provide.
  The issue of labelling has been confined to the Bill's regulations. However, all food should show the details of all the ingredients used in its production, including details of processing, chemical treatment and full nutritional labelling.
  The London Food Commission and the Institution of Environmental Health Officers have said that the advantages and safety of food irradiation have not been clearly demonstrated and they are worried about unscrupulous people taking advantage of it. It may kill most of the bacteria, but it will leave harmful toxins in the product and destroy nutrients such as vitamins.
  There should be a consumer education programme. I suggest a new levy on food advertisements, which could then be used on a health and consumer education programme. The Government should take the lead on that.
  The Bill could have many more teeth. With the Bill the Government have warmed the plate, but they have not yet guaranteed a disease-free dinner on it for all our citizens.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: I shall be brief, because a number of the points that I wished to make have already been made ad nauseam. I start by declaring my interest: for 20 years I have been involved in licensed catering in the pub business. I still run pubs in London and, therefore, I have an interest in the Bill.
  I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister has decided on registration rather than licensing. All licensed caterers are, by definition, already licensed by the justices. When licences are granted, environmental health officers have the opportunity to make representations to the court about whether they think that the prospective licensees are fit and proper people to run licensed catering establishments.
  I am concerned by the enormity of the task confronting my right hon. Friend the Minister. It seems that the Bill will catch not only all licensed premises and unlicenced food shops and premises, but all shops retailing food and anyone who sells confectionery. Therefore, virtually every garage in the country will come within the net of the Bill.
  1078
  I wonder exactly how my right hon. Friend proposes to offer a proper enforcement service for registered food sellers.
  Irradiation seems to have been covered by almost all the speakers in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who has unfortunately had to leave the Chamber, summed up the issue admirably when he said that he saw it as just the latest in a chain of methods to preserve food beyond what might be called its natural shelf life. I am in favour of allowing irradiation on a strictly controlled basis, with the labelling for irradiated food promised by my right hon. Friend. I understand that, where finished and prepared food is offered on a plate, it is impossible to label it, but we are obliged, under other provisions, to show what we are going to serve by way of menus in windows and on tables. No doubt proper organisation of menus will allow us to show whether food has been irradiated.
  My main point relates to enforcement. Environmental health officers, who tend to be generalists rather than specialists, already have a wide variety of duties. Undoubtedly the Bill will add substantially to their burdens. For some time there have been many vacancies for environmental health officers throughout the country. As long as 15 years ago, when I was vice-chairman of an environmental health committee, we had great difficulty in recruiting environmental health officers. There is nothing new about that, and the Bill will make even more urgent the need for more environmental health officers to be trained and recruited.
  I wish to look beyond training and recruitment because I want a consistent standard of enforcement throughout the country. Unfortunately, all too often examples of personal prejudices influence the actions of environmental health officers. I suppose that the most notorious recent case was the capricious and vexatious prosecution of La Gavroche by the city of Westminster on the advice of its environmental health officers, Parker Brown and MacGregor.
  It seems that not only individual EHOs have prejudices, but also local authorities. They sometimes regard this as a duty which they can use to extend their empire and act in a way that certainly builds up cynicism and scepticism on the part of those involved in the premises that come within their ambit.
  There is a parallel with health and safety legislation; the same officers are responsible for the enforcement of health and safety legislation. It is possible to make almost any licensed catering premises unworkable by extreme zealousness and over-onerous demands for health and safety projects.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said, some environmental health officers make demands for tiling, untiling and retiling. I was asked to put tiles on the floor of a beer cellar. I do not know whether that environmental health officer had ever penetrated a beer cellar, but when a 10 of 22-gallon keg is dropped on a tile floor the tiles shatter. He seriously wanted me to tile the floor so that I could throw my barrels around and shatter the tiles. Because of instances such as that, we need to ensure—through secondary legislation, codes of practice, and the directions that my right hon. Friend the Minister must give—that we achieve consistent and sensible enforcement.
  Some environmental health officers are extremely helpful with their advice and guidance. They give

  1079
  instruction to people who perhaps do not know as much as they should about food safety and food hygiene. They build up confidence and co-operation. It is a desirable aspiration of the Bill to build a partnership between environmental health officers—with their guidance and advice—and food sellers. The Bill should be regarded not as draconian, a penalty, or something that should be feared by food sellers, but as a sensible basis for their entirely proper and legitimate business. I wish my right hon. Friend well in taking the Bill through the House.
  9 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I welcome the Bill, because 90 per cent. of it is positive and helpful. It will help to improve standards of hygiene in shops and to educate the consumer. My reaction to the Bill is similar to my reaction to the Environmental Protection Bill—I am a member of the Standing Committee on that Bill—as I think that it makes steps in the right direction, but they are small steps and the Bill has major omissions. For example, it does not tackle food production and processing; animal feeding at the farm; what is added to foods in food processing; pesticides; or intensive farming. We know that the problems of salmonella, and now of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, relate to animal feeding, yet the Bill contains nothing to remedy that. It attempts to blame the shopkeeper, the retailer and the housewife for the problems with food poisoning.
  I am pleased to note that, if there is one topic that hon. Members from both sides of the House have focused on during the debate, it is food irradiation. However, food irradiation is hardly mentioned in the Bill—just two lines in clause 17. The ban on irradiation is being lifted by stealth, yet that is the part of the Bill with which most people are concerned.
  When food is irradiated, the molecules are damaged. It breaks those molecules randomly and creates reactive species—free radicals. Those free radicals recombine in random ways to produce all types of products. I have no doubt that some of those will be carcinogenic and others mutagenic and that they present a hazard to life. The Minister has said countless times that that is not the case. However, most of the research work has been sponsored by the Atomic Energy Authority, so it is not neutral, like academic research, which has found kidney damage, chromosome damage and tumours in animals that have been fed on irradiated food. Academic research has shown evidence of the sort of damage that I expect to occur. The dosages involved are enormous—they are 10 times the maximum permitted in the United States. That is equivalent to 100 million chest X-rays. Those are lethal amounts.
  Given the controversy surrounding irradiation, it is not surprising that it has been banned in most countries. It is allowed in only 35 out of 140 nations; in the remainder, there is a complete ban. That has been the position in Britain until now. Out of the 35 countries that allow irradiation, only 21 use it and then only on a narrow range of foods—so much so that less than 0…1 per cent. of one thousandth of food consumed in Europe is irradiated.
  The Minister said earlier that there are problems with herbs and spices and that ethylene oxide is an unsatisfactory preservative. If we were concerned only
  1080
  with herbs and spices, I do not think that the National Federation of Women's Institutes and all the consumer organisations would be so much up in arms. My fear is that as irradiation comes into the Bill by stealth, there will be no proper definition of what food may be covered. It is clear to me by now that the Government intend it to cover a wide range of foods.
  An article in The Times last Friday had the headline:
  "Irradiation 'could halve food poisoning'".
  It quoted Professor Bevan Moseley, the head of the institute of food research in Reading, as saying that, as poultrymeat is responsible for over half our salmonella cases, the problem would be halved with irradiated poultrymeat. It frightens me that the Government are thinking of irradiation as the major answer to the salmonella epidemic. The proper answer is to clean up factory farming and animal feeding, and to stop some of the current practices in farming. Two wrongs do not make a right and irradiation is a technological fix for a problem that should not exist in the first place. The real answer lies in clean farming.
  The irradiation of poultry is allowed in only 11 countries in the world. In a parliamentary question this week, I asked how many countries used irradiation as a method of preservation for poultrymeat. The reply was that only two countries have used irradiation to some extent, whereas 138 countries have not. In other words, over 98 per cent. of the countries of the world do not use irradiation on poultrymeat. It disturbs me that Britain will be a leader in that very wrong direction.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the problems of testing. There is no test for irradiation and it is significant that the tests being considered are for free radicals or mutagenic products. It gives the game away that the Government are considering those damaging materials as a method of testing irradiated foods.
  The Government should listen to public opinion on this matter. It is overwhelmingly hostile. Many sorts of non-political organisations, the consumer groups and the supermarket chains have come out decisively against irradiation. The most important is the British Medical Association which is cautionary in its attitude to food irradiation. I hope that when the Bill receives a detailed consideration, the Government will withdraw the provisions dealing with food irradiation.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Keith Raffan: I know that there is a shortage of time before my hon. Friend the Minister has to reply, so I shall try to be as brief as possible. Nobody can be opposed to the Bill, based as it is on the principle of providing greater protection for the consumer. The question is whether it achieves that laudable aim and whether it goes far enough. Those questions especially concern me, as my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware. My constituency suffered the worst ever food poisoning outbreak—as the media said, perhaps in their usual exaggerated fashion. However, it was the most severe this century in western Europe. Five hundred and twenty-one people were infected by salmonella typhimurium, 54 of them were admitted to hospital and two subsequently died. That occurred at the end of July 1989.
  On 6 November 1989, the Welsh Office launched an internal review of the handling of that outbreak to learn lessons for the future. It said that the review's findings would be considered in connection with the Bill. The

  1081
  review is still being carried out, and it will be another month before it is completed. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could give me an assurance that the review's recommendations, where appropriate, will be incorporated in the Bill in Committee. That is not only very important to me and to my constituents. These are lessons of national application.
  The Bill will provide the Minister with flexible powers to make regulations, as many hon. Members have said. Having read through the written evidence submitted to the Welsh Office internal review from Clwyd health authority and Delyn borough council, I know that they did not agree on much, but there are two points on which they agreed which I want to bring to my hon. Friend's attention.
  Food businesses involved in the preparation, retailing and distribution of "high risk" foods, prepared foods such as cooked meats, should be placed under a statutory duty to maintain complete and accurate lists of food outlets to which any such food has been distributed, and those lists should he immediately available on demand to local authority EHOs. They should also be under a statutory duty to fix to individual wrappings of food clearly legible labels identifying the packer and preparer of the food, together with the date of its preparation.
  During the salmonella outbreak in north Wales and in the north-west last July, lists of food outlets from the two companies implicated were not immediately available. In fact, they took a day to complete, and they were then incomplete, and they had to be added to over succeeding days. They were incomplete because of inadequate records, even though computers were available.
  Labelling must be detailed and rationalised to enable the tracing of the source of a product so that detailed warnings can be given to the consumer. During last summer's outbreak, there was a lack of information which led to unsatisfactory blanket warnings being given to the public. Those were the two points on which the health authority and Delyn borough council are agreed, and they are both important.
  Clause 20 allows for registration and licensing, although it allows for licensing only when "necessary or expedient", as the Bill says. I regard that as too flexible, too loose. I want a licensing system for all "high risk" food premises—in other words, those dealing with open foods —giving local authorities the power to refuse or withdraw licences.
  Clause 24 covers training, and many hon. Members have dealt with that issue. The provision says:
  "A food authority may provide … training courses in food hygiene for persons … involved in food businesses".
  I would prefer it to say that an authority should provide training courses. Indeed, such authorities should be under a statutory duty to do so. Of the 118 positive cases of salmonella in Delyn last July—August, 28 were food handlers, a quarter of the total. That indicates the importance of food hygiene training for all food handlers, and that training should be updated every three years.
  As for the financial and manpower effects of the Bill, it is extraordinary—as the Minister conceded on 27 July of last year, when he made his original statement—that there are no centrally held statistics covering local authorities' expenditure and time spent on enforcing food law. He said that he was sending out a questionnaire to local authorities to obtain details of exactly how much time EHOs were spending on that aspect of their activities. He rightly said that they had a wide range of activities—in my view, far
  1082
  too wide. There are not enough of them, as many hon. Members have said during the debate. I hope that, when replying to the debate, the Minister will say whether those questionnaires have all been returned to the Department and if they will be published.
  The Bill creates new tasks which will require new staff. Much has been said about the extra £30 million to which my right hon. Friend referred in his opening speech. I find that a suspiciously round figure. I accept that it has been worked out according to a scientific formula, as my right hon. Friend said, but I should like know exactly how the calculation was done.
  Many environmental health departments are understaffed and underfinanced. There is widespread belief in Delyn borough council that the EHD is the Cinderella of the council. The deputy chief environmental health officer has admitted that
  "less than the ideal level of service is provided."
  That is borne out by the fact that the inspection of food shops and factories occurs only every two years. In 1988, only half the premises which should have been inspected were inspected. It is important to increase the number of inspections.
  Following the salmonella outbreak, Delyn decided to do that and to crack down on food premises, and the number of inspections will be raised from once every two years to eventually twice a year, although initially to once every nine months. That alone requires one extra member of staff. In other words, Delyn is having to increase its staff even before undertaking the tasks imposed by the Bill. That is a measure of the cost to environmental health departments if they are to fulfil their functions properly.
  There are other important aspects of the Bill which I do not have time to cover because I am anxious to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) to take part in the debate. I allowed myself seven minutes and I have one minute to go.
  One final point I wish to raise is, who is in charge in the event of a food poisoning outbreak? A circular from the Department of Health says:
  "The question whether a health authority or local authority should have overall lead responsibility for the prevention and control of infectious disease remains undecided".
  That is appalling. We have had a similar confusing circular from the Welsh Office. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health should get together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and sort out who is in charge. It is now clear who should be in charge during the outbreak last July—August and the result was chaos, a lot of unnecessary mud-slinging and friction between the health authority and the borough council. This is a national issue and it must be resolved before the next major outbreak which, tragically, is bound to happen sooner or later.
  9.15 pm
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) for speaking so briefly and giving me a chance to join in the debate. It has been said that anything worth saying can be said in four minutes, and I shall attempt to put that principle into practice.
  I have an interest to declare and I hope that I have a slight knowledge of the subject because I am chairman of

  1083
  the Food Hygiene Bureau, a company which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, is the largest food hygiene consultancy in the country. We advise people on standards of hygiene, train their staff and look after any emergencies that arise.
  I am deeply involved in the hygiene industry, and in that capacity, I warmly welcome the Bill. It covers adequately the need to tighten up hygiene regulations and I am sure that it will go a long way to prevent a recurrence of the food poisoning outbreaks of 1989. The latest available figures show that 21,843 cases were reported in the first nine months of last year, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. Many people who fall ill from food poisoning do not identify the subject of it or do not bother to report it.
  There are two matters on which I should like to comment briefly. The first concerns the regulations. I have to confess to Ministers that I am concerned at the amount of power that they are taking to themselves in clauses 17 and 18 and schedule 1. It is a worry that future Governments will have such enormous powers to make rules, regulations and laws without returning to the House for approval and I am concerned about the provision in clause 18(1) whereby any Community obligation can be brought into effect in this country by way of such regulations. If I understand the position correctly, that will mean that a Community directive that would normally involve legislation in the House could bypass the House and go straight into the law of the land by means of ministerial regulation. That is not desirable, and I hope that the point can be further examined as the Bill proceeds through the House.
  The other main issue on which almost every hon. Member who has spoken has touched is the irradiation of food. The first question is, "Is it safe?" I believe that it is 99·9 per cent. safe. There is still a query over the effects that pesticides and other chemicals that have clung to the food that is to be irradiated may suffer. There is certainly a possibility of both molecular and chemical change in those pesticides that could be harmful to humans who consume the food. But it is a minute risk, which I believe to be heavily outweighed by the benefits that irradiation can confer.
  I would name just two. For some foods, irradiation is a far better treatment than any other available. The treatment of spices is a case in point. Spices are normally dried outside in their country of origin and are heavily contaminated. At the moment, they are often treated with toxic chemicals that could have a harmful effect on the humans who consume them. Irradiation treatment will be very much safer than the practice that we follow at the moment for lack of an alternative.
  Secondly, as has been mentioned, the treatment deals with salmonella and listeria. Given the fuss that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) rightly made about the dangers from those two sources of contamination——
  Dr. David Clark indicated dissent.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Ah, well. It certainly came up.
  I should have hoped for a greater welcome for the irradiation process. There is a real need to have the
  1084
  products labeled—a point that I raised in my question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  There are three other items that I wish to fire off so that they can be considered at a later stage. First, I note that tap water is not included in the Bill. Tap water, of course, is a major potential source of infestation. I know that it is being dealt with in the European Community by water directives. I know that we have many water regulations coming through. Perhaps that is why it has not been included here. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply would answer that point.
  Next there is the question of food temperature, which, rather to my surprise, has not been mentioned today. It is the key to safe food handling. The temperature of food at all stages of the handling process, from manufacture to consumption, is of critical interest and importance. In transit and in the case of chilled foods in supermarkets, in particular, there are real dangers that controls at present are not adequate. There is also the problem that most of the measuring instruments used are not sufficiently accurate for people to be able to ensure that the foods are being or have been stored at the proper temperature. I hope that better equipment will shortly be available to enable that to be done.
  Again, charitable events have not been mentioned in our debate, although they were referred to in the other House. I am a little concerned that the marvellous work done by all our charitable workers might be affected by the fact that people face the possibility of a two-year prison sentence and an unlimited fine if they inadvertently give anybody food poisoning. While I accept that people who go to charitable events need protection, I wonder whether penalties in those cases should be rather less than the penalties for some of the offences that the Bill prescribes.
  My final point concerns the training of environmental health officers. A sum of £30 million is being provided to help to deal with this new Bill. I believe that, if that goes direct to local authorities, it will be largely wasted. I do not think that the Government will be able to keep adequate control over the way in which it is spent. I would far rather see that money go towards provision for the training of more environmental health officers to a higher standard so that we can be sure that the Bill will be properly monitored.
  In summary, it is a very good Bill and goes a long way towards meeting the needs of the times. Lord Gallacher, leading for the Opposition in the other place, said:
  "It is a Bill which, with some improvements, can meet the needs of the times."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 1989; Vol. 513, c. 761.]
  I am glad that, largely I believe, hon. Members on all sides of the House agree on the value of and the need for this legislation.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: The Opposition obviously recognise the expertise of the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) in this matter. It is appropriate that all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have curtailed their speeches so as to allow the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to speak.
  I must say briefly how pleased I am to see the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) in the Chamber today. I know that he has been hospitalised and has had to make his regular television appearances from his bed, so it is nice

  1085
  to see that he has recovered sufficiently to join us. The fact that he has a majority of only 1,200 and is likely to make rather fewer speeches in the House in future is another reason for us to welcome him today.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food opened the debate this evening with a 40-minute speech. Most of it was good stuff and quite relevant to the debate, but I have to tell him that a person who opens a debate, takes 40 minutes of House of Commons time and then leaves the Chamber while half a dozen of his hon. Friends and half a dozen Opposition Members make contributions to the debate is guilty of gross discourtesy not only to his hon. Friends and to Opposition Members but to the House itself.
  It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not have the courtesy of his hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who explained that he had a long-standing engagement and could not be present for the winding-up speeches. That is an honourable and acceptable course of action. It is an apology that we fully accept, as we have accepted apologies from other hon. Members who have spoken. It is a pity that the Minister cannot live up to any decent standards.
  While I am dealing with the Minister, I draw his attention to one further matter. During the course of the debate, five of his hon. Friends had recourse to the civil service Box to consult civil servants about the content of their speeches. Every Member of this place knows that civil servants do not attend the Chamber for the purpose of advising Back Benchers on how to make political speeches. I am notifying the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of what happened this evening and I leave the matter with him in the expectation that he will put his house in order. I warn him that if he does not do so, I shall refer the matter to the House authorities with the intention of making sure that it does not happen again.
  I turn to the Bill itself—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Delyn and others wish to delay the House, I put it on record so that there is no misunderstanding, that there are other parts of the Bill's consideration that are to be dealt with this evening. If I have to face such barracking, I shall be happy to make sure that the House sits for the full time that has been allocated to it and that we arrange for Divisions to take place.
  Mr. Raffan: Get on with it.
  Mr. Davies: If the hon. Member for Delyn wishes to continue barracking, perhaps he should consult the Government Whip to ascertain whether that is an appropriate course of action for him to take.
  Mr. Raffan: Pathetic.
  Mr. Davies: We, the Opposition, have said that we welcome the Bill. We do not welcome it as enthusiastically, for example, as the hon. Member for Upminster. We have considerable reservations. As a tidying-up operation, there is much to commend it. The replacement of seven Acts with one is the kind of rationalisation that would be helpful across the huge body of statutory law. The Bill covers an area in which a legislative update is overdue. Changes in food technology and popular tastes have rendered existing legislation archaic in areas such as food manufacturing, preparation and retailing.
  The Bill starts with a definition of food. It is carefully crafted to negotiate the difficult problem of foods which
  1086
  are alive, and live animals and fish which are not regarded as foods until they are dead. In another sense, the Bill ignores the basics. However welcome some of the measures that it contains may be, the Bill is not a substitute for a healthy food policy. The tightest of safeguards can ensure only that the consumer does not perish through poisoning. They do nothing to provide protection against death through malnutrition or diet-related illness.
  Food law should embrace the ways in which the health of the consumer can be improved as well as providing the means by which it can be protected. Instead, the Government's refusal to develop a healthy food policy on the eccentric ground that freedom of choice includes the right to obesity or starvation means that our national diet has reached an historic low point. If anyone doubts what I say, I refer him to the national food survey for 1988—the most recent year available—which contains the dismal observation that the nutritional value of food eaten in Britain's homes is the lowest ever recorded.
  Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I am curtailing my speech to take account of the speeches made by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. I am sorry, but I must proceed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be selected to help consider the Bill in Committee, when we shall have the opportunity to examine these matters further.
  The survey showed also, not surprisingly, that the diet of the poorest sections of society is considerably less healthy than that of the better-off. Partly as a consequence, Britain is in the shameful position of having a widening gap between the health status of the rich and that of the poor. The incidence of diet-related illness graphically confirms the divide. For example, tooth loss, which its clearly related to diet, is five times as common in socio-economic group 5 as in group 1. Chronic heart disease is twice as common in the lower socio-economic groups as in the higher. Body weight could hardly be more closely related to diet. The lowest groups show disproportionately high levels of obesity.
  The Bill does nothing to address those problems. Ideally, an improved version of it would include a package of measures to enhance the nutritional as well as the hygienic quality of our food, but the Government's doctrinaire attitude to those matters, which is obviously shared by some of the Minister's hon. Friends—the let-them-eat-cake approach—prevents the Government from championing the idea that people should be encouraged as a matter of policy to enjoy a diet that is good for them.
  I am not suggesting even a whiff of compulsion, but the Opposition think it sensible where possible to use the powers available to Government to promote healthy eating, rather than insisting that, if consumer ignorance results in unhealthy diets, that is the consumer's perogative. It would be heartening to think that that might be a bipartisan approach. It used to be, but not any longer.
  Why, if it were the Government's intention to promote healthy diet, did they abolish, for example, nutrition standards for school meals? School meals were introduced for the very reason that the children of the least well-off were at risk from poor nutrition. For some children in my consituency and in those of many of my hon. Friends, they were the only nutritionally balanced regular meal. That was why my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr.

  1087
  Lloyd) tried to reintroduce nutrition standards in school meals, but his attempt failed in the teeth of Government opposition.
  Nutritional labelling clearly has a potentially important role to play in increasing the freedom of choice, and provision is made in the Bill for that. That freedom of choice is meaningful only where the consumer has the necessary information. Voluntary labelling is not the answer. Under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food voluntary scheme introduced in 1987, assessed in a Consumers Association survey in May 1989, comprehensive information with which to make an informed choice was available on only 3·5 per cent. of the sample of more than 400 goods.
  By agreeing to a voluntary scheme for Europe, the Government have found themselves in the dilemma of how to encourage the maximum disclosure of information useful to the consumer without making that so onerous as to result in manufacturers refusing to label their products at all. The Government have resolved that problem to the complete satisfaction of the sugar lobby—substantial contributors to Tory party funds—by subsuming sugar content into the figure for carbohydrate, which also includes nutritionally beneficial starch, and removing the distinctions on labels between saturated and unsaturated fats.
  If the consumer is left in ignorance about the levels of saturated fats and sugar, what is the point of the label? Those are the most important considerations and both are currently left out. The whole issue of improved nutrition labelling is entirely left out of the Bill. I am pleased to say that the hon. Memer for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) made that point in a useful and enlighted contribution to the debate.
  On a similar theme, do the Government not recognise the substantial and growing market for foods grown without the use of artificial fertilisers and pesticides and animals which are raised and slaughtered in humane conditions? That was precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise).
  As an advocate both of natural production methods and of animal welfare, I celebrate the growing interest in organic and extensive production, but where are the clauses in the Bill to ensure that only food which legitimately meets the claim "organic" or "humanely produced" is so labelled? Why is there nothing in the Bill to ensure that those of us who wish to avoid eating the products of animals slaughtered without stunning can do so by studying a label? That is a major defect in the Bill.
  There is also an overwhelming case for the replacement of the sell-by labelling arrangement with a compulsory use-by system. The recent report of the Richmond committee on the microbial safety of food recommends exactly that. When the Government, who claim to be determined to follow scientific advice, receive scientific advice which they dislike they are happy to ignore it. Recommendation after recommendation of the Richmond committee has been rejected by the Government. Will the Minister guarantee that the regulations to be introduced under the Bill will implement that particular recommendation of the Richmond committee? Will he guarantee that those provisions will be compulsory and enforceable? At
  1088
  the moment, not only is the Bill silent on those important issues, but it is so restrictively drafted as to render detailed debate on the subject at risk of being ruled out of order.
  If free choice means informed choice—as it does—the Government's commitment must be called into question, to judge by their record of obscurantism in those and other examples.
  Having considered some of the issues that the Bill fails to tackle, I shall consider the adequacy or otherwise or what it contains. The debate on registration and licensing is still unresolved. In Committee, hon. Members expressed views and recognised the strength of the argument for licensing as opposed to registration. Major uncertainties remain over enforcement, not to mention the vexed question of irradiation, which has been the subject of many good speeches today.
  By rejecting expert advice from expert advisers—from practitioners and people who are responsible for operating the regulations—and not going for a system of licensing, the Government are choosing a reactive rather than a proactive approach to the protection of public health.
  To a considerable extent, this is a choice between prophylaxis and cure. Whether they are the local government officers who will have to enforce the Bill when it is enacted or the doctors and public health specialists who will treat consumers whom the Bill fails to protect, practitioners unanimously favour prophylaxis. The Government, in their pursuit of the free market and by persistently championing producer rather than consumer interests, have opted for the reactive approach—for cure rather than prevention.
  There is to be no provision in the Bill for the licensing of food premises, other than those premises involved in food irradiation. The Bill merely requires a food business to provide four weeks advance notice of its intention to open. That fact will be recorded on a register and that will be that—the food business will be in operation.
  Clearly, under the system of registration as opposed to licensing, the local authority would benefit because it would be fulfilling its public protection role more successfully if it prevented the opening of sub-standard premises rather than seeking to close them down using the courts after the damage has been done, with all the expense that that involves for traders, consumers and local authorities. However, it is not only the local authority which benefits. The trader, who is advised before committing large sums of money, will be advised on what exactly will be required to ensure that the premises meet the necessary standard and will also benefit from that advice before he starts his operation.
  The Richmond committee clearly reached the same conclusions because it said:
  "in order adequately to protect the public health, there is considerable advantage in prior inspection and approval before a food business is opened or a process started".
  The Government claim time after time to recognise and act on expert advice, but on this occasion, they have received expert advice which they dislike and they choose to ignore it. The Richmond committee clearly reached that conclusion.
  The Government have opted for a system that no one has asked for—a four-week period of notice from a nascent food business, during which it is presumably hoped that the environmental health department will go along and pay a visit. That is neither one thing nor the other. There will be no obligation for an EHO to inspect

  1089
  the premises. Due to Government under-funding of local authorities, very few have the staff or the resources to ensure that such a visit takes place. None the less, if food premises open without prior inspection and a case of food poisoning or worse occurs, the local authority will be guilty of having failed to pay such a visit and to protect public health. If the Government are serious and want public inspections, let it be clear that they are serious—let them accept that the case for regulation is overwhelming.
  If the Government persist in refusing to allow licensing rather than registration, enforcement becomes more important, although by definition it is after the event and therefore less desirable than prevention. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) recognised that in his contribution to the debate.
  According to a recent report from the Hereford and Worcester trading standards department, out of a total of 303 food products examined, 114 broke the statutory requirements. A finger from a rubber glove was found in a fish pie, chewing gum in a biscuit, a chicken claw in a Chinese meal, slugs in peas, a fly in a sardine sandwich and a previously sucked sweet in a tub of margarine. That is all very unpleasant, but not so potentially dangerous as other things that were found—a knife blade in a soft drink can, a sewing needle in a loaf of bread and glass in 12 different packaged foodstuffs. With such hazards to contend with, enforcement is clearly a major priority and the inspection of premises which are merely registered without being licensed will go by the board.
  Time and again, when I speak to the people at the sharp end—those who see the problems at first hand, and know what needs to be done—I am told that the real problem is lack of staff and resources to implement even the existing legislation, let alone the new requirements. Increased demands and new responsibilities for enforcement action, fewer local resources as a result of cuts in local authority spending and the reduction in EHO vacancies all combine to form a pattern which will undermine the effectiveness of enforcement action. That point was made by the hon. Members for York (Mr. Gregory) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). The Bill does nothing to redress the balance.
  The question of funding has been raised by many of my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise). The Bill states:
  "The additional cost for local authorities is likely to be of the order of £30 million a year from 1991–1992 onwards. This will be taken into account in next year's Revenue Support Grant Settlement."
  The reality behind the phrase "taken into account" is that the new money is unlikely to be found—that is why the Minister chose that phrase. Increased weight may well be given to the food inspection expenditure head in the calculation of the overall revenue support grant, but I have no doubt that it will be offset by reductions elsewhere and by the Government's overall policy of cutting revenue support grant. In other words, the increase will be only notional and authorities will have to finance the new service by reordering their existing priorities. Given the turmoil caused by the introduction of the poll tax and the attempts of embattled councils to minimise the impact of the charge on residents, it is unlikely that the new responsibilities will be properly discharged.
  Lest the Minister deny what I am saying, I will ask him a specific question. Will he give an undertaking that the £30 million implementation costs—that is his estimate—will either be added as a specific and identified sum to the
  1090
  total standard spending calculations, or will be added as a specified and additional sum to the total level of revenue support grant? If the Bill is to mean anything, that is what needs to be done. Without those additional resources, embattled local authorities trying to maintain standards and comply with the requirements placed on them by central Government will be unable to do so.
  We are very concerned about irradiation. My hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), as experts on the matter, made compelling speeches. I assure the House—I know that many Conservative Members will want to know this—that we shall table an amendment on irradiation to allow the whole House to decide on the issue.
  The Minister claims to be the listening Minister, so why is he not listening now? Why does he not listen to the former Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner)? Having spent seven years in the Ministry, she is clearly unhappy about irradiation. Why does he not listen to the hon. Member for Davyhulme, who made a powerful and compelling speech against irradiation?
  The Minister was happy enough to say to the National Farmers Union a few weeks ago, "I listened and I acted." He said it three or four times. Why does he not listen to all the consumer groups? Why does he not listen to the 84 per cent. of people who say that they do not want irradiated food? Why does he not listen to all those who are concerned about the quality of our food? Apparently he can listen to the farmers but not to the consumers.
  We shall pursue in Committee the other matters about which we are unhappy. The amendment already made, which removes some of the unwarranted secrecy that had been written into the Bill, is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, too much secrecy remains. We shall have more to say about that later. According to the Bill, education and training are to be improved, but the Government's record gives us no cause for confidence. We shall examine later what lies behind their intentions. We shall also want to secure assurances from Ministers that regulations promulgated under the Bill are properly and openly debated when they are made.
  I have no doubt that the Bill can be considerably improved before it returns to the House. With that hope, while recognising that the Bill as drafted is but a figleaf to cover the Government's poor record on diet and public health, we give the Bill not a warm but an acquiescent welcome and shall not oppose its Second Reading.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am very glad that the Bill has received a broad welcome from Members on both sides of the House. I am sorry that the time available to me, just 14 minutes, will not allow me to answer all the questions that have been raised by hon. Members. I shall write to those Members whose questions I do not answer. I am sure that they will accept my apologies for not dealing with all their points now.
  The Government welcome the Richmond committee's recommendations, which have been broadly accepted. Its work was thorough. We thank all the members of the committee.
  You may be wondering, Mr. Speaker, why a Department of Health Minister is winding up the debate.

  1091
  It is because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is specifically responsible for food safety—and the Department of Health work closely together on food safety. The Department of Health is responsible for public food hygiene and microbiological contamination. I meet my opposite number at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on many occasions to discuss issues of mutual concern.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked a number of questions. Unfortunately, I have time to deal only with the key ones. He asked where we stand in the world league table in terms of food surveillance. We have the best food safety surveillance system in the world. I say that without any qualification. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I visited the public health laboratory service earlier this week. It is responsible for monitoring food poisoning outbreaks. We were much impressed by what we saw. I am pleased that the public health laboratory service is soon to introduce a major new computing system to ensure that information on food poisoning outbreaks reaches the centre in Colindale and that it is then dispersed to the appropriate authorities responsible for food safety. That is a major new advance.
  As for the suggestion by the hon. Member for South Shields that there should be an independent food standards agency, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is accountable to Parliament for policy, as are other Ministers. We have independent advice from expert committees. The hon. Member for South Shields has not, I believe, persuaded the House that an independent food standards agency would lead to any improvement.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the food research that has been carried out at Bristol. The two food research centres at Reading and Norwich are now larger and more efficient. The Government are to spend more in the coming year, in real terms, on food research than they spent last year. The hon. Gentleman does not want any change in the organisation of food research. By implication, he denies the Government's responsibility to make food research more effective.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) referred to the £30 million which is to go to the local authorities. I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) that this is all new money and that all of it will go, by means of revenue support grant, to local authorities. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) misread the Bill or the financial memorandum. I give her the commitment or assurance that she sought. It will be new money, and in fixing the sum or the order of magnitude the Government consulted enforcement authorities and the local authority associations.
  The hon. Member for South Shields referred to irradiation, as did many other hon. Members. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) for their support for the concept of irradiation. It is not true to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and
  1092
  Food is promoting irradiation. No one is promoting irradiation. The Government are seeking to facilitate irradiation. Several hon. Members have got the issue way out of proportion. If the Bill is passed, and if regulations to be laid before the House are passed, a tiny proportion of British food available for consumption in the United Kingdom will have been irradiated.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) were right to draw the attention of the House to the concerns of many, including women's institutes. They will have the right to choose whether to consume irradiated food. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Medway the assurance that she sought: we shall take every step to make sure that the food is properly labelled, and my right hon. Friend the Minister will consult various advisory panels to make sure that the labelling of irradiated food is clear and in no way misleading.
  The hon. Member for South Shields asked why we were anticipating measures in Europe. The EC bodies do not provide advice on health aspects. The Government have listened to the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations which has said that irradiation is safe, the United Kingdom Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods, the British Nutrition Foundation, the Medical Research Council and many others. Those are the right bodies in which we should place our confidence.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked why we need to have the process if the food is wholesome. There may be a misunderstanding about the consequences of salmonella and listeria on the wholesomeness of food. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in many food processes it is not possible completely to eradicate those bugs. Irradiation can eliminate them or seek to eliminate them. That will certainly mean that the shelf life of irradiated foods can be longer than would otherwise be the case, but it is a sensible process of treating food, like freezing, canning or curing. It cannot make unfit food fit for consumption. If it is unfit in the first place, my right hon. Friend will ban it.
  I hope that I have dealt with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Medway about the public perception. She is right to remind the House that, despite the arguments that the Government have taken into account on the health aspect of irradiation, many members of the public are concerned and will not buy the food. It is their right so to choose. The Government's responsibility is to make sure that the food is properly labelled so that an informed choice can be made.
  The Government are also satisfied that there are no health risks to those who choose to buy and consume irradiated food. My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who has apologised for his early departure, raised a number of points. He expressed his concern that the House will not have the opportunity to debate the regulations on irradiation. There will be full consultation on the regulations and an opportunity in due course for the House to debate them under the negative resolution procedure.
  Several of my hon. Friends asked the valid question how one can test whether food has been irradiated. There are no tests at present to identify whether food has been irradiated. However, it is quite clear that the process of licensing, the process of official inspection, the process of making sure that there is proper documentation at the few factories that might choose, under licence, to proceed with

  1093
  irradiation, are sufficient. Indeed, the United States Food and Drug Administration is perfectly satisfied that that procedure provides the correct controls. I cite again the view of the World Health Organisation:
  "Irradiation could be of enormous value in dealing with the major food problems of developing countries."
  The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), who has gone, my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West mentioned the shortage of environmental health officers. We believe that there are about 400 vacancies—about 8 per cent. of the total complement—in the country. Most of the vacancies, of course, are in London and the south-east. However, the number of student environmental health officers entering training increased from 207 in 1985 to 289 in 1989. I hope that that trend will continue. There is also scope to use less qualified staff to carry out some tasks, thus freeing the more highly qualified officers for tasks for which their qualifications are necessary. The Audit Commission is studying environmental health departments to determine whether their organisation and efficiency might be improved.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Shields, mentioned the question of training places for student officers. It was right that they should do so. I have already mentioned the increase in the number of students. A course at Bristol polytechnic, which started in January this year, will provide a new postgraduate opportunity for EHO training. A course at King's college, London university, will start next September, and discussions are taking place about increasing EHO training facilities at Birmingham university, Manchester polytechnic and Hatfield polytechnic. The right hon. Member for Halton spoke also about hygiene training in schools. He might like to know that the new science core curriculum makes provision for such training. Children will have to learn the elements of food hygiene.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Medway, Gloucestershire, West, and Ludlow (Mr. Gill) the hon. Member for Rutherglen, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) talked in particular about training for food handlers. This is a vital matter. The Government have issued a consultation document on methods of training food handlers, and we want to receive responses by 30 June. The codes of practice on which the implementation advisory
  1094
  committee will be advising—perhaps playing a part in drawing up—will deal with the great issue of trying to make standards of enforcement as even as possible throughout the country.
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) talked about registration. I do not agree with what he said. Under our proposals, registration will be as of right. Enforcement officers, the EHOs, will have a great battery of powers —warning, advice, prosecution, closure—and, indeed, Ministers themselves will have powers to issue emergency control orders. That is the simpler, less bureaucratic way of control, of ensuring high food standards in this country. Notification four weeks prior to opening will allow environmental health officers to visit premises and provide advice.
  I hope that I have dealt with the point of the hon. Member for Preston about the £30 million. This matter was raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. I hope that I have made the position quite clear.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, rightly, welcomed the advisory committee—the consumer voice —that my right hon. Friend announced today. My hon. Friend asked about Ministers' powers. Under clause 43, Ministers will have the power to intervene, but we want local authorities to take first responsibility.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) raised the question of listeriosis and of the chief medical officer's decision, in February last year, to issue warnings to pregnant women, in particular, about soft cheese. That was a complicated jigsaw. He acted correctly, at the right time, not too late and certainly not too early. The Department supports him. It has taken time to establish that listeria can be carried by food and that it could affect the unborn child. We fully support the chief medical officer in his decisions.
  The Bill, which I commend to the House, will improve standards of food safety. I am glad that all hon. Members support its Second Reading. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Food Safety Bill [Lords]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion relating to the Food Safety Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour—[Mr. Sackville.]

  Food Safety Bill [Lords] [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Safety Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (1) any remuneration or allowances payable to the chairmen of tribunals constituted in accordance with regulations made under the Act;

  (2) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act; and

  (3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment. —[Mr. Sackville.]

  10 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: You were in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, for the earlier part of the debate and you will have heard questions being raised about the £30 million. Paragraph (3) of the money resolution refers to
  "any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment."
  I assume that that is a reference to the additional £30 million. I think that I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health for his statement that it will be new money. I want to press the point further because I am not sure that we have had an adequate explanation.
  The part of the preamble that deals with the financial effects of the Bill says:
  "The additional cost for local authorities is likely to be of the order of £30 million a year from 1991–1992 onwards. This will be taken into account in next year's Revenue Support Grant Settlement."
  That means in effect that, when the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, in consultation with other Departments, are assessing the total acceptable expenditure on which the revenue support grant is based, they will have to give different weightings to different expenditure heads. For example, if Parliament, under the new Environmental Protection Bill, gives additional responsibility to local authorities in respect of environmental protection, additional weighting will be given to that expenditure head. I assume that equally in the case of the Food Safety Bill additional weight will be given to the heading of environmental health protection.
  That is different from providing new money. The Bill does not say that new money will be available; it says that consideration will be given to it. That means that additional weight may be given to that expenditure head. But if lesser weighting is given to, for example, refuse collection because the Government consider that privatisation will lead to savings, that will mean that the Government will assess a lower level of expenditure for the year that the Act is in operation than for the previous year when it was not in operation. Taken with the impact of expenditure cuts, it may mean that, once the legislation is in operation, local authorities will receive less money, even though they have extra responsibilities.
  The Minister may be able to clear the matter up. He may be prepared to give us further information. I shall put specific points to him and hopefully we can then complete the rest of the business with expedition. Can he explain why the second paragraph on the financial effects of the Bill does not read: "The additional cost for local authorities is likely to be of the order of £30 million a year from 1991–92 onwards and an additional sum will be added to the Revenue Support Grant settlement in respect
  1096
  of that expenditure"? We would know precisely what that meant. It would mean that the Government have calculated that the additional cost will be £30 million and that the money will be provided. The preamble does not say that. Can the Minister explain why?
  Obviously the Minister has had discussions with local authorities and has done a calculation. Can he tell us how much of the £30 million will go to county councils for trading standards enforcement and how much will go to district councils? If he has done a calculation and knows how much it will cost, he must have some idea of the burden that will fall on the counties and on the districts, because both will have additional responsibilities under the Bill. Can he tell us the division between trading standards officers and environmental health officers?
  Thirdly, will the Minister give an undertaking to explain this matter? During the past couple of days I have spoken to many local authorities and local authority associations. Frankly, they do not have a clue about how the money will be provided or distributed. They know that they will have additional responsibilities, but they do not know whether there will be any new money or whether the money available will be so allocated that the authorities that, at present, have a lower level of service will use it to bring themselves up or authorities with a good level of service will be penalised because they already meet the standards.
  Will the Minister give an assurance that he will meet the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and COSLA and explain to them precisely what will happen, what his calculations are and how the money will be allocated and distributed? If the Minister can give some satisfactory answers, we might not have to push this matter to a vote.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are debating the money resolution and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has raised matters which are directly relevant to it. There is no Treasury Minister on the Front Bench to respond to those points, a number of which directly relate to the Treasury's responsibility—particularly the allocation of money in terms of the revenue support grant for future years, of which the £30 million is a part. What Treasury authority has the Minister who is to reply to this debate to make his response? Will he be unable to answer the points made by my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Speaker: Who the Government put up to answer the debate is not a matter for the Chair.
  10.6 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), although that I feel he was trying to make bricks without straw. I found it extraordinary that when the statement was made that the £30 million would be taken into account in the revenue support grant, he and other Opposition Members asked whether that was new money. When, in winding up the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister made it quite clear that it was new money, the hon. Gentleman sought to get even greater promises and commitments from the Government.

