Sitting of 22 March 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Allan Roberts, esquire, Member for Bootle, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  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 29 March.
  EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 29 March at Seven o'clock.
  Mr. Speaker: As the remaining 11 Bills have blocking motions, with the leave of the House, I shall put them together.
  SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)
  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 29 March.
  ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [27 February],
  That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 29 March.
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
  CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
  HUMBERSIDE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 29 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Special Constables
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to increase the number of special constables; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the current level of special constable recruiting.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): At the end of 1989, there were 15,589 special constables in England and Wales. I am very keen to see an increase. With that objective, there will be a national, centrally funded recruiting campaign and sympathetic consideration will be given to the possibility of a special payment, or bounty, on an experimental basis.
    Mr. Key: That is good news and I congratulate my hon. Friend. Will he consider improving allowances? Many people feel that a bounty is not in keeping with the volunteer spirit of the specials. In what ways does my hon. Friend think that specials should be made more use of than at present?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right to imply that there is a difference of views about a bounty and that is why we are thinking about it thoroughly. If it can be useful in increasing the number of special constables, we should want to try it out. Expenses have been improved recently, but if my hon. Friend has any suggestions about out-of-pocket expenses that are not covered properly under the present system, I should like to hear them. He is also right in believing that not all forces use special constables as imaginatively as they might. Those that use them well get enormous benefit. I am thinking of the specials' particular role in crime prevention advice and in supporting neighbourhood watch schemes. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that.
    Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that it is fairer to other hon. Members if one question is asked at a time. We then get further down the Order Paper.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for his full and complete reply, such as we have grown used to receiving from him. Will he comment a little further on recruiting, expecially among the ethnic communities? Will he also speculate on the improvements that might take place within the specials were their training to be stepped up? I understand that currently, they support the regular police, but they could do a great deal more if their training was a little deeper and more extensive than is currently the case.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks and I shall welcome them by being short rather than long in my answer. Much can be done on training, and the imaginative use that some forces have been able to make of the specials is a result of having trained them for those roles.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister give a firm assurance that the effort to recruit more special constables will not be allowed to dilute the efforts being made by all police forces to recruit from the ethnic minorities, as such recruitment remains extremely disappointing?
    Mr. Lloyd: No, the effort will not be used in that way. The ethnic minorities are better represented among the special constables than in the police force at large. One characteristic of the special constabulary is that many of its members go on to become regular policemen. We have had some recruitment efforts among the ethnic minorities. I am thinking especially of Tooting, where the increase in numbers was large as a result. There is a great deal that can be done and in some places, it is being done. We are trying to urge other forces to copy that good example.
    Mr. Salmond: Are there any plans to increase the number of special constables, to protect the Secretary of State for Scotland from the righteous anger of the Scottish people, after his failure to defend our interests in Cabinet and his unwillingness to come to the House to explain his position?
    Mr. Lloyd: People in Scotland are much more law abiding and sensible than the hon. Gentleman implies.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Police Federation is strongly opposed to the introduction of bounties because it believes that specials would then be used as cheap labour in preference to the use of regular constables? Is my hon. Friend further aware that the federation would strongly support financial recompense to specials who lose earnings as a result of having to give evidence in court?
    Mr. Lloyd: We are very much aware that that opinion is widespread in the Police Federation and that is why we would not begin to pay bounties to all special constables. If we moved ahead at all, we should want to experiment to see whether the idea was effective in recruiting and did not dilute the motives of those who join.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the recruitment of specials is closely linked to final recruitment into the regular police force? Is he further aware that the Government's latest act, reneging on what many of us believe to be a sacred agreement on arbitration, will mean that the Government will be unable to recruit not only special constables, but any constables?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that that will have any effect on the recruitment of special constables, for reasons that have already been made clear. At present, special constables receive only out-of-pocket expenses. Therefore, the idea of rent allowances does not weigh with them at all.