  1097
  The hon. Gentleman asked why we expressed the issue in the Bill in that way. That is the normal way in which we always express it. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is the problem."] I do not know why hon. Members suddenly want us to break new ground in this Bill. We have made the commitment and chosen to express it in the time-honoured formula, and I am content to do that.
  As for how the money will be carved up between the district and county councils, it is far too early in this financial year to come to a firm conclusion now. We have calculated what we think is the appropriate amount of money for the extra responsibilities that the Bill will entail. Of course, through the normal revenue support grant rules, we shall have discussions with the local authorities nearer the time, to go through the details of the matter. It would be inappropriate of me to make any comments or commitments on that tonight, when we are some time away from implementation.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I understand the Minister's problem, but surely the real problem is that one would assume that some estimate of how the money was to be divided among the various authorities would have to be made in order to make the calculation. It is hard to understand how the calculation could otherwise be made. Will the Minister also respond to the question that I asked during the debate: how much allowance has been made for setting up the new facilities, which is a different cost from the on-going cost?
  Mr. Maclean: We have made no calculations—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is the problem."] Let me rephrase that. The calculations for which the hon. Gentleman asks and the issue of how we shall disperse the money are, at this stage, premature. We have made calculations on the cost of implementing the Bill's details. We have been thorough in those calculations and consulted the local authorities involved. Nearer the time, we shall again consult the local authorities.
  My colleagues in the Department of the Environment, who will carry out the normal consultation processes with the local authorities, will discuss with them how the extra £30 million—the new money that my hon. Friend described—will be allocated towards the different responsibilities which the Bill will entail. The Government may make the calculation that the additional costs are £30 million, but the local authorities may decide to spend that money in a different way.
  Opposition Members would not find it acceptable for the Government to dictate to the local authorities exactly how that money should be spent. We can allocate money and make calculations under various headings, but if local authorities decide to use that money for other measures, we have no real power to do anything about that.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: If the £30 million—which has somehow been estimated without making calculations—is new money, will the Minister assure the House that no local authority that has functions under the Bill will receive less money in the next financial year than it has in this financial year?
  Mr. Maclean: What an extraordinary question to ask at this stage. My Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, introduced the Bill to improve food safety. We have calculated that, because of the increased powers that we are granting and because of the
  1098
  improvements that the Bill will make, there will be a requirement for additional resources. We have made the firm commitment of an additional £30 million, which will be taken into account in the rate support grant.
  It is inappropriate for the hon. Gentleman to ask me at this stage—many months ahead of the calculations on the full extent of the £5 billion that will go to local government —how it will be allocated and what the allocations will be to individual councils. In preparing the Bill, it has been our duty to calculate the additional resources that will be required. In my opinion, we have done that job exceptionally well.
  Although Opposition hon. Members may carp about it now, I was at the press conference when the Bill was launched and I saw the expressions on the faces of those who did not think that there would be any money for enforcement. I saw the look of pleasure when they heard about the £30 million that they had not expected. It is late in the day for Opposition Members to pick holes in it now. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has given a clear commitment about the £30 million and there is nothing that I can usefully add to what has been said.
  10.11pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew rose——
  Mr. Speaker: It is the Minister's reply, but I shall call the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Martlew: The people who were at the press conference with the Minister must have been naive. This sort of thing has happened before in local authorities—it is called funny money. The Minister announces £30 million for health, and then says that he is allowing 5 per cent. for inflation—but inflation is running at 8 per cent. Surely there is a better way to allocate resources to local authorities.
  There should be minimum standards, with the number of environmental health officers in local authorities set by the Government. There is another word for those people —the food police. Their job is to police standards in various authorities. We should have a system similar to that for the fire brigade, where the Government lay down minimum standards and the number of environmental health officers to be employed in each district. That must be carefully calculated, as in some districts, such as mine, although there are no major restaurants or cafes because it does not have a tourist industry like that in Blackpool, there are many food processing plants that need to be policed carefully. Therefore, my area should have a greater allocation than some of the suburban London areas, where there are many restaurants but not many food processing plants.
  There are varying standards. Some authorities—mainly Conservative authorities—have only a few environmental health officers. Others, such as my authority in Carlisle, have high standards. It would be wrong for the Government to allocate more money to Conservative authorities—which, in the past, have neglected food safety and environmental health—at the expense of authorities that have taken an interest in health over the years.
  I am deeply worried that, next year, we shall be listening to the Minister saying, "We gave the district health authorities and the county councils an extra £30 million and they did not spend it on that."

  1099
  First, by next year, there probably will not be the correct number of environmental health officers available. Secondly, as they have already this month, other Ministers will come to the Dispatch Box complaining about the level of the poll tax. There will always be a temptation not to spend the money on environmental health, but to use it to keep down the poll tax. The Government are always saying that local authorities are overspending.
  I do not believe that the £30 million will be enough. There are not sufficient safeguards to ensure that it is spent on environmental health workers. The Bill will be a failure because there will not be the resources to implement it.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: It is worth saying that the Minister's response was deeply inadequate and that should be on the record. I referred earlier to the difference between strawberry flavour and strawberry flavoured, and I said that there were strawberries only in the latter. This is calculation flavour rather than calculation flavoured. The Minister cannot explain how the Government came up with a figure of £30 million. I have no objection to guesstimates, but the Minister should say that it is a guesstimate rather than a calculation.
  Question put and agreed to
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Safety Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (1) any remuneration or allowances payable to the chairmen of tribunals constituted in accordance with regulations made under the Act;

  (2) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act; and

  (3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.

  Food Safety Bill [Lords] [Money]
    FOOD SAFETY BILL [Lords]

      WAYS AND MEANS
      Resolved,
      That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Safety Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges in accordance with regulations made under the Act—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

    WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
    Resolved,
    That during the proceedings on the Matter of Welsh Office Policies and Provision for 1992, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meeting of Standing Committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the matter for two hours at that sitting—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  Liverpool (Open Space)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. David Alton: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to place before Parliament today an important issue which affects my constituents and many other citizens in Liverpool—the future of the public open spaces and parks in my city. I also wish to take the opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, for being in his place to answer my questions. In passing, I also thank him for our correspondence on this important issue in the past few months, and for the help and advice that he has given to people concerned about the future of our parkland.
  I must say at the outset to hon. Members who are not familiar with Liverpool that there is a caricature of the city which gives a distorted impression of broken-down buildings, acres of dereliction and festering decay. No doubt, as in any urban area, there are such features, but a more balanced picture of the city emerges when visitors discover many of the fine buildings in Liverpool, and when they see Liverpool's rich heritage and, above all, the pride of parks bequeathed by our Victorian forebears.
  Liverpool's parks and open spaces have traditionally provided a much needed lung for residents trapped in congested living conditions—people who may not have the advantage of a private garden. For other people, they provide a green wedge breaking the urban sprawl. For others still, the parks are a place to enjoy leisure time and recreation. The playing fields, especially, are much used by members of amateur and junior football teams.
  King John gave Liverpool its charter. Since medieval times, there has been a park in the Toxteth area of Liverpool. The poet William Roscoe was a Member of Parliament for three months in 1807, before he was thrown out for voting against the slavery laws. He was an eminent member of the anti-slavery movement, which was a brave thing in Liverpool in those days. Roscoe wrote a number of poems describing the beauty of Liverpool and its parkland on the riverside in Toxteth.
  That parkland was rapidly eroded in the 19th century expansion of the city, and it then became municipally owned and administered. Sefton park, in the heart of my constituency, is its last vestige. It and other parks and open spaces in my constituency, such as those at Calderstones and Otterspool, Wavertree playground and Wavertree park, along with other important sites such as Childwall woods in the neighbouring constituency are all now subject to planning developments which will destroy their character.
  I am staggered that when we hear such a vast amount of rhetoric from politicians of all parties about our responsibility towards the environment, Liverpool civic leaders should have such scant regard for environment destruction which will assist only the speculator and the profiteer.
  In the heart of my constituency, in the Aigburth area, it is proposed to rip up the central reservation of a beautiful suburban area and to put there instead a trunk road bringing yet more heavy vehicles into that part of Liverpool. Similarly, it is suggested that the M62

  1101
  motorway should be extended into the heart of my constituency, destroying in its path the botanic gardens founded by William Roscoe, to whom I referred.
  That follows on the back of the destruction of places such as the Harthill gardens in Calderstones, which were destroyed during the period when militant members of the city ran the council and, in a philistine way, destroyed a collection of orchids which was world famous, pulling down the greenhouses there merely because there had been an industrial dispute and the men who worked in those greenhouses had refused to join the picket lines. As a vindictive act, that parkland was destroyed.
  Apart from actions of that kind and the road schemes, why is the city council so intent on so much development of the city's remaining parks and open spaces? At the end of the financial crisis in 1986, when those militant Labour councillors were disqualified from office, the city's leaders had borrowed £60 million from Swiss and Japanese bankers to finance their policies.
  The city debt rose to a phenomenal £678 million. Their subsequent inability to meet debt repayments irresponsibly plunged the city into penury. By 1987, the debt was£715 million. By 1988, it was £738 million and by 1989 it was £758 million. This year it topped £774 million. The interest alone to service that debt is £80 million this year. The council has budgeted in 1990 only £10 million to meet those debt charges, so inevitably the crippling burden increases inexorably and grows like Topsy. By the end of this century, the city's debt could be a staggering £1 billion. Every time interest rates rise by just 1 per cent., it costs Liverpool ratepayers £420,000.
  Having followed such a fiscally irresponsible approach, the council now says that it must sell assets to pay for its past mistakes—not just the family silver, but the table and chairs as well. For London property speculators, it is like the Klondyke rush as they queue at Euston to take the train north in the fond belief that there is gold in the playing fields and parks of Liverpool. Because the market has been flooded, assets are being sold dirt cheap, so in every respect the city's ratepayers lose.
  Along with my city council colleagues Beatrice Fraenkel, Don McKittrick, Len Tyrer and Bert Heritty, I have been urging the council to think again, and I hope that the Minister will deal with several points today. Following the consultation paper which his Department issued on 7 February, which recognises the problems caused by the way in which local authorities seek to grant themselves permission to develop such sites, does he now agree with the view of the Royal Town Planning Institute that no application should be determined by the authority promoting the development? Does he agree also that there can be no question of fairness or objectivity if the council is both defence and prosecution, judge and jury, developer and the assessor? It is positively Kafkaesque to behave in that way.
  The former president of the Royal Town Planning Institute, Chris Shepley, said:
  "Green space is an essential component of the civilised city. Urban green space should be defended as vigorously as green belt, possibly by the introduction of a new category of protected land. The value of private open space as an amenity in visual and ecological terms should be recognised."
  Those are the planning issues raised by such developments. Does the Minister agree that such applications should automatically be transferred to an independent inspector, perhaps appointed by the Secretary of State?
  1102
  The Minister wrote to me on 5 March:
  "On the planning issues my advice would be to continue to press the case with the City Council since the issues appear to be essentially local ones."
  He will know from the correspondence with the Friends of Childwall Woods and Fields and from its chairman, Mr. E. Feeney, that, without guarantees buttressed by the Secretary of State, simple appeals to the magnanimity arid decency of the local council will fall on deaf ears.
  Mr. Feeney wrote:
  "It does appear that the Minister has discretionary powers to 'call in' an application. It would we feel, be a great help to our cause and other causes if the Minister did intervene as we feel we have a good case and it would possibly deter the Council from contemplating further sales of open land. It is not just a local issue as the application would have implications for the whole city."
  I concur with that. Is the Minister prepared to call in applications to develop the sites and guarantee that there will be public inquiries?
  With regard to the Department's role in the proper use of Liverpool's open spaces, the Minister answered a question that I tabled on 5 March about the international garden festival site in south Liverpool. Some of that land falls in my constituency and I applaud the fact that the Government spent £10·6 million on a major land reclamation project which became the biggest tourist attraction in the country. It was a brilliant scheme and caught the imagination of millions of people in Britain, but it now costs £200,000 per year to maintain the site, the future of which has not been properly thought out. It would be a terrible tragedy if the site were allowed to revert to its previous dereliction and decay.
  Why should we not have a royal park designated on that site similar to the royal parks in London which are maintained by the Department of the Environment? Such a designation would be an important step. It would take the park out of the local remit, which would be highly appropriate as it was developed by the Merseyside development corporation, established by the Department. It is even more appropriate when one remembers that Her Majesty the Queen opened the international garden festival. For many reasons, the site could provide local people and visitors to the city with a wonderful resource which can be guaranteed only if the Department of the Environment and the Minister intervene rather than leaving it to local circumstances.
  These issues must be seen against a bleak national and international picture of environmental dereliction and decay: 97 per cent. of our British wildflower meadows have been destroyed; 190,000 miles of hedgerow—enough to encircle the earth seven times—have disappeared; three quarters of our internationally important heaths and more than half our unique peat bogs have been destroyed. No fewer than 22 different flowering species have already been lost and many more face extinction. On a global scale, 60,000 plant species have disappeared and one in four of the world's total could be extinct in our lifetime.
  Having heard the ecological, fiscal and social arguments, I hope that the House and the Minister will feel compelled to act on the recommendations that I have made today and to ensure that the appropriate guarantees are given so that even more of our precious open space is not destroyed.
  10.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Cohn Moynihan): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for bringing a number of important issues to the attention of the House. I know that they are matters of concern to him and his constituents. I praise him for so assiduously representing the views of his constituents on these matters, in writing to me and in parliamentary questions. I hope that I have been able to satisfy him on at least some of the points that he has raised in correspondence and that we shall be able to cover a number of new matters this evening as well as going over the ground in slightly more detail on some questions that have been brought to our attention as a result of the hon. Gentleman's inquisitive mind.
  There are a number of important issues that I should like to set in context. I am a Minister with some responsibility for planning as well as for inner cities and for sport, all three of which are covered by the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised this evening, which are thus of considerable importance to me. It is vital that we safeguard recreational land in this country. Much recreational land, not least in our inner cities, is important, not just to the schools that it serves, where school playing fields are concerned, but in a wider sense to the community.
  Between 1984 and 1994, nearly 1 million fewer children will be emerging from our schools than we have been used to. There are statutory obligations on schools and education authorities to provide playing fields and open space for those children as part of the educational process. We would be unwise to allow a rigorous correlation between the playing fields and the number of schoolchildren to lead to disposal of those playing fields, and then find, when the number of children starts to increase again, that we are not in a position to return what would then be built-up areas to recreational land.
  For those reasons, I think that it is important that the Government should respond to many points that the hon. Gentleman has raised this evening, although I appreciate that they go wider than the educational issue. I am therefore pleased to announce that we shall be publishing a planning policy guidance note. It will cover a number of areas related to open space and playing fields to make sure that we protect them. I have considerable sympathy with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I think it is timely for the Government to come forward with a paper for consultation. We expect that it will be ready within a matter of months—it is hoped, only one or two months rather than four or five. That will give an opportunity to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who are keenly concerned about the provision of open space, allotments and playing fields to comment in detail.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other important points, including the critical issue of call-in. As regards the discretionary powers available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to call in some of the cases which he has raised, the hon. Gentleman would not expect me on this occasion—nor would it be right, in view of the quasi-judicial position of the Secretary of State—to comment on a specific case. But in many cases throughout the country, call-in powers have been exercised by my right hon. Friend. It is important that, in areas of wider local significance, or infringement of the green belt, or, for example, where clear guidance is laid down in local or
  1104
  regional plans and it could be open to question whether the planning system is being followed, my right hon. Friend should have the power to call in and should exercise it in the types of case that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am sure, since he is a very reasonable man, for not commenting specifically on some of the cases, because if I did so I would be prejudicing the quasi-judicial position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of important issues about the garden festival site. The Department has just given clearance for the Merseyside development corporation to enter into negotiations with a company called Tomorrow's Leisure, and we expect to see the site developed and brought back into use shortly. Details are not available to me yet; they are subject to negotiations between the two parties. However, it is only reasonable given the right hon. Gentleman's concern on this issue and his interest in the subject, for me to draw to his attention details of the development and content of those negotiations as soon as they are available to me. That I undertake to do.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the designation of the site as a royal park. I can understand why he pushes so hard for this, and I hope that he will understand why such designation might not be appropriate. Royal parks are normally historical in nature and have a very important connection with the royal family. For that reason, it might be difficult, despite the connection that the hon. Gentleman has rightly made with the Queen's having opened the garden festival, to fulfil his wish that the site be designated a royal park as it does not satisfy the relevant criteria.
  Mr. Alton: I touched on the length of time that there has been a royal park in this part of Liverpool. It goes right back to the founding of our charter and the time of King John. There was a royal hunting park in this part of Liverpool during the middle ages. I hope that the Minister will ponder on that when he considers these matters further.
  Mr. Moynihan: There was much history in the hon. Gentleman's speech this evening on which I shall ponder, not least the history of some of our great poets and their association with the House, of which I was unaware until I was informed this evening. Additional historical evidence was brought to our attention, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would be especially interested in it.
  These matters are worthy of further consideration in the specific context in which the hon. Gentleman has raised them. I give him an undertaking that I shall discuss with my officials the relevance of the historical evidence and whether it satisfies the criteria for designation. In my view, on the advice that I have been given to date, it does not. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, he has brought additional factors to the attention of the House that are worthy of detailed investigation. I shall take away his arguments, examine them in detail and respond to him in writing.
  We are giving detailed consideration to the responses that are made to the consultation paper, and we shall respond in due course. I am only too well aware of Mr. Shepley's comments on green space and the green belt, and the Government are especially concerned to see the green belt protected and the value of green space respected. The

  1105
  planning system is critical. That is why we need a comprehensive structure, first and foremost, of local plans, but that will be successful only if we have an effective framework of structure plans and regional guidance. I hope that that will reduce much of the onus that is placed on the inspectorate and will respond to the demands that are placed upon it, not least in the type of cases to which the hon. Gentleman has rightly referred this evening, which would place an onus on its work. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that we shall be considering carefully the issues which he has raised in the context of the consultation paper, which I acknowledge are important.
  Having made those rather lengthy remarks as an introduction, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to comment in greater detail on the matters which he has raised with me in correspondence and touched on again this evening.
  In this area the Government can do little to intervene, whatever our personal feelings about the rights and wrongs of the case. Within certain statutory guidelines, local authorities are free to manage their own holdings of land and property in their own way. The statutory guidelines are relevant to the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman in a number of ways.
  First, at the stage of disposal of land, there is a general requirement that the best possible price is obtained. There is also a separate requirement that is specific to land that is designated as public open space. I am certain that that is the designation of most, if not all, of the sites that the council is now considering for disposal. In these instances, the council must advertise locally its intention to sell for two consecutive weeks. It has to invite objections and other representations. Most importantly, it has to give genuine and serious consideration to any such representations that it receives.
  At a later stage, when potential developers are seeking planning permission, a further set of obligations come into play. Where there are large developments to take place, the council must notify my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of any divergence from an adopted statutory development plan. If development of whatever size is proposed in a conservation area, the council must ensure that it is in line with conservation policies and of a sort that will enhance the character of the area. These requirements are additional to the generality of planning controls that also apply. They include, as the hon. Gentleman knows, all the normal mechanisms for appeal to my right hon. Friend.
  As I understand the case that the hon. Gentleman has put, we are not now at the stage where any planning issues arise, though we may be in due course. On the issue of disposal of land, I am not aware of any suggestion that the statutory requirements that I have mentioned have not been complied with. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has himself consulted the district auditor on the issue and has been assured that there is no question about the legality of the disposals.
  That is the formal position. By stating it, I do not mean to undervalue the hon. Gentleman's concern. The Government believe and have made it clear to local authorities on many occasions that the adequate provision of recreation opportunities is a vital part of the drive to regenerate our cities. In Liverpool, that belief has manifested itself in the support that we have given through the inner city partnership programme to a wide range of recreation-based projects.
  1106
  The hon. Gentleman said that few hon. Members know the city, but I do and I share his concern about it. It would be of great benefit if more hon. Members had the opportunity to visit the city and get to know it. I worked for many years in Speke and it is always a pleasure to go back to see some of the developments that have taken place, but I share many of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has voiced this evening about the council's lack of effective management.
  I recently opened a new hockey centre at Wyncote and a couple of years ago I visited the athletics centre at Wavertree and the Peter Lloyd sports centre in Tuebrook, one of four purpose-built sports centres provided through the partnership programme. The Park road athletics centre has recently been upgraded. The derelict land grant has supported the creation of a cycleway on the line of a former railway round the city, and the Mersey coast footpath is nearing completion, thanks to the urban programme. Perhaps most spectacularly, two entirely new public parks have been created in Everton and Speke.
  All that shows that, with the help of Government grants, facilities are being provided which range from opportunities to train to international standard in several sports on the one hand, to giving local residents somewhere to walk on the other. One effect of that, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, is that there has been a considerable increase in the amount of public open space within the city boundaries, even before we take into account the Merseyside development corporation's garden festival site, the first in the country.
  At the same time, an ambitious programme is under way, again with urban programme support, to improve the quality of existing provision. Liverpool has for many years had a range of public parks that should be the envy of the country. Many of them, sadly, have fallen into disrepair, —but that too must be and is beginning to be tackled. Studies are in hand to assess the cost of refurbishing the magnificent palm house in Sefton park, footpath improvements are under way in Calderstones and Allerton parks, and there are proposals to reconstruct the lake in Newsham park.
  I understand that the current programme of disposals has its origin in a review of the city's recreational strategy that was undertaken in 1987, in part as a contribution to the process of formulating Merseyside's unitary development plan. The second major factor in the programme was a separate review, during 1989, of education provision across the city. That was undertaken in response to the fall in school rolls that has been, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a national phenomenon, made more severe in Liverpool because of the continuing decline in the city's overall population.
  A number of school sites, including some playing fields, were identified as surplus to educational requirements. All such sites were then assessed within the context of the city's recreational strategy, and some were retained, while others were still considered to be surplus to requirements. I have already mentioned my concern about that direct correlation and the need for clear guidance, and it is important that that planning policy guidance note should be distributed widely for consultation and comment.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that, in principle at least, the planning policy guidance note and the review process should be welcomed. Nor could I, in all conscience, condemn out of hand the

  1107
  principle of making surplus assets available to the private sector for possible development, but we must ensure that they are surplus assets.
  Those assets are there for people's use and we must maximise the involvement of the community in their use, making sure that we are responsive to community wishes for participation not just in sport but in other leisure and recreation activities as well. The presence of extensive park land is critical not only to the image of the city but to its regeneration and to the quality of life of the city's inhabitants.
  I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I have not covered all the points that he has raised. Nevertheless,
  1108
  I trust that he will accept that I believe that one of the main purposes of Adjournment debates is to be a catalyst for further action and thought by Ministers in their responses to hon. Members who have taken the time and trouble to wait until the end of a busy day to express their anxieties.
  I assure the hon. Member that I shall respond in full to any points that I have not had the opportunity to comment on, in addition to ensuring that he is properly briefed on the subjects I have mentioned, and I will ensure that the detail of his concerns is answered so that he may be able to add to the already rather lengthy correspondence in which we are engaged.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list the number of professionally qualified loss prevention staff employed by his Department and the qualifications held by such staff, excluding qualifications obtained during police or military service.

  Mr. Cope
  The Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office are aware of the need to prevent loss and rely on a series of control mechanisms, systems and procedures which are undertaken by various groups of staff, including internal auditors.

  Currently within the Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Office and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, there are 31 fully qualified members of the Institute of Internal Auditors, (MIIA) and 23 more are under training.

  Thirty one other members of staff hold professional accountancy and auditing qualifications.

  Sewage Discharges
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will introduce the necessary legislation to prohibit the discharge of inadequately treated sewage into coastal waters, rivers and inland waterways and to require that full treatment plants are provided in future for dealing with sewage in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A proposal for a European Council directive on municipal waste water treatment is at present being considered. Among other matters, the proposed directive lays down minimum requirements for the collection and treatment of domestic, industrial and drainage waters entering the sewerage system. The Government are carrying out a study of the environmental implications and the likely costs associated with this directive. If the directive is adopted, any legislation necessary to implement its requirements will be introduced.

  (a) The regional rate increases were:

  1985–86 (pence)

  1986–87 (pence)

  1987–88 (pence)

  1988–89 (pence)

  1989–90 (pence)

  Regional rate

  100·87

  110·38

  113·53

  122·59

  138·07

  Increase from previous year

  7·54

  9·51

  3·5

  9·06

  15·48

  Percentage increase

  8·1

  9·4

  2·9

  7·98

  12·63

  Computers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show the number of persons employed by his Department in systems, programming and computer operation, including the major operations carried out.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The number of computer staff employed on information technology in Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Office and Police Authority for Northern Ireland is as follows:

  Numbers

  Senior systems analyst

  71

  Systems analysts

  144

  Programmer analysts

  133

  Programmers

  129

  Operations and data processing

  116

  Total

  593

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure parity in valuation for rating purposes throughout the district council areas in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: Parity of treatment in valuation for rating purposes throughout district council areas in Northern Ireland is long established. Parity is achieved through periodic general revaluations which establish for the Province as a whole, patterns and levels of valuations—a tone, which is preserved throughout the life of the valuation list. Revisions of valuation which arise between revaluations are performed within the comprehensive and detailed provisions of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 by the valuation and lands office. The Commissioner of Valuation, by the direction of policy and its application through a district valuer office network across Northern Ireland, ensures consistent treatment under this order. A comprehensive system of appeal exists for aggrieved ratepayers with first appeals to the Commissioner of Valuation and thereafter to the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland and, if appropriate, Court of Appeal and House of Lords.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing(a) increases in regional rate levied in cash and percentage terms, (b) each district council rate increase in cash and percentage terms and (c) domestic and non-domestic rates charged to ratepayers in each district council area in cash percentage charge terms, in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The information is as follows:
  737

  (b) The district council increases were:

  1985–86

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  42·00

  1·50

  +3·70

  Ards

  50·00

  —

  —

  Armagh

  34·50

  1·00

  +2·99

  Ballymena

  36·35

  0·85

  +2·39

  Ballymoney

  42·25

  1·25

  +3·05

  Banbridge

  44·93

  4·26

  +10·47

  Belfast

  69·04

  41·9

  +6·46

  Carrickfergus

  55·00

  2·25

  +4·27

  Castlereagh

  33·00

  1·00

  +3·13

  Coleraine

  45·00

  2·25

  +5·26

  Cookstown

  35·85

  3·30

  +10·14

  Craigavon

  54·93

  2·01

  +3·80

  Derry

  59·50

  4·40

  +8·00

  Down

  45·00

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  38·00

  3·00

  +8·57

  Fermanagh

  42·75

  2·75

  +6·88

  Larne

  45·00

  1·50

  +3·45

  Limavady

  35·00

  3·00

  +9·38

  Lisburn

  46·24

  0·64

  +1·40

  Magherafell

  33·04

  2·94

  +9·77

  Moyle

  59·75

  5·00

  +9·30

  Newry and Bourne

  49·00

  3·00

  +6·52

  Newtownabbey

  52·60

  4·60

  +9·58

  North Down

  51·50

  4·50

  +9·57

  Omagh

  43·00

  2·00

  +4·88

  Strabane

  43·50

  2·00

  +4·82

  1986–87

  Rate

  Increase

  Percentage increase

  pence

  pence

  Antrim

  45·75

  3·75

  +8·93

  Ards

  53·00

  3·00

  +6·00

  Armagh

  38·00

  3·50

  +10·14

  Ballymena

  38·00

  1·65

  +4·54

  Ballymoney

  45·25

  3·00

  +7·10

  Banbridge

  47·97

  3·04

  +6·77

  Belfast

  76·36

  7·32

  +10·60

  Carrickfergus

  57·50

  2·50

  +4·55

  Castlereagh

  39·08

  6·08

  +18·42

  Coleraine

  49·00

  4·00

  +8·89

  Cookstown

  39·75

  3·90

  +10·88

  Craigavon

  60·21

  5·28

  +9·61

  Derry

  67·00

  7·50

  +12·61

  Down

  53·00

  8·00

  +17·78

  Dungannon

  41·50

  3·50

  +9·21

  Fermanagh

  48·75

  6·00

  +14·04

  Larne

  49·25

  4·25

  +9·44

  Limavady

  39·00

  4·00

  +11·43

  Lisburn

  48·80

  2·56

  +5·54

  Magherafelt

  36·56

  3·52

  +10·65

  Moyle

  65·75

  6·00

  +10·04

  Newry and Mourne

  54·30

  5·30

  +10·82

  Newtownabbey

  55·11

  2·51

  +4·77

  North Down

  56·90

  5·40

  +10·49

  Omagh

  47·00

  4·00

  +9·30

  Strabane

  50·50

  7·00

  +16·09

  1987–88

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  48·50

  2·75

  +601

  Ards

  53·00

  —

  —

  Armagh

  38·00

  —

  —

  Ballymena

  39·85

  1·85

  +4·87

  Ballymoney

  46·00

  0·75 1 At

  +1·66

  Banbridge

  50·98

  3·01

  +6·27

  Belfast

  80·03

  3·67

  +4·81

  Carrickfergus

  59·41

  1·91

  +3·32

  Castlereagh

  41·00

  1·92

  +4·91

  Coleraine

  50·00

  1·00

  +2·04

  Cookstown

  43·00

  3·25

  +8·18

  738

  1987–88

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Craigavon

  63·35

  31·4

  +5·22

  Derry

  69·50

  2·50

  +3·73

  Down

  60·00

  7·00

  +13·21

  Dungannon

  44·00

  2·50

  +6·02

  Fermanagh

  50·75

  2·00

  +4·10

  Larne

  52·55

  3·30

  +6·70

  Limavady

  40·95

  1·95

  +5·00

  Lisburn

  49·75

  0·95

  +1·95

  Magherafelt

  41·05

  4·49

  +12·28

  Moyle

  65·75

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  59·70

  5·40

  +9·94

  Newtownabbey

  57·24

  2·13

  +3·86

  North Down

  60·90

  4·00

  +7·03

  Omagh

  51·65

  4·65

  +9·89

  Strabane

  54·00

  3·50

  +6·93

  1988–89

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  51·00

  2·50

  +5·15

  Ards

  54·00

  1·00

  +1·89

  Armagh

  41·00

  3·00

  +7·89

  Ballymena

  42·85

  3·00

  +7·53

  Ballymoney

  47·00

  1·00

  +2·17

  Banbridge

  50·98

  —

  —

  Belfast

  83·96

  3·93

  +4·91

  Carrickfergus

  62·50

  3·09

  +5·20

  Castlereagh

  39·90

  -1·10

  -2·68

  Coleraine

  53·00

  3·00

  +6·00

  Cookstown

  42·75

  -0·25

  -0·58

  Craigavon

  63·35

  —

  —

  Derry

  72·55

  3·05

  +4·39

  Down

  65·00

  5·00

  +8·33

  Dungannon

  44·00

  —

  —

  Fermanagh

  53·50

  2·75

  +5·42

  Larne

  55·75

  3·20

  +6·09

  Limavady

  43·50

  2·55

  +6·23

  Lisburn

  53·57

  3·82

  +7·68

  Magherafelt

  43·50

  2·45

  +5·97

  Moyle

  65·50

  -0·25

  -0·38

  Newry and Mourne

  59·70

  —

  —

  Newtownabbey

  60·06

  2·82

  +4·93

  North Down

  63·70

  2·80

  +4·60

  Omagh

  55·00

  3·35

  +6·49

  Strabane

  57·00

  3·00

  +5·56

  1989–90

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  53·00

  2·00

  +3·92

  Ards

  57·50

  3·50

  +6·48

  Armagh

  44·00

  3·00

  +7·32

  Ballymena

  44·00

  1·15

  +2·68

  Ballymoney

  50·25

  3·25

  +6·91

  Banbridge

  50·98

  —

  —

  Belfast

  83·96

  —

  —

  Carrickfergus

  63·75

  3·25

  +5·2

  Castlereagh

  37·90

  -2·00

  -5·01

  Coleraine

  55·00

  2·00

  +3·77

  Cookstown

  47·75

  5·00

  +11·7

  Craigavon

  67·47

  4·12

  +6·5

  Derry

  76·80

  4·25

  +5·86

  Down

  68·00

  3·00

  +4·62

  Dungannon

  44·00

  —

  —

  Fermanagh

  55·50

  2·00

  +3·74

  Larne

  56·75

  1·00

  +1·79

  Limavady

  47·00

  3·50

  +8·05

  Lisburn

  53·57

  —

  —

  Magherafelt

  46·34

  2·84

  +6·53

  Moyle

  68·40

  2·90

  +4·43

  Newry and Mourne

  58·00

  -1·70

  -2·85

  Newtownabbey

  64·10

  4·04

  +6·73

  North Down

  65·85

  2·15

  +3·38

  739

  1989–90

  Rale pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Omagh

  58·50

  3·50

  +6·36

  Strabane

  60·75

  3·75

  +6·58

  (c) (i) the overall domestic rates were:

  1985–86

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  130·87

  9·03

  +7·41

  Ards

  138·87

  7·53

  +5·73

  Armagh

  123·37

  8·53

  +7·43

  Ballymena

  125·22

  8·38

  +7·17

  Ballymoney

  131·12

  8·78

  +7·18

  Banbridge

  133·80

  11·79

  +9·66

  Belfast

  157·91

  11·72

  +8·02

  Carrickfergus

  143·87

  9·78

  +7·29

  Casttereagh

  121·87

  8·53

  +7·53

  Coleraine

  133·87

  9·78

  +7·88

  Cookstown

  124·72

  10·83

  +9·51

  Craigavon

  143·80

  9·54

  +7·11

  Derry

  148·37

  11·93

  +8·74

  Down

  133·87

  7·53

  +5·96

  Dungannon

  126·87

  10·53

  +9·05

  Fermanagh

  131·62

  10·28

  +8·47

  Larne

  133·87

  9·03

  +7·23

  Limavady

  123·87

  10·53

  +9·29

  Lisburn

  135·11

  8·17

  +6·44

  Magherafelt

  121·91

  10·47

  +9·40

  Moyle

  148·62

  12·53

  +9·21

  Newry and Mourne

  137·87

  10·53

  +8·27

  Newtownabbey

  141·47

  12·13

  +9·38

  North Down

  140·37

  12·03

  +9·37

  Omagh

  131·87

  9·53

  +7·79

  Strabane

  132·37

  9·53

  +7·76

  1986–87

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  144·13

  13·26

  +10·13

  Ards

  151·38

  12·51

  +9·01

  Armagh

  136·38

  13·01

  +10·55

  Ballymena

  136·38

  11·16

  +8·91

  Ballymoney

  143·63

  12·51

  +9·54

  Banbridge

  146·35

  12·55

  +9·38

  Belfast

  174·74

  16·83

  +10·66

  Carrickfergus

  155·88

  12·01

  +8·35

  Castlereagh

  137·46

  15·59

  +12·79

  Coleraine

  147·38

  13·51

  +10·09

  Cookstown

  138·13

  13·41

  +10·75

  Craigavon

  158·59

  14·79

  +10·29

  Derry

  165·38

  17·01

  +11·46

  Down

  151·38

  17·51

  +13·08

  Dungannon

  139·88

  13·01

  +10·25

  Fermanagh

  147·13

  15·51

  +11·78

  Larne

  147·63

  13·76

  +10·28

  Limavady

  137·38

  13·51

  +10·91

  Lisburn

  147·18

  12·07

  +8·93

  Magherafeit

  134·94

  13·03

  +10·69

  Moyle

  164·33

  15·51

  +10·44

  Newry and Mourne

  152·68

  14·81

  +10·74

  Newtownabbey

  153·49

  12·02

  +8·50

  North Down

  155·28

  14·91

  +10·62

  Omagh

  145·38

  13·51

  +10·24

  Strabane

  148·88

  16·51

  +12·47

  1987–88

  Rate

  Increase

  Percentage increase

  pence

  pence

  Antrim

  150·03

  5·90

  +4·09

  Ards

  154·53

  3·15

  +2·08

  Armagh

  139·53

  3·15

  +2·31

  740

  1987–88

  Rate

  Increase

  Percentage increase

  pence

  pence

  Ballymena

  141·38

  5·00

  +3·67

  Ballymoney

  147·53

  3·90

  +2·72

  Banbridge

  152·51

  6·16

  +4·21

  Belfast

  181·56

  6·82

  +3·90

  Carrickfergus

  160·94

  5·06

  +3·25

  Castlereagh

  142·53

  5·07

  +3·69

  Coleraine

  151·53

  4·15

  +2·82

  Cookstown

  144·53

  6·40

  +4·63

  Craigavon

  164·88

  6·29

  +3·97

  Derry

  171·03

  5·65

  +3·42

  Down

  161·53

  10·15

  +6·70

  Dungannon

  145·53

  5·65

  +4·04

  Fermanagh

  152·28

  5·15

  +3·50

  Larne

  154·08

  6·45

  +4·37

  Limavady

  142·48

  5·10

  +3·71

  Lisburn

  151·28

  4·10

  +2·79

  Magherafelt

  142·58

  7·64

  +5·66

  Moyle

  167·28

  3·15

  +1·92

  Newry and Mourne

  161·23

  8·55

  +5·60

  Newtownabbey

  158·77

  5·28

  +3·44

  North Down

  162·43

  7·15

  +4·60

  Omagh

  153·18

  7·80

  +5·37

  Strabane

  155·53

  6·65

  +4·47

  1988–89

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  161·59

  11·56

  +7·71

  Ards

  164·59

  10·06

  +6·51

  Armagh

  151·59

  12·06

  +8·64

  Ballymena

  153·44

  12·06

  +8·53

  Ballymoney

  157·59

  10·06

  +6·82

  Banbridge

  161·57

  9·06

  +5·94

  Belfast

  194·55

  12·99

  +7·15

  Carrickfergus

  173·09

  12·15

  +7·55

  Castlereagh

  150·49

  7·96

  +5·58

  Coleraine

  163·59

  12·06

  +7·96

  Cookstown

  153·34

  8·81

  +6·10

  Craigavon

  173·94

  9·06

  +5·49

  Derry

  183·14

  12·11

  +7·08

  Down

  175·59

  14·06

  +8·70

  Dungannon

  154·59

  9·06

  +6·23

  Fermanagh

  164·09

  11·81

  +7·76

  Larne

  166·34

  12·26

  +7·96

  Limavady

  154·09

  11·61

  +8·15

  Lisburn

  164·16

  12·88

  +8·51

  Magherafelt

  154·09

  11·51

  +8·07

  Moyle

  176·09

  8·81

  +5·27

  Newry and Mourne

  170·29

  9·06

  +5·62

  Newtownabbey

  170·65

  11·88

  +7·48

  North Down

  174·29

  11·86

  +7·31

  Omagh

  165·59

  12·41

  +8·10

  Strabane

  167·59

  12·06

  +7·75

  1989–90

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  179·07

  17·48

  +10·82

  Ards

  183·57

  18·98

  +11·53

  Armagh

  170·07

  18·48

  +12·19

  Ballymena

  170·07

  16·63

  +10·84

  Ballymoney

  176·32

  18·73

  +11·89

  Banbridge

  177·05

  15·48

  +9·58

  Belfast

  210·03

  15·48

  +7·96

  Carrickfergus

  191·82

  18·73

  +10·82

  Castlereagh

  163·97

  13·48

  +8·96

  Coleraine

  181·07

  17·48

  +10·69

  Cookstown

  173·82

  20·48

  +13·36

  Craigavon

  193·54

  19·60

  +11·27

  Derry

  202·87

  19·73

  +10·77

  Down

  194·07

  18·48

  +10·52

  Dungannon

  170·07

  15·48

  +10·01

  741

  1989–90

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Fermanagh

  181·57

  17·48

  +10·65

  Larne

  182·82

  16·48

  +9·91

  Limavady

  173·07

  18·98

  2·32

  Lisburn

  179·64

  15·48

  +9·43

  Magherafelt

  172·41

  18·32

  +11·89

  Moyle

  194·47

  18·38

  +10·44

  Newry and Mourne

  184·07

  13·78

  +8·09

  Newtownabbey

  190·17

  19·52

  +11·44

  North Down

  191·92

  17·63

  +10·12

  Omagh

  184·57

  18·98

  +11·46

  Strabane

  186·82

  19·23

  +11·47

  (c)(ii) The overall non·domestic rates were:

  1985–86

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  142·87

  9·03

  +6·75

  Ards

  150·87

  7·53

  +5·25

  Armagh

  135·37

  8·53

  +6·73

  Ballymena

  137·22

  8·38

  +6·50

  Ballymoney

  143·12

  8·78

  +6·54

  Banbridge

  145·80

  11·79

  +8·80

  Belfast

  169·91

  11·72

  +7·41

  Carrickfergus

  155·87

  9·78

  +6·69

  Castlereagh

  133·87

  8·53

  +6·81

  Coleraine

  145·87

  9·78

  +7·19

  Cookstown

  136·72

  10·83

  +8·60

  Craigavon

  155·80

  9·54

  +6·52

  Derry

  160·37

  11·93

  +8·04

  Down

  145·87

  7·53

  +5·44

  Dungannon

  138·87

  10·53

  +8·20

  Fermanagh

  143·62

  10·28

  +7·71

  Larne

  145·87

  9·03

  +6·60

  Limavady

  135·87

  10·53

  +8·40

  Lisburn

  147·11

  8·17

  +5·88

  Magherefelt

  133·91

  10·47

  +8·48

  Moyle

  160·62

  12·53

  +8·46

  Newry and Mourne

  149·87

  10·53

  +7·56

  Newtownabbey

  153·47

  12·13

  +8·58

  North Down

  152·37

  12·03

  +8·57

  Omagh

  143·87

  9·53

  +7·09

  Strabane

  144·37

  9·53

  +7·07

  1986–87

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  156·13

  13·26

  +9·28

  Ards

  163·38

  12·51

  +8·29

  Armagh

  148·38

  13·01

  +9·61

  Ballymena

  148·38

  11·16

  +8·13

  Ballymoney

  155·63

  12·51

  +8·74

  Banbridge

  158·35

  12·55

  +8·61

  Belfast

  186·74

  16·83

  +9·91

  Carrickfergus

  167·88

  12·01

  +7·71

  Castlereagh

  149·46

  15·59

  +11·65

  Coleraine

  159·38

  13·51

  +9·26

  Cookstown

  150·13

  13·41

  +9·81

  Craigavon

  170·59

  14·79

  +9·49

  Derry

  177·38

  17·01

  +10·61

  Down

  163·38

  17·51

  +12·00

  Dungannon

  151·88

  13·01

  +9·37

  Fermanagh

  159·13

  15·51

  +10·80

  Larne

  159·63

  13·76

  +9·43

  Limavady

  149·38

  13·51

  +9·94

  Lisburn

  159·18

  12·07

  +8·20

  Magherafelt

  146·94

  13·03

  +9·73

  Moyle

  176·13

  15·51

  +9·66

  Newry and Mourne

  164·68

  14·81

  +9·88

  Newtownabbey

  165·49

  12·02

  +7·83

  North Down

  167·28

  14·91

  +9·79

  Omagh

  157·38

  13·51

  +9·39

  Strabane

  160·88

  16·51

  +11·44

  742

  1987–88

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  162·03

  5·90

  +3·78

  Ards

  166·53

  3·15

  +1·93

  Armagh

  151·53

  3·15

  +2·12

  Ballymena

  153·38

  5·00

  +3·37

  Ballymoney

  159·53

  3·90

  +2·51

  Banbridge

  164·51

  6·16

  +3·89

  Belfast

  193·56

  6·82

  +3·65

  Carrickfergus

  172·94

  5·06

  +3·01

  Castlereagh

  154·53

  5·07

  +3·39

  Coleraine

  163·53

  4·15

  +2·60

  Cookstown

  156·53

  6·40

  +4·26

  Craigavon

  176·88

  6·29

  +3·69

  Derry

  183·03

  5·65

  +3·19

  Down

  173·53

  10·15

  +6·21

  Dunganoon

  157·53

  5·65

  +3·72

  Fermanagh

  164·28

  5·15

  +3·24

  Larne

  166·08

  6·45

  +4·04

  Limavady

  154·48

  5·10

  +3·41

  Lisburn

  163·28

  4·10

  +2·58

  Magherafelt

  154·58

  7·64

  +5·20

  Moyle

  179·28

  3·15

  +1·79

  Newry and Mourne

  173·23

  8·55

  +5·19

  Newtownabbey

  170·77

  5·28

  +3·19

  North Down

  174·43

  7·15

  +4·27

  Omagh

  165·18

  7·80

  +4·96

  Strabane

  167·53

  6·65

  +4·13

  1988–89

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  173·59

  +11·56

  +7·13

  Ards

  176·59

  +10·06

  +6·04

  Armagh

  163·59

  +12·06

  +7·96

  Ballymena

  165·44

  +12·06

  +7·86

  Ballymoney

  169·59

  +10·06

  +6·31

  Banbridge

  173·57

  +9·06

  +5·51

  Belfast

  206·55

  +12·99

  +6·71

  Carrickfergus

  185·09

  +12·15

  +7·03

  Castlereagh

  162·49

  +7·96

  +5·15

  Coleraine

  175·59

  +12·06

  +7·37

  Cookstown

  165·34

  +8·81

  +5·63

  Craigavon

  185·94

  +9·06

  5·12

  Derry

  195·14

  +12·11

  +6·62

  Down

  187·59

  +14·06

  +8·10

  Dungannon

  166·59

  +9·06

  +5·75

  Fermanagh

  176·09

  +11·81

  +7·19

  Larne

  178·34

  +12·26

  +7·38

  Limavady

  166·09

  +11·61

  +7·52

  Lisburn

  176·16

  +12·88

  +7·89

  Magherafelt

  166·09

  +11·51

  +7·45

  Moyle

  188·09

  +8·81

  +4·91

  Newry and Mourne

  182·29

  +9·06

  +5·23

  Newtownabbey

  182·65

  +11·88

  +6·96

  North Down

  186·29

  +11·86

  +6·80

  Omagh

  177·59

  +12·41

  +7·51

  Strabane

  179·59

  +12·06

  +7·20

  1989–90

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Antrim

  191·07

  +17·48

  +10·07

  Ards

  195·57

  +18·98

  +10·85

  Armagh

  182·07

  +18·48

  +11·30

  Ballymena

  182·07

  +16·63

  +10·05

  Ballymoney

  188·32

  +18·73

  +11·04

  Banbridge

  189·05

  +15·48

  +8·92

  Belfast

  222·03

  +15·48

  +7·49

  Carrickfergus

  203·82

  +18·73

  +10·12

  Castlereagh

  175·97

  +13·48

  +8·30

  Coleraine

  193·07

  +17·48

  +9·96

  Cookstown

  185·82

  +20·48

  +12·39

  Craigavon

  205·54

  +19·60

  +90·54

  Derry

  214·87

  +19·73

  +10·11

  743

  1989–90

  Rate pence

  Increase pence

  Percentage increase

  Down

  206·07

  +18·48

  +9·85

  Dungannon

  182·07

  +15·48

  +9·29

  Fermanagh

  193·57

  +17·48

  +9·93

  Larne

  194·82

  +16·48

  +9·24

  Limavady

  185·07

  +18·98

  +11·43

  Lisburn

  191·64

  +15·48

  +8·79

  Magherafelt

  184·41

  +18·32

  +11·03

  Moyle

  206·47

  +18·38

  +9·77

  Newry and Mourne

  19607

  +13·78

  +7·56

  Newtownabbey

  202·17

  +19·52

  +10·69

  North Down

  203·92

  +17·63

  +9·46

  Omagh

  196·57

  +18·98

  +10·69

  Strabane

  198·82

  +19·23

  +10·71

TRANSPORT

  Kilkiel Harbour
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on which dates, during the past six months, boats registered in the Republic of Ireland have entered Kilkiel harbour; and whether these boats have now paid light dues to the Commissioners of Irish Lights.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is a management matter for the Commissioners of Irish Lights as the collecting authority for light dues.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to improve the lateral stability of heavy goods vehicles with particular reference to loading and wind impact.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are aware of the problems caused by wind impact on heavy goods vehicles. That is why warnings are issued to all drivers of high-sided vehicles in windy conditions. It is up to the drivers and operators to heed these warnings, to load their vehicles appropriately, to drive carefully, to avoid particularly dangerous sections of road and, if necessary, to stop in a suitable place until conditions improve.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss the specifications for technical performance of the docklands light railway that were laid down when the original finance was approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him yesterday at column 665.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has(a) on the annual cost of cleaning off graffiti from London Underground premises and (b) on the extra annual cost of policing relating to the prevention of graffiti in each of the last five years for which statistics are available;

  (2) whether he will publish a table showing the cost of removing graffiti on each of the London Underground lines.
  744
  Mr. Portillo
  The cost to London Underground Ltd. of cleaning graffiti from trains and stations has increased substantially over the past five years to an estimated £2·5 million in 1989. Figures for individual Underground lines are not readily available since depot and cleaning facilities are often shared between lines. The cost to London Buses Ltd. of cleaning graffiti from buses and garages has increased from about £1·5 million in 1986 to over £2 million in 1989.

  A special British Transport police graffiti squad has been set up to combat graffiti vandalism on the Underground. This is estimated to have cost about £250,000 in 1989. British Transport police officers are also expected to prevent graffiti vandalism as part of their normal duties. Crime on London Buses, including vandalism and graffiti, is dealt with by the Metropolitan police.

  Coastal Rescue Services
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce additional measures to improve the efficiency of the coastguard and other search and rescue services along the north Devon coast and Bristol channel.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am satisfied that the current facilities for co-ordinating and actioning maritime search and rescue operations in this area are fully adequate.

THE ARTS

  "Allée à Chantilly"
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has yet decided where the Cézanne work of art, "Allée à Chantilly", received by his Department in lieu of Inland Revenue debts for the year 1988–89 is to be displayed.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 14 February 1990,Official Report, column 239.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in rank order the total revenue raised from the 21 different forms of taxation for each year from 1979 to the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  Recent years' figures can be found in tables 3.13, 3.14 and 3.15 in "Financial Statistics", published by the Central Statistical Office. Earlier years' figures can be found using the CSO database and the identifiers given in the tables. The database can be accessed on line by the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax in pounds per week at 1989–90 prices a married couple with one earner on average earnings, with two children paid, treating child benefit as negative income, in 1978–79 and in 1989–90.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross earnings a couple with one earner on average earnings, with two children, paid in tax, treating child benefit as negative income tax, in 1978–79 and in 1989–90.
  745
  Mr. Lilley
  Figures for 1978–79 have been placed in the Library of the House, as noted in the Official Report, 13 April 1989, column 624, and estimates for 1989–90 were given in reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East ( Mr. Brown) on 8 January 1990 at column 559.

  Rented Property
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of revenue forgone by the Exchequer through the tax incentives to landlords investing in the business expansion scheme since April 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  The cost of BES tax relief on residential property in 1988–89 is provisionally estimated as £110 million. Information for 1989–90 is not yet available.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of manufacturing investment made each year since 1979 by(a) foreign direct investors in the United Kingdom and (b) indigenous manufacturers; and what are the percentage annual changes these figures represent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Comparable information relates to capital expenditure on fixed assets by foreign owned manufacturing businesses and by United Kingdom-owned manufacturing businesses. It is available, on the current definition of manufacturing in the 1980 standard industrial classification, only from 1981. Information on foreign ownership is available biennially up to 1985 and annually up to 1987. The data are given from 1981 in the table.

  Net capital expenditure of manufacturing1 private sector businesses in the United Kingdom

  Foreign owned businesses2

  United Kingdom owned businesses3

  Total

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1981

  1,402

  4,091

  5,493

  1983

  1,397

  4,664

  6,061

  1985

  1,844

  6,579

  8,423

  1986

  1,715

  6,683

  8,398

  1987

  1,989

  7,340

  9,329

  Percentage increase from 1981 to 1987

  41·9

  79·4

  Source: Censuses of production.

  1 Divisions 2–4, Standard Industrial Classification, revised 1980.

  2 Foreign owned businesses are defined as those controlled or owned by companies incorporated overseas.

  3Includes privatised businesses from the year of privatisation.

  Fiscal Incentives (Women)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the need for fiscal incentives to enable more women to return to work.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has received a number of representations on this subject.

  Budget
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about his forthcoming financial statement and budget report.
  746
  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has received a variety of representations from a number of individuals and organisations.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet the Governor of the Bank of England; and what he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Company Dividends
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what proportion dividend distribution by companies increased between 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  The latest estimates of dividend payments on ordinary and preference shares may be obtained from the CSO databank—a collection of macro-economic time series in computer readable form to which the House of Commons Library has direct access. Data are currently available for the period up to third quarter 1989.

  Investment
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) by what proportion investment in manufacturing industry fell in the second half of 1988 and in the first half of 1989; and if he is able to provide an estimate of the change in investment in the second half of 1989;

  (2) what was the level of investment in manufacturing industry in 1989 and 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Expressed at 1985 prices, investment by manufacturing industry in fixed assets including leasing, is estimated to have been £12 billion in 1989, compared to £11·2 billion in 1979.

  Such investment seasonally adjusted barely changed between the first and second halves of 1988. The first half of 1989 showed an increase of 6 per cent. followed by a fall in the second half provisionally estimated to be 1 per cent.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the proportion of capital investment in the service sector which has been devoted to the importation of goods and materials.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest year for which it is possible to compile estimates of the import content of investment is 1985, the last year for which comprehensive input-output tables exist.

  The import content of purchases calculated in the process of compiling the input-output tables is based upon approximate commodity flow methods—there is no statistical inquiry which establishes the import content of capital investment directly. The cases of goods and materials including and excluding vehicles, ships and aircraft (VSA), and capital investment including and excluding investment in new buildings and works (NBW), are given in the table.
  747

  Capital investment of the Services sector

  including NBW Per cent.

  excluding NBW Per cent.

  Import content from goods and materials (including VSA)

  18

  47

  Import content from goods and materials (excluding VSA)

  13

  35

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in what sectors of commerce and industry investment was higher in 1989 than 10 years earlier;

  (2) what was the level of investment between 1979 and 1989 in those areas of industry and commerce in which there is or was public involvement and in those which are wholly within the private sector.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest estimates of gross domestic fixed capital formation, by industry (other than manufacturing), may be obtained from the CSO databank —a collection of macroeconomic time series in computer readable form to which the House of Commons Library has direct access. For manufacturing, figures up to end 1989 were published by the CSO in a press notice "Capital Expenditure: Provisional Estimates for Q4 1989" on 15 February. The latest estimates of investment by other industries cover the period up to end 1987 or, where possible, 1988. The estimates cover investment by the private sector, and, where appropriate, include investment by public sector bodies. The CSO's "United Kingdom National Accounts", 1989 edition, shows which industry estimates are available.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of companies investing in the United Kingdom are wholly owned by Japan or the United States of America; and what is the ratio of investment by these companies to that by companies which are in United Kingdom ownership.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information relates to capital expenditure on fixed assets by manufacturing companies based within the United Kingdom. The annual census of production provides such an analysis by country of ownership. The latest follows:

  Net capital expenditure by manufacturing companies2 in the United Kingdom by country of ownership1

  Net capital expenditure in 1987

  Country of ownership

  Number of businesses

  £ million

  as percentage of United Kingdom

  United States of America

  1,161

  1,180·1

  16

  Japan

  34

  86·7

  1

  All other foreign owned businesses

  1,088

  722·3

  10

  United Kingdom owned business

  143,210

  7,339·7

  100

  Total

  145,493

  9,328·8

  1 Foreign owned business are defined as those controlled or owned by companies incorporated overseas.

  2 Divisions 2–4: Standard Industrial Classification, Revised 1980.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1990–91, assuming no 748
  change in company behaviour and assuming a 50 per cent. increase in investment in plant and machinery (a) the capital allowances claimable by companies in respect of plant and machinery assuming that first year allowances of: (i) 50 per cent., (ii) 40 per cent., (iii) 35 per cent. and (iv) 30 per cent. were available, (b) corporation tax payments forgone in 1991–92 as a result of such claims and (c) the increase in the rate of corporation tax which would be required to replace the revenue foregone under (b).

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: I regret that the requested estimates could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a breakdown for table 8.7 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1989 of capital allowances described as other, giving figures separately for each type of allowance subsumed in this heading.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: The only breakdown of these capitial allowances that can be reliably estimated is provided in tables 8.8 and 8.9 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1989" and in similar tables in earlier editions.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the current levels of interest rates in each member state of the European Community and in Japan and the United States of America.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following is the information requested:

  Short term nominal interest rates in the EC, United States and Japan

  Latest figures1

  United Kingdom

  15·3

  United States

  8·3

  Japan

  7·3

  Germany

  8·6

  France

  10·8

  Italy

  13·3

  Belgium

  10·6

  Denmark

  12·0

  Greece

  17·0

  Ireland

  12·0

  Luxembourg

  10·6

  Netherlands

  9·0

  Portugal

  13·8

  Spain

  15·6

  1 Interest rates refer to close 5 March, except Denmark (8 March), Ireland and Portugal (January), and Greece (December).

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many internal auditors are employed in those departments for which he is responsible and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: A total of 180 internal auditors are employed in departments for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is responsible. Their direct costs amount to £3·767 million

  749
  per annum. A total of 272 reports were produced in 1989 or in the nearest convenient accounting period. One of these was drawn to the attention of a Minister.

  Internal audit work in three departments was sub-contracted to private firms. In two of these, the whole internal audit function was contracted out; in the other department specialist expertise was obtained. The total cost of these sub-contracts amounted to £65,000.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Rothamsted Experimental Station
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the reasons for Mrs. Clark's dismissal from her post at Rothamsted experimental station, Hertfordshire.

  Mr. Jackson
  Mrs. Clark was an employee of the Lawes Agricultural Trust, the governing body of the Rothamsted experimental station which is grant-aided by the agricultural and food research council (AFRC). The staff of the Rothamsted experimental station are employed on terms and conditions of service laid down by the AFRC.

  I understand that Mrs. Clark was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing conducted in accordance with the council's rules and procedures. An appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board is pending and therefore I am unable to comment further.

  All1 discretionary awards made under Section 1(6) and Section 2 of the 1962 Education Act (as amended).

  1983–84 £000's

  1984–85 £000's

  1985–86 £000's

  1986–87 £000's

  1987–88 £000's

  Sheffield

  2,040·8

  2,216·7

  2,346·4

  2,281·8

  2,309·2

  Bradford

  1,582·7

  1,713·1

  1,740·6

  1,752·8

  2,284·7

  Calderdale

  349·7

  313·8

  373·4

  320·1

  465·2

  Kirklees

  1,356·1

  1,396·1

  1,663·6

  1,733·6

  1,967·9

  Leeds

  1,113·5

  1,255·8

  994·4

  1,520·8

  2,067·9

  Wakefield

  638·9

  793·7

  785·6

  818·0

  1,023·4

  Gateshead

  198·0

  247·2

  345·6

  281·6

  309·3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  736·7

  640·3

  692·0

  681·4

  720·9

  North Tyneside

  631·1

  679·3

  623·3

  848·3

  1,002·2

  South Tyneside

  245·2

  243·1

  285·7

  260·6

  340·9

  Sunderland

  774·8

  999·6

  1,242·2

  1,328·8

  1,202·9

  Isles of Scilly

  63·3

  69·5

  79·3

  75·7

  85·3

  Avon

  2,456·5

  2,275·4

  2,335·1

  3,179·5

  3,280·8

  Bedfordshire

  933·3

  822·4

  1,670·8

  1,286·3

  1,917·6

  Berkshire

  1,402·9

  1,279·8

  1,293·3

  1,061·3

  1,330·4

  Buckinghamshire

  927·4

  932·0

  964·4

  862·9

  979·5

  Cambridgeshire

  990·5

  1,048·4

  891·8

  1,020·0

  1,169·5

  Cheshire

  2,452·0

  3,139·0

  3,408·2

  3,763·0

  3,955·6

  Cleveland

  1,382·4

  1,639·9

  1,538·0

  1,477·5

  1,527·9

  Cornwall

  997·0

  1,130·9

  1,309·1

  1,377·2

  1,308·5

  Cumbria

  1,841·5

  1,768·8

  1,821·6

  2,219·1

  2,306·8

  Derbyshire

  2,201·5

  2,430·6

  2,559·6

  2,732·1

  2,586·7

  Devon

  3,008·1

  3,387·7

  3,365·2

  3,870·6

  4,282·0

  Dorset

  1,836·5

  1,499·5

  1,559·4

  1,733·9

  1,898·6

  Durham

  1,016·0

  878·1

  896·3

  881·3

  788·5

  East Sussex

  1,918·1

  1,838·7

  1,430·1

  1,303·7

  1,353·9

  Essex

  4,066·1

  4,326·6

  4,558·0

  5,113·9

  4,902·7

  Gloucestershire

  2,000·4

  2,334·2

  2,354·1

  2,436·4

  2,266·7

  Hampshire

  4,818·4

  4,801·1

  7,269·1

  8,383·3

  8,503·9

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,063·9

  1,137·8

  1,016·5

  1,061·1

  1,007·0

  Hertfordshire

  2,096·2

  1,650·3

  1,612·4

  1,789·7

  2,111·0

  Humberside

  2,798·0

  2,949·0

  3,226·2

  3,234·6

  3,481·4

  Isle of Wight

  315·0

  351·2

  356·8

  396·6

  411·2

  Kent

  5,017·5

  4,912·4

  3,990·2

  5,193·9

  5,221·5

  Lancashire

  4,110·7

  5,302·5

  4,887·7

  5,284·8

  5,323·5

  Leicestershire

  2,494·3

  2,997·5

  3,289·2

  3,581·1

  4,086·2

  Lincolnshire

  1,382·8

  1,496·5

  1,504·9

  1,567·7

  1,496·6

  Avon County Council
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will be meeting Councillor Maureen Wheadon of Avon county council; and what is the purpose of the meeting.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No such meeting has been arranged.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Hutchinson concerning his decisions in respect of Beechen Cliff school, Bath and the proposals of Avon county council; and if he will make a statement about that judgment.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I propose to reconsider the application from Beechen Cliff school, Bath and the statutory proposals from the Avon county council in the light of Mr. Justice Hutchinson's judgment. The judgment concerned the handling of a particular set of proposals. The principle of the grant-maintained option being available to schools is not in question.

  Discretionary Grants
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide the statistics relating to discretionary grants made by local education authorities for full-time and sandwich courses, broken down for each individual local education authority in England and Wales by monetary amount and for the last five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The data requested are listed in the table:
  751

  1983–84 £000's

  1984–85 £000's

  1985–86 £000 's

  1986–87 £000 's

  1987–88 £000 's

  Norfolk

  1,465·0

  1,587·4

  1,672·0

  1,746·3

  1,854·9

  North Yorkshire

  3,385·0

  3,603·5

  4,070·4

  4,448·9

  4,910·8

  Northamptonshire

  912·3

  954·9

  875·7

  1,231·1

  960·3

  Northumberland

  864·9

  932·6

  956·6

  1,332·1

  1,370·3

  Nottinghamshire

  1,672·9

  2,018·5

  2,624·3

  2,890·3

  3,054·4

  Oxfordshire

  629·4

  694·3

  908·3

  1,093·5

  956·7

  Shropshire

  1,047·8

  1,003·4

  1,125·1

  1,260·7

  1,362·9

  Somerset

  791·4

  708·3

  469·6

  955·9

  1,180·9

  Staffordshire

  1,422·4

  1,443·2

  1,423·8

  1,597·6

  2,094·2

  Barking

  231·0

  246·0

  323·5

  412·3

  400·6

  Barnet

  788·6

  704·8

  708·3

  732·2

  585·7

  Bexley

  410·0

  511·1

  401·0

  405·4

  329·3

  Brent

  2,148·8

  1,951·8

  2,825·3

  3,702·8

  3,376·6

  Bromley

  444·2

  474·0

  532·3

  657·8

  698·9

  Croydon

  515·7

  484·4

  508·4

  517·4

  587·5

  Ealing

  556·5

  549·1

  663·1

  910·0

  1,102·1

  Enfield

  347·4

  331·9

  261·4

  367·3

  431·8

  Haringey

  587·5

  632·2

  694·5

  780·3

  711·8

  Harrow

  346·6

  320·8

  336·9

  308·7

  258·3

  Havering

  399·7

  390·5

  447·3

  315·7

  458·9

  Hillingdon

  437·8

  307·6

  294·6

  562·0

  465·7

  Hounslow

  260·8

  196·4

  254·5

  334·3

  347·3

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  148·3

  181·9

  174·5

  239·0

  204·1

  Merton

  130·5

  164·3

  187·7

  283·2

  234·2

  Newham

  372·3

  491·7

  486·2

  638·8

  676·9

  Redbridge

  396·6

  329·7

  348·2

  337·5

  341·3

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  366·6

  387·0

  413·9

  364·2

  391·5

  Sutton

  283·1

  254·2

  158·8

  222·0

  259·4

  Waltham Forest

  510·2

  557·6

  609·8

  629·9

  855·0

  ILEA

  13,637·4

  16,151·4

  18,470·5

  19,569·3

  22,010·4

  Birmingham

  975·8

  1,245·0

  1,280·3

  1,262·6

  1,296·3

  Coventry

  591·5

  640·1

  526·5

  575·5

  680·6

  Dudley

  484·6

  342·5

  340·3

  340·6

  488·3

  Sandwell

  322·2

  514·2

  515·2

  748·2

  774·2

  Solihull

  147·0

  148·7

  198·0

  222·5

  215·5

  Walsall

  329·4

  670·6

  695·0

  844·5

  949·9

  Wolverhampton

  0·0

  221·4

  196·3

  178·4

  210·7

  Knowsley

  921·3

  1,200·4

  1,136·2

  1,192·8

  1,313·2

  Liverpool

  1,518·3

  1,887·0

  2,021·8

  2,158·4

  2,475·8

  St. Helens

  508·7

  504·2

  546·6

  618·1

  604·1

  Sefton

  313·9

  294·7

  328·8

  477·0

  455·4

  Wirral

  1,330·6

  1,220·4

  1,240·1

  1,111·8

  1,277·3

  Bolton

  703·1

  696·4

  961·3

  999·9

  1,030·0

  Bury

  585·1

  738·6

  660·6

  796·2

  941·1

  Manchester

  1,413·0

  1,478·7

  1,701·5

  2,116·8

  2,271·4

  Oldham

  398·1

  413·7

  605·9

  480·9

  522·7

  Rochdale

  442·3

  429·0

  449·7

  474·6

  430·2

  Salford

  670·5

  714·2

  629·4

  644·2

  630·7

  Stockport

  779·9

  708·7

  722·8

  703·4

  748·2

  Tameside

  380·7

  379·3

  353·4

  399·1

  388·3

  Trafford

  172·6

  376·6

  491·2

  491·1

  591·7

  Wigan

  705·6

  689·7

  1,002·4

  1,093·2

  980·8

  Barnsley

  412·8

  507·7

  492·7

  634·9

  835·8

  Doncaster

  505·5

  611·6

  522·2

  562·2

  596·5

  Rotherham

  493·8

  509·6

  512·2

  600·4

  739·6

  Suffolk

  1,626·2

  1,651·8

  1,879·6

  1,923·7

  1,918·9

  Surrey

  1,621·2

  1,382·8

  1,569·6

  1,622·4

  1,685·5

  Warwickshire

  1,209·8

  1,224·2

  1,228·2

  857·8

  1,410·8

  West Sussex

  862·3

  733·1

  812·6

  836·1

  801·6

  Wiltshire

  1,150·6

  1,130·9

  1,344·6

  1,532·2

  1,478·3

  Clwyd

  973·0

  1,238·5

  1,515·8

  1,218·5

  1,268·9

  Dyfed

  1,227·9

  1,234·9

  1,230·8

  1,388·4

  1,324·4

  Gwent

  1,744·2

  1,944·8

  2,012·4

  2,000·6

  2,258·6

  Gwynedd

  714·8

  686·1

  818·5

  926·1

  855·7

  Mid-Glamorgan

  402·4

  353·4

  331·6

  420·9

  363·9

  Powys

  597·1

  702·5

  575·2

  566·1

  575·3

  South Glamorgan

  1,063·0

  1,036·4

  1,038·3

  1,108·7

  1,140·3

  West Glamorgan

  865·0

  816·6

  804·6

  761·7

  767·0

  England and Wales

  127,932·4

  136,741·7

  146,799·2

  160,451·6

  171,048·6

  1 Excludes fee payments made to sandwich students in their industrial year.

  752

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library a table of full-time teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools for(a) January 1987, (b) January 1988 and (c) January 1989, broken down by school type and subject area for (i) England and Wales, (ii) the regions and (iii) individual local education authorities, in a manner consistent with the answer given to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), Official Report, 15 February, column 318.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 26 February 1990]: The information is given in the tables. Data on primary vacancies were not collected prior to 1988. In 1987 secondary heads and deputies were not identified

  Table 1

  Vacancies as a percentage of full-time teachers in post

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Secondary

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Gateshead

  0·5

  0·5

  0·4

  0·5

  2·0

  1·5

  1·8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1·4

  0·6

  0·5

  0·5

  3·1

  1·5

  2·3

  North Tyneside

  1·0

  0·4

  0·6

  0·5

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  South Tyneside

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Sunderland

  0·5

  0·5

  0·4

  0·4

  0·6

  0·4

  0·5

  Cleveland

  0·0

  0·1

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  Cumbria

  1·0

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·6

  0·5

  0·6

  Durham

  0·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·5

  0·1

  0·3

  Northumberland

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·7

  0·3

  0·4

  North

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·8

  0·4

  0·6

  Barnsley

  0·4

  0·3

  0·2

  0·3

  0·5

  0·1

  0·3

  Doncaster

  0·3

  0·7

  0·6

  0·6

  1·1

  0·6

  0·8

  Rotherham

  0·1

  1·5

  0·3

  0·9

  1·4

  1·4

  1·4

  Sheffield

  1·2

  0·4

  0·3

  0·3

  0·5

  0·2

  0·3

  Bradford

  0·5

  0·4

  0·3

  0·4

  1·0

  0·4

  0·6

  Calderdale

  0·7

  0·9

  1·3

  1·1

  0·6

  1·7

  1·2

  Kirklees

  0·9

  0·3

  0·4

  0·3

  0·6

  1·1

  0·9

  Leeds

  4·0

  1·3

  1·0

  1·1

  1·5

  0·7

  1·0

  Wakefield

  2·5

  4·0

  2·3

  3·0

  3·0

  2·4

  2·6

  Humberside

  0·6

  0·5

  0·3

  0·4

  0·7

  0·2

  0·4

  North Yorkshire

  0·1

  1·1

  0·8

  0·9

  1·4

  0·5

  0·9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0·7

  0·9

  0·6

  0·8

  1·1

  0·7

  0·9

  Knowsley

  1·1

  0·8

  1·2

  1·0

  0·4

  0·9

  0·6

  Liverpool

  0·2

  0·5

  0·1

  0·3

  0·9

  0·0

  0·4

  St. Helens

  0·5

  1·1

  1·0

  1·1

  0·4

  0·6

  0·5

  Sefton

  0·2

  0·5

  0·2

  0·3

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  Wirral

  1·9

  0·9

  0·6

  0·7

  0·6

  0·8

  0·7

  Bolton

  0·2

  0·8

  0·2

  0·5

  0·9

  0·1

  0·5

  Bury

  0·0

  0·5

  0·0

  0·2

  1·0

  0·9

  1·0

  Manchester

  1·0

  0·9

  1·4

  1·2

  1·5

  1·3

  1·4

  Oldham

  0·5

  1·3

  0·3

  0·7

  0·6

  0·1

  0·3

  Rochdale

  0·4

  2·0

  0·9

  1·4

  2·7

  0·8

  1·7

  Salford

  2·1

  2·5

  1·9

  2·2

  3·5

  2·1

  2·8

  Stockport

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  0·7

  0·6

  0·6

  Tameside

  1·4

  0·2

  0·1

  0·2

  2·5

  1·8

  2·1

  Trafford

  0·2

  0·8

  0·2

  0·5

  1·1

  0·1

  0·6

  Wigan

  0·0

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  0·6

  0·1

  0·3

  Cheshire

  0·7

  0·7

  0·7

  0·7

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  Lancashire

  1·0

  1·4

  1·2

  1·3

  2·1

  1·6

  1·8

  North West

  0·8

  0·9

  0·7

  0·8

  1·2

  0·8

  1·0

  Derbyshire

  1·9

  1·0

  0·9

  0·9

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Leicestershire

  1·5

  0·4

  1·0

  0·7

  0·5

  0·7

  0·6

  Lincolnshire

  1·3

  1·6

  1·0

  1·3

  1·4

  1·1

  1·2

  Northamptonshire

  0·2

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  0·3

  0·1

  0·2

  Nottinghamshire

  1·3

  1·1

  0·9

  1·0

  1·7

  1·0

  1·3

  East Midlands

  0·7

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  1·0

  0·8

  0·9

  Birmingham

  1·7

  2·3

  1·6

  1·9

  1·8

  2·6

  2·2

  Coventry

  0·9

  1·9

  0·3

  1·0

  1·1

  0·7

  0·9

  754
  separately but included within the subject breakdowns. An index to the subject breakdowns used in tables 4 to 6 follows.

  Secondary vacancies subject guide

  Column heading

  Subject

  H & D

  Heads and deputies

  Maths

  Mathematics

  Sci.

  Sciences

  Lang.

  Languages

  Engl.

  English

  H,G,SS

  History, geography or social studies

  CDT, C or A

  Craft design and technology (CDT), craft or art

  Music

  Music

  P.E.

  Physical education

  Rem.

  Remedial

  Others

  Other subjects

  755

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Secondary

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Dudley

  0·9

  2·0

  0·4

  1·1

  3·4

  0·5

  1·9

  Sandwell

  0·9

  0·9

  1·2

  1·1

  0·8

  1·0

  0·9

  Solihull

  1·8

  1·6

  0·5

  1·0

  3·2

  0·3

  3·6

  Walsall

  1·0

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  0·2

  0·1

  0·2

  Wolverhampton

  1·1

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·8

  1·1

  1·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·6

  0·7

  0·9

  0·8

  0·9

  1·1

  1·0

  Shropshire

  0·1

  0·8

  0·3

  0·5

  0·5

  0·3

  0·4

  Staffordshire

  0·8

  1·5

  0·6

  1·0

  0·3

  0·9

  0·6

  Warwickshire

  0·7

  1·3

  0·8

  1·1

  0·1

  1·7

  0·8

  West Midlands

  1·2

  1·4

  0·3

  1·1

  1·1

  1·2

  1·1

  Cambridgeshire

  0·3

  0·9

  0·7

  0·8

  0·9

  0·7

  0·8

  Norfolk

  0·8

  0·5

  0·2

  0·4

  0·4

  0·8

  0·6

  Suffolk

  0·8

  0·5

  0·9

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  East Anglia

  0·5

  0·7

  0·6

  0·6

  0·7

  0·8

  0·7

  Table 2

  Vacancies as a percentage of full-time teachers in post

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Secondary

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Barking

  3· 0

  6·6

  3·5

  5·0

  6·4

  1·6

  4·0

  Barnet

  4·2

  3·1

  3·7

  3·4

  3·2

  4·4

  3·9

  Bexley

  2·2

  1·8

  2·1

  2·0

  1·4

  2·4

  1·9

  Brent

  1

  1·9

  2·2

  2·0

  1·6

  1·5

  1·6

  Bromley

  5·0

  1·4

  1·7

  1·6

  0·7

  0·4

  0·6

  Croydon

  1·4

  2·0

  0·8

  1·3

  1·8

  1·7

  1·7

  Ealing

  1·6

  5·3

  2·0

  4·3

  7·7

  2·1

  5·5

  Enfield

  3·1

  3·6

  2·9

  3·2

  5·2

  2·2

  3·6

  Haringey

  2·3

  6·3

  3·0

  4·8

  12·9

  3·2

  8·5

  Harrow

  1·5

  0·6

  2·8

  1·5

  1·1

  1·4

  1·2

  Havering

  2·3

  0·1

  1·0

  0·6

  5·2

  0·8

  2·7

  Hillingdon

  1·1

  3·4

  2·7

  3·0

  3·9

  3·1

  3·5

  Hounslow

  0·9

  1·2

  0·5

  0·8

  1·9

  1·1

  1·5

  Kingston

  1·3

  0·9

  1·1

  1·0

  1·6

  0·4

  0·9

  Merton

  1·2

  2·4

  1·0

  2·0

  4·7

  3·7

  4·1

  Newham

  4·8

  14·0

  4·6

  9·1

  11·7

  4·8

  8·2

  Redbridge

  1·6

  2·0

  2·5

  2·3

  3·7

  1·2

  2·3

  Richmond

  3·8

  1·4

  0·9

  1·2

  0·0

  0·2

  0·1

  Sutton

  2·2

  2·3

  2·3

  2·7

  2·8

  1·2

  1·9

  Waltham Forest

  0·3

  1

  1

  1

  6·0

  2·6

  4·2

  ILEA

  4·1

  4·9

  3·3

  4·2

  6·8

  6·2

  6·5

  South East Greater London1

  3·6

  4·0

  2·5

  3·2

  5·3

  3·4

  4·3

  Bedfordshire

  1·5

  1·3

  1·4

  1·4

  3·6

  2·2

  2·8

  Berkshire

  0·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  2·2

  1·3

  1·7

  Buckinghamshire

  2·2

  0·3

  1·2

  1·0

  1·6

  1·6

  1·6

  East Sussex

  0·7

  0·3

  0·9

  0·6

  2·2

  1·7

  1·9

  Essex

  0·8

  1·3

  1·2

  1·2

  1·1

  1·2

  1·1

  Hampshire

  1·0

  1·1

  0·9

  1·0

  1·6

  1·0

  1·3

  Hertfordshire

  1·0

  1·2

  1·3

  1·2

  1·7

  1·2

  1·4

  Isle of Wight

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Kent

  1·4

  0·9

  1·2

  1·1

  1·8

  2·3

  2·1

  Oxfordshire

  0·4

  0·3

  0·0

  0·4

  0·1

  0·4

  0·3

  Surrey

  1·2

  1·4

  0·9

  1·1

  2·8

  1·4

  2·2

  West Sussex

  0·9

  1·4

  1·2

  1·3

  2·2

  1·1

  1·7

  Other South East

  0·9

  1·1

  1·0

  1·1

  1·8

  1·4

  1·6

  Avon

  1·0

  0·6

  0·9

  0·8

  0·5

  0·2

  0·3

  Cornwall

  0·8

  1·6

  0·5

  1·0

  1·6

  1·1

  1·4

  Devon

  1·1

  2·1

  1·5

  1·8

  2·0

  1·8

  1·9

  Dorset

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·6

  0·0

  0·3

  Gloucestershire

  0·3

  0·5

  0·2

  0·4

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Somerset

  0·8

  1·3

  1·1

  1·4

  2·5

  2·2

  2·4

  Wiltshire

  2·0

  1·5

  1·1

  1·2

  1·9

  1·5

  1·7

  South West

  1·0

  1·2

  0·8

  1·0

  1·2

  1·0

  1·1

  Clwyd

  0·1

  0·6

  0·1

  0·3

  1·2

  0·5

  0·8

  Dyfed

  0·5

  0·4

  0·3

  0·3

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  Gwent

  0·1

  3·0

  1·2

  2·0

  2·6

  0·8

  1·6

  Gwynedd

  0·7

  0·1

  0·9

  0·6

  0·8

  1·4

  1·1

  Mid-Glamorgan

  1·2

  2·7

  1·2

  1·9

  3·6

  1·3

  2·4

  Powys

  0·0

  1·2

  1·9

  1·6

  1·0

  2·0

  1·5

  756

  757

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Secondary

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Total

  South Glamorgan

  0·0

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·7

  0·2

  0·5

  West Glamorgan

  0·7

  0·0

  0·3

  0·2

  0·0

  0·7

  0·4

  Wales

  1·1

  1·2

  0·7

  0·9

  1·5

  0·8

  1·2

  Total England and Wales

  1·2

  1·4

  1·0

  1·2

  1·8

  1·2

  1·2

  1 Regional totals include estimated figures in respect of Brent and Waltham Forest LEAs who did not provide vacancies data in 1987 and 1988 respectively.

  Table 2

  (1) Nursery and Primary Vacancies 1988 (Numbers)

  Nursery

  Infant

  Junior

  More than one group

  Total

  Gateshead

  1

  1

  2

  0

  4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  1

  4

  1

  6

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  2

  1

  0

  4

  7

  Cleveland

  1

  0

  0

  2

  3

  Cumbria

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North

  4

  4

  7

  10

  25

  Barnsley

  0

  1

  2

  0

  3

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  1

  7

  8

  Rotherham

  3

  3

  9

  1

  16

  Sheffield

  1

  6

  1

  0

  8

  Bradford

  1

  5

  1

  0

  7

  Calderdale

  1

  3

  3

  0

  7

  Kirklees

  0

  1

  2

  2

  5

  Leeds

  2

  3

  6

  21

  32

  Wakefield

  1

  27

  8

  11

  47

  Humberside

  1

  1

  9

  4

  15

  North Yorks

  3

  6

  4

  12

  25

  York and Humberside

  13

  56

  46

  58

  173

  Knowsley

  1

  0

  5

  0

  5

  Liverpool

  1

  6

  3

  1

  11

  St. Helen's

  0

  3

  4

  1

  8

  Sefton

  0

  2

  3

  0

  5

  Wirral

  0

  6

  5

  1

  12

  Bolton

  0

  5

  3

  0

  8

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Manchester

  5

  4

  3

  6

  18

  Oldham

  0

  4

  5

  3

  12

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  18

  18

  Salford

  2

  3

  5

  13

  23

  Stockport

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  Tameside

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Trafford

  1

  3

  2

  0

  6

  Wigan

  1

  2

  0

  0

  3

  Cheshire

  2

  17

  4

  0

  23

  Lancashire

  4

  18

  26

  20

  68

  North West

  17

  73

  70

  71

  231

  Derbyshire

  0

  17

  5

  13

  35

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  1

  11

  12

  Lincolnshire

  0

  5

  4

  22

  31

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  17

  8

  11

  40

  East Midlands

  4

  39

  18

  59

  120

  Birmingham

  6

  37

  49

  9

  101

  Coventry

  1

  5

  12

  5

  23

  Dudley

  2

  6

  16

  0

  24

  Sandwell

  1

  5

  1

  4

  11

  Solihull

  1

  3

  8

  0

  12

  Walsall

  0

  2

  1

  2

  5

  Wolverhampton

  0

  2

  3

  2

  7

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  9

  1

  3

  13

  Shropshire

  0

  1

  1

  10

  12

  Staffordshire

  3

  12

  11

  26

  56

  Warwickshire

  1

  7

  9

  8

  25

  West Midlands

  15

  89

  112

  69

  285

  758 759

  Nursery

  Infant

  Junior

  More than one group

  Total

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  12

  9

  0

  21

  Norfolk

  0

  6

  6

  1

  13

  Suffolk

  1

  3

  6

  0

  10

  East Anglia

  1

  21

  21

  1

  44

  (2) Nursery and primary vacancies 1988 (numbers)

  Nursery

  Infant

  Junior

  More than one group

  Total

  Barking

  5

  22

  15

  0

  42

  Barnet

  2

  15

  14

  1

  12

  Bexley

  0

  4

  1

  8

  13

  Brent

  2

  11

  9

  0

  22

  Bromley

  0

  8

  4

  0

  12

  Croydon

  0

  10

  12

  0

  22

  Ealing

  1

  35

  16

  21

  73

  Enfield

  0

  12

  19

  2

  33

  Haringey

  8

  28

  13

  9

  58

  Harrow

  0

  0

  5

  0

  5

  Havering

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Hillingdon

  3

  19

  5

  0

  27

  Hounslow

  2

  2

  4

  2

  10

  Kingston

  0

  1

  1

  2

  4

  Merton

  3

  4

  2

  1

  10

  Newham

  17

  55

  73

  0

  145

  Redbridge

  1

  6

  6

  1

  14

  Richmond

  0

  1

  3

  2

  6

  Sutton

  3

  2

  10

  0

  15

  ILEA

  30

  145

  185

  79

  439

  South East Greater London1

  77

  383

  399

  129

  988

  Bedfordshire

  8

  5

  6

  4

  23

  Berkshire

  1

  16

  7

  0

  24

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  7

  5

  7

  19

  East Sussex

  0

  1

  4

  0

  5

  Essex

  1

  22

  31

  11

  65

  Hampshire

  1

  21

  25

  11

  58

  Hertfordshire

  2

  17

  14

  8

  41

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  2

  10

  11

  18

  41

  Oxfordshire

  0

  6

  9

  0

  15

  Surrey

  0

  11

  34

  0

  45

  West Sussex

  0

  14

  13

  2

  29

  Other South East

  15

  130

  159

  61

  365

  Avon

  1

  10

  4

  4

  19

  Cornwall

  1

  10

  9

  5

  25

  Devon

  1

  11

  44

  8

  64

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  2

  1

  6

  9

  Somerset

  0

  10

  3

  12

  25

  Wiltshire

  0

  4

  5

  18

  27

  South West

  3

  47

  66

  53

  169

  Clwyd

  0

  0

  0

  8

  8

  Dyfed

  0

  1

  5

  0

  6

  Gwent

  1

  13

  24

  14

  52

  Gwynedd

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Mid-Glamorgan

  5

  25

  36

  3

  69

  Powys

  0

  2

  1

  3

  6

  South Glamorgan

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wales

  6

  42

  67

  29

  144

  Total England and Wales1

  155

  884

  965

  540

  2,544

  1 Regional and national totals include estimated figures in respect of Waltham Forest LEA who did not provide vacancies data for this year.

  760 761

  Table 3

  (1) Nursery and Primary vacancies 1989 (numbers)

  Nursery

  Infant

  Junior

  More than one group

  Total

  Gateshead

  0

  1

  3

  13

  17

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5

  5

  4

  18

  32

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  2

  6

  8

  Cleveland

  2

  2

  0

  2

  6

  Cumbria

  1

  3

  3

  4

  11

  Durham

  2

  2

  3

  5

  12

  Northumberland

  0

  4

  0

  2

  6

  North

  10

  17

  15

  50

  92

  Barnsley

  0

  3

  0

  1

  4

  Doncaster

  1

  2

  0

  11

  14

  Rotherham

  0

  4

  6

  5

  15

  Sheffield

  2

  4

  3

  0

  9

  Bradford

  2

  4

  0

  11

  17

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  4

  1

  5

  Kirklees

  0

  4

  1

  4

  9

  Leeds

  0

  2

  3

  32

  37

  Wakefield

  2

  15

  11

  7

  35

  Humberside

  0

  14

  6

  2

  22

  North Yorkshire

  1

  11

  8

  13

  33

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8

  63

  42

  87

  200

  Knowsley

  1

  0

  2

  0

  3

  Liverpool

  0

  14

  3

  2

  19

  St. Helens

  0

  1

  2

  0

  3

  Sefton

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Wirral

  0

  4

  4

  0

  8

  Bolton

  1

  5

  4

  0

  10

  Bury

  0

  3

  0

  4

  7

  Manchester

  4

  5

  2

  19

  30

  Oldham

  0

  5

  1

  0

  6

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  24

  24

  Salford

  0

  15

  13

  8

  36

  Stockport

  0

  3

  4

  0

  7

  Tameside

  1

  11

  6

  3

  21

  Trafford

  0

  3

  3

  2

  8

  Wigan

  0

  1

  4

  3

  8

  Cheshire

  1

  10

  0

  0

  11

  Lancashire

  7

  34

  37

  27

  105

  North West

  16

  114

  85

  92

  307

  Derbyshire

  5

  8

  11

  11

  35

  Leicestershire

  3

  3

  4

  6

  16

  Lincolnshire

  0

  3

  3

  21

  27

  Northamptonshire

  0

  3

  3

  0

  6

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  11

  24

  18

  61

  East Midlands

  11

  26

  50

  56

  145

  Birmingham

  5

  24

  50

  2

  81

  Coventry

  1

  6

  5

  2

  14

  Dudley

  2

  20

  18

  2

  42

  Sandwell

  0

  2

  3

  5

  10

  Solihull

  1

  13

  5

  5

  24

  Walsall

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Wolverhampton

  1

  2

  2

  5

  10

  Hereford and Worcester

  1

  12

  0

  5

  18

  Shropshire

  1

  1

  2

  4

  8

  Staffordshire

  0

  2

  6

  2

  10

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  West Midlands

  12

  82

  92

  36

  222

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  6

  8

  7

  22

  Norfolk

  0

  2

  7

  2

  11

  Suffolk

  0

  3

  7

  4

  14

  East Anglia

  1

  11

  22

  13

  47

  762 763

  (2) Nursery and Primary Vacancies 1989 (Numbers)

  Nursery

  Infant

  Junior

  More than one group

  Total

  Barking

  2

  13

  17

  9

  41

  Barnet

  1

  14

  17

  0

  32

  Bexley

  0

  4

  6

  0

  10

  Brent

  5

  6

  3

  4

  18

  Bromley

  0

  2

  3

  1

  6

  Croydon

  0

  7

  13

  0

  20

  Ealing

  1

  31

  35

  31

  98

  Enfield

  1

  23

  25

  0

  49

  Haringey

  18

  41

  46

  1

  106

  Harrow

  0

  4

  4

  0

  8

  Havering

  0

  16

  7

  19

  42

  Hillingdon

  2

  16

  13

  0

  31

  Hounslow

  2

  6

  6

  1

  15

  Kingston

  0

  3

  3

  1

  7

  Merton

  3

  9

  4

  5

  21

  Newham

  23

  48

  65

  0

  136

  Redbridge

  0

  9

  15

  2

  26

  Richmond

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sutton

  0

  3

  3

  7

  13

  Waltham Forest

  5

  16

  16

  13

  50

  ILEA

  45

  208

  218

  105

  576

  South East Greater London

  108

  479

  519

  199

  1,305

  Bedfordshire

  14

  28

  10

  10

  62

  Berkshire

  3

  22

  10

  19

  54

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  14

  16

  9

  40

  East Sussex

  0

  16

  23

  0

  39

  Essex

  0

  9

  16

  29

  54

  Hampshire

  0

  32

  39

  13

  84

  Hertfordshire

  4

  24

  21

  11

  60

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  1

  23

  39

  21

  84

  Oxfordshire

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Surrey

  3

  33

  48

  7

  91

  West Sussex

  0

  20

  5

  22

  47

  Other South East

  26

  223

  227

  141

  617

  Avon

  0

  7

  4

  3

  14

  Cornwall

  1

  8

  16

  1

  26

  Devon

  1

  19

  27

  13

  60

  Dorset

  0

  6

  4

  0

  10

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  7

  2

  26

  35

  Wiltshire

  0

  12

  5

  19

  36

  South West

  2

  59

  58

  62

  181

  Clwyd

  1

  5

  2

  9

  17

  Dyfed

  0

  1

  3

  0

  4

  Gwent

  1

  8

  14

  23

  46

  Gwynedd

  0

  0

  0

  8

  8

  Mid-Glamorgan

  0

  29

  26

  35

  90

  Powys

  0

  2

  1

  2

  5

  South Glamorgan

  1

  1

  3

  6

  11

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wales

  3

  46

  49

  83

  181

  Total England and Wales

  197

  1,122

  1,159

  819

  3,297

  Table 4

  (i)

  Secondary Vacancies 1987 (Numbers)

  Maths

  Sci

  Lang

  Engl

  H.G.SS

  CDt. C&A

  Music

  P.E.