    Neighbourhood Watch
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes now operate in England and Wales.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): At the end of December 1989 there were estimated to be over 81,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales, covering more than 4 million households, compared with 64,000 at the end of December 1988—an increase of 26·5 per cent.
    Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that most impressive answer, which shows the great popularity and success of neighbourhood watch schemes. Does he agree that his answer shows the important role of such schemes in crime prevention, which justifies the encouragement that the police give to those schemes and the commitment of substantial police resources to ensure that they prosper and continue to provide the services that they have provided already?
    Mr. Waddington: There is not the slightest doubt about the important role that neighbourhood watch schemes play in crime prevention. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Eight schemes now operate in Fulham, covering more than 2,500 households, and I hope that there will be more schemes there shortly.
    Mr. Maclennan: How is the information about neighbourhood watch schemes centrally collated? What is the measure of their effectiveness?
    Mr. Waddington: I do not think that we have any difficulty in collating information as a result of inquiries made of the police. Obviously, the effect of particular schemes depends to a large extent on the enthusiasm of the participants. I could cite many examples of schemes where one can show without peradventure that after their being set up there was a decline in crime in the area, particularly in burglary.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Given my right hon. and learned Friend's natural and very proper support for neighbourhood watch schemes, can he justify to the House a cut in the Wiltshire constabulary's budget for vehicles, plant and equipment of more than £800,000 for next year, when that money could reasonably have been expected to do much to support neighbourhood watch schemes in my constituency?
    Mr. Waddington: I can assure my hon. Friend that there has been an 80 per cent. rise in real terms in expenditure on vehicles, plant and maintenance since 1979. That is just one sign of the enormous increase in resources made available to the police since this Government came to office.
    Mr. Corbett: While I welcome growing citizen interest in neighbourhood watch and business watch schemes, does the Home Secretary accept that they are no substitute for public demand to see more officers with their feet on the beat? Does he recall that that was a major finding of a recent Police Federation survey? How does he intend to respond to that clear expression of public opinion?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman should make known his new enthusiasm for neighbourhood watch schemes to Labour authorities that have persistently obstructed the setting up of neighbourhood watch schemes in their area. I hope that he will go straight out of the Chamber and ring Cleveland county council and Stockton, Hartlepool and Langbaurgh borough councils. After he has done that and shown his determination to see more neighbourhood watch schemes set up, he can come back and ask further questions.

    Prisoners (Hepatitis B)
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to protect prisoners from contracting hepatitis B.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): I refer the hon. Gentleman to replies given on 2 March 1990 to previous questions tabled by him. I have nothing to add to those answers.
    Mr. Alton: After the sad death of one of my constituents from hepatitis B, does the Minister agree that now is the time to start collecting statistics from our prisons to establish the high incidence of hepatitis B among the prison population generally? Does he accept that as the disease is 100 times more virulent than HIV and as immunisation is available by vaccine, we should take urgent action to vaccinate prisoners and staff against it and to collect reliable statistics?
    Mr. Mellor: I am aware of the sad case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I should welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter with him at greater length, if he cares to come to see me. We take the most careful medical advice from the prison medical service and act on its advice in any cases where, for instance, it advises vaccination either of staff or of prisoners, if a vaccine is available. I shall be only too happy to discuss all the details of the matter with the hon. Gentleman. He is right to be worried about the issue, on which I assure him that the prison medical service is particularly active.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the recommendations of the chief inspector of prisons on national prison hospitals, with regard to hepatitis B and HIV, have been fully implemented and recognised?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes, indeed. We take seriously the professional advice that we receive and, in particular, the role of the chief inspector of prisons, whose job is to cast an objective eye over that and all other aspects of running the prison service.
    Mr. Ashley: As the Minister is so ready to take advice, will he also consider the advice of the joint committee on vaccination, which recommends vaccinating all high-risk people, including staff and prisoners?
    Mr. Mellor: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, it all turns on the definition of high risk. We certainly have a policy of taking advice from the prison medical service. Anyone whom it wishes to see vaccinated as part of its clinical discretion, and who agrees to be vaccinated, can be. It is always a matter of judgment how far one should go in categorising people independently of the individual judgment of a medical officer. I repeat that we are willing to have our arrangements tested against any independent advice to which hon. Members may have access.