  Rem.

  Others

  Total

  Gateshead

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  1

  4

  0

  1

  4

  0

  0

  1

  2

  6

  19

  North Tyneside

  1

  2

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  2

  1

  2

  12

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  2

  3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  8

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  1

  2

  3

  2

  3

  3

  1

  0

  0

  7

  22

  Durham

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  764 765

  Maths

  Sci

  Lang

  Engl

  H.G.SS

  CDt. C&A

  Music

  P.E.

  Rem.

  Others

  Total

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North

  7

  15

  4

  5

  10

  4

  1

  4

  3

  18

  71

  Barnsley

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  Doncaster

  0

  2

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  11

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Sheffield

  4

  2

  4

  4

  3

  2

  1

  0

  3

  5

  28

  Bradford

  1

  5

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  14

  Calderdale

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  7

  Kirklees

  2

  3

  0

  3

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  5

  17

  Leeds

  12

  22

  12

  15

  12

  11

  8

  21

  14

  27

  154

  Wakefield

  5

  4

  1

  6

  2

  0

  0

  4

  1

  17

  40

  Humberside

  5

  3

  2

  2

  2

  5

  1

  2

  1

  5

  28

  North Yorkshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  30

  44

  23

  34

  21

  20

  13

  32

  20

  70

  307

  Knowsley

  2

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  1

  1

  10

  Liverpool

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  5

  St. Helens

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Sefton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  Wirral

  4

  3

  2

  5

  3

  3

  1

  1

  1

  4

  27

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  2

  7

  2

  3

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  5

  23

  Oldham

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  Rochdale

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Salford

  3

  3

  2

  1

  3

  1

  2

  1

  0

  7

  23

  Stockport

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  7

  Tameside

  4

  5

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  15

  Trafford

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Wigan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  2

  4

  3

  3

  0

  8

  3

  1

  1

  6

  31

  Lancashire

  9

  7

  5

  4

  7

  8

  2

  1

  0

  14

  57

  North West

  35

  35

  20

  18

  15

  26

  14

  9

  4

  43

  219

  Derbyshire

  7

  7

  3

  9

  3

  9

  2

  8

  3

  28

  79

  Leicestershire

  4

  8

  7

  7

  5

  6

  0

  5

  0

  19

  61

  Lincolnshire

  1

  6

  4

  4

  1

  3

  1

  3

  1

  5

  29

  Northamptonshire

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  5

  5

  7

  6

  4

  6

  6

  1

  11

  59

  East Midlands

  21

  28

  20

  27

  16

  24

  9

  22

  5

  63

  235

  Birmingham

  10

  4

  7

  8

  4

  6

  4

  5

  1

  30

  79

  Coventry

  3

  1

  2

  2

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  14

  Dudley

  1

  2

  1

  1

  3

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  13

  Sandwell

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  0

  1

  7

  14

  Solihull

  2

  3

  2

  3

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  18

  Walsall

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  3

  2

  0

  5

  15

  Wolverhampton

  1

  3

  0

  4

  1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  2

  15

  Hereford and Worcester

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  0

  2

  2

  3

  19

  Shropshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Staffordshire

  7

  4

  2

  1

  3

  1

  2

  9

  0

  9

  38

  Warwickshire

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  4

  12

  West Midlands

  28

  22

  18

  23

  21

  13

  17

  22

  7

  68

  239

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  4

  0

  1

  8

  Norfolk

  1

  3

  4

  3

  5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  21

  Suffolk

  4

  3

  3

  4

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  3

  24

  East Anglia

  5

  7

  7

  8

  8

  3

  1

  5

  1

  8

  53

  Secondary Vacancies 1987 (Numbers)

  Maths

  Science

  Language

  English

  N.G.SS

  CDT. C and A

  Music

  P.E.

  Remedial

  Others

  Total

  Barking

  5

  2

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  3

  2

  3

  19

  Barnet

  4

  9

  2

  3

  7

  3

  1

  6

  1

  14

  50

  Bexley

  2

  4

  1

  4

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  6

  21

  Bromley

  4

  7

  1

  9

  5

  7

  0

  6

  1

  12

  52

  Croydon

  2

  3

  5

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  17

  Ealing

  6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  2

  14

  766 767

  Maths

  Science

  Language

  English

  N.G.SS

  CDT. C and A

  Music

  P.E.

  Remedial

  Others

  Total

  Enfield

  6

  5

  3

  2

  4

  3

  0

  2

  0

  10

  35

  Haringey

  3

  6

  0

  1

  1

  3

  0

  2

  1

  2

  19

  Harrow

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  3

  10

  Havering

  3

  2

  2

  6

  2

  2

  1

  2

  0

  7

  27

  Hillingdon

  2

  2

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  10

  Hounslow

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  8

  Kingston

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  Merton

  0

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  9

  Newham

  9

  9

  4

  5

  5

  5

  1

  4

  1

  13

  56

  Redbridge

  3

  3

  0

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  2

  14

  Richmond

  1

  4

  1

  0

  1

  4

  0

  2

  1

  2

  16

  Sutton

  3

  3

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  14

  Waltham Forest

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  ILEA

  30

  48

  20

  36

  42

  43

  15

  22

  26

  99

  381

  South East Greater London1

  90

  117

  46

  83

  76

  90

  21

  58

  35

  197

  813

  Bedfordshire

  8

  3

  4

  1

  3

  3

  1

  6

  0

  9

  38

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  5

  9

  4

  0

  1

  4

  6

  3

  1

  16

  49

  East Sussex

  3

  2

  0

  2

  1

  3

  1

  0

  1

  3

  16

  Essex

  9

  4

  1

  7

  5

  4

  1

  5

  4

  10

  50

  Hampshire

  8

  9

  2

  1

  2

  9

  2

  2

  4

  18

  57

  Hertfordshire

  7

  3

  5

  2

  4

  7

  2

  7

  1

  6

  44

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  21

  14

  6

  12

  9

  13

  2

  3

  2

  9

  91

  Oxfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  8

  Surrey

  5

  8

  5

  5

  1

  4

  2

  2

  0

  4

  36

  West Sussex

  4

  4

  0

  1

  0

  4

  0

  1

  2

  7

  23

  Other South East

  71

  57

  28

  31

  28

  52

  17

  29

  16

  83

  412

  Avon

  4

  7

  4

  0

  4

  2

  3

  3

  3

  5

  35

  Cornwall

  1

  3

  2

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  7

  18

  Devon

  4

  3

  6

  2

  5

  5

  2

  3

  1

  10

  41

  Dorset

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  Gloucestershire

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  6

  Somerset

  2

  1

  1

  3

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  14

  Wiltshire

  10

  10

  2

  1

  1

  3

  1

  2

  5

  7

  42

  South West

  23

  27

  15

  9

  13

  11

  8

  8

  13

  32

  159

  Clwyd

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Dyfed

  0

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  8

  Gwent

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  Gwynedd

  2

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  9

  Mid-Glamorgan

  2

  5

  3

  3

  2

  2

  2

  1

  5

  9

  34

  Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  3

  3

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  13

  Wales

  7

  10

  8

  10

  5

  2

  3

  3

  6

  15

  69

  Total England and Wales1

  317

  362

  189

  248

  213

  245

  104

  192

  110

  597

  2,577

  1 Regional and national totals include estimated figures in respect of Brent LEA who did not provide vacancies data for this year.

  Table 5

  (1)

  Secondary vacancies 1988 (Numbers)

  H &D

  Maths

  Sci.

  Lang.

  Engl.

  H.G. SS

  CDT C&A

  Music

  P.E.

  Rem.

  Others

  Total

  Gateshead

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  North Tyneside

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  7

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  5

  Cleveland

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  Cumbria

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North

  4

  4

  2

  4

  2

  1

  2

  3

  1

  7

  2

  32

  Barnsley

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  768 769

  (1)

  Secondary vacancies 1988 (Numbers)

  H &D

  Maths

  Sci.

  Lang.

  Engl.

  H.G. SS

  CDT C & A

  Music

  P.E.

  Rem.

  Others

  Total

  Doncaster

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  8

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  Sheffied

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  2

  6

  Bradford

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  1

  9

  Calderdale

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  12

  Kirklees

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  7

  Leeds

  2

  5

  1

  5

  2

  5

  0

  2

  2

  5

  6

  35

  Wakefield

  4

  2

  0

  4

  3

  2

  3

  4

  0

  10

  3

  35

  Humberside

  2

  3

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  12

  North Yorkshire

  2

  3

  3

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  1

  5

  2

  23

  York and Humberside

  14

  18

  6

  17

  11

  10

  8

  11

  6

  36

  16

  153

  Knowsley

  0

  2

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  10

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  St. Helens

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  10

  Sefton

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Wirral

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  0

  8

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Machester

  3

  4

  3

  5

  1

  0

  1

  2

  2

  9

  0

  30

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  Rochdale

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  11

  Salford

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  4

  0

  1

  2

  3

  2

  20

  Stockport

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  6

  Tameside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Trafford

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Wigan

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  5

  Cheshire

  1

  6

  2

  1

  2

  4

  1

  2

  1

  8

  3

  31

  Lancashire

  7

  13

  10

  8

  3

  5

  0

  4

  1

  12

  5

  68

  North West

  21

  33

  21

  19

  11

  16

  6

  16

  7

  41

  22

  213

  Derbyshire

  3

  3

  0

  6

  5

  2

  3

  3

  0

  5

  7

  37

  Leicestershire

  3

  6

  4

  0

  4

  3

  3

  2

  2

  9

  2

  38

  Lincolnshire

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  1

  0

  3

  5

  23

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  2

  3

  5

  2

  1

  4

  6

  2

  11

  6

  43

  East Midlands

  10

  15

  9

  15

  14

  7

  12

  12

  4

  28

  20

  146

  Birmingham

  2

  7

  5

  9

  6

  2

  3

  2

  7

  21

  9

  73

  Coventry

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Dudley

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  11

  0

  18

  Solihull

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  5

  Walsall

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  6

  Wolverhampton

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  2

  0

  8

  Hereford and Worcester

  3

  3

  4

  2

  3

  1

  1

  4

  0

  3

  2

  26

  Shropshire

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  Staffordshire

  4

  2

  10

  4

  0

  0

  0

  8

  0

  1

  0

  29

  Warwickshire

  0

  3

  1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

  3

  1

  14

  West Midlands

  11

  20

  26

  23

  11

  5

  6

  18

  13

  47

  13

  193

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  17

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  6

  Suffolk

  0

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  5

  3

  7

  2

  26

  East Anglia

  3

  4

  3

  2

  3

  4

  6

  7

  4

  9

  4

  49

  Secondary vacancies 1988 (numbers)

  (2)

  H and D

  Maths

  Science

  Lang.

  English

  H.G. SS

  CDT. C and A

  Music

  P.E.

  Rem.

  Others

  Total

  Barking

  2

  3

  1

  6

  2

  0

  1

  4

  0

  3

  0

  22

  Barnet

  5

  11

  2

  3

  2

  4

  1

  2

  1

  14

  0

  45

  Bexley

  1

  5

  1

  1

  1

  3

  1

  1

  0

  5

  0

  19

  Brent

  2

  3

  3

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  5

  24

  Bromley

  2

  2

  0

  3

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  3

  17

  Croydon

  1

  4

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  9

  Ealing

  1

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  6

  0

  17

  Enfield

  8

  5

  0

  2

  2

  4

  0

  1

  1

  10

  0

  33

  Haringey

  1

  5

  1

  2

  1

  3

  0

  1

  1

  8

  1

  24

  770 771

  Hand D

  Maths

  Science

  Lang.

  English

  H.G. SS

  CDT. C and A

  Music

  P.E.

  Rem.

  Others

  Total

  Harrow

  2

  0

  2

  2

  1

  6

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  15

  Havering

  3

  1

  0

  3

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  11

  Hillingdon

  2

  3

  3

  3

  1

  3

  2

  2

  0

  5

  0

  24

  Hounslow

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  4

  Kingston

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  6

  Merton

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  3

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  13

  Newham

  5

  8

  4

  5

  3

  7

  2

  5

  0

  12

  2

  53

  Redbridge

  4

  5

  1

  1

  2

  3

  0

  2

  0

  3

  0

  21

  Richmond

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  Sutton

  2

  6

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  15

  ILEA

  29

  22

  15

  15

  23

  34

  11

  18

  17

  75

  21

  280

  1South East Greater London

  71

  90

  39

  57

  49

  73

  19

  39

  27

  157

  39

  660

  Bedfordshire

  6

  9

  4

  3

  2

  3

  0

  1

  0

  4

  5

  37

  Berkshire

  1

  4

  0

  5

  6

  5

  0

  0

  1

  5

  2

  29

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  2

  4

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  8

  26

  East Sussex

  3

  3

  1

  2

  1

  3

  2

  0

  1

  3

  0

  9

  Essex

  8

  14

  8

  5

  7

  3

  2

  2

  3

  13

  4

  69

  Hampshire

  9

  5

  3

  10

  3

  3

  2

  3

  1

  9

  0

  48

  Hertfordshire

  9

  4

  6

  5

  3

  3

  5

  3

  0

  13

  3

  54

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  15

  11

  3

  11

  3

  7

  4

  7

  0

  9

  5

  75

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Surrey

  2

  5

  0

  3

  6

  0

  1

  3

  0

  5

  0

  25

  West Sussex

  1

  6

  3

  2

  1

  4

  0

  0

  1

  5

  4

  27

  Other South East

  56

  63

  32

  49

  33

  31

  16

  19

  7

  72

  31

  409

  Avon

  2

  0

  2

  3

  2

  3

  3

  3

  0

  4

  8

  30

  Cornwall

  1

  0

  0

  5

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  10

  Devon

  6

  7

  4

  3

  4

  2

  5

  5

  1

  12

  3

  52

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Somerset

  1

  4

  4

  3

  2

  2

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  20

  Wiltshire

  5

  4

  1

  3

  0

  3

  0

  2

  1

  3

  1

  23

  South West

  15

  16

  12

  18

  9

  12

  8

  12

  5

  20

  13

  140

  Clwyd

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Dyfed

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  4

  Gwent

  0

  3

  3

  5

  0

  4

  1

  0

  1

  4

  4

  25

  Gwynedd

  3

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  11

  Mid-Glamorgan

  3

  6

  5

  5

  4

  2

  0

  2

  3

  2

  0

  32

  Powys

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  11

  South Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  West Glamorgan

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  Wales

  6

  14

  14

  14

  5

  11

  2

  3

  5

  13

  4

  91

  1Total England and Wales

  211

  277

  164

  218

  148

  170

  85

  140

  79

  430

  164

  2,086

  1 Regional and national totals include estimated figures in respect of Waltham Forest LEA who did not provide vacancies data for this year.

  Table 6

  Secondary vacancies 1989 (numbers)

  (1)

  H and D

  Maths

  Science

  Lang.

  English

  H.G.SS.

  CDT. C and A

  Music

  P.E.

  Rem.

  Others

  Total

  Gatehead

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  7

  0

  14

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1

  0

  1

  2

  4

  1

  2

  0

  1

  3

  2

  18

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  Cleveland

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  6

  Cumbria

  0

  5

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  11

  Durham

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  5

  North

  3

  10

  6

  5

  5

  2

  3

  3

  2

  16

  7

  62

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  772

  773

  H and D

  Maths

  Science

  Lang.

  English

  H.G.SS.

  CDT. C and A

  Music

  P.E.

  Rem.

  Others

  Total

  Doncaster

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

  8

  Rotherham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  4

  1

  17

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  Bradford

  1

  1

  1

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  11

  Calderdale

  0

  2

  0

  1

  2

  3

  2

  2

  0

  2

  1

  15

  Kirkless

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  7

  6

  21

  Leeds

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  3

  1

  0

  5

  9

  24

  Wakefield

  1

  3

  3

  4

  8

  2

  1

  4

  0

  6

  3

  35

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  7

  North Yorkshire

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  4

  2

  13

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7

  14

  9

  15

  14

  12

  11

  12

  2

  34

  25

  155

  Knowsley

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  St. Helens

  0

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Sefton

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Wirral

  2

  3

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  11

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Bury

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  7

  Manchester

  1

  3

  2

  2

  1

  2

  0

  3

  1

  4

  6

  25

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Rochdale

  1

  3

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  9

  Salford

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  9

  0

  22

  Stockport

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  7

  Tameside

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  12

  17

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Wigan

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cheshire

  1

  5

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  13

  Lanchashire

  8

  7

  9

  15

  6

  9

  2

  5

  6

  9

  12

  88

  North West

  20

  33

  18

  26

  12

  16

  8

  13

  8

  30

  35

  219

  Derbyshire

  2

  2

  7

  2

  5

  0

  1

  3

  8

  7

  4

  41

  Liecestershire

  3

  4

  3

  1

  4

  2

  0

  1

  0

  6

  4

  28

  Lincolnshire

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  0

  1

  4

  25

  Northamptonshire

  0

  l

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  5

  4

  7

  3

  2

  4

  3

  2

  7

  6

  47

  East Midlands

  12

  15

  17

  13

  14

  6

  7

  9

  10

  23

  17

  145

  Birmingham

  10

  9

  5

  14

  1

  5

  0

  6

  0

  31

  26

  107

  Coventry

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  1

  1

  10

  Dudley

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  2

  0

  6

  Sandwell

  2

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  5

  0

  15

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Walsall

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Wolverhampton

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  6

  3

  14

  Hereford and Worcester

  5

  6

  3

  4

  1

  3

  0

  4

  0

  6

  0

  32

  Shropshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Staffordshire

  7

  8

  7

  0

  5

  2

  2

  3

  0

  5

  1

  40

  Warwickshire

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  20

  29

  West Midlands

  26

  27

  25

  23

  8

  12

  6

  21

  3

  59

  52

  262

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  2

  4

  3

  3

  17

  Norfolk

  2

  2

  1

  0

  4

  1

  2

  1

  1

  5

  1

  20

  Suffolk

  1

  4

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  3

  3

  4

  1

  22

  East Anglia

  4

  6

  2

  2

  5

  2

  7

  6

  8

  12

  5

  59

  agesages

  Secondary vacancies 1989 (numbers)

  H. and D.

  Maths.

  Science

  Languages

  English

  E. G. SS

  CDT. C&A

  Music

  P.E.

  Remedial

  Others

  Total

  Barking

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  1

  3

  0

  10

  Barnet

  1

  10

  6

  5

  5

  5

  1

  2

  0

  14

  4

  53

  Bexley

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  5

  1

  21

  Brent

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  3

  3

  14

  Bromley

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  Croydon

  3

  7

  1

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  6

  1

  19

  Ealing

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  7

  2

  18

  Enfield

  7

  5

  1

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  6

  0

  23

  Haringey

  1

  3

  1

  3

  1

  3

  3

  3

  1

  2

  1

  22

  774 775

  H and D.

  Maths.

  Science

  Languages

  English

  E. G. ss

  CDT. C&A

  Music

  P.E.

  Remedial

  Others

  Total

  Harrow

  0

  2

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  8

  Havering

  0

  1

  2

  1

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  9

  Hillingdon

  6

  2

  4

  5

  2

  2

  0

  1

  1

  4

  0

  27

  Hounslow

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  9

  Kingston

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Merton

  2

  2

  1

  2

  7

  3

  0

  2

  3

  3

  1

  26

  Newham

  4

  10

  6

  4

  3

  6

  1

  3

  5

  13

  3

  58

  Redbridge

  4

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  10

  Richmond

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Sutton

  1

  3

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  8

  Waltham Forest

  2

  0

  5

  4

  2

  6

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  25

  ILEA

  50

  62

  53

  53

  32

  27

  16

  32

  20

  82

  25

  452

  SE Gt. London

  89

  111

  86

  89

  62

  64

  29

  53

  34

  157

  45

  819

  Bedfordshire

  10

  11

  3

  2

  4

  7

  1

  8

  0

  5

  4

  55

  Berkshire

  5

  3

  2

  4

  2

  5

  1

  1

  0

  11

  3

  37

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  2

  5

  4

  3

  1

  2

  2

  2

  1

  7

  33

  East Sussex

  7

  2

  5

  3

  3

  4

  3

  1

  4

  3

  0

  35

  Essex

  7

  11

  9

  7

  6

  7

  1

  6

  1

  8

  6

  69

  Hampshire

  7

  5

  5

  5

  3

  5

  1

  2

  3

  8

  6

  50

  Hertfordshire

  4

  7

  8

  6

  1

  3

  2

  2

  1

  9

  6

  49

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  22

  16

  6

  13

  16

  12

  9

  7

  6

  18

  15

  140

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  7

  Surrey

  6

  5

  6

  3

  3

  5

  2

  4

  0

  6

  0

  40

  West Sussex

  5

  2

  7

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  3

  3

  27

  Other South East

  77

  64

  56

  49

  45

  50

  24

  33

  18

  72

  54

  542

  Avon

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  7

  Cornwall

  3

  1

  7

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  1

  21

  Devon

  5

  5

  9

  6

  3

  2

  2

  3

  1

  23

  3

  62

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  5

  5

  5

  5

  2

  3

  3

  6

  0

  4

  0

  38

  Wiltshire

  4

  3

  1

  5

  0

  3

  1

  1

  2

  10

  2

  32

  South West

  17

  15

  23

  19

  5

  8

  6

  12

  4

  41

  11

  161

  Clwyd

  2

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  9

  Dyfed

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Gwent

  0

  2

  3

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  15

  Gwynedd

  2

  3

  2

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  2

  16

  Mid-Glamorgan

  1

  4

  4

  5

  5

  3

  0

  3

  0

  8

  2

  35

  Powys

  1

  1

  4

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  11

  South Glamorgan

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  West Glamorgan

  1

  1

  4

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  12

  Wales

  8

  15

  19

  12

  10

  8

  2

  3

  1

  16

  11

  105

  Total England and Wales

  263

  310

  261

  253

  180

  180

  103

  156

  90

  460

  264

  2,529

ENERGY

  Atomic Energy
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with officials of the European Atomic Energy Agency in advance of the setting of the safeguards budget set out in chapter 71 of the Official Journal of the European Communities, volume 33.

  Mr. Baldry
  The established procedures involving both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament provide ample opportunity for consultation on all aspects of the EC budget, including safeguards.

  Nuclear Electric
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the reason for the allocation to Nuclear Electric of sites at Pembroke, Druridge bay, Denver, and the Maentwrog hydroelectric station in north Wales.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under section 66 of the Electricity Act 1989, the CEGB is required to make a scheme for the 776
  allocation of all its assets to its successor companies. The scheme, presently being prepared by the CEGB, will include unused sites.

  I am advised that only part of the site at Pembroke is to be allocated to Nuclear Electric. Maentwrog hydro-electric station is to be allocated to Nuclear Electric for operational reasons associated with the use of cooling water from the adjacent reservoir of Trawsfynydd power station.

  Nuclear Waste Transport
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to ensure that no foreign nuclear waste or spent fuel is transported through Leeds; and if he will make it his policy to prohibit the import of foreign nuclear waste or spent fuel into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  The movement of all radioactive materials must be made in compliance with national and international regulations which require safety both in
  777
  normal operations and in the event of any transport accident. Safety does not depend on the choice of route used, which is a matter for the carrier.

  Nuclear wastes are not imported into the United Kingdom. As regards the import of spent fuel, I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 26 February 1990 at column 98.

  Energy Conservation
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what amount of the energy conservation budget he allocates to the promotion of competition in the market for production of methods of conserving energy.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The market in energy efficiency goods and services is already highly competitive. Hence the Energy Efficiency Office does not allocate funds for the specific purpose of promoting competition.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras of 5 February,Official Report, column
  778
  457, when he wrote to the Electricity Council and the Central Electricity Generating Board drawing the question to their attention.

  Mr. Wakeham
  An official from my Department wrote to the Electricity Council and the CEGB on 5 February 1990.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which stations have been fitted with low-sulphur electrostatic precipitators and for what reasons.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am advised that all National Power and PowerGen coal fired power stations have electrostatic precipitators fitted which enable their plant to burn a proportion of low-sulphur coal.

  The CEGB have been working for many years with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on a programme to enhance the performance of their precipitators. This programme is being continued by National Power and PowerGen.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin),Official Report, 26 February, column 96, he will publish the dates and places for the planned regional CHP marketing to which he refers.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The following is a preliminary and provisional list of planned CHP marketing events.

  Year 1990–91

  Month

  Region

  May

  Yorkshire and North West

  June

  Scotland and West Midlands

  July

  South East

  September

  Scotland and South West

  October

  South West and Not Decided

  November

  Yorkshire and Not Decided

  December

  West Midlands

  January

  Wales

  February

  South East

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total in megawatts capacity of renewable sources of energy, under the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Bids from sponsors of renewables-sourced generating projects for contracting under the non-fossil fuel obligation amount to between 1 and 2 GW of capacity. However, the level of the obligation in respect of renewables will not be determined until it is clear, in the light of consultations, how many of these projects are ready to go forward.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land (Access Rights)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many representations he has received on the issue of the non-existence of general rights of access to neighbouring land.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor receives approximately 40 representations each year from the public and members of Parliament on the subject of rights of access to neighbouring land.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he intends to implement the findings of the Law Commission published in December 1985 on the rights of access to neighbouring land in Law Commission paper No. 151.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Law Commission in its report on rights of access to neighbouring land. It is intended to implement them when resources and parliamentary time allow.

  Law Commission
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the reports published by the Law Commission for each year since 1979, indicating whether any recommendations in each report have been implemented.

  The Attorney-General
  Appendix 3 to the "Law Commission's Twenty-fourth Annual Report for 1989" (Law Com. No. 190), published on 28 February 1990, contains a complete list of all the commission's reports, including those published since 1979 to date. The right-hand column of appendix 3 shows the extent to which the recommendations in each report have been implemented by legislation.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish in the Official Report the costs incurred by the Law Commission for each year since 1979.

  The Attorney-General
  The figures for the cost of the Law Commission prior to November 1982 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Law Commission has published a table showing the cost of the commission in each annual report since its 18th annual report for 1982–83. The figures are as follows:

  £

  1982–1983

  1,819,600

  1983–1984

  1,889,800

  1984–1985

  1,886,200

  1985–1986

  1,986,600

  1986–1987

  2,062,300

  1987–1988

  2,034,600

  1988

  2,123,500

  1989

  2,248,200

  Notes:

  1. The first six of these figures relate to the period from 1st November in one year to 31st October in the following year. The figures for 1988 and 1989 are for the calendar years.

  2. Each of these figures includes an element for the cost incurred by the Lord Chancellor's Department in the administration of the Law Commission.

  3. These figures do not include the salary of the chairman of the Law Commission who, as a High Court judge, is paid directly out of the Consolidated Fund.

  4. The cost for 1984–85 is the amended figure given in the annual report for 1985–86, and excludes the pensions of former Law Commissioners. They are also excluded from the figures for subsequent years. They are however included in the figures for 1982–83 and 1983–84.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Africa
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table showing the flow of gains and losses in income for Africa, taking account of development assistance, private lending, debt service payments and commodity price changes, for each year since 1985 to the current year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Figures for the whole of Africa are not available, as north Africa and the middle east are treated as a single region by the main organisations compiling such data. Figures for sub-Saharan Africa are as follows:
  781

  A. Net resource flows1

  $ billion

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Official development finance2

  12·1

  15·4

  18·1

  20·4

  Export credits

  1·1

  -0·1

  -0·2

  0·6

  Private flows3

  1·6

  4·2

  4·0

  4·2

  Total net resource flows

  14·8

  19·5

  21·9

  25·2

  Interest payments4

  2·9

  2·6

  3·1

  3·5

  Net financial transfer

  11·9

  16·9

  18·8

  21·7

  Source: OECD: 1988 survey of finance and external debt of developing countries.

  B. Trade5

  $ billion

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Exports

  31·9

  28·3

  28·5

  n/a

  Imports

  28·0

  29·2

  32·5

  n/a

  Source: World Bank World Development Reports, 1987, 1988, 1989.

  1 Total gross resource flows less capital repayments.

  2 Bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (ODA), plus other official development finance.

  3 International bank lending, direct investment, grants by non-governmental organisations, plus other private investment.

  4 Interest payments on long- and short-term credit (but not including capital repayments).

  5Includes intra-regional trade.

  All figures exclude South Africa which is not regarded by OECD as a developing country.

  COCOM
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent COCOM meeting.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The COCOM executive committee met on 14 and 15 February. It noted that the political and military environment for which the COCOM controls were devised is changing, and agreed to adapt COCOM's procedures and to accelerate streamlining of the controls, particularly in the sectors of machine tools, telecommunications and computers.

  The executive committee agreed that the time limits for consideration of cases submitted to COCOM should be reduced from 12 weeks to eight weeks; that working groups should prepare recommendations for liberalisation of the controls on machine tools, telecommunications and computers to be ready by the next COCOM policy meeting in June 1990; that that meeting would consider further priority sectors for changes to the controls; and that, separately, considerations would be given to whether relaxation could be introduced in return for reassurances against the diversion of strategically sensitive goods and technologies.

  Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Overseas Development Administration's future funding of the Liverpool school of tropical medicine.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As the authorities of the Liverpool school have been told, we are prepared to make a substantial increase in the level of financial support which the school receives from the aid programme. Its provision is subject to an agreement with the school on a set of work 782
  programmes to replace the present system of providing aid finance to cover the costs of the salaries of specific individuals and of specific units in the school.

  The work programmes are being designed by the school and will aim to make maximum use of their capacity to help address key health issues and problems in developing countries.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn,Official Report, 28 February, column 210, he will set out the dates on which the European Political Co-operation Committee's working group on nuclear non-proliferation met in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The working group on non-proliferation met on the following dates:

  7–8 February 1985

  9–10 May 1985

  15–16 October 1985

  7–8 November 1985

  26–27 March1986

  17–18 June 1986

  8–9 September 1986

  6–7 November 1986

  5–6 February1987

  21–22 May 1987

  10–11 September 1987

  18–19 November 1987

  18–19 February 1988

  19–20 May 1988

  14 September 1988

  12 December 1988

  16 February 1989

  26 May 1989

  8 September 1989

  15 December 1989

  31 January–1 February 1990

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn,Official Report, 28 February, column 210, on grant in aid provision for non-proliferation matters, he will set out the specific purposes to which he refers for which funding has been made available to the programme for promoting nuclear non-proliferation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Funding has been made available to the programme for promoting nuclear non-proliferation (PPNN) to meet part of the cost of a conference on issues likely to arise during the 1990 non-proliferation treaty review conference, and to assist with the production of documentation on the non-proliferation regime.

  UN Fund (Women)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations development fund for women in real and monetary terms, for every year since 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is as follows:
  783

  United Kingdom contributions to UN Development Fund for Women1 1975–1988

  £ thousand

  Year

  In current prices

  In constant 1988 prices

  1975

  10

  32

  1976

  200

  560

  1977

  —

  —

  1978

  —

  —

  1979

  200

  386

  1980

  200

  323

  1981

  —

  —

  1982

  —

  —

  1983

  —

  —

  1984

  —

  —

  1985

  100

  116

  1986

  50

  56

  1987

  50

  53

  1988

  50

  50

  21989

  50

  47

  1 Before to 1986 known as the Voluntary Fund for UN Decade for Women.

  2 Provisional.

  Women Staff
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply on 13 February,Official Report, column 131, if he will give a breakdown of the jobs held by the 18 per cent. of overseas Overseas Development Administration staff who are women; and what percentage of technical specialists working for the Overseas Development Administration overseas, and what percentage of agriculturalists, are women.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development's reply of 13 February noted that currently there are nine women members of the ODA
  serving overseas. They occupy the following positions:

  British Development Division in the Caribbean:

  Senior Economic Assistant

  Executive Officer

  British Development Division in Eastern Africa:

  Senior Economic Assistant

  British Development Division in Southern Africa:

  Head of Division (Grade 5)

  Senior Health and Population Adviser

  Senior Economic Assistant

  British Development Division in the Pacific:

  Head of Division (Grade 5)

  Executive Officer

  South East Asia Development Division:

  Higher Executive Officer

  Twenty-eight of the ODA's own staff overseas are technical specialists of whom four are women (14·3 per cent.). Within this group there are eight ODA agricultural specialists; none are women. One woman natural resources adviser from the ODA is currently on secondment to a technical co-operation assignment in Bangladesh.

  Overseas Projects (Women Beneficiaries)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number and percentage of overseas projects supported by the Overseas Development Administration in which 50 per cent. of intended beneficiaries are women.
  784
  Mr. Maude
  Assuming that the project area has a normal gender balance, about 50 per cent. of the beneficiaries, either directly or indirectly, of most overseas projects are women. The Overseas Development Administration has an integrated policy on women in development which takes account of the role of women in all aid activities.

  The ODA will be introducing the new statistical reporting system of OECD for women in development in 1990. This system has rigorous criteria for classifying projects which assist women but even this will not provide the data necessary to give a precise answer to this question.

  Training Programmes (Women Participants)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the number and percentage of women participating in the Overseas Development Administration training prgrammes in developing countries, in the United Kingdom, and in total, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  Gender-differentiated statistics on training in the United Kingdom under the aid programme are readily available from 1986 only. They show:

  Students and Trainees Financed in United Kingdom 1986–88

  Total

  Allocable by sex

  Total

  of which women

  Per cent, women

  Financed During:

  1986

  11,534

  11,070

  1,816

  16·4

  1987

  13,144

  13,144

  2,373

  18·1

  1988

  13,541

  13,541

  2,480

  18·3

  Equivalent data are not available for training provided in developing countries. From limited information for 1988–89, the proportion of women receiving in-country training appears to be significantly greater than the proportion receiving training in the United Kingdom under the aid programme.

  Ethiopia
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the fall of the port of Massawa, Her Majesty's Government will make it their policy to use the distribution network of the Relief Society of Tigray to distribute famine relief in those areas of Ethiopia under rebel control.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The fall of the port of Massawa is a serious blow to the relief effort and donors, including ourselves, are urgently considering the scope for maintaining and increasing the flow of relief supplies through all available channels.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 2 February,Official Report, column 404, if he will provide a breakdown by country, type and quantity of the ivory exported from Hong Kong since 1 June 1989.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: Between 1 June 1989 and 14 January 1990 the Hong Kong authorities issued licences for the export of ivory as follows:

  785

  Country

  Raw ivory (tonnes)

  Worked ivory (tonnes)

  China

  12·56

  —

  Macau

  0·42

  —

  India

  0·06

  —

  Taiwan

  5·12

  0·87

  Singapore

  6·11

  0·11

  Japan

  26·36

  —

  Korea

  —

  0·02

  Spain

  —

  3·56

  Mexico

  —

  0·17

  Total

  50·63

  4·73

  Licences were also granted for exports to the Federal Republic of Germany and Thailand but have not yet been used. They have therefore been deleted from the above summary.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 1 February,Official Report, column 308, how much ivory has now been exported from Hong Kong since he announced the six-month exemption.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: Two hundred and twenty-five kilogrammes of worked ivory have been exported between 17 January and 26 February. Destinations were South Korea (208 kg) and Taiwan (17 kg).

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 15 February,Official Report, column 326, when he expects the entire commercial stocks of ivory in Hong Kong to be entered into the computer system.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: Mid-March 1990.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 2 February,Official Report, column 404, if he will provide a breakdown by country of origin of the seizures made by the Hong Kong authorities of elephant ivory and rhino horn.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: The Hong Kong authorities have not been able to determine the countries of origin of confiscated ivory and rhino horn. The only indication from shipping documentation is of the immediately previous country of export from which consignments have arrived in Hong Kong. On this basis the Hong Kong authorities have compiled the following list of figures in the six months to 22 January 1990:

  Country of export to Hong Kong

  Quantity in Kilogrammes

  Elephant Ivory, 27 seizures

  Japan

  13·25

  Taiwan

  12·8

  India

  3·4

  Thailand

  16·65

  Korea

  11

  China

  1,231·15

  Philippines

  2·4

  United States of America

  105·7

  Spain

  55

  France

  4

  Dubai

  1·6

  786

  Country of export to Hong Kong

  Quantity in Kilogrammes

  Singapore

  702

  Total

  2,158·95

  Rhino Horn, two seizures

  Singapore

  21·2

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 2 February,Official Report, column 404, if he will state the last recorded date of ivory export covered by the reply.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [Holding answer 22 February 1990]: 14 January 1990.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 2 February,Official Report, column 404, what access is being given by the Hong Kong authorities to those organisations involved in animal welfare and conservation to enable them to monitor the trade in ivory during the six-month exemption period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]The Hong Kong Management Authority maintain close and regular contact with organisations involved in animal welfare and conservation, particularly with the Hong Kong branch of the World Wide Fund for Nature. The authority is arranging for relevant statistical material to be supplied to these organisations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  German Democratic Republic
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage the expansion of trade with the German Democratic Republic.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department continues to encourage the expansion of trade with the GDR and to make available the full range of its assistance to British exporters. We are taking particular care to ensure that up to date information is available to British industry about the economic changes in the market and about opportunities for business and investment. Recent and future events include: (i) an important seminar on 6 February organised with the CBI, at which the GDR deputy Trade Minister outlined the proposed legislative changes to enable the country to move towards a free economy. This was attended by over 60 British business men, who also had the opportunity of discussions with representatives of 10 industrial enterprises accompanying their Minister; (ii) participation by 100 companies in the Leipzig spring fair, which my noble Friend the Minister for Trade will visit; (iii) substantial participation of British companies in the annual meeting of the United Kingdom-GDR joint commission, which will take place in the GDR.

  Rechar
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the European Commission to decide on his application to give Bulwell East, Bulwell
  787
  West and Byron wards in the Nottingham, North constituency objective 2 area status under the Rechar scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The whole of the city of Nottingham is already eligible for general "Objective 2" grants from the European Community structural funds. The Government's recent proposal to the European Commission was that Bulwell East, Bulwell West and Byron wards should be included among the coal-mining areas to benefit also from grants from the funds under the Rechar initiative.

  The Commission has stated that it will determine and publish a list of eligible coal-mining areas for the purpose of Rechar by 27 April 1990.

  Programmes of Rechar measures for the areas selected by the Commission will then be prepared, and I hope the Commission's decisions on these programmes, and on the amounts of Rechar grants, will be reached before the end of this year. The Commission's decisions on general "Objective 2" grants, for Nottingham city and other areas, will be taken separately.

  Mail Order Catalogues
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will initiate a campaign to encourage companies issuing mail order catalogues to include the country of origin in their descriptions of the products offered for sale;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to require companies publishing and with responsibility for mail order catalogues to include the country of origin in the description of products.

  Mr. Ridley
  No. Such action would not be consistent with our obligations under the treaty of Rome. But catalogue issuers are free to include country of origin information if they wish.

  Regional Development
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of financial support he is offering to the regional development organisations in England for 1990–91.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have offered the five English regional development organisations £4 million in grant in support of their inward investment promotion activities for 1990–91, nearly £1 million more than in 1989–90: an increase of 33 per cent.

  This increase in funding is to enable the United Kingdom to remain competitive in promoting its locational advantages in the face of increasing competition from the rest of Europe for mobile inward investment in the single European market.

  In addition, I am pleased to announce that 1990–91 is the first year of a revised funding policy. In future the Department will fund up to 100 per cent. of qualifying United Kingdom-based inward investment activity and up to 50 per cent. of overseas-based activity.

  As well as giving greater certainty to the longer term planning of inward investment promotion, it also means that regional development organisations will be able to spend any additional locally raised funds on non-inward investment activities, like regional regeneration or intra-United Kingdom promotion.
  788
  The allocation of grant is as follows:

  £'000

  1990–91 grant

  Increase on 1989–90

  Northern Development Company (in the North East)

  1,180·0

  198·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside Development

  850·0

  190·0

  INWARD Ltd. (in the North West)

  840·0

  299·0

  West Midlands Development Agency

  620·0

  220·0

  Devon and Cornwall Development Bureau

  510·0

  88·0

  Less Developed Countries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to assess the implications for United Kingdom trade policy and relations with the less developed countries from the introduction of arrangements for traded imports or raw materials and finished goods from less developed countries not to be fixed by the futures markets.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: The futures markets are of benefit to producers and to those who supply or process raw materials by providing the opportunity for them to reduce the risks associated with future price volatility due to market conditions. Developing countries do not have to deal in these markets if they choose not to. Futures markets themselves do not establish commodity prices. Rather, they provide an estimate of likely future prices which may or may not subsequently turn out to be correct. Prices should be determined by supply and demand in the market. I therefore see no need for the assessment called for by the hon. Member.

  I would also refer the hon. Member to a statement on United Kingdom commodity policy made by my hon. Friend the then Minister for Trade, on 21 July 1988, Official Report, columns 781–82.

  Vehicle Write-offs
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review the laws governing the subsequent refurbishment and sale of vehicles which have been written off by insurance companies.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  Road traffic law is reviewed regularly with vehicle safety in mind. Many vehicles that are written off by insurance companies are capable of satisfactory repair. If they are not repaired properly, there are offences of using and of selling an unroadworthy vehicle. A prospective purchaser should consider having a vehicle inspected by an expert before buying it.

PRIME MINISTER

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to make an official visit to St. George's hospital, Tooting.

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

  German Unification
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on her most recent discussions with the three other former victorious allied powers, and also with the governments of West and East Germany, regarding German unification.

  The Prime Minister
  I have had separate discussions recently with senior representatives of all our major allies, and of the Soviet Union, on various aspects of German unification. The framework for discussion agreed at Ottawa last month is welcome and will allow for further close consultation among those concerned.

  Social Fund
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to alter the Social Security Act 1986 as a result of the judgment, made in the High Court on Wednesday 21 February, on the administration of the social fund; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 26 February 1990 at column 58 and on 1 March 1990 at column 319.

  Bed and Breakfast Hotels
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit any of London's bed and breakfast hotels.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 13 February 1990 at column 136.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on homelessness in London.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a wide range of representations on aspects of homelessness in London. Following our review of the homelessness legislation, the measures announced in November by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment include the allocation of additional resources to relieve and reduce homelessness pressures in London. We are now looking at the way in which the responsibilities of different Government Departments work in the prevention and relief of homelessness among single people. Further announcements will be made in due course.

  Women
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister what official activities she has undertaken in the past year in her capacity as honorary president of Women in the World; and if she will make a statement on the achievements of Women in the World in raising funds for projects administered by United Nations development fund for women.

  The Prime Minister
  The hon. Lady may be referring to the "Women of the World Campaign" administered by the NGO, Women Aid. I have no connection with the organisation, nor am I its honorary president.

  Engagements
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. After my duties in the House, I shall depart for a visit to Scotland.

ENVIRONMENT

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the planned manpower levels for each of the next three years from 1 April for(a) Property Holdings and (b) for Property Services Agency services; and what were the manpower levels for the Property Services Agency over each of the previous three years.

  Mr. Chope
  Manpower in Property Holdings is currently planned to remain at the present level of 670 non-industrial and 1,060 industrial posts in the coming year, unless its responsibilities are altered. Future manpower levels in PSA Services will depend on the success of its component businesses.

  The manpower levels in the agency in the last three years were as follows:

  Non-industrials

  Industrials

  1 April 1987

  14,621

  9,852

  1 April 1988

  14,339

  9,210

  1 April 1989

  13,555

  7,902

  Figures exclude staff in the Crown Suppliers and include staff on work for United States forces.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conditions apply to the setting-up of the Property Services Agency as a Government-owned company; and what is the earliest date that such a company could be formed.

  Mr. Chope
  The establishment of a Government-owned company is an important step in the process of PSA privatisation. No decision has been taken on the timing of the establishment of such a company.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total cost of employing Price Waterhouse to advise on the commercialisation and privatisation of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  The total cost of employing Price Waterhouse since it was commissioned in August 1988 has been £7·41 million.