    Prisons
    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population; what it was one year ago; and what projections he has made for the prison population over the next five years.
    Mr. Mellor: The prison population in England and Wales on 16 March 1990 was 47,115. The corresponding figure for 17 March 1989 was 49,837, a reduction of just over 2,700.
    Projections published last November, which are in the process of being revised, suggest that the prison population will rise steadily over the next five years to reach 58,200 in 1994–95. The year 1989 has, however, seen an encouraging downturn in the prison population—the average population being some 1,300 fewer than in 1988. Accordingly, the revised prison population projections—due to be published later this spring—will, of course, reflect that fall.
    Miss Nicholson: Given that we have an unacceptably high prison population in the United Kingdom, the results of which I see in Dartmoor prison, what steps is my hon. and learned Friend taking to ensure that the lowest number of people are sent to prison, while reflecting the seriousness of the crimes committed, and that we are not merely falling into the habit of sending people to prison because we have no better way of dealing with them?
    Mr. Mellor: As my hon. Friend knows, no Government have done more than this one to develop non-custodial penalties that offer the courts a wide range of viable alternatives to custody. That process has been taken a stage further in my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's recent White Paper. My hope and belief is that as further arrangements become available, the courts will make increasing use of them so that the prison population will increasingly comprise only those who undoubtedly, on any judgment, deserve imprisonment. It will always be a difficult balance to strike, but we are taking great steps in that proper direction.
    Mr. Gale: Will my hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm publicly that community service, as proposed in the White Paper, will not be seen or used as a soft option to imprisonment? Will he also reaffirm that there is no question of anybody who has been convicted of a violent crime being allowed to remain on the loose in the community and that, when it is used, community service will be rigorous?
    Mr. Mellor: The first point that needs to be made absolutely clear is that the courts have ample powers to punish violent offenders. Most people will continue to believe, as we do, that violent offenders will usually merit a custodial sentence for the protection of the public. However, equally, we have nearly 20 years' experience of community service. Community service is rigorous: it means work for the community's benefit. Under the guidance of the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), national standards are now being promulgated. Our community service scheme leads the world. It is not a soft option. It ensures that those convicted of offences put something back into the community.
    Mr. Randall: On the question about the current prison population, is not the Minister ashamed of the Government's performance when dealing with young remand inmates, some of whom, according to the chief inspector of prisons, are living in unacceptable conditions in prison, and being denied sufficient education and exercise? Some are even locked up for 20 hours a day. What does the Minister say to that?
    Mr. Mellor: First, nobody is remanded in custody without the courts being satisfied that that person cannot safely be left at liberty. Remand should be an option of last resort. To begin with, therefore, those youngsters are in remand because of things that they are alleged to have done and because the courts lack confidence in their ability to behave themselves while awaiting trail.
    Secondly, it is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to rush to judgment on such matters, but no Government have done more than this Government in building new prisons and refurbishing old ones. Ten years ago we inherited the most run down prison system in Europe as a result of the persistent and flagrant neglect of the previous Labour Government. That cannot be reversed overnight.

    Remand Prisoners
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of remand prisoners held in police cells; and what it was one year ago.
    Mr. Mellor: On Friday 16 March, there were no remand prisoners held in police cells in England and Wales. That compares with 182 people held on 17 March 1989, most of whom were on remand.
    I am very glad to be able to say that the measures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the previous Home Secretary, introduced to overcome the problem of the need to hold prisoners in police cells for lengthy periods of time have proved a success. My right hon. and learned Friend the present Home Secretary is determined to see that this success is maintained.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. and learned Friend congratulate the prison service on achieving the end of that use of police cells? How are his deliberations on the use of private companies to construct remand centres progressing? Does he agree that there are several good models in the United States, where the remand centres are located in cities, close to the courts and to the families who wish to visit the prisoners, and much more convenient for the purposes of transportation? When will my hon. and learned Friend be able to tell us that he has reached a verdict on those considerations?
    Mr. Mellor: Obviously, it is important that, as far as possible, no prisoners are held outside purpose-built prisons. I am glad to say that as a result of a combination of factors—not least the Government's commitment and willingness, unlike the Labour Government, to make resources available—it has been possible to achieve that.
    Private remand prisons are under active consideration and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary can make a statement before too long.

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Birmingham city council on the Birmingham pub bombings.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has sought the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice on the new evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case.
    Mr. Waddington: I am not aware of recent representations from Birmingham city council about the Birmingham pub bombings case. I have not sought the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice on the Birmingham pub bombings case.
    Mr. Barnes: I am a little surprised by that answer, because I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had received a delegation from Birmingham. What is the purpose of this further, fifth and, I hope, final police inquiry, when it is understood by the Home Office, whole sections of the police force and the judiciary, that there will be eventual freedom for the Birmingham Six? In those circumstances, is not it disturbing that the Birmingham Six should remain imprisoned and branded as guilty when procedures are being set in motion for, I hope, their release?
    Mr. Waddington: Justice demands that innocent men should go free; it also demands that guilty men should stay in gaol. Claims have been made, and the object of the exercise is to determine whether there is any substance to them. I have asked the chief constable of the West Midlands police to report on a number of specific points that were put to me recently, and he has decided to ask the Devon and Cornwall police to consider those matters. The basic question is still whether the representations made to me constitute new evidence relevant to the safety of the convictions.
    Mr. Mullin: Will the Home Secretary confirm that one of the principal obstacles to the case being referred back to the Court of Appeal is the implacable hostility of the Lord Chief Justice? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the resignation or the early retirement of the Lord Chief Justice would be a small price to pay for justice being achieved in this case?
    Mr. Waddington: That is one of the most preposterous and irresponsible statements that I have ever heard in the House. Incidentally, I am amazed by the sheer irresponsibility of the hon. Gentleman who, while protesting his concern for the Birmingham Six, has steadfastly refused to reveal material that he claims would prove their innocence. Must we wait for another novel from him?
    Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the thanks of many Conservative Members for the open-minded way in which he accepted the new evidence presented to him before Christmas? Is he aware that the fact that someone else will be investigating the matter with an open mind is largely welcome? If something sinister appears, will he reconsider asking the Court of Appeal to examine the case again, once the Devon and Cornwall police have finished their inquiries?
    Mr. Waddington: I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend put his question. As I said, the basic question is whether the matters that have been put to me constitute new evidence that casts doubt on the safety of the convictions. If, as a result of those inquiries, matters are put to me that convince me that new evidence casts doubt on the convictions, I shall take appropriate action.
    Mr. Gow: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House the nature of the fresh evidence that has been provided and upon which he has asked the police to

    1227
    report? Can he assure the House that the police will conduct the further inquiry as rapidly as possible, consistent with examining the evidence thoroughly?
    Mr. Waddington: I wish that I could help my hon. Friend on his first point, but I do not think that it would be proper for me publicly to disclose all the matters that I have asked the chief constable of the West Midlands to consider. However, I take my hon. Friend's second point—these are important matters that should be dealt with as quickly as possible, and I am sure that the police realise that.
    Mr. Mallon: Given the various disturbing factors that have come to light since the original jury trial of the Birmingham Six, will the Home Secretary say whether, in his professional experience and judgment, the new evidence leads him to believe that if it had been given to the original jury they would have found differently? Will he be guided by the informed opinion of Lords Scarman and Devlin and concede that there may well have been a miscarriage of justice in this case?
    Mr. Waddington: I think that I have already answered that question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the difficult task that I have to perform when material is put before me is to come to a conclusion about whether it constitutes new evidence which casts doubt on the safety of the convictions. That is the task which I am trying to perform to the best of my ability.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a simple answer to all this? If the Birmingham Six are innocent, and I say "if" because I have no way of judging, would not the simple answer be for those who are campaigning for them to be released—the IRA—to supply us with the names of those who did the bombing?
    Mr. Waddington: One does not have to go as far as the IRA—one can ask the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). He says that he knows all about these matters, but he has steadfastly and irresponsibly refused to give the authorities the information that he says will help.
    Mr. Hattersley: First. I congratulate the Home Secretary on the decision that he announced yesterday—not least because there is a general wish throughout the country, particularly in Birmingham, for the men or women who were genuinely responsible for the pub bombings to be convicted and imprisoned, rather than those whom it is increasingly believed are not guilty. Does he understand that having set out on that course—I repeat my congratulations on that—there can be no going back and that having begun with a limited inquiry he now cannot avoid a comprehensive and complete inquiry? He should understand that his impartiality on this matter will be better understood and appreciated if he attempts to answer questions from Opposition Members in a way that is appropriate to a Home Secretary.
    Mr. Waddington: I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman's last reference had nothing to do with the Birmingham Six, but was a reference to my reply about neighbourhood watch schemes—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] If it referred to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), I certainly do not need to defend myself about that—it is time that the hon. Member recognised his
    1228
    responsibility as a Member of this House. I should have thought the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) would also know that.
    Mr. Cryer: The Home Secretary should sit down—he does not own the place.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We often hear things in the House with which we do not agree.
    Mr. Waddington: I shall address myself now to the question put to me by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, which might have been better if he had not gone on to subsequent matters. The issue is a simple one: material has been put before me and I must determine whether it constitutes new evidence that casts doubt on the convictions. I am entitled to seek what advice I can in order to come to a proper conclusion about the matter. That is what I was about when I addressed certain questions to the chief constable of the West Midlands. One should not conclude from that that it is necessary to have another inquiry.

    Juvenile Crime
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the progress of his policy on developing parental responsibility for juvenile crime.
    Mr. Waddington: Our proposals were set out in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", published in February. We intend to strengthen courts' powers to require parents to attend court with their children and to bind the parents over. The parents' means would be taken into account in fixing the level of any fines for the children's offences and parents would normally be ordered by the courts to pay the fines. We have already received some encouraging responses to the proposals.
    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is necessary to make irresponsible parents more conscious of their responsibility for the criminal activities of their children? Does he also agree that, as the peak age of offending is 15, it is not good enough for some parents to expect schools to be totally responsible for the discipline of their children out of school hours?
    Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is right. It is a very sad fact that young people sometimes appear in court with no parent alongside them. The courts ought to have a duty to order parents to attend unless it would obviously be unreasonable so to do. The whole House, I am sure, will agree that in deciding what is an appropriate financial penalty to impose on a young person the court should have power to bear in mind the parents' means.
    Mr. Heffer: Would that also apply to Members of this House? Over the years, children of many hon. Members—on both sides, but especially on the Conservative side—have got themselves into drug problems, and so on, through no fault of the parents, Members of Parliament probably being away from home all week? Will a Member of Parliament be held responsible for everything that his children do? I have never heard such a preposterous suggestion?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman should look at the specific proposals. If he examines them individually he