  Algae
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 17 January,Official Report, column 246, concerning blue-green algae, if he is yet in a position

  791
  to list (a) the 53 locations, (b) the water companies and (c) the results of any successful prosecutions; and if he will make a statement in respect of the investigations carried out by the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The 53 sites at which toxic algae blooms were identified by the NRA during 1989 are as follows:

  Anglian

  *Blickling Lake

  *Fritton Lake (Lound Run)

  *Barton Broad

  Cadney Reservoir

  Covenham Reservoir

  *Cransley Reservoir

  *Denton Reservoir

  *Eyebrook Reservoir

  Pitsford Reservoir

  Rutland Water

  *Sywell Lake

  *Whisby Nature Reserve Lake

  Grafham Reservoir

  *Meadow LakeSt. Ives

  *Mount Farm Balancing Lake

  *Scouton Mere, Scoulton

  *Wyboston Lake, South Lagoon

  *Hoverton Great Broad

  *Lake Meadow, Billericay

  *Seamere

  *South Walsham Broad

  *Aldwicle Pit, (Merchant Venturers)

  Hollowell Reservoir

  *Hughes & Sons Lake, Skellingthorp

  *Overstone Lower Lake

  Ravensthorpe Reservoir

  *Teals Pit, Lincoln

  Abberton Reservoir

  Alton Water

  *Ardleigh Reservoir

  *Broome Pit (No. 4)

  *Filby Broad

  *Hanningfield Reservoir

  *Flomersfield Lake

  *Ormsby Broad

  *Rollesby Sailing Club

  *Toft Newton Reservoir

  Severn Trent

  Rudyard Lake

  Wessex

  Hawkridge Reservoir

  South West

  Old Mill Reservoir

  Port Reservoir Bussow Reservoir

  *The Lake, Bicton

  *Ornamental Pond, Bicton

  *Meldon Pool

  Drift Reservoir

  *Langarth lake

  *Main Pond, Bradley

  *Stafford Moor

  Yorkshire

  Silsdon Reservoir

  Beaver Dyke Reservoir

  John O'Grants Reservoir

  *Welton Water

  Note:

  Those waters marked with a * are not owned by the water company

  Prosecutions are not being considered at this stage as there is no evidence that these were a consequence of specific polluting incidents. The National Rivers
  792
  Authority is currently carrying out a thorough investigation into the subject; its report will be completed this summer.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the final recommendations from the Boundary Commission over the future of county boundaries; and when he expects to legislate on any recommended changes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is under a statutory duty to complete its review of county boundaries by 31 March 1992. Within this overall requirement, the timetable is a matter for the commission. My right hon. Friend may not make any order within six weeks of receiving a report (to permit time for further representations) but aims to complete his consideration within, a reasonable period after that. Orders to give effect to recommendations are usually made to take effect on 1 April after my right hon. Friend reaches his decision.

  Building Maintenance Contracts
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the percentage of local authority contracts for day-to-day building maintenance which(a) are currently let to private contractors and (b) were let to private contractors in 1985.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  For the 342 local authorities required to report to the Secretary of State for the financial year 1985–86, the reported value of building maintenance work let to private contractors amounted to 45 per cent. of the total expenditure on building maintenance work by those authorities.

  Information for 1989–90 is not available at present. The relevant annual reports are due to be submitted by 31 October of this year. Since the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 however, the proportion of work undertaken by private contractors has increased on average by about 1 per cent. per year. Recent changes in the legislation mean that more authorities with small direct labour organisations will come within scope of the Act, which may have the effect of increasing the proportion of work reported as allocated to private contractors.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate his Department has of the number of people employed in the assessment and collection of(a) the domestic rates in 1988–89 and (b) the community charge in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  Information on the number of people employed on domestic rates is not separately distinguishable in the available statistics. An assessment by Price Waterhouse in June 1988 commissioned by the Department suggested local authorities in England might employ between 10,500 and 13,100 staff on the community charge in 1990–91. Actual figures are not yet known.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will modify the administrative
  793
  arrangement for the community charge so that individual local authorities collect only that part of the charge which relates to their own expenditure.

  Mr. Chope
  No. Apportioning collection to each of district, county, fire and police authorities could only increase bureaucracy and costs.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is taking action to ensure that the levying of the poll tax is ratified by the Cornish Stannary Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No, because such action is unnecessary.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish all poll tax figures known to his Department throughout the United Kingdom where local authorities have to date settled the level for their area; and by how much each figure diverges from the Government's proposed level.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 21 February,Official Report, column 741.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update the answer about the relationship of rates and community charge to net household income given to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) of 12 January 1989,Official Report, column 732–34.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not at present available.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines his Department issues as to whether people who choose to pay their community charge by monthly instalments and are themselves paid at the end of each month are able to opt to pay the community charge at the end of the month; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Advice to charging authorities on the collection of the community charge is contained in practice note No. 12, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Section 4 of that note deals with the exercise of the charging authority's discretion to enter into flexible payment arrangements for chargepayers. There is nothing to prevent charging authorities and chargepayers entering into agreements to pay in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will assist local government authorities in England and Wales to issue their final and authoritative accounts for community charge payments by listing his decisions for and against community charge capping for each precepting authority.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he will not hesitate to cap any authorities in England budgeting excessively for 1990–91. We are now looking at the precepts authorities have issued, but it would not be right for me to speculate on which authorities would be capped were we to introduce such a scheme. Welsh authorities are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what level of current rate payment will a794
  pensioner couple residing in Birmingham be eligible for transitional protection on a community charge of £406 per adult.

  Mr. Chope
  In a property occupied by two chargepayers the community charge transitional relief scheme provides assistance where two assumed community charges are more than £156 above the current rates bill (defined as the rateable value multiplied by the average poundage). In Birmingham the assumed community charge is £248·14. This means that in a property occupied by two chargepayers transitional relief is payable where the current rates bill is less than £340·36. If a pensioner couple has not previously paid rates or rent, transitional relief is payable on the difference between the threshold of £156 and the assumed community charge.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 5 March,Official Report, column 440, he will list the small minority of authorities for which he has information about the level of personal community charges.

  Mr. Chope
  Over two thirds of the 366 charging authorities in England have yet to provide this information to the Department. I intend to place a summary of the information returned in the Library of the House when information has been received from all authorities.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to amend the transitional arrangements for the community charge to take account of the actual charge set; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The community charge transitional scheme provides protection against increases in bills which would otherwise arise as a result of the structural change from the domestic rating system to the community charge. It is not designed to protect people from changes arising from individual authorities' spending decisions for which they are accountable to their electorates. The scheme therefore uses as a reference for the calculation of relief assumed community charges which are consistent with total standard spending of £32·8 billion in 1990–91. I have no plans to amend the scheme.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the 1990–91 standard spending assessment per head of population for the Kent county council.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The standard spending assessment for Kent county council in 1990–91 is £671 per adult.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make the assumed personal community charge in 1990–91 for each charging authority for the purposes of the community charge transitional relief scheme the same as its standard spending assessment figure per head where this is currently higher.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: I have already set out the assumed community charges to be used in the transitional relief scheme in the community charge transitional relief report (England) laid before the House on 15 February.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received in support of the principle that appellants should meet the costs of planning appeals and how many in opposition to this proposal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department's consultation paper "Efficient Planning", issued last July, included a proposal to introduce fees for planning appeals. This proposal attracted 127 responses in favour and 185 against. We are now considering all the responses to the paper.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth's letter of 25 January referring to Mr. Dennis Haylock of Rugby.

  Mr. Chope
  I have written to my hon. Friend today.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the water companies that have hon. Members on their boards.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for individual companies and individual hon. Members.

  Women's Refuges
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if women's refuges are exempted from collective community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Any building may be designated for the purposes of the collective community charge if, in the opinion of the registration officer, it is used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of individuals most of whom stay for shot periods, and it would, accordingly, be difficult to register them individually. Whether a women's refuge could be designated, therefore, would depend on whether the majority of residents were considered to have changed their sole or main residence on moving into the refuge, or whether, in most cases, they had a sole or main residence elsewhere, from which they were only temporarily absent while in the refuge. It is for individual registration officers to take decisions on designation in the light of the facts of each case.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)Official Report, 28 February, column 194, what are the reasons why low-level radioactive waste from outside the nuclear industry is stored for interim periods at Harwell; what storage charges per kilogramme of waste are made; and whether these vary over time of store.

  Mr. Trippier
  Low-level radioactive waste is currently stored at Harwell as part of the commercial activities of AEA Technology. Such storage is not subject to regulation 796
  by this Department. Questions relating to storage costs at Harwell are matters for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for the Environment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce),Official Report, 28 February, column 194, whether the data received by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the volume of wastes accumulated are publicly available; and what plans there are to update the 1987 United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory to which he refers.

  Mr. Trippier
  This Department does not maintain a central record of local accumulations of radioactive waste authorised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Records of such accumulations are kept by individual operators and are subject to scrutiny by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inspectors but are not publicly available.

  The 1989 United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory is in preparation and expected to be issued in about three months. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Commercial Development, Avebury
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost of the public inquiries into the proposed commercial development at Ave bury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The payroll cost to the Department of providing an inspector to hold a public inquiry into various appeals against planning and listed building enforcement notices served by Kennet district council and involving land at Avebury Manor was £2,094. There were also costs incurred by the Department on administration and by other public bodies that were involved in the inquiry.

  City of London Heliport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 1989,Official Report, column 437, what progress he has made in considering the implications of the planning application for the proposed City of London heliport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There has been no change in my position since my answer of 21 December, Official Report, column 437. The application is being considered by the Corporation of the City of London.

  Drinking Water
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the EEC countries which add artificial fluorides to drinking water.

  Mr. Trippier
  I understand that fluoridation of public water supplies is permissible in a number of European Community countries and is mandatory in Ireland. It is also currently carried out in the United Kingdom and Spain.

  Benzene
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to reduce the emission of benzene from industrial sources along the lines of the rules introduced by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

  Mr. Trippier
  The major potential industrial sources of benzene are already tightly controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; as and when more effective controls become available British industry is required to use them. In this regard, we are co-operating closely with our partners in the European Community to identify the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs to minimise benzene emissions from a number of industrial sectors.

  Earth Day 1990
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what preparations Her Majesty's Government propose to undertake to celebrate and publicise the Earth Day 1990 campaign on 22 April.

  Mr. Trippier
  Organisation of events relating to Earth Day in this country is being handled by a range of environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth. We welcome all genuine efforts to improve public understanding of environmental issues, but we have no plans for direct Government involvement in Earth Day events.

  Water Supplies
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the grant payment from central Government was under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts 1944 to 1970 and the Industrial Development Act 1982 for water supplies to England in the last and current financial years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The amounts paid under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts in respect of water supply schemes are as follows:

  1988–89 £

  1 1989–90 £

  215,403

  84,989

  1 to 5 March 1990

  The majority of schemes supported by the Department under the Industrial Development Act 1982 contain both water supply and sewerage works and it is not possible to separate out the amounts paid in respect of water supply. The total amounts paid by the Department under the Act are as follows:

  1988–89 £

  11989–90 £

  1,245,864

  1,713,972

  1 to 5 March 1990

  Customer Services Committees
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who is the chairman of the customer services committee for the area of the West Kent company; and what is the address at which he can be contacted in that capacity.
  798
  Mr. Trippier
  The Director General of Water Services has announced that he has allocated the West Kent Water Company to the Southern customer services committee and has appointed Professor Judith Rees to be chairman of this committee. She can be contacted at the offices of the committee at the following address:

  Fourth Floor,

  30–34 Albert Embankment,

  London SE1 7TL

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why he decided not to direct the Director General of Water Services to establish customer services committees under the Water Act 1989 prior to his announcing his proposals for the K factors for the statutory water companies on 7 February.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have no powers to direct the director general in such matters.

  Nature Conservation
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what criteria are used when deciding whether or not revocation or discontinuance orders should be made in respect of planning permissions which give rise to conflict with national policy on nature conservation;

  (2) what guidance is available to local planning authorities on the use of revocation or discontinuance powers in cases where planning permission affects important nature conservation interests.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: The Government's policy on the use of powers to revoke planning permission was given in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), then Minister for Housing and Planning, on 20 December 1989, Official Report, columns 329–30.

  Guidance on the use of discontinuance orders is given in planning policy guidance note 1 (PPG1), "General Policy and Principles", a copy of which is in the Library. Discontinuance orders and opposed revocation orders require the confirmation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for limiting the timescale between revised planning applications relating to planning applications previously refused and which relate to a site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: The Department's consultation paper "Efficient Planning", issued last July, included a proposal to give local planning authorities the right to refuse to determine any application on the grounds that it was made within two years following an unsuccessful appeal and there had been no material change in circumstances. The responses to the consultation paper are being considered.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many internal auditors are employed in those departments for which he is responsible and at what
  799
  cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is sub-contracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: In 1989 there were 17 internal auditors in DoE (Central) together with three other staff at a cost of £356,000. The internal audit unit produced 28 reports, none of which was drawn to the attention of Ministers. No internal audit work was sub-contracted to private firms.

  During the same period there were 72 auditors in the Property Services Agency and four support staff at a cost of £1,481,000. The internal audit unit produced 253 reports, none of which was drawn to the attention of Ministers. The PSA employed consultants for 244 days at a cost of £46,000.

  North Sea Dumping
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent communications he has received from his Danish counterpart concerning United Kingdom policies over the disposal of industrial toxic waste in the North sea.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: I received a letter from the Danish Environment Minister last week. The points raised by Ms. Dybkjaer have been covered in recent Government announcements which have been conveyed to her.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to meet the objective that, by the end of 1992, no young person should be employed in a job without training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Training and enterprise councils will be able to use youth training funding to develop partnerships between local businesses, education and training providers with the aim of ensuring that no young person should be employed in a job without training.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that by the end of 1992, two thirds of young people have achieved National Council for Vocational Qualifications level 2 and one quarter have reached National Council for Vocational Qualifications level 3.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The new youth training arrangements to be introduced in May offer all young people in the labour market the opportunity to achieve qualifications which at a minimum are at or equivalent to level 2 in the framework established by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. Targets will be agreed annually for progressive increases in the skills attainment of young people.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the objectives stated in the speech by his predecessor of 6 December 1989 remain the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  800
  Mr. Howard
  My predecessor offered a framework of objectives for the development of training in the 1990s. Progress on meeting the objectives depends primarily on action by organisations outside Government; they cannot be specific Government targets. I will be considering with those concerned the steps that need to be taken. With falling numbers of young people and increasing international competition, training is a key priority for the 1990s. That is why we are establishing training and enterprise councils across the country to improve our training effort and our competitive position.

  Bellwin Scheme
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider widening the current provisions of the Bellwin scheme in respect of flood damage to reimburse local authorities for essential repairs and maintenance work in addition to that required to safeguard lives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Bellwin scheme already encompasses work to safeguard property or prevent severe inconvenience in addition to work required to safeguard lives. It is not, however, our practice to include losses which are normally insurable.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with his European Community counterparts about forms of assistance provided to encourage the employment of disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  Officials are in regular contact with their European counterparts in the disability field and have access to information about provision in all EC countries. In addition, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, has recently had informal discussions with Belgian Sécrétaire d'Etat for Public Health and Disablement Policy Mr. Roger Delizée.

  Training Vouchers
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received about training vouchers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has received various representations on this subject.

  TEC (West Lancashire)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken to establish a training and enterprise council in west Lancashire.

  Mr. Eggar
  Development funding has been approved to establish a training and enterprise council in west Lancashire.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the rate of unemployment and the number of unfilled vacancies in Southend-on-Sea at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  In January 1990 the unemployment rate for the Southend travel-to-work area was 4·7 per cent. and the
  801
  number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres was 2,090. Vacancies at jobcentres do not represent the total number of vacancies in the economy. The latest research shows that nationally only about one third of vacancies are notified to jobcentres.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are his minimum and maximum estimates of the percentage of the British work force that is engaged in more than one job and is subsequently counted twice in the employment totals.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 13 February 1990,Official Report, column 203. No further information on persons counted twice in the employment totals is available.

  Work Placements
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest figures for the number of action credit work placements which have been completed for each of the three pilot sites of Chatham, Sunderland and Bristol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested will not be available until after the end of the action credit scheme pilot, which is due to finish at the end of August 1990.

  Action Credit
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why he decided to launch the action credit scheme before the three pilot schemes have finished; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No decision has been taken to launch an action credit scheme nationally. At present the Training Agency is running a small pilot in three areas of the country for ET leavers.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what factors he considered in deciding to continue to make it compulsory for construction firms to participate in the operations of the construction industry training board.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her on 22 November 1989.

  Benefit Claimants
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by standard region of Great Britain, including Greater London, what is the current average length of time between a claimant's referral for adjudication and an adjudication officer's decision on grounds of restricted availability and non-availability for work.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. However, the speed with which adjudication officers make decisions—the time between their receiving a referral and reaching a decision—is monitored in a 5 per cent. sample of cases. The sample shows that for the three month period ending 31 December 1989, the percentage of restricted availability and 802
  availability questions decided within four weeks of referral to an adjudication officer, for each employment service region, was as follows:

  Availability Percentage

  Restricted availability Percentage

  Southern

  90·9

  81·1

  Eastern

  98·1

  91·2

  Western

  79·2

  68·8

  West Midlands

  96·7

  97·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  87·1

  79·3

  South West

  85·2

  81·5

  Northern

  95·8

  100·0

  East Midlands

  83·8

  78·9

  Wales

  96·1

  100·0

  Scotland

  89·2

  87·8

  North West

  80·7

  76·0

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for the three-month period to the end of(a) September 1989 and (b) December 1989, if he will give the decisions of adjudication officers on doubtful fresh claims, renewal claims and reviewed claims for unemployment benefit showing the numbers allowed, disallowed, referred to a local tribunal, revised in favour of claimants, revised adversely to claimants and not revised in the following categories of questions: (a) employed to full normal extent, (b) engaged in employment, (c) availability, (d) restricted availability, (e) leaving voluntarily, (f) for misconduct, (g) neglecting to avail of employment, (h) refusal of employment, (i) refusal or premature termination of training, (j) refusal to carry out written recommendations and (k) restart.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter I sent her on 29 December 1989 enclosing details of the various decisions requested for the three month period ending 30 September 1989.

  Figures for the period ending 31 December 1989 are not yet available but I will write to the hon. Member when they are to hand.

  Analysis of adjudication officer's decisions are published quarterly by the Department of Social Security, under the title "Unemployment Statistics, Quarterly Analysis of Decisions of Adjudication Officers". This shows the number of adjudication officer's decisions in each category of question of doubt together with the number of cases allowed, disallowed, or disqualified. These publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by standard region of Great Britain, including Greater London, what is the current average length of time between an unemployed claimant receiving an adjudication officer's decision on grounds of restricted availability and non-availability for work and a subsequent appeal.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 23 October 1989,Official Report, column 326.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claimants have gained a bridging allowance; and, of these, how many have been awarded to pregnant claimants under 18 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  A total of 277,769 young people have made successful applications for bridging allowance from its
  803
  introduction on 11 September 1988 to 8 February 1990. Information on the number of awards made to pregnant claimants is not available.

  Earnings
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the proportion of female part-time workers in Great Britain, in April 1989, whose hourly earnings, exclusive of overtime, fell below(a) £2·80, (b) £3·00, (c) £3·20, (d) £3·60, (e) £4·00 and (f) £4·50.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimated percentages of part-time adult female employees earnings below specified amounts in the new earnings survey sample in April 1989 were:

  Hourly earnings less than £

  Percentage

  2·80

  39

  30·0

  48

  3·20

  57

  3·60

  69

  4·00

  77

  4·50

  83

  Hourly earnings excluding overtime; earnings not affected by absence.

  Greece (Exhibition)
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to traditional settlements in Greece to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 26 to 30 March.

WALES

  Official Visits
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those parliamentary constituencies in Wales that he has visited in an official capacity since being appointed to his present post.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information on constituencies visited is not collected centrally, but I have, of course, visited all the main areas of the Principality since taking up office as Secretary of State for Wales.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of public expenditure is spent(a) by his Department, (b) by Welsh county councils, in total and separately and (c) by Welsh district councils, in total and separately.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The total of the Department's central Government expenditure was £1,730 million in 1988–89 compared with £1,546 million in 1987–88. The full 804
  information requested for county councils and district councils in Wales is only available for 1987–88 because a small number of authorities have yet to make complete returns to the Department for 1988–89. The information for 1987–88 is shown in the table:

  1987–88 outturn expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility

  £000

  Current spending

  Capital spending

  Total spending

  County Councils:

  Clwyd

  154,193

  20,833

  175,026

  Dyfed

  138,415

  15,363

  153,778

  Gwent

  169,319

  22,470

  191,789

  Gwynedd

  96,949

  8,791

  105,740

  Mid Glamorgan

  219,819

  25,076

  244,895

  Powys

  51,815

  7,728

  59,543

  South Glamorgan

  142,813

  38,472

  181,285

  West Glamorgan

  145,538

  25,777

  171,315

  Total

  1,118,861

  164,510

  1,283,371

  District Councils:

  Alyn and Deeside

  4,185

  3,768

  7,953

  Colwyn

  3,293

  2,372

  5,665

  Delyn

  4,112

  2,293

  6,405

  Glwyndwr

  2,963

  1,427

  4,390

  Rhuddlan

  4,299

  2,763

  7,062

  Wrexham Maelor

  8,830

  7,842

  16,672

  Carmarthen

  3,809

  2,827

  6,636

  Ceredigion

  3,833

  3,283

  7,116

  Dinefwr

  2,272

  2,256

  4,528

  Llanelli

  6,466

  4,343

  10,809

  Presceli/Pembrokeshire

  3,629

  3,100

  6,729

  South Pembroke

  2,773

  4,398

  7,171

  Blaenau Gwent

  7,090

  14,697

  21,787

  Islwyn

  4,625

  10,947

  15,572

  Monmouth

  4,437

  3,840

  8,277

  Newport

  10,557

  14,405

  24,962

  Torfaen

  7,036

  6,986

  14,022

  Aberconwy

  4,014

  650

  4,664

  Arfon

  4,540

  4,155

  8,695

  Dwyfor

  2,031

  2,464

  4,495

  Meirionnydd

  2,539

  1,281

  3,820

  Ynys Mon

  5,320

  5,829

  11,149

  Cynon Valley

  5,288

  9,170

  14,458

  Merthyr Tydfil

  6,532

  6,762

  13,294

  Ogwr

  9,151

  8,440

  17,591

  Rhondda

  8,456

  14,523

  22,979

  Rhymney Valley

  8,627

  10,666

  19,293

  Taff-Ely

  6,183

  4,910

  11,093

  Brecknock

  2,967

  2,553

  5,520

  Montgomeryshire

  2,363

  2,454

  4,817

  Radnor

  1,252

  670

  1,922

  Cardiff

  19,545

  26,167

  45,712

  Vale of Glamorgan

  6,425

  3,717

  10,142

  Port Talbot

  4,340

  3,852

  8,192

  Lliw Valley

  3,506

  4,560

  8,066

  Neath

  4,492

  5,879

  10,371

  Swansea

  16,189

  14,577

  30,766

  Total

  207,966

  224,826

  432,792

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an assessment of the pollution effects of eutrophication on Bosherton Lakes in Pembroke.

  Mr. Grist
  It is for the National Rivers Authority to consider what action may be necessary.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will institute a study to make recommendations as to whether workers at nuclear power stations in Wales run any risk of passing leukaemia on to their offspring; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: In its second and third reports, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) recommended that studies of the health of the offspring of radiation workers should be instigated. The Government have accepted these recommendations in full and are urgently considering a number of relevant research proposals.

SCOTLAND

  Woodland
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total acreage of broadleaved woodland planted in the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the table, which covers broadleaved planting undertaken or grant-aided by the Forestry Commission in the years concerned.

  Category

  Penal establishments listed by Security Category

  Inmate population at 27 November 1979

  Inmate population at 24 November 1989

  B

  Her Majesty's Prison, Aberdeen

  181

  132

  B

  Her Majesty's Prison, Barlinnie

  956

  814

  B

  Her Majesty's Special Unit, Barlinnie

  6

  7

  B

  Her Majesty's Prison and Young Offenders Institution, Cornton Vale

  162

  127

  B

  Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution, Dumfries

  144

  122

  B

  Her Majesty's Prison, Edinburgh

  648

  544

  B

  Her Majesty's Prison and Young Offenders Institution, Glenochil1

  536

  428

  B

  Her Majesty's Prison, Greenock

  24

  188

  B

  Her Majesty's Prison, Inverness

  109

  85

  B

  Her Majesty's Remand Institution, Longriggend

  278

  208

  B

  Her Majesty's Prison, Perth

  539

  429

  B

  Her Majesty's Prison, Peterhead

  244

  124

  B

  Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution, Polmont2

  294

  398

  B

  Her Majesty's Prison, Shotts

  58

  448

  C

  Her Majesty's Prison, Dungavel

  108

  117

  C

  Her Majesty's Prison, Friarton

  71

  44

  C

  Her Majesty's Prison, Low Moss

  315

  311

  C

  Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution, Castle Huntly2

  82

  108

  D

  Her Majesty's Prison, Noranside1 2

  62

  114

  D

  Her Majesty's Prison, Penninghame1

  49

  72

  Total

  4,866

  4,820

  1 Glenochil was a Young Offenders Institution and Detention Centre in 1979.

  2 Polmont, Castle Huntley and Noranside were Borstal Institutions in 1979. Female Borstal inmates were accommodated at Cornton Vale.

  Housing (Glasgow)
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the capital programme expressed at constant prices available to Glasgow district council for housing in each year from 1975 to the nearest available year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Block allocations have been issued in respect of housing capital expenditure only since 1978–79. Gross allocations issued to Glasgow district council, incorporating the estimate of capital receipts made at the start of each year and any supplementary allocations made during the year, are set out in the table, expressed in 1989–90 prices.
  806

  Year ended 31 March

  New planting hectares

  Restocking hectares

  Total hectares

  1985

  656

  1,188

  1,844

  1986

  905

  1,798

  2,703

  1987

  1,618

  2,593

  4,211

  1988

  2,868

  3,151

  6,019

  1989

  3,035

  2,953

  5,988

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of unemployment in Scotland at the most recent date.

  Mr. Lang
  The level of unemployment in Scotland on 11 January 1990 stood at 219,176.

  Prisons
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the penal establishments in Scotland, by security category, giving the number of inmates in each at a convenient date in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The categories of the penal establishments in Scotland, together with the number of inmates in each in November 1979 and November 1989 are set out in the table.

  City of Glasgow district council—HRA and non-URA gross allocations (1989–90 prices)

  HRA (£ million)

  Non-HRA (£ million)

  1978–79

  126·2

  28·6

  1979–80

  121·9

  26·5

  1980–81

  104·6

  28·7

  1981–82

  92·4

  29·6

  1982–83

  82·6

  39·1

  1983–841

  88·4

  39·4

  1984–85

  60·5

  104·3

  1985–86

  71·2

  48·6

  1986–87

  79·7

  48·8

  1987–88

  95·8

  61·5

  1988–89

  94·2

  53·8

  1989–90

  96·1

  54·7

  807
  1 Special arrangements applied in 1983–84 when authorities were allowed to exceed consent subject to certain conditions.

  Policing (Strathclyde)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what financial resources were available for policing in Strathclyde region in each year since its inception; and what was the proportion of central and local government expenditure in each year;

  (2) what is his estimate of the financial resources available to Strathclyde regional council for police services in each financial year since its inception; and if he will express the figures in each year from the second year onwards as a percentage increase or decrease on the previous year and also show against each year the annual rate of inflation;

  (3) what policies the Government intend to pursue to offset shortfall in the Strathclyde police force;

  (4) what recent representations he has received from Strathclyde regional council about the need to direct more resources to filling the shortfall in police officers;

  (5) when was the latest assessment made of manpower level needs for Strathclyde police.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Assessment of the manpower needs of Strathclyde police is a matter for Strathclyde regional council, subject to the establishment of the force authorised by the Secretary of State in the light of advice from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. The police establishment of the force was last determined in 1982. The allocation of resources to eliminate the current shortfall of actual strength as compared with authorised establishment is the responsibility of the regional council. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has received no recent representations in this matter but he stands ready to pay police grant on all approved net expenditure on the police. Since 1986–87 grant has been at the rate of 51 per cent. of net approved expenditure; previously the rate was 50 per cent.

  Net approved expenditure on Strathclyde police from 1975–76 is given in the table, together with information about percentage increases and the rate of inflation.

  Year

  Net approved expenditure £

  Percentage increase

  Inflation per cent.

  1975–76

  41,001,332·03

  —

  —

  1976–77

  51,474,235·92

  25·5

  15·3

  1977–78

  53,767,471·29

  4·5

  14·0

  1978–79

  63,745,604·37

  18·6

  8·2

  1979–80

  78,076,467·41

  22·5

  15·9

  1980–81

  93,141,224·46

  19·3

  16·3

  1981–82

  108,631,863·32

  16·6

  11·5

  1982–83

  118,244,193·93

  8·8

  7·1

  1983–84

  128,569,888·26

  8·7

  4·7

  1984–85

  138,692,064·65

  7·9

  5·1

  1985–86

  140,293,517·96

  1·2

  5·9

  1986–87

  150,396,918·13

  7·2

  3·2

  1987–88

  168,779,970·33

  12·2

  3·9

  1988–89

  1177,522,187·88

  5·2

  6·0

  1 Provisional.

  Criminal Law
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Law Commission last examined the criminal law and the protection it offers to people aged over 60 years.
  808
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Law Commission has not examined this issue.

  Housing
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the housing developments in the Highlands and Islands Development Board area which have been given approval by Scottish Homes since its inception on 1 April 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Such information is not held by the Scottish Development Department as approval of individual housing developments is a matter for Scottish Homes itself. I have asked that body to forward the information requested directly to the hon. Member.

  Schools (Safety)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the safety laws and regulations which apply to schools in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 requires education authorities to ensure that the premises and equipment of all educational establishments under their management are maintained in a condition conducive to the good health and safety of everyone on the premises. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 also applies in schools. In addition, there is an extensive range of regulations relating to safety considerations which could apply to schools as to other institutions in particular circumstances.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether schools in Scotland are exempted from fire regulations requiring buildings to have a fire certificate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Schools are not required to have fire certificates. Only a limited number of types of premises is designated as requiring fire certificates under section 1 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The Government have no plans to extend the range of designation. The question of fire safety in schools is the subject of guidance to education authorities issued in 1982.

  Crossroads Scheme
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about funding of Crossroads by the Greater Glasgow health board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Officials of the Scottish Office met the chairman of Crossroads (Scotland) care attendant schemes on 8 December 1989 when the funding of a number of local Crossroads schemes, including schemes in Strathclyde, was discussed. It is for the Greater Glasgow health board to decide whether and to what extent it wishes to support Crossroads.

  Water Authorities
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current amount of debt owed to the Exchequer by Scottish water authorities; and what the. amount was in the previous year.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information on the source of local authority borrowing for specific services is not readily
  809
  available. Figures on the total outstanding debt of Scottish water authorities at 31 March 1989 were given on 13 February 1990, Official Report, column 189. Corresponding figures for 31 March 1988 are given in the table.

  Capital debt outstanding at 31 March 1988: Water account

  Region/Islands area

  £'000

  Borders

  8,859

  Central

  20,416

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11,772

  Fife

  30,159

  Grampian

  57,196

  Highland

  15,576

  Lothian

  85,038

  Strathclyde

  119,324

  Tayside

  25,546

  Orkney

  2,412

  Shetland

  719

  Western Isles

  2,511

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all United Kingdom ballistic missile nuclear submarines have now been checked, in home port, for possible cracks in reactor coolant pipes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on Tuesday 6 March,Official Report, columns 614–15.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a special safety plan for areas adjoining a Z-berth would be introduced in cases where local councils refuse to co-operate in establishing such a plan.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role and actions would be required of a local council in the event of an incident requiring activation of a special safety plan in the vicinity of a Z-berth.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the event of an incident requiring activation of a special safety plan in the vicinity of a Z-berth, as in any other civil emergency, the local authorities would act in support of the emergency services and carry out their normal functions in the light of the situation and of technical advice from the Ministry of Defence and the National Radiological Protection Board.

  Trident
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all outside contracts issued by the Atomic Weapons Establishment managment in connection with the Trident programme, including dates and costs.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information that the hon. Member requests is classified.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which establishments work on the Trident programme has been transferred from the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston.
  810
  Mr. Alan Clark
  AWE Cardiff is undertaking some non-fissile manufacturing work transferred from AWE Aldermaston.

  Combat Body Armour
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a full description of combat body armour; and which units of the armed services have been provided with it.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Combat body armour is a lightweight vest covering the torso, designed to protect the wearer against fragmenting munitions. It is a front-opening garment with side vents and adjustable straps to ensure a proper fit. It will be available in six sizes, the medium size weighing 2·5 kg.

  No combat body armour has yet been issued, but it will be supplied to service men as an item of personal equipment as supplies become available.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost in both cash and in man hours to his Department in providing alternative civilian cover during the ambulance dispute(a) to the most recent convenient date and (b) projected for the period from the commencement and termination of the period of cover.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Up to 31 January 1990, extra costs in the region of £3·5 million arising from service participation in the provision of accident and emergency cover during the ambulance dispute have been identified for recovery from the Department of Health, the Scottish Home and Health Department and the Welsh Office. Up to 6 March 1990 a total of about 1·1 million service man hours had been deployed.

  It would not be practicable to make projections either of extra costs or of man hours because the timing of the final withdrawal of service assistance will depend on the outcome of the ballot of ambulance staff and, if the decision is to accept the management offer, the arrangements which are made in different areas for a return to normal working.

  Ammunition Contracts
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions are placed upon manufacturers of ammunition in the United Kingdom that wish to bid for Her Majesty's Government ammunition contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No restrictions are placed on manufacturers in the United Kingdom who wish to bid for ammunition contracts offered in open competition. Certain natures of ammunition for delivery up to 31 March 1993 are procured under the agreement with Royal Ordnance plc which was announced to the House on 27 July 1988 by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), the former Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. In addition, there may be restrictions when a nature of ammunition is procured under collaborative arrangements or is a proprietary item.

  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions are placed upon manufacturers of ammunition in the United States that wish to bid for Her Majesty's Government ammunition contracts.
  811
  Mr. Alan Clark
  No restrictions are placed upon manufacturers in the United States who wish to bid for ammunition contracts offered in open competition. Certain natures of ammunition for delivery up to 31 March 1993 are procured under the agreement with Royal Ordnance plc which was announced to the House on 27 July 1988 by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), the former Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. In addition, there may be restrictions when a nature of ammunition is procured under collaborative arrangements or is a proprietary item.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Wandsworth Prison Gallows
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the name and address of the company contracted to maintain the gallows that are kept at Wandsworth prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The gallows are maintained by the prison's works department.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations his Department has received calling for the repeal of existing legislation imposing specific civil defence duties on local authorities; and if he will list them.

  Mr. John Patten
  During the las six months the Home Office has received 16 representations from Members of Parliament, local authorities and other organisations calling specifically for the repeal of existing legislation imposing civil defence duties on local authorities.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations his Department has received calling for the preparation of a new Act of Parliament which would impose duties upon appropriate public and private sector organisations to undertake comprehensive emergency planning for peacetime disasters and accidents; and if he will list them.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has asked the civil emergencies adviser to assess local authority requirements for effective peacetime emergency planning. I understand that the adviser has received a number of representations, which are being treated in confidence.

  Detainees' Medical Records
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures exist for passing medical information on detained persons from the police to the prison service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The relevant procedures are set out in paragraph 4.33 and appendix 13 of the consolidated circular to the police on crime and kindred matters. They require the police to complete a form (POL/1) in respect of every prisoner handed over to prison custody or transferred between police forces who is considered to present special risks, including physical illness or mental disturbance.

  Motorists (Video Evidence)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces in the United Kingdom are currently using video equipment to monitor the driving habits of motorists in order to furnish the courts with specific evidence for the prosecution of offenders.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Nine forces in England and Wales and five in Scotland are using in-car video equipment to record evidence of motorists' poor driving behaviour. Recordings are used either to educate the motorist or may be presented in court to support a police officer's evidence that an offence has been committed. I understand that a further four forces in England and Wales are shortly to acquire similar equipment.

  Prison Inmates
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which London prisons have an inmates committee.

  Mr. Mellor
  Brixton, Downview, Feltham, Holloway and Wormwood Scrubs have inmate committees.

  Forensic Pathology
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give, in respect of the report on the working party on forensic pathology(a) the date on which he announced the setting up of the working party, (b) the date on which the report was published, (c) the period of consultation on the report's proposals, (d) the date when he received Mr. Wasserman's comments and (e) the expected date when he will announce his response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The establishment of the working party on forensic pathology was announced on 17 July 1984 and its report published on 25 July 1989. A period until 31 October 1989 was allowed for comments but this was later extended until the end of the year. These are now being considered and we expect to announce our response shortly.

  Cable Television
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cable television systems are operating at present in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand from the Cable Authority that 15 broadband cable systems are operational. In addition, I understand there are 58 licensed upgrade systems and 153 licensed satellite master antenna television (SMATV) systems operational.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by district, the companies that have applied for cable television franchise in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand from the Cable Authority that three franchises have been advertised in South Yorkshire covering Rotherham and Doncaster; Sheffield and Barnsley. The following seven companies applied for the Rotherham and Doncaster franchise:
  813

  (i) Britannia Cable Systems South Yorkshire;

  (ii) Cable Communications (Rotherham and Doncaster) Ltd.;

  (iii) Comment Cable Vision South Yorkshire Ltd.;

  (iv) Doncaster Telecommunications Complex Ltd. and Rotherham Telecommunications Complex Ltd.;

  (v) Don River Cable Teleplus Ltd.;

  (vi) South Yorkshire Cablevision Ltd.; and

  (vii) South Yorkshire Cablevision (UK) Ltd.

  The Cable Authority hopes to award the franchise in mid-May.

  The following eight companies have applied for the Sheffield franchise:

  (i) Britannia Cable Systems Sheffield;

  (ii) Cable Communications (Sheffield) Ltd;

  (iii) General Cable Ltd;

  (iv) Sheffield Cable Teleplus Plc;

  (v) Sheffield Cable Media Ltd;

  (vi) Sheffield Cablevision Ltd;

  (vii) Sheffield Television and Communications Ltd; and

  (viii) Telecable of Sheffield Ltd.

  The Cable Authority hopes to award the franchise in early June. Applications for the Barnsley franchise close on 16 March.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his earliest estimate of the date at which all of the United Kingdom has access to cable television coverage.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Cable Authority has awarded or advertised franchises potentially covering 14·5 million homes, which is approximately two thirds of the total number of homes in the United Kingdom. It has always been recognised it was unlikely that all homes would ever be cabled.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the initial application fee charge requested by the Cable Authority for a cable television franchise; what proportion is returnable to unsuccessful applicants; and if he will make a statement as to what the application fee charge is used for.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand from the Cable Authority that application fees are charged according to the following tariff:

  Number of homes in franchise area

  Application fee £

  Up to 50,000

  5,500

  50,001 to 150,000

  12,000

  150,001 to 250,000

  18,000

  250,001 to 350,000

  25,000

  Over 350,000

  30,000

  Application fees are not returnable to unsuccessful applicants.

  This application fee is levied in accordance with section 6(1) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. Under section 18(1) of that Act the authority is under a duty to ensure that its revenues are sufficient to enable them to meet their obligations and to discharge its functions under the Act. A copy of the Cable Authority's annual report and accounts is available in the Library.

  Electoral Registration
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much is to be spent by central Government in 1989–90 and 1990–91 on advertising campaigns in connection with electoral registration in(a) Great Britain and (b) overseas.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Great Britain

  486,000

  486,000

  Overseas

  —

  760,000

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) fatalities and (b) injuries have resulted from drink-driving offences for which there were convictions each year since 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for drink-driving offences there have been in each year since 1979; and how many of these resulted in a custodial sentence.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is published under offence group 3 in tables 10 and 15 of the Home Office statistical bulletin, issue 34/89. A copy of the bulletin is in the Library.

  West Midlands Police Force
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands police force as to what action was taken against former Detective Inspector Paul Matthews regarding his activities on behalf of Amway International while a serving member of the West Midlands police force.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that in 1984–85 an internal inquiry was carried out by officers from the West Midlands police into allegations that Mr. Matthews was engaged in business activities involving the company Amway United Kingdom. There was no evidence to justify disciplinary proceedings, but following the inquiry Mr. Matthews was seen by the deputy chief constable and given words of advice.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Police Complaints Authority as to what steps they have taken to interview former Detective Inspector Paul Matthews in connection with the authority's investigation into allegations made by Martin Foran.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The course of any investigation which is being supervised by the Police Complaints Authority is a matter for them to arrange with the officer appointed to conduct the investigation. Home Office Ministers have no authority to intervene in the process, although I have no doubt that all relevant steps will be taken to ensure that Mr. Foran's allegations are fully investigated.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours of police manpower time were expended by Britain's police forces in providing alternative emergency cover during the ambulance dispute; and what are his projected probable costs for the exercise both in cash and in man-hours(a) to the most recent convenient date and (b) projected for the period from the initial commencement to the final withdrawal of cover.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the total number of man-hours which forces have provided in assisting ambulance services in England and Wales up to and including 5 March has been about 1·5 million.

  As police authority, my right hon. and learned Friend is aware that up to 4 February the Metropolitan police have charged the South West Thames regional health authority £5·8 million for police assistance during the ambulance dispute. I am unaware of the charges which other forces have made of their relevant health authorities.

  To make projections is not practicable because the timing of the final withdrawal of police assistance will depend on the outcome of the ballot of ambulance staff and, if the decision is to accept the management offer, the arrangements which are made in different areas for a return to normal working.

  Police Consultative Groups
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss means to ensure that police consultative groups continue to receive up-to-date information in the detail that has been available in the Metropolitan police divisional reports;

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that copies of each Metropolitan Police division's annual management report are made available to the relevant police consultative groups;

  (3) what consultation was undertaken with police consultative committees and others prior to the Metropolitan police replacing divisional reports with the document entitled "Policing."

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that a different format is to be adopted for the divisional reports available to police consultative groups this year, with the aim of making them more accessible and readable and thus reach a wider audience. The change is being made after consultation with every consultative group in the Metropolitan area, and a pilot project in Wandsworth. Any information previously contained in a divisional report which is absent from this year's report will be available on request from the division concerned. The divisional management report is an internal working document concerned with the management of the division itself, and there is no intention to make it available publicly.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for the latest date available, what percentage of parole applications from(a) white and (b) black prisoners were successful in England and Wales.
  816
  Mr. Mellor
  The present central computer system on parole does not hold information on the ethnic origin of prisoners and it is not, therefore, possible to produce the figures requested. However, a new system is scheduled for 1991 which will make such analyses possible and these are planned.

  Parole Board
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parole dossiers the Parole Board dealt with in each year from 1985; and what percentages of prisoners were granted parole.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested, taken from the most recently published report of the Parole Board, is as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Board caseload

  6,401

  7,655

  7,508

  7,703

  Percentage of Board caseload granted parole

  51

  46

  47

  48

  Status of Women
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is representing Her Majesty's Government at the current review of forward-looking strategies held by the United Nations Commission in Vienna on the status of women.

  Mr. John Patten
  Dr. Susan Atkins of the Home Office and Mr. Robin Gwynn of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  War Crimes Inquiry
  Mr. John L. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have for responding to the war crimes inquiry.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Government have now had the opportunity to consider the implications of the parliamentary debates held last December, and have concluded that legislation should be introduced to enable war crimes trials to be held in this country. I am introducing the Bill today. It gives effect to the principal recommendation of the war crimes inquiry that British courts should be given jurisdiction over offences of murder, culpable homicide and manslaughter committed as war crimes in Germany or German-occupied territory during the period of the Second World War, by persons who are now British citizens or resident in the United Kingdom. The Bill also provides, as the inquiry recommended in paragraph 9.43, for the use in war crimes trials of the procedure for transfer to the Crown Court without committal proceedings, which is already available in respect of serious fraud cases; the Bill mirrors the provisions for fraud trials by providing for the Crown Court to dismiss a charge prior to trial, where it appears to the judge that there would be insufficient evidence to convict. Finally, the Bill provides authority for central government to meet the costs of war crimes investigations in England and Wales.

  The War Crimes Bill contains no other provisions. In respect of the other procedural recommendations in the war crimes report, the Government have reached the following conclusions:

  817

  (i) Live Television Evidence (paragraph 9.34). Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 already provides for the admissibility of live television evidence from abroad in proceedings in England and Wales. The Government intend to bring the provision into effect in the first instance in respect of homicide trials and trials of serious and complex fraud with further areas becoming covered as resources allow. No provision for live television evidence from abroad yet exists in Scottish law: appropriate amendments are to be tabled in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

  (ii) Powers to request evidence to be taken on commission abroad and the admissibility of video recordings of evidence taken abroad by letters of request (paragraphs 9.37 and 9.38). Clause 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill, now before Parliament, provides for the issuing of letters of request seeking the taking of evidence abroad. This will include a facility by which evidence can be taken on commission. The admissibility of documentary evidence, subject to appropriate safeguards as to the circumstances in which the evidence was taken and the fairness of its use in trials, was provided for in England and Wales by Part II of, and Schedule 2 to, the Criminal Justice Act 1988. This would mean, for example, that video recordings of evidence taken as a result of a letter of request could be introduced where it would be safe to do so. The position in Scottish law concerning the admissibility of documentary evidence is to be clarified by amendments to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

  (iii) Admissibility of evidence from persons now dead (paragraph 9.41). The Government believe that the courts can admit such evidence (where it is safe to do so) and that no change in the law is required in this respect.

  (iv) Authentication of archives without oral testimony (paragraph 9.42). The Government have decided that no change to the law should be made to accommodate this proposal.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total number of males under the age of 17 years remanded in custody in remand centres from Welsh courts during 1988;

  (2) what was the total number of males under the age of 17 years who were made subject to an unruly certificate from Welsh courts during 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: Information on certificates of unruliness is not recorded centrally. The information available relates to 15 and 16-year-old boys initially received on remand into prison service establishments. A certificate is required for such boys received as untried and for some of those received as convicted unsentenced; it is not required for those committed in custody to the Crown Court for sentence under section 37 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. In 1988, it is estimated that about 50 boys aged under 17 were initially remanded by courts in Wales to prison service establishments.

HEALTH

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of food poisoning were recorded in England in each year from 1984 to 1989.
  818
  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Food poisoning

  Year

  OPCS formally notified

  OPCS otherwise ascertained

  Totals

  1984

  13,247

  7,455

  20,702

  1985

  13,143

  6,099

  19,242

  1986

  16,502

  7,446

  23,948

  1987

  20,363

  8,968

  29,331

  1988

  27,826

  11,887

  39,713

  1989

  39,125

  15,588

  54,713

  1 Provisional.

  The OPCS collates notifications of food poisoning and publishes them weekly for England and Wales. The statutory notifications of food poisoning sent to OPCS are based on clinical diagnosis or suspicion of food poisoning—clinical specimens for laboratory investigation may not have been taken.

  Reasons for the increase in 1989 are unclear, but may be explained in part by the unusually long warm summer and in part by greater interest in identifying and reporting infections consequent upon considerable professional and public attention to food safety issues.

  Hospital Laundering
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the value of the successful tender for the laundry contract awarded in each health authority in 1987 and 1988; and what was the actual cost of the service in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not held centrally on the value of successful tenders for laundry contracts awarded by health authorities in 1987 and 1988, nor on the actual cost of these services in 1988 and 1989.

  However, the table shows that total expenditure on laundry services in 1988–89 for health authorities that have awarded laundry contracts in 1987 and 1988.

  Total expenditure on laundry services in 1988–89 for health authorities who have awarded laundry contracts in 1987 and 1988

  Health Authority

  Expenditure £

  Northern Region

  Northumberland

  596,918

  South Tees

  588,437

  South West Durham

  329,178

  Sunderland

  447,903

  South Cumbria

  206,035

  West Cumbria

  247,695

  Yorkshire Region

  Airedale

  323,719

  Bradford

  443,366

  Calderdale

  332,447

  Harrogate

  183,910

  Northallerton

  80,067

  Pontefract

  227,805

  Scarborough

  149,857

  Wakefield

  212,378

  Trent Region

  Nottingham

  1,198,670

  East Anglia Region

  Cambridge

  672,789

  Peterborough

  356,332

  819

  Health Authority

  Expenditure £

  North West Thames Region

  North Bedfordshire

  216,130

  North East Thames Region

  Hampstead

  671,779

  South East Thames Region

  Camberwell

  391,839

  Dartford

  293,698

  Hastings

  327,957

  Lewisham

  645,017

  Maidstone

  367,927

  Medway

  321,097

  South East Kent

  447,080

  West Lambeth

  509,814

  South West Thames Region

  Merton and Sutton

  667,806

  Richmond

  275,181

  East Surrey

  497,094

  Mid Surrey

  445,542

  Worthing

  212,877

  Wessex Region

  Salisbury

  289,601

  Southampton

  576,908

  West Dorset

  319,672

  Oxford Region

  West Berkshire

  562,153

  South Western Region

  Cornwall

  780,596

  Frenchay

  512,874

  West Midlands Region

  Coventry

  671,923

  Dudley

  521,880

  Hereford

  333,752

  Mid Staffordshire

  440,312

  North Staffordshire

  836,470

  South East Staffordshire

  435,638

  North Birmingham

  241,903

  Rugby

  76,332

  Sandwell

  327,961

  Shropshire

  652,163

  Wolverhampton

  358,047

  North Western Region

  Blackburn

  384,252

  Bolton

  398,554

  Burnley

  508,649

  Bury

  204,670

  Lancaster

  477,389

  North Manchester

  350,322

  South Manchester

  630,832

  Oldham

  224,026

  Preston

  413,010

  Rochdale

  201,677

  Tameside

  230,469

  Wigan

  286,925

  Special Health Authorities

  Eastman Dental Hospital

  9,153

  Hospitals for Sick Children

  148,465

  National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases

  66,713

  Incontinence
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he plans to take steps to improve the delivery of incontinence advice and supplies across the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;
  820
  (2) what advice he has issued to health authorities on the need to provide a continence service; and how this will be affected by National Health Service and Community Care Bill;

  (3) what information he has for each district health authority on (a) any restrictions that apply to the supply of incontinence pads to people living in (i) their own homes and (ii) residential homes (b) how much each district health authority spent on incontinence pads for the previous three years and how much for 1988 and 1989, (c) whether the district health authority has a written policy on continence drawn up in co-operation with the social services department and (d) how many continence advisers are employed by each district health authority;

  (4) what training is required for prospective continence advisers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The advice given to health authorities on the provision of services to people suffering from incontinence was given in health notice (88) 26, a copy of which is in the Library. This advised health authorities to agree strategies with social services departments and to appoint continence advisers. This advice is unaffected by the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Detailed information on local service provision is not held centrally.

  Both health authorities and local authorities have discretionary powers to provide incontinence supplies and aids. The extent to which they exercise that discretion varies in the light of local needs and circumstances. There is no formal training requirement for continence advisers. the majority of them are registered general nurses. There is an English National Board training course (No. 978 "An introduction to the promotion of continence and management of incontinence") which a large proportion of continence advisers have taken either before or after taking up appointment.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the authorities replacing the district health authorities can be mandated to hold their business in public as currently.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  District health authorities will not be replaced. Our proposals aim to reform their membership. District health authority meetings will continue, as now, to be subject to the provisions of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960.

  North West RHA
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases were dealt with by Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley district health authority from 1979 to 1989 in(a) general medicine, (b) paediatrics, (c) geriatric medicine and (d) general surgery.

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

  Cases treated, Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley District Health Authority, 1979–1988–89

  General surgery

  General medicine

  Paediatrics1

  Geriatric medicine

  In-patient case.

  1979

  6,088

  5,634

  1,916

  1,015

  1980

  6,259

  5,854

  2,038

  1,328

  821

  General surgery

  General medicine

  Paediatrics1

  Geriatric medicine

  1981

  6,160

  6,385

  2,710

  1,636

  1982

  6,136

  6,145

  2,904

  2,013

  1983

  6,577

  6,563

  2,974

  2,439

  1984

  6,740

  7,035

  2,919

  2,255

  1985

  6,772

  7,352

  3,060

  2,385

  1986

  6,487

  7,064

  2,806

  2,267

  1987–88

  6,473

  8,319

  3,224

  2,509

  1988–89

  6,181

  8,026

  3,523

  2,396

  Day case admissions

  1979

  397

  553

  2

  0

  1980

  560

  553

  9

  0

  1981

  650

  920

  1

  0

  1982

  570

  1,154

  1

  0

  1983

  553

  1,037

  5

  0

  1984

  698

  1,266

  4

  0

  1985

  708

  1,365

  6

  0

  1986

  715

  1,314

  3

  0

  1987–88

  986

  1,108

  4

  0

  1988–89

  1,096

  964

  38

  0

  New out-patients

  1979

  4,356

  2,238

  739

  94

  1980

  4,547

  2,200

  688

  123

  1981

  5,059

  3,388

  1,058

  131

  1982

  4,989

  4,050

  946

  119

  1983

  4,738

  3,904

  989

  91

  1984

  4,855

  3,968

  1,085

  114

  1985

  5,011

  4,857

  1,102

  95

  1986

  5,034

  4,951

  1,147

  100

  1987–88

  5,376

  5,432

  1,165

  105

  1988–89

  5,458

  5,289

  1,065

  115

  Total out-patient attendances

  1979

  13,731

  15,428

  5,327

  345

  1980

  14,217

  15,341

  5,385

  508

  1981

  14,806

  20,001

  6,976

  773

  1982

  14,848

  21,453

  7,708

  1,054

  1983

  14,004

  23,382

  8,168

  1,089

  1984

  14,546

  23,797

  7,668

  1,382

  1985

  14,338

  25,402

  7,218

  1,745

  1986

  13,753

  26,708

  6,723

  1,812

  1987–88

  15,029

  26,253

  6,216

  2,159

  1988–89

  15,314

  27,335

  6,495

  2,262

  Source: 1979–1986 SH3 return.

  1987–88 onwards, sH3a, KHO9 and KP70 returns.

  1Including special care baby unit(s).

  Childhood Immunisation
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the most recent rates of uptake for childhood immunisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am pleased to say that the uptake rates for childhood immunisations in England continue to improve. In 1988–89, the overall uptake for measles increased to 80 per cent. (from 76 per cent. in 1987–88), and whooping cough reached 75 per cent. (from 73 per cent.). Uptake for diphtheria, tetanus and polio remained at 87 per cent. We believe that the actual improvement has been better than these figures indicate, because the 1987–88 returns included a small percentage of children above the age of two years, while those for 1988–89 are confined to those under that age.

  A total of 85 English districts have now reached an average of 90 per cent. or more for diphtheria, tetanus and polio uptake, and 20 have done so for measles. A total of 56 districts have achieved 80 per cent. or more for whooping cough. Notifications for measles are at their
  822
  lowest levels since records began, while the peak of the current whooping cough upsurge is likely to be very much lower than its predecessors.

  We are planning to maintain this pace of improvement in 1989–90 and subsequent years. Renewed efforts will be made to ensure that immunisation uptake for 1989–90 and 1990–91 (the first two full years in which MMR vaccine has been available) achieves the target of 90 per cent. coverage sought by the World Health Organisation. Ninety per cent. is also the upper target for general practitioners in their new contract, which commences in April.

  General Practitioner Contract
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will allow general practitioners to subtract contra-indications from target figures for cervical cytology and immunisation programmes under the new contract arrangements;

  (2) if he will allow general practitioners to subtract informed dissenters from target figures for cervical cytology and immunisation programmes under the new contract arrangements;

  (3) what consideration he has given to the effect on general practitioner-patient relationships of not allowing general practitioners to subtract informed dissenters and contra-indications from target figures for cervical cytology and immunisation programmes under the new contract arrangements;

  (4) what information his Department has on the potential numbers of (a) informed dissenters and (b) contra-indications who will not take part in cervical cytology and immunisation programmes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The prevention of childhood diseases and cancer of the cervix is a high priority for the Government. We believe that the new target payment system will encourage GPs to improve levels of immunisation and screening and thereby reduce the incidence of these distressing diseases. The coverage levels at which target payments will be made have been set below 100 per cent. to allow for patients who, for any reason, do not wish to take advantage of these services. No data are available about the numbers of such patients but the experience of practices with high levels of cover suggests that the numbers are not great and that the higher level targets are achievable. The number of children who show contra-indications is small—less than 2 per cent. overall. The Government are satisfied that the new arrangements will have no deleterious effect on the relationship between patients and general practitioners.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will alter the general practitioner contract to allow a peer group of medical practitioners and not family practitioner committees to scrutinise cervical smear exclusion data.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We see no need for such arrangements. Family practitioner committees have a clearly defined management function in handling payment claims from doctors who are in contract with them.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will anonymise patient data from women who have undergone hysterectomies for the purpose of ensuring confidentiality under the new general practitioner contract target arrangements.
  823
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The final details of the information that GPs will need to supply to family practitioner committees (FPCs) when claiming target payments have yet to be settled. No more information than is absolutely necessary for checking and audit purposes will be required by FPCs to approve the appropriate payments. All clinical information is treated on a confidential basis.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will exclude from general practitioner target payment figures nuns, virgins and women who do not wish to undergo a cervical smear.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. To exclude women who do not wish to be screened would not be consistent with the objective of the target payments scheme, which is to encourage GPs to point out the benefits to their patients of screening for cancer of the cervix. We believe it is a sensible precaution to include within the target scheme all women in the vunerable age group who have not had hysterectomies.

  RU486 Drug
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any application has yet been received for a product licence in connection with the abortifacient drug RU486.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is not usual practice to disclose information about whether or not an application for a product licence has been received or to give information about the progress of any such application.

  Cook-Chill Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make public the full report of his Department's audit inquiry into the financial arrangements relating to Wakefield district health authority's cook-chill system of catering;

  (2) when he expects his Department's director of audit to complete the audit of Wakefield district health authority's revenue and capital expenditure on the introduction of a cook-chill catering system.

  Mr. Freeman
  The director of audit expects the preliminary statutory audit visit to Wakefield district health authority, at which the cook-chill catering system is to be reviewed, to be completed in early April 1990.

  We do not intend to make public any report that may be made by the Department's statutory auditor.

  Wakefield DHA
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require a report from the chairman of Wakefield district health authority as to the reasons for and full cost of the recent meeting held by him, the authority's district general manager and commercial manager with Tillery Valley Foods in south Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a local issue for the health authority concerned. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Wakefield health authority, Mr. Hayward, for further information.

  Nurses (Training)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses have received(a) basic training and (b) post-graduate training in the private sector in (i) 1980, (ii) 1987, (iii) 1988 and (iv) 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  In 1989 representatives from the English National Board, the Department of Health and the independent sector established a working group to identify the extent of the sector's input to pre-registration and post-registration nurse training; and to agree action to increase this input consistent with its demand for staff. The working group should report by the summer.

  Preliminary findings by the group are that the independent sector does make a contribution to post-registration nurse training, placing some 200 nurses a year on about 23 different approved courses. In addition, at any one time, around 200 pre-registration NHS nurses are undergoing a short (anything from one to 12 weeks) placement in an independent hospital, generally free of charge.

  Most training takes place in the National Health Service.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often hospital waiting lists are collected; and if he will publish them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about hospital in-patient waiting lists is collected quarterly from health authorities. Booklets summarising the information arid bulletins commenting on trends are published for the March and September quarters, maintaining a series of comparable figures back to September 1975.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the hospital in-patient waiting lists for 30 September 1989 will be published within six months of the collection date.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We plan to publish the waiting list statistics by early April.

  Patients (Treatment)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of in-patients treated immediately by referral and not recorded as waiting for treatment, and give this as a percentage figure of all patients treated.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information readily available indicates that in 1987–88 some 3 million (54 per cent.) of all acute admissions were not recorded as already waiting for in-patient treatment.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the amount spent on(a) agency nurses and (b) agency clerical and administrative staff for the latest available year for each district health authority, special health authority and regional health authority and England as a whole.
  825
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the amount spent on agency staff for 1983, 1987, and the latest available year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is derived from the summarised annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in Engand together with those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals:

  Total revenue expenditure on non-national health service (agency, etc.) staff

  Year

  £000 (cash)

  1983–84

  59,822

  1987–88

  211,436

  11988–89

  252,167

  1 Latest available.

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1987–88 and 1988–89 excludes £2·4 million and in million respectively being similar costs charged to capital expenditure and which were not specifically identified in the accounts for earlier years.

  2. The figure for 1983–84 includes a minor element from the administrative expenses of family practitioner committees (FPCs) which is not separately identifiable but is excluded from the figures for the more recent years.

  As a result of various initiatives achieved or pending including: nurse clinical grading and improved London allowances; administrative and clinical local pay flexibility; flexible grading in scientific and professional staff groups and local pay flexibility for other staff groups the amount spent on agency staff should reduce in future.

  The expenditure remains predominately in the Thames regions, which together with the London postgraduate SHAs accounted for some 76 per cent. of the national total (£252 million).

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the numbers of agency nurses used on the latest date for which figures are available and on comparable dates for the two preceding years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is as follows:

  Number of agency nursing and midwifery staff (whole-time equivalent) in England

  Number

  30 September 1988

  6,240

  30 September 1987

  6,130

  30 September 1986

  5,450

  Health and Social Service Statistics
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish, for the latest available year, the figures given in table 3.1 of "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics, 1989".

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is shown in the table:826

  Health and personal social services manpower summary1

  England

  Unit

  As at 30 September 1988

  Health service staff and practitioners, and local authority social services staff: Total

  1,077,894

  Health service staff and practitioners: Total

  842,090

  Directly employed staff: Total

  Wte

  793,391

  Medical and dental staff1: Total

  44,749

  Hospital medical and dental staff:

  Total

  Wte

  40,643

  Medical staff

  37,559

  Medical locum staff

  1,852

  Dental staff

  1,183

  Dental locum staff

  48

  Community health service medical and dental staff: Total

  Wte

  4,106

  Medical staff

  2,789

  Medical locum staff

  45

  Dental staff

  1,262

  Dental locum staff

  10

  Nursing and midwifery staff: Total

  Wte

  403,883

  Nursing staff: Total

  Wte

  380,265

  Administrative staff

  2,601

  Centrally based services

  1,854

  Blood transfusion service

  1,145

  Hospital staff

  330,669

  Primary health care services2

  37,295

  Health visitor students

  786

  Agency nursing staff

  5,915

  Midwifery staff: Total

  Wte

  23,618

  Administrative staff

  198

  Hospital staff

  18,993

  Community health services

  4,106

  Agency midwives

  321

  Professional and technical staff (excluding works): Total

  Wte

  79,775

  Health authorities staff

  78,203

  Other statutory authorities staff

  1,572

  Works professional staff: Total

  Wte

  5,323

  Health authorities staff

  5,301

  Other statutory authorities staff

  22

  Maintenance staff (building and engineering): Total

  Wte

  17,331

  Health authorities staff

  17,224

  Other statutory authorities staff

  107

  Administrative and clerical staff3: Total

  Wte

  115,951

  Health authorities staff

  112,312

  Other statutory authorities staff

  3,639

  Ambulance officers and control assistants

  Wte

  2,980

  Ambulancemen/women

  15,781

  Ancillary staff: Total

  Wte

  107,618

  Health authorities staff

  107,051

  Other statutory authorities staff

  567

  Family practitioner committee service:

  Practitioners: Total

  No.

  48,699

  General medical practitioners: Total4

  No.

  27,419

  Unrestricted principals

  25,322

  Restricted principals

  159

  827

  Unit

  As at 30 September 1988

  Assistants

  253

  Trainees

  1,685

  General dental practitioners: Total

  No.

  15,070

  Principals

  14,840

  Assistants

  230

  Ophthalmic medical pratitioners5

  No.

  832

  Ophthalmic opticians

  5,378

  Local authority social services staff:

  Total

  Wte

  235,804

  Senior directing, managing, professional and advisory staff

  5,846

  Field social work staff

  27,867

  Other headquarters, area office and field staff

  21,903

  Home help service staff

  59,968

  Day care staff for adults

  18,481

  Day care staff for children

  9,526

  Residential care staff for adults

  70,346

  Residential care staff for children

  18,292

  Other staff

  3,575

  Note: Headquarters, blood transfusion centre and mass radiography unit staff are included in the group of staff to which they relate eg "Medical".

  1 Includes all full time, part-time, honorary, locum and agency locum staff, but excludes medical practitioners participating in hospital staff funds and occasional sessional staff in community health services.

  2 Includes District nurse students.

  3 Exludes ambulance officers and includes general managers.

  4 At 1 October.

  5At 31 December. Dispensing opticians FPC contracts terminated 30 June 1986.

  6All figures are provisional.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how he seeks to ensure that no member of the hepatitis B high risk group, as defined by the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation, or their family, is denied vaccination; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will institute a Government information and monitoring programme on hepatitis B and add hepatitis B to the screening study currently in progress on the incidence of AIDS and HIV; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether the Health Education Authority has any plans to conduct an education campaign on hepatitis B targeted at specific groups and their families as well as prescribing physicians; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Health Education Authority is currently reviewing all its publications on sexually transmitted diseases, including information on hepatitis B.

  Viral hepatitis B is a notifiable disease and the public health laboratory service continues to monitor its incidence. The Department does not believe additional monitoring or screening procedures are required. Reported cases to the PHLS for the last five years for which figures are available are shown in the table:

  Acute hepatitis B; laboratory reports 1985–89

  Year

  Reported cases

  1985

  1,785

  1986

  1,329

  1987

  785

  828

  Year

  Reported cases

  1988

  644

  1989

  1608

  1 Figure provisional.

  Note: Acute hepatitis B reported from laboratories in England, Wales and Ireland includes all illnesses with or without jaundice, diagnosed as acute hepatitis and confirmed as type B by positive hepatitis B surface antigen tests or other serological markers of current or recent infection.

  These figures show a welcome decline in the incidence of the disease.

  A new edition of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation's memorandum, "Immunisation against Infectious Disease", to be issued shortly, will remind doctors of the high risk groups. However, the responsibility for ensuring vaccination is for occupational health services and for individual doctors, as appropriate.

  Census
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the proposed forms of questionnaire which people will be required to complete in next year's census of the population.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today laid before the House the Census Regulations 1990, which include reduced-size facsimilies of each of the census forms to be completed by the public in England and Wales. The regulations provide for the detailed arrangements necessary for the conduct of the census.

  Corresponding Census (Scotland) Regulations 1990 have been laid before the House today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Cancer and Leukaemia
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the incidence of cancer and leukaemia confirmed in children in Great Britain.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The data cover the years 1980–85, later data for Great Britain as a whole not yet being available.

  Number of cases of (a) all malignant neoplasms1 (b) leukaemia2 ages 0–14 years, Great Britain, 1980–85

  (a) All malignant neoplasms

  (b) Leukaemia

  Year

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  1980

  666

  515

  204

  161

  1981

  640

  553

  208

  183

  1982

  625

  502

  204

  173

  1983

  681

  525

  241

  188

  1984

  670

  549

  217

  181

  31985

  619

  472

  197

  152

  1 Assigned to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision codes 140–208.

  1 Assigned to the 9th revision ICD codes 204–208.

  3 Provisional.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in the area of the Pontefract health authority have been diagnosed or treated for cancer or cancer-related diseases including leukaemia over the past five years; and if he will make a statement;
  829
  (2) how many people in the area of the Wakefield health authority have been diagnosed or treated for cancer or cancer-related diseases including leukaemia over the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The exact information requested is not available.

  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) publishes annual cancer statistics using data collected by the 11 regional cancer registries and the Welsh cancer registry. Data concerning newly diagnosed cases of (a) malignant neoplasms and (b) leukaemias for Pontefract and Wakefield district health authorities (DHAs) are shown in the table, which covers the years 1982 (when DHAs were established) to 1985 (the latest year available):

  Newly diagnosed cases of (a) malignant neoplasms1 and (b) leukaemias2 in Pontefract and Wakefield DHAs 1982–85

  Wakefield DHA

  Pontefract DHA

  Year

  Malignant neoplasms

  Leukaemias

  Malignant neoplasms

  Leukaemias

  1982

  571

  4

  660

  12

  1983

  535

  7

  621

  16

  1984

  509

  9

  695

  8

  19853

  503

  11

  693

  6

  1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision codes 140–208.

  2 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision codes 204–208.

  3 Provisional data.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons have benefited from a home responsibilities protection for retirement pension since 1978.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. Records are not kept of the number of persons whose awards of retirement pension had periods of home responsibilities protection taken into account.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will end the transitional payments scheme to people on pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to do so.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on this subject on 12 February at column 89.

  Benefits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what specific financial efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for(a) contributory national insurance benefits, (b) non-contributory national insurance benefits, (c) means-tested benefits and (d) the social fund.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In a statement to the House on 17 May 1989, my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State announced the publication of a definition of the service to be provided to the public and said that the definition would be backed up by specific targets for performance.
  830
  Subsequent to the statement on 17 May, national performance targets for the years 1989–90 to 1991–92, in terms of clearance times in working days (unless otherwise indicated) and percentage error rates, were lodged in the Library.

  Targets for 1990–91 to 1992–93 are currently being reviewed.

  There are no specific financial efficiency targets for individual benefits at present.

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the unit cost of administering(a) contributory national insurance benefits, (b) noncontributory national insurance benefits, (c) means-tested benefits and (d) the social fund.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest information available is for the 1987–88 financial year. The unit cost of administering the following benefits in that year were:

  £

  (a) Contributory national insurance benefits

  66

  (b) Non-contributory non-income-related benefits

  14

  (c) Income-related benefits

  111

  The social fund was introduced in a limited way in 1987–88 for funeral and maternity payments only, but no separate figures are available—the costs for 1987–88 are included in the overall income related benefits figure.

  The unit costs are calculated by dividing the estimated administrative costs of the benefits involved by the average number of beneficiaries.

  Hostels
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from hon. Members regarding the effects on claimants of different levels of housing benefit payable to residents in Salvation Army hostels in Nottingham, Grimsby and Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Hostel dwellers on income support became eligible for housing benefit from 9 October 1989. Since that date we have received a small number of representations about the level of housing benefit in Salvation Army hostels generally.

  Benefit Payments (Part-weeks)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to pay, by direct payment, part-weeks of benefit(a) general and (b) where claimants are resident in hostels and are transient.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Part-week deductions from benefit for direct payment to third parties would be administratively complex and are not generally warranted. However, part-week deductions are available for claimants in night shelters.

  Claimants
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young claimants have so far gained extensions of benefit in order to prevent severe hardship; and how many who were pregnant.
  831
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of awards of income support to 16 and 17-year-olds on grounds of severe hardship for the period 12 September 1988 to 23 February 1990 is 16,206. Figures on the number of severe hardship directions made to those 16 and 17-year-olds who are pregnant have not been collected for this period. However, we are looking more closely at the situation of young pregnant girls.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people depended entirely on state benefits for their income in each of the years 1978 to 1989(a) nationally, (b) regionally and (c) in each local Department of Social Security area.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) on 5 March at column 520.

  Cash—£ million

  (1988–89 prices in brackets)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Unemployment benefit abatement for occupational/personal pension reduced from age 60 to 55

  -15

  (-15)

  -63

  (-59)

  —

  (—)

  Weekly earnings rule introduced for unemployment benefit

  —

  (—)

  -21

  (-20)

  -49

  (-44)

  Unemployment benefit "full extent normal" rule—de minimis provision

  "Actively seeking work" test for unemployment benefit

  Abolition of pensioners' earnings rule

  —

  (—)

  190

  (178)

  375

  (334)

  Widows: revised entitlement conditions for women widowed before April 1988

  —

  (—)

  122

  (21)

  13

  (12)

  1 First year expenditure included payments of arrears from April 1988.

  Employers' National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what is his estimate of the total which should be collected and which has been collected in employers' national insurance contributions for the latest five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The table shows the national insurance fund income expected from class 1 contributions (employees and employers schemes) compared with the contributions received from employers during the financial years from 1984–85 to 1988–89. The estimates were contained in the Government Actuary's reports which were laid before Parliament together with the draft Contributions Re-rating Orders for those years and exclude the SSP, SMP and abatement of contributions on SSP and SMP that employers were expected to recover from the Class 1 contributions they were due to remit.

  (£ Thousands)

  Year

  Estimated income from class 1 contributions

  Total contributions received from employers

  1984–85

  20,291,000

  21,380,595

  1985–86

  22,687,000

  22,564,779

  1986–87

  23,571,000

  24,254,179

  1987–88

  25,577,000

  26,522,035

  1988–89

  28,349,000

  29,759,614

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many visits by his Department's national

  Benefit Changes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, in pursuance of the reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead,Official Report, 20 February, column 675–76, he will detail the number affected by the changes to national insurance benefits over the 1981 to 1988 period and give the cash effect and the cash effect in 1988 prices for each of the changes during 1988 to 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As stated in my reply to the hon. Member of 20 February 1990, details of the numbers affected by changes prior to 1988 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Details of the cash effect of the changes set out in the reply of 20 February are given in the table. All the changes were, in whole or in part, introduced part way through the year and details are therefore given for both the year of introduction and the year following.

  insurance inspectors were planned to employers' premises in each of the last 10 years; how many were made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  National insurance inspectors conduct several thousand visits to employers each week to resolve inquiries and to investigate recording errors. In addition, inspectors conduct more searching visits in order to ensure compliance with social security legislation. Such visits are part of combined survey which, since 1986, has been undertaken in cooperation with Inland Revenue. No firm target was set for the overall number of visits because the time taken to complete them can vary widely but the expectation was to undertake around 100,000 each year. The actual number of these visits in each of the last three years was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1986–87

  103,630

  1987–88

  92,034

  1988–89

  80,568

  Figures for comparable visits undertaken in earlier years are not readily available.

  Social Security Spending
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the expenditure change in real terms between 1979–80 and 1989–90 for each of the beneficiary groups in table 14.9 of the public expenditure White Paper; and what is the total expenditure change on benefits in real terms during the same period.
  833
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The information is given in the table.

  £ million

  1979–80 cash

  1979–80 at 1989–90 prices

  1989–90

  Percentage increase

  Elderly people

  10,130

  20,411

  25,550

  25

  Sick and disabled people

  2,780

  5,601

  9,520

  70

  Family

  3,570

  7,193

  9,200

  28

  Unemployed people

  1,470

  2,962

  4,740

  60

  Widows and orphans

  760

  1,531

  1,240

  -19

  Total benefit expenditure

  18,780

  37,837

  50,246

  33

  Commercial Consultants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department observes a ceiling for charge-out rates for work commissioned from commercial consultants.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The Department of Social Security does not observe a ceiling for charging-out rates for work commissioned from commercial consultants. The Department pays the appropriate commercial rate for the grade and quality of work to be undertaken.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the total number of studies and reports commissioned from commercial consultants in each year 1978–79 to 1989–90, giving their total cost for each year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The total number of reports and studies on social security matters commisssioned from commercial consultants from 1986–87 onwards and their cost is in the table:

  Year

  Number of reports and studies commissioned

  Total cost of such work in that year (£ million)

  1986–87

  12

  0·620

  1987–88

  15

  0·853

  1988–89

  21

  1·372

  1989–90

  40

  2·993

  Records were not maintained in a form that enables information to be provided prior to 1986–87.

  Expenditure up to and including the 1988–89 financial year has been from a joint health and social security budget. When the work involved both social security and health aspects the cost of the report or study has been apportioned accordingly.

  Income Support
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants aged under 18 years are claiming income support in their own right; and if he will give details of each month's figures since the 1988 changes in entitlement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham., Ladywood (Ms. Short) on 26 October 1989 at col.539–40 the total number of 16 and 17-year-olds claiming in their own right ceased to be collected after October 1988 and could now be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  834
  Monthly figures are available on the number of awards of income support under the severe hardship provision. These are shown in table A.

  Our monitoring of the changes introduced in July 1989 gives monthly figures on the number of awards of income support to 16 and 17-year-olds other than under the severe hardship provisions. These are shown in table B.

  Table A

  Period ending

  Awards made

  30 September 1988

  234

  28 October 1988

  311

  25 November 1988

  435

  30 December 1988

  647

  27 January 1989

  705

  24 February 1989

  760

  31 March 1989

  1,012

  28 April 1989

  799

  26 May 1989

  952

  30 June 1989

  1,133

  28 July 1989

  1,173

  25 August 1989

  1,250

  29 September 1989

  1,291

  27 October 1989

  795

  24 November 1989

  791

  29 December 1989

  895

  26 January 1990

  1,437

  23 February 1990

  1,386

  Totals

  16,206

  Table B

  Month Ending

  Awards made

  31 July 1989

  645

  31 August 1989

  1,012

  30 September 1989

  1,008

  31 October 1989

  910

  30 November 1989

  753

  31 December 1989

  566

  31 January 1990

  868

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Apples and Pears
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the new arrangements made by apple and pear growers to organise research into their crops.

  Mr. Curry
  The new research body for apples and pears, the Apple and Pear Research Council, which came into being at the end of last year, has got off to an energetic start. It has already held an open meeting to which all
  835
  growers were invited in order to ensure that growers' views are fully taken into account in assessing the council's research priorities.

  Farming (New Entrants)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policies he is pursuing to encourage new entrants into farming.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions he is taking to assist young farmers wishing to enter agriculture.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to assist young farmers wishing to enter agriculture.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department gives grants to young farmers under the farm and conservation grant regulations at rates 25 per cent. higher than for other farmers.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new evidence he has on the vertical transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Gummer
  There is no evidence so far that maternal, that is dam to calf, transmission can take place. It does of course in sheep but not in any of the other species which may be affected by spongiform encephalopathy. We are conducting a major study, costing over £5 million, to determine the answer to this question.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what precautions his Department has taken relating to the offspring of bovine spongiform encephalopathy-stricken cattle.

  Mr. Gummer
  Despite the fact that there is no evidence of maternal transmission, as a precautionary measure any suspect animal that is pregnant must be isolated during and for 72 hours after calving and the placenta and other material burnt or buried. The accommodation used must then be cleaned and disinfected. In addition, as part of the comprehensive epidemiological inquiry into every case of BSE, data are collected in relation to calves of BSE-affected cattle.

  More generally, the consumer is fully protected because all suspect animals are slaughtered and destroyed and those offals which are most likely to harbour the BSE agent are banned from human consumption even in animals where there is no indication of the presence of BSE.

  Fruit
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the contribution of the Kingdom scheme to the marketing of English top fruit.

  Mr. Curry
  From its formation in 1980 the Kingdom scheme made a valuable contribution to both the promotion and marketing of top fruit.

  Agriculture Workers
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest average weekly wage for full-time agriculture workers.
  836
  Mr. Curry
  Average weekly earnings including benefits for full-time agricultural workers for the 12 months ending in June 1989 were £161·40. These are the latest figures which are available.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time hired workers were employed in agriculture in Worcestershire during 1989.

  Mr. Curry
  County figures for 1989 are not yet available. The 1988 figures for Hereford and Worcester, taken from the June 1988 agricultural census, are as follows:

  Hired workers

  Number

  Full-time

  2,949

  Part-time

  1,293

  Moorland Burning
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had about burning of moorland to regenerate heather.

  Mr. Curry
  We have had a number of discussions on conservation and agricultural practice on moorlands.

  Ruminant Rations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what opinions his Department has expressed to other European Community member states concerning the incorporation of meat and bonemeal in ruminant rations.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have kept our EC partners fully and regularly informed about the probable role of ruminant meat and bonemeal in the development of BSE and the measures we have taken to deal with the problem.

  Food Irradiation
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received against the introduction of food irradiation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I continue to receive letters about aspects of food irradiation, but no new considerations have arisen that are relevant to the Government's decision. The various issues have been thoroughly analysed and summarised with great clarity in the recent report from the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what major food manufacturers or supermarket chains have approached his Department requesting that the present ban on the sale in this country of irradiated foodstuff be lifted.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received no such representations direct from food manufacturers or retailers. However, I am aware that the Food and Drink Federation was among those scientific, health, consumer and trade bodies that commend favourably on the introduction of food irradiation in evidence to the recent inquiry by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities. The report of this inquiry is in the Library of the House.
  837
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports from independent scientific committees he has received regarding the safety of food irradiation.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the correspondence on food irradiation he has received has been in favour of its introduction.

  Mr. Maclean
  The nature of the correspondence does not lend itself to this sort of analysis since many of the letters either raise, or seek information about, particular aspects of the subject.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures are followed to achieve changes in green currency values.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures are followed to achieve changes in green currency values.

  Mr. Gummer
  Changes to green currencies are proposed by the Commission and agreed by qualified majority in the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next be discussing the green pound in the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Gummer
  The green pound will next be discussed at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 26–27 March.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he will be taking to secure support in Europe for his proposals on the green pound.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have made it clear to the Commission and the Council that I am seeking a substantial devaluation of the green pound and I will continue to pursue this objective in future negotiations, both in the Council of Ministers and elsewhere.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with other European Community Ministers concerning the future of green currencies.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with other European Community Ministers concerning the future of green currencies.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have regular discussions with other Community Agriculture Ministers, in the Council of Ministers and elsewhere. At these meetings I make it clear that I am seeking a substantial devaluation of the green pound at this year's farm price review.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what issues he will raise during his next European Council negotiations on the green pound.
  838
  Mr. Gummer
  I shall be pressing for a substantial devaluation at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the president of the National Farmers Union on the current state of the green pound; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The president of the National Farmers Union has made his views on the green pound clear to me on a number of occasions. I have told him that I seek to secure a substantial devaluation of the green pound at this year's farm prices review.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what commitments he has given to the National Farmers Union about his negotiating stance on the green pound.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have indicated to the House and to the National Farmers Union that I am seeking a substantial devaluation of the green pound at this year's farm price review, and that I am committed to the complete removal of the difference between the green and market rates of exchange of the pound by the end of 1992 at the latest.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received against Britain being granted a devaluation of the green pound.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received representations from various organisations drawing attention to the consequences of a devaluation of the green pound on food prices.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will tabulate, for each month since British accession to the European Community, the amount of divergence between British green pound rates weighted according to the value of production of each commodity group and overall exchange rates and the overall weighted impact to date of each divergence on British producer prices.

  Mr. Curry
  The information, in the form requested, is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask idle Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to achieve(a) a devaluation and (b) the abolition of the green pound.

  Mr. Gummer
  I expect to secure a devaluation of the green pound at this year's farm price review. The Council and Commission are agreed that all monetary gaps, including the gap between the green and market rate for the pound, should be eliminated by 1992 at the latest.

  Commercial Whaling
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the future of commercial whaling.

  Mr. Curry
  At present there is a moratorium on commercial whaling. The Department continues to receive many letters about the conservation of whales. We continue to work hard to safeguard this.

  Rhizomania
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on rhizomania.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government remain determined to prevent the introduction and spread of rhizomania, which presents a serious threat to the sugar beet industry. We operate a range of import controls and carry out extensive annual surveys of beet fields. The disease was first identified in 1987 at a farm in Suffolk and two further outbreaks were identified last year in Norfolk. These farms are subject to strict control measures designed to prevent the spread of the disease.

  Food Inspectorate
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to improve the food inspectorate.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the context of the requirements of the European Community directive on the official control of foodstuffs and of the Food Safety Bill, currently before Parliament, discussions will be held with representatives of enforcement authorities on any changes needed in the present arrangements for the inspection of foodstuffs.

  Equine Exports
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his efforts within the European Community to prevent the export of equines below set minimum values after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Negotiations on the Community's proposals on welfare conditions for animals in transit are still at a preliminary stage.

  We have emphasised the importance that we attach to securing proper controls on trade in horses but it is clear that these will be difficult negotiations.

  Eggs
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to assist in the marking of British-produced eggs.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have informed the industry that it is free to put origin terms on egg packs. As hon. Members will be fully aware, there are comprehensive measures in force in the United Kingdom to combat salmonella. I hope that similar measures will be taken throughout the EEC in the near future. Until then British eggs are subject to the toughest safety regulations in the Community.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any intention of banning the use of melange as a component which is included in raw liquid egg which is pasteurised for industrial use.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under European Community Council directive 89/437 of 20 June 1989 on hygiene and health problems affecting the production and the placing on the market of egg products, member states are required,840
  before 31 December 1991, to bring into force regulations that, inter alia, will prohibit the use of broken eggs in products intended for human consumption.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to provide more information concerning the ingredients in animal feed.

  Mr. Maclean
  A recent amendment to the European Community directive on the marketing of mixed feeds will oblige manufacturers to declare the materials used, though further work is necessary within the Community before this provision can be implemented by the member states.

  The present regulations already permit manufacturers to give full information about ingredients and farmers who want this information should seek it from their suppliers.

  Salmonella
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures he is taking to assist egg producers whose flocks are found to be infected with salmonella.

  Mr. Maclean
  As announced in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) on 13 February,Official Report, column 200, the scales of values for calculating compensation, where infected flocks are compulsorily slaughtered, have been revised to reflect increases in commercial prices and will be kept under regular review in future.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to visit eastern Europe.

  Mr. Gummer
  I visited Poland between 25 and 28 February 1990, and plan to go to Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria this month.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he is taking to assist in increasing food production in eastern European countries.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 8 February (Official Report, columns 1000–01). I have just returned from a visit to Poland, and shall be visiting Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria next week. Opportunities for visits to other eastern countries are being kept under review.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of ways in which United Kingdom agriculture can respond to the food needs of eastern Europe.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is clear that British experience and expertise in the agriculture and food sectors can be of great benefit in enabling eastern Europe to meet its food needs. The previous Socialist economies were particularly damaging to food production and I am determined that
  841
  Britain should play its full part in their transformation into the free market. We are already working closely with Poland and Hungary and I hope to visit Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia shortly with a small specialist team. We are also encouraging British business men and farmers to make the most of the opportunities offered by these welcome changes.

  Silage
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts he is making to reduce pollution risks from silage.

  Mr. Curry
  The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service provides free initial advice to farmers on ways to minimise pollution from silage; grants of 50 per cent. are available under the farm and conservation grant scheme for the construction and improvement of silage effluent facilities; and the Government are at present consulting on regulations that would set minimum construction standards for new and substantially reconstructed silage installations and which would provide a power to the National Rivers Authority to require improvements to existing installations; and the Government will shortly be introducing regulations setting minimum standards for new silage installations.

  Beef
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the present state of the beef industry.

  Mr. Curry
  The 1989 June agricultural census showed an increase in the beef breeding herd to its highest level for a decade, for the first time fully offsetting the fall in the dairy herd. The December 1989 census showed a continuation of this trend, with a rise of 9 per cent. over the previous year. These figures indicate that producers' expectations remain high.

  Consumer Panel
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his consumer panel will have its first meeting.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the operation of his consumer panel.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that consumer opinion is fully taken into account in formulating future food safety policy.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent arrangements he has made to improve the representation of consumer interests towards his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  Following my announcement of 2 November 1989 (Official Report, columns 317–18) we have established a consumer panel made up of ordinary consumers nominated by the main consumer bodies but appointed in an individual capacity. Its terms of reference are:
  "To review matters relating to the implementation of food safety policies and to examine particular issues of concern to consumers".
  842
  The first meeting of the panel will take place in London on 12 March 1990. The names of the members are:

  Mr. Phillip Bell, Edinburgh

  Mrs. Dorothy Craig, Newcastle upon Tyne

  Mrs. Harriet Kimbell, Guildford

  Mrs. Susan Leather, Exeter

  Mr. Patrick McCoy, Armagh

  Mr. Gareth Morgan, Llanfairpwll, Gwynedd

  Mrs. Wilma Mulliner, Weymouth

  Mrs. Susan Payne, Bromley

  Mrs. Noelle Whamond, Newton Stewart

  I expect the panel to lead to a useful dialogue between consumers and Ministers on food safety issues.

  We also wish to initiate periodic meetings in which we can bring together the leaders of consumer groups to consider a wide range of complex policy issues going much wider than the food safety issues on which the consumer panel will be concentrating. I am therefore writing today to 15 consumer bodies inviting them to a meeting in the Ministry next month.

  We expect that these arrangements will strengthen contacts and enable Ministers to hear a wide range of consumer views directly. They supplement the well-established arrangements for consulting consumer bodies on particular issues and listening to their views.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning organophosphorous sheep dips.

  Mr. Maclean
  A number of hon. Members and others have sought information from me and my Department about organophosphorous sheep dips.

  As I told the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 25 January (Official Report, columns 821–22), my Department will begin this year a review of ectoparasiticide product licences which will include licenced organophosphorous sheep dips.

  Bottled Water
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on nitrate levels in(a) imported bottled water and (b) home-produced bottled water.

  Mr. Maclean
  No specific limits for nitrates are laid down under the EC natural mineral waters directive. Information available suggests that levels of nitrates in both imported and home-produced bottled water are below the maximum concentration of 50 mg/l set by the EC drinking water directive.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve conditions of animal welfare throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to improve conditions of animal welfare throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Maclean
  In his written answer of 7 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) (Official Report, column 712), my right hon. Friend

  843
  explained that the community has already taken some action on animal welfare. However, he made it clear that further action is needed in a number of areas so that all countries in the Community operate to the same high standards for the keeping and transport of farm anumals.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on common European standards for animal welfare after 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  As explained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on 7 February,Official Report, column 712, I am determined that high standards of animal welfare should be adopted throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implications of the single European market for animal welfare.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commission has made a number of proposals to harmonise standards of animal welfare in the Community, and will be making further proposals in due course. The implications will depend on the outcome of the negotiations, in which we shall be pressing for improved safeguards for animal welfare in a number of important areas.

  Arable Farmers
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policy he is adopting towards the European Community price fixing which would be of advantage to arable farmers.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policies he is adopting at European Community price-fixing negotiations which would be of advantage to arable farmers.

  Mr. Curry
  We are seeking a substantial devaluation of the green pound; we are pressing for the basic cereals co-responsibility levy to be replaced by matching price cuts; and we are strongly supporting the Commission's proposals to maintain the present definition of double-low rapeseed for a further year.

  European Community Agriculture Ministers
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met with European Community Ministers of Agriculture; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on 7 March.

  Dairy Sector
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss the dairy sector.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, and with other industry leaders, to discuss the dairy sector.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what marketing opportunities he envisages being created by reforming the Milk Marketing Board.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not for Government to identify marketing opportunities. But I am concerned that the milk marketing arrangements should encourage innovation and enable the industry to take advantage of changing market opportunities. I am encouraging the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trade Federation to pursue their discussions with a view to devising arrangements suited to the 1990s.

  Tyrell Committee
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to implement any more of the recommendations of the Tyrell committee.

  Mr. Gummer
  Work is already in hand or planned on all the projects recommended by the Tyrell committee as urgent or of high priority. It is essential to devote expertise and resources to the priority work but we will keep the recommended research of a lower priority under review. In total the Government will be spending over £12 million in the next three years on BSE-related research.

  Farmers (Countryside Custodians)
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policies he is pursuing in order to emphasise to farmers their role as custodians of the countryside.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department provides a range of incentives including the environmentally sensitive areas, farm and conservation grants and farm woodland schemes, together with general and specialised athice on conservation aimed at encouraging farmers to protect and enhance the countryside.

  Overseas Food Fairs
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which overseas food fairs and exhibitions his Department has attended since July 1989.

  Mr. Curry
  Since July 1989, the following fairs and exhibitions have been attended by Ministers and officials of my Department:

  16 October 1989—Anuga food fair, Cologne

  25 January 1990—Berlin green week

  6 February 1990—ISM Sweets and biscuits fair Cologne

  I regard it as most important that British companies should receive maximum encouragement in their efforts to penetrate overseas markets.

  Herrings
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the volume of herrings landed in England and Wales last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Provisional figures for the volume of herrings landed in England and Wales in 1989 are 1,324 tonnes by United Kingdom and foreign vessels.

  Veterinary Product Licensing
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the average British fees for veterinary product licensing; and what are the comparable level of fees levied in other EC countries.

  Mr. Maclean
  A wide range of fees is charged for veterinary medicines licensing based on an estimate of the full economic cost of assessing each type of application. I do not have sufficient information to make a useful comparison with fees charged in other EC countries or the basis on which they are set.

  Covent Garden Market Authority
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Covent Garden Market Authority; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Curry
  I last met the chairman of the Covent Garden Market Authority on 1 March when we discussed a number of matters of mutual interest on the present and future operation of the market. I am now able to announce my conclusions following the study commissioned last year into the future of the Covent Garden market.

  I have decided that in principle legislation should be presented, at a suitable opportunity, to dispose of the assets of the authority.

  As foreshadowed in my reply to the hon. Member's question on 27 February, [Official Report, column 108], I am today arranging for a summary of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  I am also today writing to the chairman of the Market Tenants Association to inform him of this decision and will see that tenants' views are taken into account in framing detailed proposals.

  The authority will be shortly opening negotiations with the tenants about new leases to replace those that expire in March 1991.

  Horticultural Research
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restructuring of horticultural research he has achieved in the last six months.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is working closely with the Department of Education and Science and the Agricultural and Food Research Council, in consultation with representatives of the horticulture industry, to set up a new unified organisation for horticultural research based on a reconstituted British Society for Horticultural Research. The new BSHR will be the principal contractor for horticultural research and development in the United Kingdom and will carry out the bulk of Government-funded horticultural research. We believe the new organisation will provide both Government and industry with a more efficient and effective R and D service while maintaining the highest scientific standards.

  Poultry Health Regulations
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has recently received about the Poultry Health Regulations.
  846
  Mr. Maclean
  I have received representations on various aspects of the salmonella control measures, including the cost of testing, the effect on rare breed flocks and the level of compensation paid when flocks are compulsorily slaughtered. There has been recognition of the steps which the Government have been able to take in response to these concerns. Representations have also been received on the European Commission proposal for a Council regulation laying down health rules for the production and placing on the market of fresh poultry meat to replace European Community directive 71/118. Most of the representations have expressed concern about the need for the on-farm production of poultry meat and for uneviserated poultry.

  Stubble Burning
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had about his intention to end stubble burning.

  Mr. Curry
  There have been discussions with the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. These consultations, which are continuing, are focused on the scope of the limited exemptions foreseen in my right hon. Friend's statement of 30 November 1989 and on the strengthening of the National Farmers Union's code of practice in the period leading up to the proposed prohibition.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the recommendations in the report of the committee on the microbiological safety of food.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) on 15 February,Official Report, columns 398–99.

  Wheat and Bread
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends answering the question from the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West put down for answer on 18 January, asking for the comparative prices of wheat and bread over the last five years.

  Mr. Curry
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 28 February 1990,Official Report, column 242.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his review of pesticides.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 8 February,Official Report, column 728.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Advisory Committee on Pesticides last met; and what matters were discussed.
  847
  Mr. Maclean
  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides last met on 25 January. The main items discussed were: requests for approval of three new pesticides; reviews of four existing approvals; a draft code of practice for the use of pesticides on farms and holdings and two survey reports on pesticides usage in Scotland.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the amount of beef being exported to western Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The amount of beef exported from the United Kingdom to western Europe1 in 1989 was 111,998 tonnes.

  1 EC and EFTA countries, Malta, Cyprus and Gibraltar.

  Reconstituted Meat
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking with regard to meat reconstituted with blood plasma gel.

  Mr. Maclean
  Should a company decide to use this technique for the preparation of meat products it would need to ensure that the product was safe and labelled in accordance with the Food Labelling Regulations 1984. This would apply equally to home-produced and imported products. In particular, those regulations require that food labels carry details of any process which the product has undergone where the omission of such detail would mislead the consumer, details of any ingredients used in the product which would include blood enzymes, and a name for the food which would distinguish it from any other foodstuff with which it might be confused.

  Misleading labelling of food is an offence under the Food Act 1984. It is not for me to suggest particular forms of words for labels. A company would need to decide what description of this or any similar process would adequately explain to its intended customers the exact nature of the foodstuff. Trading standards officers are responsible for enforcing the law: I expect that they were already aware of the development of this process but my officials have drawn the matter to their attention.

  The labelling rules apply equally to catering supplies as they do to retail sales. As part of its current labelling review I have already asked the Food Advisory Committee to look at the difficult matter of information provided to customers in restaurants, cafes or other catering outlets.

  I was made aware only recently of the process that has been developed in the Netherlands but I have no indications that it produces a foodstuff which is unsafe.

  The process has been developed by a very reputable Dutch institute and the data available so far to my Department do not indicate any need for us to enage in our own research.

  It would be a commercial decision for a British company to choose to use this technique in the production of its meat products. I am not aware of any company that has so decided nor is it my understanding that any such products are currently being marketed in the United Kingdom, or in the Netherlands.

  However, my Department is monitoring developments closely and I will take any further action that seems appropriate in the interests of either food safety or consumer protection.

  National Farmers Union AGM
  Mr. Michael Latham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union at Kensington town hall.

  Mr. Gummer
  I was very glad to have the opportunity to address the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union. Copies of my speech are in the Library of the House. I underlined the vital role which farmers play in our national life: as an efficient and competitive industry, as the guarantors of our food supply and as the guardians of our countryside. I also made plain our determination to ensure that United Kingdom farmers have a fair deal in Europe, in particular through a substantial devaluation of the green pound.

  Consumers Association
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Consumers Association to discuss food-related issues; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend last met the Consumers Association on 15 January 1990. They discussed a wide range of issues including the Food Safety Bill, food irradiation and the Department's consumer panel.

  Milk Quota
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he will he seeking EC approval for in respect of the distribution of additional milk quota in 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  My proposals were that quota should be allocated to producers who received awards from the dairy produce quotas tribunal which were scaled hack and have not yet been fully implemented; to smaller producers; to producers in remote areas, principally the islands of Scotland and the Scilly Isles; and to new entrants. The Commission raised a number of points in connection with these proposals. With one exception, which concerns my proposal to loan quota to new entrants rather than grant it outright, all points of difficulty have now been satisfactorily resolved and I am awaiting formal Commission agreement. Regulations will then he laid before Parliament and the majority of the quota issued before the end of the current quota year.

  Farmers' Unions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met leaders of the farmers' unions; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  I meet leaders of the farmers' unions frequently to discuss various agricultural matters.

  I met the presidents of the National Farmers Union, the Scottish National Farmers Union and the Ulster Farmers Union on 30 January to discuss the state of the agriculture industry and the European Community's farm price proposals.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much land has been included in the set-aside scheme; and what is the cost to the most recent practicable date.

  Mr. Curry
  A total of 110,000 hectares of land has so far been set aside in the United Kingdom. The cost of payments in the current financial year is about £11 million.

  Industrial Wastes
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to require industrial wastes presently being dumped in the North sea to be stored on land until land-based disposal facilities have been developed.

  Mr. Curry
  No. As my right hon. Friend announced on 22 February,Official Report, column 899, it is our intention that, with two possible short-term exceptions, industrial wastes will not continue to be dumped at sea after 1992. In certain circumstances short-term storage may have a useful part to play in waste management, but in general it is neither practicable nor environmentally desirable for the industrial wastes which are currently dumped at sea.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many licences to dump chemical industrial wastes in the North sea will be terminated by 31 December 1992; and how many will continue to be in force:

  (2) what percentage of chemical industrial wastes dumped in the North sea will be terminated by 31 December 1992; and what percentage will continue.

  Mr. Curry
  It is my intention that all licences to dispose of industrial wastes in the North sea covered by the 1987 North sea declaration will be terminated by 31 December 1992. For two of the wastes, however, involving 77 per cent. of the current total annual licensed tonnage, it might not be technically feasible to meet this deadline. I will extend the licences for these last two wastes into 1993 only if absolutely necessary on technical grounds and for the shortest possible part of that year.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the continued use of organophosphorous sheep dips.

  Mr. Maclean
  As I told the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 25 January Official Report, column 821 my Department will begin this year a review of ectoparasiticide product licences which will include licensed organophosphorous sheep dips.

  Veterinary Surgeons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his Department's future plans for training veterinary surgeons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The arrangement of courses for those wishing to obtain veterinary degrees is a matter for the 850
  veterinary colleges. My Department ensures that the veterinary surgeons which it employs are properly trained for their duties. The action which the Government are taking in response to the Page committee's report on the review of veterinary manpower and education was announced in a reply given to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 31 January.

  Poultry (Slaughter)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate what the total value of the birds compulsorily slaughtered under the provisions of the Zoonoses Order 1989 and the Animal Health Act 1981 would have been had they been sent to processors for use as cooked poultry meat.

  Mr. Maclean
  Estimates relating to this hypothetical situation are not available.

  Mr. J. J. Cato
  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the man hours taken by officials in his Department in their administrative, clerical and legal functions relating to Mr. J. J. Cato's application for a decommissioning grant and the subsequent legal actions and appeals.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total cost of his Department's legal expenses to date in the case of J. J. Cato v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Mr. Maclean
  Payments of stationery costs and counsel's fees in the case brought by Mr. J. J. Cato were £6,058.

  Spent Hens
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the typical sale price for a spent hen currently paid to an egg producer by a processor.

  Mr. Curry
  We estimate that the typical selling price for an end-of-lay hen is currently between 55p and 60p.

  Fish Catches
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reasons he ascribes to the substantial drop in volume of fish catches off the Tyneside coast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The fall in landings in the first two months of 1990 at the main north-east coast ports compared with the same period in 1989 largely reflects the recent bad weather. During 1990 as a whole another factor will be that as North sea round fish stocks, in particular of cod and haddock, are lower total allowable catches in 1990 have been reduced to assist the recovery of such stocks.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Food Advisory Committee last met; and what matters were discussed.
  851
  Mr. Maclean
  The independent Food Advisory Committee last met on 25 January 1990 when it discussed matters concerned with its review of food labelling; the use of the preservative thiabendazole; the presence of tin in canned foods and the second food surveillance group report on plasticisers levels in food contact materials in food. Subsequently it held a joint meeting with the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  North Sea Haddock
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are being made to reduce United Kingdom fishing for North sea haddock in 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  At its meeting last December, the EC Council of Fisheries Ministers and the Commission agreed that, because of the seriously depleted state of the North sea haddock stock, any member state with a quota exceeding 10 per cent. of the Community share of the stock should reduce its fishing for that stock in 1990 by 30 per cent. The United Kingdom's 1990 quota is 87 per cent. of the Community's share of the stock.

  Following consultations with fishing industry organisations, we have decided that United Kingdom vessels over 10 m overall length which in 1989 landed more than 40 tonnes of North sea haddock and more than 10 per cent. of whose total landings in 1989 consisted of North sea haddock should either not fish in the North sea on more than 92 days during the remainder of this year or be limited, when fishing for demersal fish in the North sea, to using and carrying gear with 110 mm mesh and of specified conformation designed to ensure that it is substantially more selective than the 90 mm mesh nets normally permitted for demersal fisheries in the North sea.

  Landings of North sea haddock by vessels not covered by these new arrangements will be subject to restrictions designed to avoid any increase in effort against this stock. Producer organisations (POs) with sectoral allocations of North sea haddock are also being asked to regulate their members' landings so that they do not take more than 60 per cent of their allocations by 1 July and no more than 85 per cent. by 1 October: fishing by the non sector will be regulated similarly.
  852
  To maximise the effectiveness of these arrangements, we are laying before Parliament a statutory instrument to extend licensing to fishing in the North sea for any species by United Kingdom vessels of over 10 m.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I believe that fishermen will accept that these controls are necessary in the longer-term interests of all those who rely on the North sea haddock fishery. The reduction in the 1990 total allowable catch (TAC) and quotas for this stock needs to be supplemented with reductions in effective effort in order to ensure that the intended gains from reducing the TAC are achieved. Without such action there would be a serious risk of a total collapse in the North sea haddock stock. The paramount importance of conserving our fish stocks was supported by both sides of the House in recent debates.

  Compound Feedstuff's
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he plans he has to require the manufacturers of compound feedingstuffs to show all raw materials used on the labelling of their products;

  (2) what requirements control the labelling of the raw materials for compound feedingstuffs; and what substances are permitted under the generic descriptions oil, protein, fibre and ash.

  Mr. Maclean
  holding answer 5 March 1990]: The current Feedingstuffs Regulations 1988 permit manufacturers to give full declaration of raw material ingredients in compound feedingstuffs and farmers who want this information should seek it from their suppliers. A recent amendment to the EC directive on the marketing of mixed feeds will make it obligatory for all manufacturers to declare the materials used. Analytical declarations of protein, oil, fibre and ash are already required for the total feedingstuff regardless of the individual ingredients and provide indications of feeding value (protein), digestible energy content (oil and fibre) mineral or non-assimilable content (ash). Procedures for determining these parameters are laid down in the Feedingstuffs (Sampling and Analysis) Regulations 1982.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Hong Kong: Democracy
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they did not take the advice of OMELCO (Office of the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils) with regard to the introduction of genuine democracy in Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place on 16th February. We have decided to introduce 18 directly elected seats in 1991—just two seats below the OMELCO consensus. In return for this we have secured from the Chinese Government the improvements in the draft Basic Law outlined in my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a feeling of numbness in Hong Kong and that morale in the police force and the Civil Service is at rock bottom? Can he assure the House that the Government will do their utmost to try to improve the amount of democracy in Hong Kong before we leave so that the people in that unhappy place will have some kind of protection, whether or not the Peking Government continue their hard line?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the number of directly elected seats in 1995 remains open. We have not agreed to 20 seats for 1995 but have said that the number will be at least 20. The improvement that we secured in the latest move was a commitment to provide 20 seats in 1997, 24 in 1999, 30 in 2003 and the possibility that full direct elections can be introduced in 2007. That is a considerable improvement on previous proposals put forward by the Chinese Government which provided for no more than 18 directly elected seats in 1997 and no commitment to further progress.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what are the implications of the comments made by the Foreign Secretary in another place and repeated by the Minister: namely, that there should be at least 20 seats out of a total of 60? Is that figure negotiable with the Chinese Government between now and 1997? Secondly, can the Minister say what the reaction of OMELCO has been to the apparent settlement of 20 seats out of 60? Has it agreed or objected to that? What proposals has it put forward to Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the current proposal in the Basic Law as drafted by the Chinese Government is that there should be 20 seats in 1995, the date to which that number refers. We should like to see more and for that reason we have stated a minimum of 20 seats. It will be most important to see the outcome of the 1991 elections. They will be a substantial and important step forward in democracy in Hong Kong and we should not play down their significance. It is important that the elections should be seen to be a success and that they should reassure the Chinese that they have nothing to fear from democracy in Hong Kong. Obviously some people in Hong Kong would have wished to see a faster rate of democratisation. However, there is also a sense of relief that a major uncertainty for the future of the territory has been removed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Minister did not answer the second part of my question: namely, what is the reaction of OMELCO to the apparent settlement of 20 seats out of 60? Did it indicate agreement or make another proposal? Have the Government any expectation of being able to negotiate more than 20 seats out of 60 after 1995?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, under the terms OMELCO wished to have two more seats in 1990–91. However, there is a sense of relief that a major uncertainty has been removed. As regards the further provision to which I referred in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, the draft provides for 24 seats in 1999, 30 in 2003 and the possibility of full direct elections in 2007.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, despite what my noble friend Lord Wyatt asked only in the nick of time, does the Minister agree that we can take some encouragement from the fact that the senior member of OMELCO is on record as saying that the compromise reached with the Chinese Government under the circumstances was sensible and that it would be up to the Hong Kong elected members to show that democracy can develop sensibly and in harmony (not in conflict) with China, which may have moved more in that direction when supreme authority passes in 1997?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord has made a good point, particularly in referring to the statement made by one of the representatives of OMELCO. As I said, it is important that the 1991 elections go ahead and that the Chinese see that they have nothing to fear from the process.
Lord Harvey of Prestbury: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the island of Hong Kong and a small part of Kowloon belongs to Britain in perpetuity? Was that factor taken into full account during the negotiations, because it was a bargaining point and one does not have the impression that it was used?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with respect, we have had such arguments on many occasions. We believe that we did the best that we could for Hong

1257
Kong. We do not believe that the island is sustainable on its own and without the mainland territory.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, as the British Government have had negotiations with the Chinese Government on the matter, can my noble friend tell the House exactly what the Chinese Government fear about the progress towards democracy in Hong Kong?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer for the Chinese Government; I can answer only for the British Government. However, I take to heart the point made by my noble friend.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the latest less than satisfactory proposals are likely to undermine progress towards democracy in China and make its stated task of anchoring people in Hong Kong more difficult? Does he also agree that, as a result, more people may take up our offer of passports, making it more likely that they will come here rather than stay in Hong Kong under the proposals?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when discussing the move to democracy in Hong Kong there is no point in trying to impose something which will not go beyond 1997. We could do whatever we liked between now and then, but if it is something with which the Chinese obviously do not agree they will just sweep it away in 1997. We want to see something which will continue beyond that date, into the future.

Stamps: Non-Value Indicators
3.10 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the value of first and second class stamps sold in books of 10 is not shown on the face of the stamps.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the issue of postage stamps is a matter for the Post Office. I am told that non-value indicator stamps were issued as a temporary measure to supplement normal "value" stamps at a time when the tariff was changing, for greater commercial and customer convenience.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful for that illumination. Will the Minister confirm, however, that these stamps cannot be used for postage into Europe or other parts of the world as they have no value on them? Is that the case? If so, why are people not informed of that when buying the stamps?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the case that the stamps are not intended for international service. However, the Post Office realised that some people were likely to use them for that purpose and therefore asked overseas postal authorities to accept them.
Lord Tordoff: Did they, my Lords?
Lord Annan: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the reason the stamps have no value placed on them is that in certain parts of London they are valueless? Is he also aware that in NW8 and W1 postboxes have been locked, bolted and barred for the past 10 days and no mail whatever has been delivered? When will the chairman of the Post Office make a statement in this regard and reassure us that there is some point in buying stamps?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in answer to the supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, about international postage, I can only say that before I prepared myself to make this reply I posted a letter to a relative in Canada bearing three of these stamps. I have yet to discover whether it arrived. I hope it did.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I understand that there are difficulties in parts of London, as he described. I am afraid I have no information with regard to a solution to that dispute.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, arising from the answer to my noble friend Lord Annan, have the Government in mind waiving the Post Office monopoly if the situation continues?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have no present plans to do so.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in two months there is to be a major stamp exhibition in London to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the issue of the first postage stamp in the world, the Penny Black? Is he also aware that the gratuitous knocking of the British postage service at this time does no good to this country or its benefits from tourist earnings?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the case that your Lordships have asked a number of questions in recent months with regard to the performance of the Post Office. I am bound to say that there are areas where the standard of service provided falls below an acceptable level. However, the Post Office authorities are very much aware of that. They are doing their utmost to put it right and there have been a number of recent improvements.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord also confirm that the trade union of communication workers arrived at an agreement with the Post Office for the improvement of service throughout the country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that that is indeed correct, and we look forward to reaping the fruits of that agreement in due course.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may lead the noble Lord back to the subject of the Question on the Order Paper. Is it not surprising that the Post Office has taken this decision to issue stamps which are not valid in overseas territories? Is it not alarming that, in good conscience, people in this country may stamp letters and find them surcharged on arrival at

1259
the other end? Will Her Majesty's Government please convey to the Post Office the fact that this was a very foolish step for it to take and that in future it should issue stamps which are capable of being used in all parts of the world?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, I do not agree with the noble Lord. The Post Office recognised that these stamps—which were only issued as a temporary measure—might be used for international services. It was that which persuaded it to contact all the overseas postal authorities to ask them to honour these stamps when they arrived in their countries.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the trade unions involved raised this matter urgently within the past few months? It is absolutely the responsibility of management within the Post Office, which should listen more earnestly to the protestations and advice given by the trade unions.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure to what matter the noble Lord refers.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the overseas postal authorities agreed to honour the valueless stamps?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that the message was sent comparatively recently and therefore I am not able to say what the response has been. Equally, I understand there has not so far been any difficulty.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, my noble friend said that these stamps were only issued on a temporary basis. Can he confirm that there will be no time-limit on the usage of these stamps?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can confirm that there will be no time-limit on the usage of the stamps. I can also confirm that this was only a temporary measure and stocks are now running out.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that philately will get him everywhere?

Dounreay Prototype Fast Reactor
3.16 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much electricity was produced and how much income was earned by the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay in 1989, and how these compare with previous years.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in 1989 the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay generated 43,439 megawatt days net of electricity earning approximately £13 million in electricity receipts. This represents a significant improvement over previous years.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which may include a record in the results. As this reactor is functioning so well and has the special merit of efficiency with fuel, are the Government seeking to continue work in this technology with our EC partners so that the advantages gained from British expertise and success are not lost?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the figure is a record. However, the net cost to the Government of keeping the PFR plant operating is around £25 million a year. To that figure should be added around £25 million to cover the cost of reprocessing and waste management. The Government concluded that they would not be justified in continuing to spend public funds at that rate beyond March 1994 against the likely time-scale of commercial introduction of the technology nor on the acquisition of additional technical information. By 1993 the main design work on the European fast reactor will be complete and operating experience gained from the PFR thereafter will be less beneficial.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that it is essential to keep the prototype fast reactor going at Dounreay with an overlap with the European fast reactor because it represents a materials testing laboratory, among other things? We cannot do accelerated ageing tests on materials. We can only wait until they have been fully tested for their lifetime. Is not the increasing burn-up at Dounreay a credit to the engineers in charge, coupled as it is to the facility for reprocessing which will be adopted for the European fast reactor? Is it not therefore sensible to keep it going?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government stated in 1988 that they would continue the work on the prototype fast reactor until 1994 and on the reprocessing plant until 1997, and would scale down the amount of money spent on R&D—mostly as a support to the design team for the European fast reactor—to £10 million for the future.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the European fast reactor be based entirely on French technology or will the experience of Dounreay be used? Will the noble Viscount tell us whether the costings of the fast reactor will be accurate this time, so that we do not have the surprises with regard to decommissioning and other costs that led us to conclude that nuclear power in general is uneconomical?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the design work for the European fast reactor is carried out by design companies in the collaboration countries—that is, the United Kingdom, France and Germany—and is paid for largely by the utilities. It started in March 1988 with the conceptual design phase and it is planned to start the three-year concepts validation phase in April of this year. The European Fast Reactor Utilities Group will review the position in 1993, at which time it will be decided whether to proceed to a detailed site design. That indicates that we are still a long way from the construction of a

1261
European fast reactor. As for the decommissioning costs, I cannot give any figures on decommissioning costs for Dounreay.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, according to figures given to the House, the Government will in fact save £50 million a year—for a year or two, anyway—by not continuing with Dounreay. Are the Government planning to use that £50 million for further research into renewable sources of energy and for the conservation of energy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government will certainly be saving the initial £25 million—not £50 million as suggested by the noble Lord because £25 million will be required to keep the reprocessing plant going until 1997. Renewables are not being starved of investment.

Non-nuclear Energy Sources
3.22 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to reports in the Guardian and elsewhere that information has been withheld from inquiries which might have had the effect of enhancing the claims of non-nuclear sources of energy.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not accept allegations made in the Guardian newspaper that the Department of Energy and others withheld information about the wave energy research and development programme.
As announced to this House on 1st December 1988 by my noble friend Lady Hooper, the Department of Energy is now conducting a review of wave energy and the first progress report will be available soon.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply and I look forward to receiving the reports as soon as possible. However, I suggest to the noble Viscount that there may be more validity in this complaint than he is apparently prepared to attribute to the Guardian report. Does he recall that Professor Salter, who is closely concerned with wave energy, reported to our own committee on alternative sources of energy—House of Lords Paper No. 88, published last June—when he asserted that the evidence given had been falsified, having the effect of giving less credit to developers of wave energy than was justified? In these circumstances, can we expect the reports to take account of what Professor Salter said?
Viscount Ullwater: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The substance of the recent Guardian newspaper article was examined by this House two years ago. The article contained no new facts. The Select Committee on the European Communities Sub-Committee B made an examination of alternative energy sources in 1988. That
1262
examination included wave energy. A report was published and renewable energy sources were debated in this House. In my Answer l said that my noble friend Lady Hooper had agreed that a new steering group be set up. That has been done. Names have been put forward for that committee and have been agreed. The committee will undertake to review all the existing technology.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not excellent that the future of energy, both nuclear and non-nuclear, has been and I hope will continue to be in the hands of engineers whose eyes are on the future and not in the hands of accountants whose eyes are inexorably fixed on the past?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, I believe that all the possible renewable sources of energy are being carefully studied. However, they are being categorised into those that are possible or probable and those which are probably not possible.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, at the risk of being branded an accountant and wishing to establish the true cost of energy, perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount whether the Government have any plans, or negotiations with experts in the field, to achieve standardised assessment of costs between different forms of renewable energy and normal fossil-generated electricity.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not know whether that can be done on a standardised basis. Certainly projects are assessed very carefully. At present, renewables are considered to be more costly; certainly more expensive than fossil-fuel generated electricity.
The Electricity Act to privatise the electricity industry provides the opportunity further to encourage the application of renewables. The main feature is the non-fossil fuel obligation which should provide some market protection via a premium price for renewables to enable them to move from the stage of research and development into full commercial competition.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that six or seven years ago figures were given by the atomic energy authorities about the cost, particularly of wave power, and that those figures have been found to be totally false—perhaps doubled? Those figures were used in order to enhance the prospects of nuclear energy and to denigrate the opportunities for using wave power and wind power. Both those sources of power, through British technology, have been adopted in countries such as Norway and Denmark.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that the United Kingdom has had a world-leading programme in assessing, the potential of wave-power at a cost of about £17 million up to 1985. Over 300 potential devices were assessed. Between 1982 and 1984 a firm of consultants conducted an assessement which was submitted to the Energy Technology Support Unit and the Department of Energy. A further review by the

1263
Advisory Council on Research and Development confirmed the consultants' view on the technologies.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend ever thought of harnessing the surplus energy produced by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, every day?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I guess it would be renewable.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I trust it will be renewable for many years to come.
The noble Viscount has not answered my question nor the Question on the Order Paper. Is it the case that the Atomic Energy Authority submitted figures about costs, particularly of wave power, that were totally false? Judgment was made on those figures on what was to happen at that time to wave power, thus enhancing the opportunities for developing atomic energy.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think that what I meant to say was that the consultants employed had referred to many figures, perhaps including those put forward by the Atomic Energy Authority. On the basis of their investigations submissions were made to the Secretary of State.

London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it is not my intention to delay the business of the House for more than a few moments. I gave notice that I wished to raise matters relating to this Bill. I also gave notice to the promoters, through their agents, of the two matters which I intended to raise.
This Bill seeks to authorise improvements at three very congested Underground stations; namely, London Bridge, Holborn and Tottenham Court Road. The whole House will welcome the fact that we are having such safety improvements at those stations.
I wish to refer to the works to be carried out at London Bridge and Holborn which will naturally have consequential effects above ground. I understand that, although not objecting to the principle of the work at London Bridge, the trustees of the Borough Market are concerned with the serious effect that the Bill will have on the market and are petitioning against it. However, when consideration is given to the Bill and to the Petition, I urge that attention is also given to the views of the 23 market traders who are the trusteees' tenants.
I understand that the market traders do not feel able to petition against the Bill, but they have vital
1264
interests which will be affected by the Bill in respect of the works at London Bridge.
The other matter concerns the works at Holborn. I am informed that Red Lion Square will be used for workshop and depot purposes in connection with these works. I understand that about 200 persons live or work in premises overlooking the square and they believe that their conditions will be badly affected. I have been informed that alternative sites would be available if desired. I ask that these two matters be considered by the Select Committee when the Bill comes before it.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the Bill goes to the Select Committee there are two points that I wish briefly to raise. First, I hope that it will look at the Title which describes itself as the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill. Given past experience that is a reassuring Title. However, inspection of the Bill indicates that it contains a good deal of material and its connection with safety seems to be somewhat remote. I hope that before the Bill returns to your Lordships consideration may be given to giving it a Title which is more appropriate to its content.
The other point is that Clauses 5 to 8 grant powers to undertake the digging-up of streets. Your Lordships know that traffic in London now suffers from the activities of various public bodies which seem to dig up streets with impunity while generally selecting a moment to start the work when another authority has just completed resurfacing. In giving the powers which are sought in this Bill to this particular authority, and perhaps extending them afterwards to others, some restraint or restriction should be imposed on the authority so that it does not necessarily have the power to do what it wants exactly when it wants, but reference should be made either to the Department of Transport or the local authority concerned, or perhaps to both, before quite serious and substantial street works are undertaken involving all their effects both on traffic and on those who live in those streets. I hope that some thought will be given to this matter. When the Bill returns to your Lordships' House we may be simply asked to give these wide and unfettered powers to one particular organisation.
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the two noble Lords who have just spoken made very valid points and I shall not waste time repeating them. I find it very ironic that the Bill is entitled in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has mentioned. As regards the terrible accident at King's Cross, I understand that part of the problem concerning the breakdown in safety provision was due not to the fact that there were insufficient escalators but that they could not be used. There were insufficient staff to give proper directions or to find the fire-fighting appliances.
I wish to touch on a slightly different area but a similar point. As noble Lords know, Oxford Street is the heart of the tourist trade and it is also very

1265
much loved by English people. At one end of Oxford Street, Tottenham Court Road station is to have a new ticket hall and subway including an escalator subway. That necessitates quite a number of small shops—I emphasise "small shops"—having to be acquired by compulsory purchase in order that this work may be carried out.
As an historian, I find it interesting that when the Metropolitan Line was built across London it was constructed in a totally different way with the work being done below ground with hardly any disturbance of the surface at all. We are supposed to have advanced, although in a good many ways it seems that we have gone backwards. Part of Oxford Street will not only to be changed in character but it will also be out of action for a very long time. There will also be stoppage in the streets.
When the debate took place on traffic, I would have liked to have made the point that we do not need to ban the car but rather to look at all the works which are being carried out by builders and people repairing roads. That is causing congestion and stopping people from moving about. I make a plea to the Select Committee, in the same way as both noble Lords have done, to consider this matter. It is a very powerful Bill. Unless we watch this legislation carefully, it will pass rapidly through this House and these measures will be put into effect before we know it. I make another plea that our London should not be tampered with too much unless it is absolutely necessary.
3.37 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for giving me notice of the points he wanted to raise. I would not wish—and I am in no position—to comment on the merits of the Bill. I certainly confirm that it is to authorise improvements at three very congested Underground stations: London Bridge, Holborn and Tottenham Court Road.
No fewer than 35 Petitions have been deposited against this Bill and they will be considered by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House which I have no doubt will have to sit for quite a considerable time. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, the trustees of the Borough Market in Southwark, who are concerned with the proposed works at London Bridge, have deposited a Petition against the Bill. My impression is that it is wide-ranging and covers the matters raised by the noble Lord.
As regards the works at Holborn, I do not believe that a Petition has been deposited by those living or working in and around Red Lion Square. If that is so, it will not be possible for the Select Committee to consider their particular concerns because, as the House will know, the proceedings before Select Committees on Private Bills are limited to the matters raised in Petitions before it.
However, as the noble Lord may be aware, all three London boroughs affected have petitioned
1266
against the Bill and the matters raised by the noble Lord are, I understand, covered in the Petition of the London Borough of Camden. In addition, those concerned will, if necessary, be able to petition in another place when the Bill has finished its passage through this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised two matters. With regard to the digging-up of streets, I can assure my noble friend that that matter is already covered in the Petitions of the London boroughs. I have not had time to refer to all 35 Petitions, but, as I understand it, the London Borough of Camden makes a point concerning the problems associated with the digging-up of streets.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred to the difficulties concerning Oxford Street. The Oxford Street Association has already deposited a Petition against the Bill and so its concerns will certainly be aired before the Select Committee. In addition, I can assure all three Members of this House who have spoken that the Select Committee will see what has been said here this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Civil Aviation Authority (Borrowing Powers) Bill
3.40 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Borrowing powers of Civil Aviation Authority]:
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("(4) The Authority, as a condition of exercise of the powers given in subsection (2) above, shall provide an annual report to the Secretary of State, to aircraft operators and to representatives of consumers to cover, inter alia—

(i) the basis of computation of all charges on aircraft operators,

(ii) efficiency indices, as defined by the Secretary of State in consultation with aircraft operators and representatives of passengers.").

The noble Earl said: I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Davidson are happy that the three amendments on the Marshalled List should be taken at the same time. They are directed very much to the same point of accountability.
My amendment is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to give my noble friend a chance to answer perhaps more fully the points raised at Second Reading. The amendment seeks to impose on the Civil Aviation Authority what I would term proper accountability, which in many people's eyes is not

1267
at present satisfactory. I refer to accountability to the Minister responsible to the Government, to accountability to Parliament and not least to accountability to the users who pay for the authority's services.
I think I am correct in saying that in the Civil Aviation Acts of 1971 and 1982 no mandatory accountability was laid down as a duty on the Civil Aviation Authority other than reporting once a year, as it does, on the services for which it is responsible. In practice I believe that the Civil Aviation Authority consults users—the authority says that it does in its book—about both the quality of its service and the costs of it. How effective and satifactory that consultation is is open to criticism but we know that in the case of airlines the charges made come to more than £200 million per annum. It is a very large budget, but there is little knowledge about how exactly the money is spent or how efficiently it is spent.
It would seem at the moment that only one body, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, can challenge matters. The commission investigated certain of the services of the Civil Aviation Authority in 1983 and matters were again referred to it in December of last year. The specific reference—perhaps my noble friend can confirm this—covers the responsibility of the National Air Traffic Services and in general the efficiency of the CAA. That report will be read with great interest by users and those interested in the Civil Aviation Authority.
One has to recall that in 1983 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was very strong in its criticism of the National Air Traffic Services. It commented that at the time there was weak management and poor long-term planning resulting in manifest inconvenience to many air travellers. Those were pretty strong words. It has been suggested, not just recently but for some time, that NATS should be hived off from the CAA, or even perhaps privatised, to make it more efficient, to provide competition and to show it in its true and I hope proper and good colours. What I am trying to say in my amendment is that there should be proper accountability.
My noble friend said at Second Reading that the Civil Aviation Authority is shortly to present to the Government a review of its operations—I believe in about June of this year—with advice on action that should be taken. This will be an important and helpful document when it is published. Can my noble friend say when it is likely to be published? Does he consider that the Civil Aviation Authority should be asked to look into accountability at this stage of its review so that more information can be given to the users who pay for the services? I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I am perfectly happy that my amendments should be considered along with Amendment No. 1. It may be recalled that at Second Reading on 19th February I mentioned that in the debates in another place there had been a number of complaints and criticisms of the work and functioning of the Civil Aviation Authority. It was not my intention then, nor is it my intention today,
1268
to follow that path. I know that some airlines and others, although appreciating much of the work of the Civil Aviation Authority, particularly in the realm of safety regulations, nevertheless are very concerned about the way that the CAA does its work and determines its charges.
The first reason for the amendments in my name is to seek accountability. That appears to be the same reason put forward by the noble Earl. A substantial sum, as much as £750 million, is involved. We are told that the new en-route centre will account for some £200 million of the £600 million investment of the CAA to improve United Kingdom air traffic control. The centre will accommodate some 600 staff. As the noble Earl said, there must surely be some accountability as to how this borrowing is handled and whether the desired improvements are being achieved. My amendments seek to provide that accountability, as does the amendment of the noble Earl.
Secondly, the noble Earl referred to the reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It may be recalled that I raised that matter at Second Reading. I questioned why it appeared that only the work of NATS, the National Air Traffic Services, was to be the subject of the reference. I expressed concern about suggestions made in another place concerning the possible separation of NATS from the CAA. I stressed then, and I repeat it now, that I support the view of the opposition spokesman that any such proposal would require the most careful consideration not only of NATS but of the work of the CAA. That is another reason why accountability is so important.
In his reply at Second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, stated that the reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission,
"is essentially concerned with navigation and air traffic control services, but it will look in particular at the management of the CAA's investment programme and the CAA's system for improving efficiency".—[Official Report, 19/2/90; cols. 98–99.]
Since that Second Reading debate I have looked carefully at the actual reference by the Secretary of State to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I find that it goes a little further than the noble Viscount indicated. I shall read the first part of the reference:
"The Secretary of State hereby refers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the questions set out below relating to the efficiency and costs of and the service provided by the Civil Aviation Authority in supplying navigation and air traffic control services to civil aircraft".
It goes on to refer to three questions which must be considered.
When I look at those three questions they seem to relate in the main to the navigation and air traffic control services. It may well be that the general position of the CAA will also come into question. However, the reference seems mainly to be concerned with the work of the CAA in air control services. That being so, I believe that it is vital that we look carefully at these two amendments and listen with care to what the Minister says in reply.
I think that everyone will agree that the responsibilities of the CAA are essential and vital to the development of our aviation industry, our

1269
airports and safety regulations. As the MMC reference will not do this in the way that I believe it should be done, Parliament should adopt either the proposal contained in the noble Earl's amendment or the one contained in mine so that we can have this complete accountability and a complete review of the work of the CAA before other matters are considered.
The nature of the efficiency audit is set out in Amendment No. 3. I hope that in reply the noble Viscount will be able to give us the Government's general view on the matter, although I appreciate, as did the noble Earl when he moved his amendment, that we may not be able to get a clear decision this afternoon. We merely wish to know exactly where the Government stand on the points which have been raised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I suppose I should begin by declaring an interest, as I was, as many noble Lords will know, the first chairman of the CAA when it was set up in 1972. Therefore, I approach the matter in a somewhat different way from my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. There seems to be implicit, and indeed in his speech perhaps explicit, criticism of the authority. I hope that whatever else my noble friend the Minister does, he will make quite clear what I believe to be the fact: namely, that the authority has done and is doing an extremely good job in what is an extremely difficult and responsible area.
I do not wish to weary the Committee with the details of such responsibility, but being responsible for the well-being of an industry in the immensely competitive world of civil aviation, with responsibilities for safety and for the licensing of air services, is an extraordinarily difficult and delicate task. My impression, gathered from what I still hear about the authority, is that it is doing the job extremely well. I hope that my noble friend the Minister, whatever his attitude towards these amendments—and I have no idea what it is—will make it clear that he will not accept them in any sense as a censure or criticism of the authority and the way in which it undertakes its work.
I should like to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about the proposal to divorce the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) from the authority. I think that that would be a great mistake. First, it would deprive the authority of contact with a certain aspect of its own responsibilities and, secondly, it would very much narrow the background to the vital work carried out by NATS. The two organisations work extremely well together under a system whereby the chairman of NATS is a member of the Civil Aviation Authority, whether he be, as he is alternately, an air marshal or a very distinguished man in civil aviation. The working together of the two organisations has, and indeed does, work to the benefit of their effective operation. Moreover, the reference to the MMC in respect of NATS to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred makes it particularly inappropriate at this moment to impose a further
1270
type of inquiry or investigation in this area. I am inclined to suggest that the system is best left alone.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about accountability. However, accountability can operate in a whole variety of ways. Certainly at the time when I was responsible it operated very much through close liaison with the Department of Trade and Industry. It did so under two governments. Mr. John Davis and Mr. Peter Shore were respectively the Ministers responsible for us at the Department of Trade—not the Department of Transport. I can say that both of them were extremely helpful and that close and informal contact between the chairman and the Ministers concerned seemed to work extremely well. I have no reason to doubt that it still works extremely well. I am at least dubious about the necessity for further amendment of the law.
I take the point about the airlines and the costs to them of the authority. The main cost is in relation to payments for air traffic control services. Given the complexity of those services, the importance of them and the fact that unless they are perfectly operated in an area such as Heathrow a disaster will most certainly happen, I think that on the whole the charges are reasonable. In any event, so far as concerns airline complaints, I believe that they relate to something which is nothing to do with this Bill or the Civil Aviation Authority. I refer to the charges made by the British Airports Authority to the airlines, which are undoubtedly high. However, as I said, that is absolutely nothing to do with the Bill or these amendments.
I hope that, whatever else my noble friend the Minister says, he will pay due tribute to the work of the present chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, whom many noble Lords may know. I think that he does an immensely good job with the aid of his very great experience in public life in this country and in Europe. It would be a great pity if even by implication or accident this Chamber were to appear to suggest that he was doing other than a first-class job. I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend has to say, but until he has spoken I must say that I entertain considerable doubts not just about the general approach of the amendments but as to whether there is any need for them.
Viscount Davidson: I am indeed grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for the remarks he has made. He has made a valuable contribution to the debate. I can confirm to him straight away that the Government believe that the CAA is doing a first-class job in a very difficult sphere of operation. I should also like to pay tribute to the work carried out by the chairman of the CAA. I do not believe that these amendments reflect in any way upon the work of the authority.
I have listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and that of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I note the points they have made. I think there is perhaps rather less in principle between us than these amendments might indicate since we are all concerned with efficiency. It seems right to make that point at the outset, even though

1271
I do not feel able to accept the amendments. Perhaps I can explain why.
The Bill is about money for the CAA; and of course it is essential that that money is spent efficiently and wisely. We are agreed on that point. We have to remember that ultimately the cost of the CAA's investment and its day-to-day running costs as well are paid for by the aviation industry and that means further down the line still that some of the cost is met by each of us every time we buy a ticket.
But we also need to remember that the CAA has a job to do—for example, to provide air navigation services and to ensure safety standards throughout the aviation industry. Indeed a main purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the CAA in its £600 million investment programme, which will mean the installation of new systems and equipment, much of it technically very advanced, to a tight schedule. The traveller keen to avoid delays at Gatwick at the start of his holiday or the businessman keen to get to his appointment and not waste time at Heathrow need to be sure that the CAA will be getting on with the job of putting the new systems in place.
With every public body a balance has to be struck between proper checks and accountability and proper pressures to efficiency, on the one hand, and proper freedom to get on with the job, on the other hand. With great respect, and while recognising the thinking behind the amendment, it seems to me that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, veers too far towards interventionism and thus too far towards inhibiting the CAA in its very necessary tasks. Even at three-year intervals such a comprehensive review as is proposed, covering not just, say, air traffic control systems but also areas such as the personnel or office services departments, would be a far from negligible burden on the CAA. Indeed, I am afraid that such a comprehensive review would even be counter-productive. The CAA would need resources to respond to these reviews and if they were to be more than token superficial examinations or glances by the parliamentary committee there would, I submit, be problems of disruption and resultant inefficiency. The amendment would tend to cause the very problems which I entirely accept it aims to cure.
It must also be remembered in passing that such a review would be quite a burden for the parliamentary committee itself. There may even be those prepared to doubt whether such a committee, however, learned and expert its members, would be the best way of carrying out what would seem to be in effect a management consultancy role.
Having said all that, I stress that the CAA is by no means without checks and pressures to efficiency. I do not just mean its auditors or its use of management consultants from time to time or its own internal efficiency unit, important though these undoubtedly are. We also have the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which carries out efficiency investigations of aspects of every nationalised industry's work every few years, under Section 11 of the Competition Act 1980. Indeed, National Air Traffic Services, and particularly its major capital investment programme and systems for improving
1272
efficiency, is being examined in exactly that way at present. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, takes reassurance from that, as I felt he did when I answered the same point at Second Reading.
In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, with the agreement of the Chancellor as necessary, approves all the CAA's capital investment over certain limits, and his department keeps in close touch with the CAA to monitor investment appraisal generally. The department is also involved in the CAA's corporate planning procedure, annually conducts the investment and financing review and administers controls such as the external financing limits, just as is done with all nationalised industries. As to parliamentary scrutiny, the Transport Committee in another place can and does conduct inquiries into aspects of the CAA's work. Finally, the Secretary of State appoints all members of the CAA board, including the chairman. The Secretary of State is of course ultimately accountable to Parliament for these appointments.
As to the CAA's income, increases in charges, where his powers are involved, are approved by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. In the case of certain all-important air traffic control charges, they are actually fixed by statutory instrument and those are subject to parliamentary as well as ministerial scrutiny. I also venture to remind my noble friend Lord Kinnoull—for I know he is very well informed on aviation matters—of what is done already in the spirit of his amendment. Those who use the CAA's services are able to make their views known not only to the CAA but also directly to Ministers. I can assure your Lordships that they certainly do that.
The CAA already consults the aviation industry about any increases in charges which it wants to put forward. This is done by letter, setting out the details of what is proposed with background information. Nearly 1,000 such letters are sent out on regulatory charges alone and the CAA works hard at covering all relevant interests, including manufacturers and indeed user groups, as well as operators. This year, for example, a proposed increase was reduced in the light of consultation.
Regulatory charges are also considered by the Safety Regulation Group Finance Advisory Committee, the Operators Advisory Committee and the Air Registration Board, on all of which the industry is represented. In addition, the CAA also holds meetings with organisations representing the aviation industry, including the major airlines, to discuss its charging policies and its costs. Such consultation is carried out both directly and through the Eurocontrol consultation procedure when the air traffic control charges, which are collected through the international Eurocontrol mechanism, are concerned.
Turning to the question of efficiency indicators, there is already a considerable amount of information published in the CAA's annual report and accounts. This includes not just aggregate financial information—what I might call the usual bottom line figures—but also breakdowns for

1273
different areas of the authority's activities. This means, for example, that in the 1988–89 accounts one can see how much went on staff costs, or research and development, for air safety services or United Kingdom airspace traffic services.
The accounts also give non-financial statistical information, such as traffic handled or licences granted. They also include key performance indicators, very much in the spirit of my noble friend's amendment, such as the cost of safety regulation work as a percentage of UK civil aircraft production, or a capacity-manpower index showing the number of air movements against operational manpower.
However, I can go further and say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is already discussing with the CAA what more could be done. A much longer and even more comprehensive list of performance indicators is being drawn up. The intention is that they will be published in the CAA's annual report and accounts for 1990–91. I hope that my noble friend will feel that this is an important step forward.
I have sought to indicate what is already being done and what more it is intended to do. I hope, against the background of what I have said, that your Lordships will agree that it would really not be appropriate for this small Bill, which focuses only on a particular though important point of financial mechanism, to have put into it a much broader policy requirement not directly related to borrowing.
I am honestly not persuaded that these amendments, which would entail arrangements going beyond those for any other nationalised industry, are the best way to achieve efficiency. Nor am I convinced that the Civil Aviation Authority is the unaccountable monolith some would have us believe. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend will feel that the present arrangements to promote efficiency and responsibility are, after all, appropriate to their purpose and that, recognising that we largely share the same objectives, they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I am grateful to my noble friend as I am sure he is grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his powerful defence of the Civil Aviation Authority. The discussion which we have had this afternoon is no criticism of that authority and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, went out of his way to state that. It is a question of accountability. I add that I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was able to intervene because he was the distinguished first chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and brought great lustre to that position when the authority was set up.
I am sure that my noble friend would not defend the Civil Aviation Authority to such an extent as to say that there is no weakness at all in it. It is a large and efficient organisation. In many ways it does a wonderful job but there are weaknesses. If I may say so to my noble friend, with respect, there
1274
is a continual weakness over the air navigation services. He may have read the independent report of the committee chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson which looked into the Civil Aviation Authority. The report specifically referred to the air navigation services and said that there was no reason why it should not be healthy to have competition with those services. There was no reason why individual airports should not use the public sector ATC agency.
I know that my noble friend is aware of this and I hope something may come out of it because competition would help efficiency. That is a fair comment and it is not a matter necessarily of divorcing air navigation services which carry out a tremendously responsible job for the major airports in our country. It is at the smaller airports where this might be put to private use.
I am grateful to my noble friend. I feel that he has gone some distance in showing his sympathy for the spirit of the amendments. I am grateful to learn that his right honourable friend is seeking to ensure that in future the Civil Aviation Authority will put more information into its annual report which will give better accountability. For those reasons I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
4.10 p.m.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Qualifying conditions]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out line 27 and insert:
("(c) in subsection (8), for the words "or (3)(a) above, or in both," there shall be substituted the word "above".").
The noble Earl said: This amendment. corrects a minor drafting omission. It is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: We on these Benches accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("subsections (10) and (11)") and insert ("subsection (10)").
The noble Baroness said: This is in the nature of a probing amendment. I make no claims to technical excellence for it. The Bill as it stands seeks to meet the demands of equality by removing from women a condition which allows the payment of pensions increases to pensioners under 55 with dependants. We were told on Second Reading that the number of women involved is small. I believe it is only eight. We have also been informed that their accrued rights will be protected. That appears to be provided for in the Bill. However, I am not happy about provisions designed to bring about equality between the sexes on the basis of the less favourable rather than the most favourable provision. In my view there should be a levelling up rather than a levelling down. That is also the view, as I understand it, of the National Union of Teachers. That is one of the unions affected by the measure and its staff have written to me on the subject.
It appears that the NUT approached the Department of Education and Science some time ago seeking a change in the regulations to include men under age 55 with dependent children. The Department of Education and Science referred the matter to the Treasury and the subsequent provision in the Bill, which now causes the NUT concern, is that the Government propose that women under age 55 will not qualify for their public service occupational pension to be index linked after 1st January 1993. In other words, the department went along to the Treasury to try to obtain an improvement which would enable men to benefit from the slight advantage but now the provision is to disappear altogether.
The Minister said on Second Reading that if a levelling up process were adopted it would result in heavy expenditure because it was estimated that the numbers involved would be very great. I should like to explore this matter a little further. It seems to me to be a bad principle that equality must be achieved at the lowest cost and by adopting the lowest provision rather than the better one. Although only a few women are affected at the moment, that does not take account of what could happen in the future. As we all know in this House, we are facing demographic changes. I suspect that in the future there will be far more women who at some time during their working lives will have to adopt the role of carers, and who will therefore need support because they have dependants. For those reasons I should like to explore the matter further through my amendment.
As I said earlier, I am not wedded to the wording of my amendment. I do not claim technical excellence for it. Nevertheless, I simply wish to explore further a situation which reduces a good provision for women instead of transferring that better and more advantageous provision to men in the cause of equality. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: On Second Reading I said that it must be recognised that the elimination of
1276
discrimination by removing the benefit now enjoyed by women amounts to a levelling down rather than a levelling up. It should not be thought that because we accept the proposal in this case, the Government would obtain the agreement of Members of the Committee on these Benches if they sought to use this Bill in any way as a precedent for further legislation stemming from European Community directives and covering other aspects of social policy.
In that connection I instanced on an earlier occasion the matter of equalising retirement ages. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will recall that. I said that any inclination on the part of the Government to level down by fixing a common retirement age as high as 65 should at least be balanced by an increase in the level of the basic state pension. In his reply to the debate the Minister said nothing, if I may say so, to reassure me on that point. I shall be interested to hear whether he can add anything today to the non-committal statement that he then made.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the clarity with which the noble Baroness introduced her amendment. It may help the Committee if I briefly define the purpose of the clause. This clause of the Bill provides for the phasing out of Section 3(2)(c) of the Pensions (Increase) Act. This section provides for women pensioners under 55, not disqualified on ill-health grounds, to qualify for a pensions increase if they have a dependent child. Very few women qualify under that provision. As the noble Baroness reminded the Committee, as far as we know only eight women come into this category in the centrally administered schemes for which details are available.
However, this discrimination must be ended to comply with the EC Directive No. 86/378 which requires member states to introduce equal treatment for men and women in occupational pension schemes. Levelling up—that is, giving the same concession to men and women pensioners under 55—would be costly for schemes with normal retirement ages under 55. Equal treatment can only therefore be secured by removing this provision. That is done in the Bill in a way which fully protects the accrued rights of female scheme members and pensioners. That was a point that the noble Baroness raised. I hesitatingly confirm what I said to her on Second Reading. The existing rights are protected.
I must tell the noble Baroness that her amendment is not technically correct, but I do not wish to go into that matter because there is the argument she raised about cost. It is for that reason that I have to advise the Committee that this amendment should be rejected. As the noble Baroness intimated, the cost would be large.
The initial cost would be about £6 million per annum for the police scheme and, if analogous arrangements were made, about £75 million per annum for the armed forces schemes. These costs could reach £14 million per annum at today's pension levels for the police schemes and, if analogous arrangements were made, about £100 million per annum for the armed forces schemes. That is a quite considerable chunk of taxpayers'

1277
money, and whatever government were in power would have to consider that among their other priorities because inevitably we all have to live on a budget.
Those who have retired on ill-health grounds or who are physically or mentally disabled already receive pensions increases below the age of 55. When other pensioners in these schemes reach 55, which is still five years younger than the normal retirement age for most public service schemes and 10 years below the age for state pensions, their pensions are increased and the increase that has built up since they retired is paid. I am sure the Committee agrees that we could not give priority to targeting additional benefits on a group of public service pensioners who already enjoy some of the best pension provisions of any groups of public sector employees. It is for that reason that the Government consider it is appropriate to level down and phase out this concession which benefits, in practice, only a small number of women.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that I cannot add anything more to what I have already said. However, if I can add anything, having had further thought on the matter, I shall let him know.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the noble Earl for that explanation. It is not my intention to press the amendment this afternoon. As I said when I introduced the amendment, it is a probing amendment to explore further the Government's view on the proposition that there should be a levelling up rather than a levelling down.
However, before I withdraw the amendment, I should like to put one further point to the Minister which was raised at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. In principle we on these Benches, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, are not in favour of achieving equality by choosing the lowest level rather than the better condition. Will the Minister let me know his view as to whether the Bill will be regarded as a precedent for the future? There are bound to be occasions in the future, particularly arising from European directives, when we have to take steps to equalise pension provisions. Situations may well arise where conditions are similar and men may not have benefited in the past while women have received a slight concession, and so on. I should hate to think that we should regard levelling down as an appropriate way of achieving equality within the directives emerging from Europe.
The Earl of Caithness: I fully understand the concerns of the noble Baroness. She will understand that I cannot give her the cast-iron guarantee that she would like me to give. However, I can assure her that every scheme will be considered on its merits, because every scheme will be different. One has to look at the entire picture. In this particular case, after a great deal of thought, we decided that it would be right to deal with the matter as we have. I am not in a position to judge at the moment whether similar circumstances apply to other schemes.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Employers' contributions towards cost of pensions increase for teachers and persons engaged in the health services etc.]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 42, at end insert:
("(3) Regulations under subsections (1) and (2) above shall only be made after consultation with appropriate bodies as provided for by section 9(5) of the Superannuation Act 1972.").
The noble Baroness said: Again, this is an attempt to probe beyond what was said by the Minister in the Second Reading debate. I have put down the amendment because I was not altogether happy with the reply that I received from the Minister when we discussed Clause 4 on that occasion. It seemed to me that the only way in which I could raise the matter in Committee was by putting down an amendment in these terms.
The amendment calls for consultation with the appropriate bodies before regulations under the clause would be brought into operation. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is entirely unnecessary because the 1972 Act compels consultation and there is no point in stating it again in the Bill. However, there is genuine concern among the teaching organisations about the Government's intentions under this clause. Although there has been an assurance that there will be consultation, there is a need to know more about the Government's intentions at this stage.
I have been told by the teaching organisations that they would like to know the precise circumstances in which Clause 4(1) will be activated for the first time. Is there any prospect of the clause being activated for the first time before, first, there has been an agreed revaluation of the teachers' superannuation scheme notional fund and, secondly, agreement has been reached on a method of ensuring realistic returns on future excesses of income over expenditure for the teachers' superannuation scheme notional fund? It may be recalled that the issue of the teachers' superannuation scheme notional fund was raised earlier when we discussed the matter at Second Reading.
I should like the Minister to say what the situation is in relation to those two points. Although he has said that there will be consultation, and I am sure that he will do so again this afternoon, it is within that context that the organisations most concerned with this part of the Bill are seeking some reassurance. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: At Second Reading I said that my understanding was that, although the working party on the funding of the teachers' superannuation scheme had reached agreement on how the scheme

1279
could be credited with sufficient funds to meet its future commitments, no agreement had been reached on the means by which the scheme could be compensated for past deficiencies in funding. Therefore I asked the Minister whether he would give an assurance that before the relevant regulations were introduced there would be adequate consultation with the interests concerned.
In reply the noble Earl said that there would be full consultation with staff and employers before the power was used. The noble Baroness has already made that point this afternoon. However, I suggest that that is not quite the same as engaging in consultations before the regulations are introduced. As I understand it, the amendment seeks to oblige the Government to do just that and to have such a requirement written into the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Earl may feel able to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: The effect of the amendment would be to require consultation with staff and employers' representatives in teaching before regulations were made covering either the teachers' supperannuation scheme or the NHS scheme. However, I understand from what the noble Baroness said that she also wished to ensure proper consultation with the appropriate bodies in the NHS scheme although her amendment does not cover that point. I take it that that was her intention.
Clause 4 of the Bill inserts new subsections into Sections 9 and 10 of the Superannuation Act. However, Sections 9(5) and 10(4) of the 1972 Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has reminded us, already provide for consultation with representatives of persons likely to be affected before any regulations are made under Sections 9 and 10. Those provisions will cover any regulations made under the new provisions conferred by the Bill. Therefore, I say to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that their concerns are already taken care of.
However, it may be helpful if I enlarge on the matter. The clause has been included to allow the Secretaries of State responsible for the NHS and teachers' superannuation schemes in England, Wales and Scotland to make regulations to permit the cost of pensions increase to be taken into account in determining employers' contributions. At present the Pensions (Increase) Act generally precludes pensions increase from being regarded as a benefit of the schemes. Since pensions increase is not a benefit of the scheme its cost cannot be taken into account in setting the rate of contributions which pay for scheme benefits. The costs of pensions increase are therefore borne by the departments which administer the scheme.
The teachers' and NHS schemes are unfunded but accounts are kept of expenditure and income, including income from the notional investment of balances in the account. The Government Actuary advises the Secretaries of State on the appropriate levels of employers' contributions on the basis of quinquennial valuations of the assets and liabilities
1280
attributed to the schemes. For that purpose the Government Actuary makes various assumptions.
As the noble Baroness reminded us at Second Reading, union interests in teaching have argued strongly in the past that the basis on which notional investment income is credited to the scheme is unrealistic. They consider that a different method of calculating investment returns would increase the assets attributed to the scheme and might therefore make possible lower contribution rates or improvements in benefit. I understand that the teachers' superannuation working party has agreed on a report which proposes an alternative method of assessing investment income credited to the notional fund.
The Government recognise that there are arguments for change in such matters as the investment assumptions which might be seen as giving greater realism in building up the assets of the schemes. However, we believe that there must be corresponding realism in treating pensions increases as a liability of the schemes. I understand that employees' and employers' representatives in the teachers' superannuation working party recognise and accept that. Without Clause 4 it will not be possible to take forward work on the package of changes in the operation of the notional fund which the teachers' unions support. That is not to say that final decisions on those issues have been taken. There is further work to do and there will be careful consultations with all the interests concerned before any change is made.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was concerned about the costs which might fall to local authorities. Let me assure the Committee that the Government are also mindful of that point. We want to be sure so far as is possible that the net effect of any changes will not add unacceptably to the costs of employing authorities. On Second Reading the noble Lord asked why any changes could not be incorporated in primary legislation. He has raised that point again today. As I explained, the changes that we are considering would form part of a package. Once the package was agreed, it would be necessary to make the necessary changes in primary legislation to implement the proposals. The power that we are now seeking is an enabling power which the Government can use after full consultation with the interests concerned. It is natural to take the power in the Superannuation Act which provides the legislative framework for the schemes concerned and to use the existing arrangements for consultation with employer and employee interests.
I hope that the recognition which I have given to the need to contain additional costs for employing authorities and the need for full consultation before any changes are made will allay any of the misgivings which noble Lords may have. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that explanation which is extremely helpful. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Guaranteed minimum pensions: abolition of double indexation for surviving spouses]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 8, leave out from ("be") to ("and") in line 10 and insert ("taken to be one half of the rate of the deceased spouse's guaranteed minimum pension at that time").
The noble Earl said: Unfortunately, paragraph (b) as originally drafted may be ambiguous. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that that ambiguity no longer exists. In order to enable us to do that, we have changed the wording to specify the rate of notional widows' or widowers' guaranteed minimum pension as one-half of the rate of the deceased spouse's guaranteed minimum pension. I can explain further if the Committee would like me to do so. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: We are prepared to accept the Minister's explanation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 13, leave out from beginning to ("or) in line 14 and insert ("subject to any directions under section 59A below (whether made before or after the coming into force of this subsection), be accordingly reduced under that subsection by an amount equal to the rate, as determined under paragraph (b) above").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 7 puts beyond doubt that the existing direction and any directions made in the future will, where appropriate, apply equally to the notional guaranteed minimum pension calculated under Section 59(5ZA). I believe that that is appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Restriction on election that regulations shall not apply to persons whose service has terminated]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 6, after ("employment") insert ("or office").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill largely because I raised the matter at Second Reading as a result of representations that I had received from local government pensions advisers. Although I received an explanation from the Minister at that time, I am still unclear as to whether it meets the points that were made by the advisers.
1282
As I understand it, the clause as it stands would result in something being removed from people which they had hitherto enjoyed without there necessarily being any reason for it. If that is so, I feel justified in exploring the matter further by this means.
I am informed that the change in the law effectively nullifies most of the advantages conferred on such persons under the Superannuation Act 1972. Moreover, I am also told that there has been no consultation about the matter. If that is the case, it seems to me rather unwise to proceed in that way. People are generally reluctant to relinquish an advantage that they have. If that is the case, I cannot see that there is any good reason for so doing. With those few words, I ask the Minister to make some further comment.
Lord Rochester: I too am concerned that there has apparently been no consultation with interested parties about the effect of the clause on the rights of re-employed members of local government superannuation schemes. If that is the case, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a satisfactory explanation as to how that has come about and will tell us what he proposes to do about it.
The Earl of Caithness: The aim of Clause 10 is to rectify an ambiguity in the provisions of the Superannuation Act which protect the pension rights of members of certain pension schemes if changes are made to scheme rules after they have left the scheme. The clause clarifies those provisions in their application to re-employed scheme members; namely, those who have left but subsequently re-join the pension scheme. It places the re-employed scheme member in the same position as a retired scheme member or a scheme member who has left and has a preserved pension until his last break in service. It places the re-employed scheme member in the same position as a serving scheme member who has not had a break in employment so far as his current and future service is concerned.
However, it may be helpful to the Committee if I set out in a little more detail why the Government consider it is appropriate to make this amendment to Section 12 of the Superannuation Act 1972. Pension schemes today are necessarily very complex and it is inevitable that the rules have to be adapted as circumstances change. The general tendency is for pension benefits to improve or for new arrangements, such as the ability to make additional voluntary contributions which could benefit scheme members, to be introduced. Nevertheless, it may sometimes be necessary in order to meet changed circumstances to make changes to pension scheme rules which could adversely affect some scheme members, for example, as part of a package of changes whose overall effect is advantageous.
In the schemes covered by Section 12, scheme members who have left are protected against detrimental retrospective changes in scheme regulations by a requirement that they must be given a right of election that the new regulations do not apply to them. That is a proper protection for retired scheme members and for those with preserved

1283
pensions, since Section 12(1) of the Act explicitly provides for retrospective regulations to be made. Serving scheme members are protected by requirements that staff representatives must be consulted before any regulations are made and of course by the negative resolution procedure which applies to regulations covering those schemes and which means that objections to new regulations can be raised in Parliament.
Unfortunately Section 12 as it stands does not make clear how re-employed scheme members are to be regarded. Are they treated as having left or are they serving members? If the former is the case, they are placed in a very advantageous position vis-à-vis serving scheme members. Each re-employed scheme member would be able to freeze the pension scheme rules in the most advantageous form so far as he himself is concerned, not only in respect of any benefits already accrued by past service but also in respect of any benefits that he may accrue from future service.
The result could be a wide range of different provisions applying to individual re-employed scheme members. That would be very difficult to administer as well as being manifestly unfair to those scheme members with continuous unbroken service, some of whom could actually have joined the scheme before the re-employed scheme member joined for the first time. But it would also be inappropriate to treat re-employed scheme members differently from other former scheme members who had left but not rejoined the pension scheme so far as concerns the pension rights that they had accrued before they left.
Clause 10 ensures—and I think that this will resolve some of the fears of the noble Baroness—that those rights will continue to be protected. I can also assure her that there will therefore be no impediment to the re-employment of pensioners in jobs where their experience can be put to best use. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will welcome that.
The clause is intended to secure a proper balance between the interests of pensioners, those with preserved pensions, current employees and scheme managements. It ensures an appropriate degree of protection for pension rights of those who have left and rejoined the pension scheme, while providing greater flexibility for scheme managements to adapt the provisions of pension schemes to meet the needs of current and future employees.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that very clear explanation. I still have some concerns because it seems to me that there will be a worsening for some people. I do not see how that can be avoided. I should like to ask him one question to make sure that I have it quite right. Did I hear him correctly to the effect that if people are required to rejoin the service because their skills are needed, the better conditions will still be available to them? Is that what he said?
The Earl of Caithness: What I said was that the amendment that we are making, which clearly applies to the re-employed scheme members, will not be a deterrent to managements re-employing
1284
previous employees because if every previous employee who wanted to be re-employed could freeze his scheme in such a way that there were a multitude of schemes, that would inevitably put off managements. The noble Baroness has a point that in some cases there might be disadvantages but one must look at the scheme as a whole, which overall is advantageous.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the noble Earl very much for that extra clarification. Obviously I do not intend to press the matter at this stage. I tabled the Motion because I wanted to secure from the Minister a detailed explanation of what the clause really meant in the light of the advice and recommendations I had had from the people who have been advising me. I shall look very carefully at what the Minister said and perhaps take some further advice if I need to do so. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Government Trading Bill
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The primary purpose of this short Bill is to extend the enabling powers to create trading funds under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973. In preparing for this debate I looked back over what my noble friend Lord Gowrie said in introducing the Second Reading of the 1973 Bill. In spite of the passage of time the basic objectives of creating trading funds remain the same. He said:
"This is a short Bill, almost entirely concerned with finance. It provides that a restricted range of government organisations may be financed through trading funds rather than from Votes. This change in the method of financing is not an end in itself. With a number of other changes which are being introduced in the management of the organisations, it is designed to enable them to carry out those activities more effectively".
What has changed is the context. The impetus for this Bill comes from the Government's Next Steps initiative. This stemmed from a report by the Efficiency Unit entitled Improving Management in Government: the Next Steps.
My noble friend Lord Belstead, repeating a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place, announced to this House on 18th February 1988 that the Government accepted the main recommendations of the report and in particular that,
"to the greatest extent practicable the executive functions of Government, as distinct from policy advice, should be carried out by units fairly designated within Departments referred to in the report as 'Agencies'. Responsibility for the day-to-day operations of each Agency shall be delegated to a chief executive. He will be responsible for management within a framework of policy objectives and resources set by the responsible Minister in consultation with the Treasury".
This concept is not so very different from that which gave rise to the 1973 Act—the Fulton Report's

1285
"units of accountable management". The difference is one of scale. Perhaps units of accountable management were a concept ahead of their time. Certainly they never really took off. All that is left are the few remaining trading funds set up under the 1973 Act. With Next Steps we already have, with the launch of the Patent Office last week, 11 agencies and 43 announced candidates, with a clutch of launches planned for the next couple of months. Taken together agencies and agency candidates already cover one-third of the Civil Service.
The main aim of Next Steps is to deliver services more efficiently and effectively within available resources for the benefit of taxpayers, customers and staff. It does so by identifying suitable units—the agencies—and for each agency setting out its responsibilities, setting performance targets, delegating the authorities—particularly on financial and personnel matters—necessary to make the targets achievable and making the chief executive accountable for the results achieved.
At this point I should draw your Lordships' attention to the White Paper published by my right honourable friend the Chief Scretary to the Treasury and entitled The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies. It was designed to accompany this Bill when it was introduced in another place. It has two main purposes. First, it sets out the full range of intended financing and accountability arrangements for agencies—whether they are financed by the normal process of parliamentary supply or as trading funds. It thus sets this Bill in its context. Secondly, it considers the changes proposed in this Bill, the reasons for them and how the Government would intend to use the new powers if they are granted by Parliament.
Annex A to the White Paper lists the agencies and agency candidates as they were when the White Paper was published. As your Lordships will see from this list, such agencies come in all shapes and sizes and cover a range of widely differing activities. There is not standard blueprint and the arrangements for each agency have to be tailored to suit its particular nature and circumstances. This is as true of financing as other matters. As the annex indicates, many agencies and certainly the vast majority of staff employed will not be suitable to become trading funds and will continue to be financed with the normal processes of parliamentary supply. Not all those agencies that fall within the enabling powers of the Bill will necessarily become trading funds but for some agencies trading fund status confers a genuine prospect of improved value for money.
A trading fund is designed to encourage a much more businesslike approach to the delivery of government services where their cost is principally financed by receipts from those services. It is this requirement of financing by receipts that restricts the range of government bodies suitable to be financed by means of a trading fund. The mechanism is summarised in paragraph 4.2 of the White Paper:
"A 'trading fund' provides a financing framework which covers operating costs and receipts, capital expenditure, borrowing and net cash flow. It has powers to borrow to meet capital
1286
requirements, and to establish reserves out of surpluses. Within this framework, it can meet outgoings without detailed cash flows passing through vote accounting arrangements".
A trading fund addresses the fundamental problem that the cash-based vote and appropriation account system for services wholly or mainly funded by parliamentary supply does not well suit operations financed by receipts. It is designed, so far as is possible within a public service, to bring the method of financing for trading activities into line with the best public and private sector methods of managing organisations which have significant capital assets. By giving a standing authority to apply receipts to expenditure, it allows management to vary expenditure up or down in line with receipts rather than being constrained by cash control on inputs. The fact that all the costs entered in the trading account will correspond to actual outgoings, especially the servicing of the capital, should help to focus management's attention on the trading and management accounts and on the return which it is obtaining on the capital employed. That will be reinforced by the requirement to meet a financial target.
It follows that the detailed cash flows of trading funds will no longer be within the full control processes of parliamentary supply. The 1973 Act addressed this issue in two ways. First, it required that no trading fund could be set up without Parliament debating each proposal on art affirmative resolution order. That principle is maintained by the present Bill. Secondly, it laid down for trading funds statutory requirements for accounting to Parliament stronger than for the remainder of the Civil Service. Those requirements are strengthened by the Bill.
I turn now to the Bill itself. Clause 1 substitutes four new sections for Sections 1 and 2 of the 1973 Act and adds a fifth section. New Section 1 contains the new enabling powers. It extends the powers under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 to set up trading funds to a wider range of bodies, including those which form a statutory and monopoly service with fees paid by the public and fixed under statute. That is achieved by the new enabling powers and by the widened definition of "services" in Section 1(7). The powers would allow a trading fund to be established where operations of a department of government are suitable to be financed by a fund and in particular the revenue of the fund would consist principally of receipts in respect of goods or services provided in the course of those operations; and where it would be in the interests of improved management efficiency and effectiveness. The administrative tests that the Government would intend to apply using the enabling powers are essentially concerned to ensure that the setting up of a trading fund would lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness and are described in the White Paper.
New Section 2 deals with the appropriation of assets and liabilities for a trading fund, with their financing and with related matters. New Section 2A deals with public dividend capital in relation to trading funds. New Section 2B deals with borrowing by trading funds and sets a new limit on all such borrowing of £2,000 million which may be increased

1287
to £4,000 million by affirmative resolution order. New Section 4A provides for the winding up of trading funds.
Clause 2 requires the responsible Minister to prepare and publish accounts and reports of trading funds in such forms as the Treasury may determine. It also makes minor and consequential amendments to the 1973 Act.
Clause 3 widens the powers contained in the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 so that the Treasury may require the preparation of statements of account in respect of any operations of a government department. As the White Paper explains, those would cover the production by agencies other than trading funds of commercial-style accounts.
Clause 4 repeals the now obsolete Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act 1946 and makes certain consequential repeals of other enactments. Clause 5 deals with transitional arrangements.
It is a short Bill but one that I believe will have important benefits for the more efficient and effective conduct of business within government. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
4.55 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for having introduced the Bill. It arises from the declared purposes of governments over a number of years to try to separate the executive functions of departments of state from those which are more concerned with policy determination and general implementation and for the responsibility of advising Ministers. From the Fulton Report and the Ibbs Report onwards, there has been a progressive, and so far as I can see an agreed, programme of proceeding further in this direction.
As the noble Earl stated, in her announcement on 18th February 1988 the Prime Minister introduced the report of the Efficiency Unit, Improving Management in Government: the Next Steps. However, she also stated at that time at col. 1154 of the Official Report on 18th February:
"I do not anticipate that legislation will be required for the proposals that I have announced".
It appears that on reflection the anticipation of the Prime Minister was not realised and that legislation has proved necessary in order to tidy up, or indeed implement, certain financial implications of the carrying out of the recommendations of the Efficiency Unit. Otherwise Parliament would not have had an opportunity in your Lordships' House of monitoring or interfering in any way with the profound changes in the form and functions of government that are implicit in the proposal to set up these agencies.
As the noble Lord said, there are two kinds of agencies. Both are covered in the Bill. There are the Next Step agencies which are to be involved in trading. They are defined in the White Paper to which the noble Earl has referred as those in respect of which the greater part of their revenues are
1288
financed by receipts from the customers of those agencies. At the time of the report nine of those trading Next Step agencies had been established and a further 27 were recommended as being likely candidates. At the date of the original proposals put forward in the White Paper a further 15 were proposed. That gives the total number of trading agencies either in existence or proposed as 24. I shall give examples of those presently.
The other agencies, which will be headed by executives responsible to the Minister and ultimately responsible to Parliament, amount to 28. One non-trading agency has already been established. A further 27 are candidates for inclusion at a later stage. I am told that there may also be a further two which have since been added. A total of 30 will be non-trading agencies. That gives a total of 54 governmental agencies. As the Minister said, that will result in the departure of well over one-third of the total number of civil servants from the main body of Civil Service departments.
The principles upon which all those agencies were conducted are set out in the report of the Efficiency Unit. I shall summarise them because it is important that at some time we should give fundamental consideration to the far-reaching principles involved. The findings of the original Efficiency Unit report, to which the Prime Minister referred in her speech on 18th February were:
"First, the management and staff concerned with the delivery of Government services (some 95 per cent. of the Civil Service) are generally convinced that the development towards a more clearly defined and budgeted management are positive and helpful".
We on this side of the House do not wish to dissent from that general proposition.
"Second, most civil servants are very conscious that senior management is dominated by people whose skills are in policy formulation and who have had relatively little experience of managing or working where services are actually being delivered".
Once again, we on this side of the House would associate ourselves generally with that finding. Then we find a further conclusion:
"Senior civil servants inevitably and rightly respond to the priorities set by their Ministers which tend to be dominated by the demands of Parliament and communicating government policies".
That also is a tendency that has been evident over many years. We agree in general with that finding. As a result there has frequently been ministerial overload. In current circumstances, where Ministers have not only a responsibility for a great department of state but have responsibilities connected with their membership of the European councils, it must be clearly understood—we on this side of the House agree—that there is a considerable overload. The other finding was that too little attention had been paid in the past to the results of the expenditure and other activities of the various great departments of state. We do not dissent from that finding. Those findings are all generally acceptable to those of us on this side of the House.
The normal constriction imposed upon the Opposition in your Lordships' House of not opposing a Government Bill on Second Reading, is fortified by the fact that the Opposition in another place did not dissent from the Second Reading.

1289
Therefore on this side of the House we wish to be as co-operative as we can be in assisting in that general forward process, subject of course to certain safeguards which have not yet been dealt with entirely. Therefore in Committee we may well submit amendments from which the Government may dissent. They will probably dissent from at least two of them which were moved in another place because the Official Opposition, supported by others, objected to the continued agency formation process (in so far as it affected those which were going to use trading funds) and the threat of some privatisation in the future. The Opposition in another place did not like that idea. I shall not press the matter at this stage in your Lordships' House because it is likely to be some years before such a privatisation takes place and the prospect of it being achieved by the Government at present in office after the next general election is likely to be pretty remote. I shall not press the point because it would be unkind at the moment.
There is of course the question of public accountability. When the activities of government departments are hived off into separate agencies there is always the question of public accountability. By that I do not mean only accountability to the other place—the requirement to submit accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and so on; to appear before the Public Accounts Committee; and the responsibility of Ministers to continue to answer questions which may affect their agencies—but the rights of the public. It has not yet been successfully established that the quality of public service can be measured by its profitability in trading terms. That, I am afraid, still remains to be proved.
I do not want to go into too much detail at this stage because this is only a Second Reading, but among the trading fund agencies that have been formed is of course Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The prices it charges for Government publications of which it has a monopoly have sharply increased over the years. Profit targets will be set for Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It will set a return on capital requirement. To put that public monopoly, now of course to be a trading fund next-step agency, in the same category as a private enterprise firm is at any rate open to doubt.
There is always the possibility that, where such a government hived-off organisation is a monopoly which sets itself financial targets of profitability, the profitability factor may outweigh service to the general public. Over the years it has become common knowledge that the price of documents issued by Her Majesty's Stationery Office has accelerated by an amount considerably in excess of the RPI. A point can arise where the public, through being unable to acquire documents because of financial restriction, may not be as well informed as had the documents been available at a lower price.
I am given to understand that the report into the activities of the Al Fayeds, for example, costs £45. I do not want to evaluate costs against the activities of crooks but the price will not enhance the report's circulation. The problem of whether the pursuit of
1290
profit-determined efficiency is always the best way to serve the public has still to be resolved.
The Minister may have observed in today's Financial Times a current commentary on the result of the establishment of the new agencies to which he referred. It stated:
"A more likely result is buck passing. The minister will take the credit for successes while blaming the chief executive for failures. When things go wrong, the chief executive will say: I pressed the Government for more resources, but could not get them. Ministers will seek to distance themselves from agencies, but if a chief executive seeks to blame the Government's financial stringency and the minister's position is threatened by inefficiencies, he will intervene, and nothing will be achieved by devolution".
The same feature also deals with the problem of the general public.
Ultimately freedom in a democracy depends not merely on the right to vote once every five years or at a by-election but also upon the continued flow of accurate information to the general public. My view, which I shall not press in Committee but now give for your Lordships' consideration, is that we in the United Kingdom will never have a free democracy until we have a freedom of information Act roughly in conformity with that in the United States. Indeed the Swedish Government, who follow the same policies as Her Majesty's Government in relation to the devolution of executive functions of government to the trading or non-trading agencies, have established a successful ombudsman to cover exactly those matters to whom the individual citizen can complain.
We are also concerned about the accounts. Paragraph 5.9 of the White Paper to which the noble Earl has referred states:
"The trading fund legislation will continue to impose statutory obligations"
and I underline the word "statutory"—
"on all funds, whether created under the existing or the extended powers, to prepare full accounts for each financial year; these will be commerical-style accounts".
I have looked carefully through the Bill not only in regard to the trading agencies but also the non-trading agencies. I have done so particularly in regard to the amendments to Section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Department Act 1921. That does not provide for the form of accounts to be rendered. There is no requirement under the Government's Bill or under the Acts that it amends, including the Act of 1866, which requires a specific form of accounts to be rendered in respect of these agencies. There is provision that accounts will be prepared but accounting concepts have changed considerably over the years.
With the noble Earl's co-operation, I sincerely trust that we on this side of the House will be able to devise an amendment suitable for him to accept so that the intention expressed in the White Paper—that is for a statutory obligation for the agencies to prepare full accounts for each financial year which will be commercial-style accounts—will receive statutory status within the Bill or the Acts that it amends. Drafts will be submitted during the course of the Committee stage. Should the noble Earl require to consult with us prior to that stage I

1291
shall be happy to co-operate in order to achieve the purpose set out in the White Paper.
We are concerned with a number of most important bodies. It may not be known, for example, that the agencies will fall under the financial purview of the Government and come within the administrative process. I say that it is administrative because, apart from the financial reforms incorporated in the Bill, all the others will be carried out by administrative action. It is as well that the country is aware that among the bodies which will become new agencies as distinct from part of the mainstream Civil Service is the social security benefits administration. It employs a large number of people and it received the strictures of the Auditor General when he recently audited the National Insurance Fund.
They are grave matters and the Bill provides the only occasion for us to raise them; other than on an originating Motion tabled by the Government or in a short debate initiated by one of the political parties. The noble Earl will be astounded to read paragraphs 13, 14 and 20 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General about the present state of the administration of the social benefits which include the majority of social security payments. By reason of the hour I shall not read them now but they require the most urgent attention.
We on this side of the House are prepared to give constructive support to the general thrust of the new agencies—the Next Steps agencies. We consider that they have a most valuable function to perform. However, it must not be assumed a priori that the mere creation of an agency, the setting of financial targets and all the paraphenalia that has been asssociated with similar ventures during the past few years will, of necessity, be best for what the Government euphemistically term the "customer". They are, in general terms, the citizens of the United Kingdom whose interests we are here to protect. Therefore, we hope that the noble Earl will respond to the constructive approaches that I have made on behalf of Members on this side of the House so that finally we shall have a much better Bill, still within the Government's policies, than is now before the House.
5.17 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am pleased that this afternoon we in this House have had the chance to debate the Bill which, though modest in itself, marks an important contribution to the wider reforms which are taking place through the Next Steps initiative in the way in which government go about their business. I am particularly grateful for the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I thank him for his constructive remarks and point out that my door is open too should he wish to discuss matters between now and another stage.
In my opening remarks I touched briefly on the origins of the Next Steps initiative and gave the House some idea of the progress that we have been making. As I said, with 11 agencies up and running and 43 announced candidates we have about one
1292
third of the Civil Service already within our sights. The Next Steps project manager, Mr. Peter Kemp, has said in public on a number of occasions that he will eventually expect something of the order of 75 per cent. of civil servants to be working in agencies. We are talking about maybe 400,000 civil servants and many billions of pounds of public expenditure. We are also talking about organisations which provide a large number of important services to the public ranging from such services as forecasting the weather, to issuing driving licences and making social security benefit payments to quote but a few examples. The scale of this reform should not be underestimated and the scope for benefits in terms of better quality and more efficient and effective public services is considerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, confirmed my figures, in slightly different format. However, I should perhaps remind the House, as I indicated in my opening speech, that not all those bodies which fall within the powerhouse of the Bill will necessarily become trading funds. Each case must be considered on its merits. At present one agency, HMSO, is a trading fund, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, reminded us; one trading fund, the Mint, is an agency candidate.
At present only around 20 per cent. of the running costs of government departments are offset by related receipts. It therefore follows logically that the majority of government activities will not be suitable to become trading funds because they will not have sufficient receipts to qualify.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, spoke earlier about privatisation and will mention the matter in more detail at a later stage. Before agencies are set up all other options, including abolition and privatisation, are examined. In most cases the examination leads to the conclusion that the nature of the services provided by the agencies does not make privatisation a feasible or realistic option. That is not to say that some activities might not be contracted out, but generally our expectation is that most mainstream activities of Next Steps agencies will continue to remain within central government for the foreseeable future.
I look forward to debating that in more detail with the noble Lord—who then spoke on what I consider to be an equally important point, the question of the quality of service. He suggested that because trading funds are largely financial mechanisms—they are set targets and will be concerned with financial matters—the quality of service is irrelevant and would suffer under pressure to meet financial objectives. Let me make it absolutely clear that that was never the intention and certainly is not the intention now.
The main aim of the Next Steps initiative is to deliver services more efficiently and effectively within available resources for the benefit of taxpayers, customers and staff. That applies just as much to agencies which become trading funds as to other agencies. It is always possbile to throw more money at public services, and that may or may not improve delivery. Many providers of public services are monopoly suppliers and therefore increased

1293
expenditure is likely to be reflected directly in increased charges, which is not always what the customer wants. In each case I say to the noble Lord that a balance has to be struck between securing improved efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services and protecting the taxpayers' and the customers' interests.
That does not mean that quality of service is the poor relation. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in a speech to the audit commission in June of last year, shoddy public services should not be an option, nor should they be tolerated. We should not have embarked on the Next Steps initiative or introduced this legislation if all we were interested in was cutting costs. This Bill, unlike the earlier Act, no longer refers to improved commercial operation. Instead it specifically refers to management effectiveness, which means delivering a better service to the customer as well as the taxpayer.
The increased accountability requirement will show more clearly the quality of service actually provided compared with the targets originally set. They will thus lead to a better service to the public and better containment of taxpayers' and users' costs. The publication of full reports, including details of the extent to which agencies met their quality of service targets, will help to put agencies under strong pressure not only to maintain but to improve the standard of services provided.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, like me. managed to find a moment in his busy day to look at the Financial Times. I am glad that Mr. Bogdanor of the Financial Times is paying attention to this very important initiative and recognises that it is a real attempt to improve management and government for the benefit of taxpayer, customer and staff. I am glad that he recognises that there is a sensible bridge to be built between public and private ways of doing things, including a greater emphasis on output measurements and the extent of customer satisfaction, which is clearly right. Many of our public services could be improved and Next Steps is the right approach. I am glad that the noble Lord endorses the general direction in which we are going.
Mr. Bogdanor, however, is factually wrong on the question of accountability and redress. Ministers only delegate their powers to chief executives and can take such delegations back. They can become involved in day-to-day matters, though it is hoped that they will not normally do that. Individuals can still appeal to their MPs and MPs to the Minister responsible for all the activities of the agency, though as a matter of good management and speedy customer satisfaction it is hoped that they will try the chief executive first.
The Parliamentary Commissioner—the ombudsman—continues to have exactly the same
1294
rights of access and powers in respect of chief executives and staff working in agencies as he has now. With regard to freedom of information, Next Steps is a contribution to that rather than the reverse.
The noble Lord touched on the form of accounts. Here I bow to the superior knowledge of the noble Lord, as an accountant. He was right to say that the 1973 Act did not place a statutory requirement on the form of accounts and the present Bill follows that. However, all trading funds under the 1973 Act are required to prefer commercial style accounts. The very form of their operation means that they have to do so. We believe it would be inappropriate to determine the form of accounts, but I look forward to dealing more fully with that with the noble Lord in the fullness of time.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. He will be aware that the White Paper referred to statutory means of accounting. "Statutory" means what it says. If it is to be statutory and the White Paper prescribes commercial-type accounts—which it does—it follows that the statute must lay that down.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says about "statutory". As I concluded that part of my speech it occurred to me that he mentioned "statutory". He has covered the point again and we shall be debating it at the next stage.
The Next Steps initiative seeks to build on the strengths of our Civil Service. It has a well deserved reputation for impartiality, fairness, integrity and propriety. Those attributes will continue to be an essential part of public service. People are the service's important asset. By delegating real managerial responsibility for achieving results along with the right tools for the job, Next Steps aims to provide an incentive for people to give their best; a recipe, I hope for turning the good into the excellent.
Next Steps indicates the Government's genuine intention to improve the quality of the services it offers to the public within the resources available. All of us at some time or other have cause to use those services, and it is right that we should expect to receive a high standard of service. One of the most important benchmarks of whether this initiative has succeeded will be whether it leads to significant improvements in standards of service.
The measure which we have been debating this afternoon adds to the range of tools available to help us in this task. For those agencies for which it is suitable it will, without any loss of accountability to Parliament, be the key to considerable improvements in value for money. I commend it warmly to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past five o'clock.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, BRUSSELS, 5TH MARCH
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, BRUSSELS, 5TH MARCH
  ERITREA AND TIGRAY: RELIEF AID
  ERITREA AND TIGRAY: RELIEF AID
  PSA TENDERING
  PSA TENDERING
  IPCC: GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
  IPCC: GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
  GRADUATES: LIFETIME EARNINGS COMPARISON
  GRADUATES: LIFETIME EARNINGS COMPARISON
  ROAD SAFETY: RESEARCH PROJECTS
  ROAD SAFETY: RESEARCH PROJECTS
  WAR CRIMES: LEGISLATION
  WAR CRIMES: LEGISLATION
  NORTH SEA HADDOCK STOCKS
  NORTH SEA HADDOCK STOCKS