    1229
    will find it very hard indeed to quarrel with them. Obviously there are cases—probably many cases—in which children get into trouble and it is quite impossible to say that the fault lies with the parents, but equally, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, it is preposterous for parents whose children get into trouble to say that it is nothing to do with them and that they need not even bother to turn up at court.
    Mr. Norris: I welcome the accent placed by my right hon. and learned Friend on parental responsibility, but I wonder whether he agrees that there is a place for parental responsibility in relation to community service orders. My right hon. and learned Friend was right to strengthen community service orders and to increase their importance in the treatment of young people who have committed crimes. Might not an obligation be imposed on parents to ensure their children's attendance under the scheme?
    Mr. Waddington: I am not sure about the obligation, but there is a very strong case for expecting those responsible for community service orders to make it clear to the parents what is involved and to encourage them to take the very closest interest in the punishment being meted out to their children.

    Hull Prison
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what timetable he intends to introduce for the removal of juveniles from Hull B wing.
    Mr. Mellor: Some relief may be provided by a new local authority secure unit due to open in Hull in mid-1991, and a new remand centre at Everthorpe will be ready early in 1992. Until these are available, there is no feasible alternative to the use of B wing at Hull prison for juveniles on remand.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the conditions in which young people are being held in B wing are the most ghastly, for adults or juveniles, in virtually the entire prison system in this country? Is not it about time that a civilised country stopped putting people under 17 into prison at all, whether on remand or to serve sentences? Will the Minister please make it a personal compaign to have Hull B wing closed as soon as possible?
    Mr. Mellor: I return to the point that it is a very exceptional course for the courts to remand juveniles in custody. This is done only when the courts are satisfied that there is absolutely no alternative. We are most anxious to improve this aspect, as well as every other aspect, of our prison stock. I am glad to be able to say that, last week, the number of juveniles held in Hull B wing was down to eight. I hope that it will be possible to maintain that low figure, but I repeat that we have had to address serious deficiencies in the prison building stock across the board. It has not been possible to deal with all problems at once, but there will be new remand arrangements and I hope that within the next two or three years these will remove the necessity to use Hull.

    Crime Victims
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now collect information on prosecutions and convictions in sufficient detail to identify the sex of victims in each police force area in England and Wales.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): We have no present plans to do so. The sex of the victims is already known in homicide cases and sexual offences. Domestic violence is a very wide term which can cover a number of different offences. I can announce today that we are preparing new guidance for the police, for issue in the early summer, in which we shall suggest that all domestic violence cases should be recorded in exactly the same way as all other violent offences. It will also emphasise the need for comprehensive local record-keeping so that every officer who attends a domestic violence incident will have up-to-date information about any previous incidents and can thus accordingly remove the victim to safety and deal suitably with the alleged offender, as I am sure the House would want. A crime is a crime whether it is committed in the home or elsewhere.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that reply. Unfortunately, the Minister did not quite answer my question, which did not relate to domestic crime. I asked him about violent crime generally. As the fear of crime is greatest among women, should not the figures for crime against women be available both nationally and locally so that there can be a properly targeted response?
    Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman reads question No. 24 carefully, he will find that I answered it exactly. It is necessary for the police to collect statistics only when it is necessary for the police to collect them. Otherwise I should prefer the police to be out preventing and detecting crime and protecting women.

    Neighbourhood Watch
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local authorities still refuse to allow neighbourhood watch signs to be erected on their property.
    Mr. John Patten: Although we do not have a comprehensive record of the local authorities concerned, I am sorry to have to report to the House that some local authorities, including Cleveland county council and Stockton, Hartlepool and Langbaurgh district councils, have refused planning permission for the erection of neighbourhood watch signs. Authorities have power to refuse planning permission only for signs on highway land since the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1987 gave deemed consent for the erection of signs relating to properly approved neigbourhood watch schemes, which were not to be placed on highway land.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement that he has had to make is a disgrace? When it came to something positive that those local authorities could do to help to fight crime, they did not bother. Is not it notable that all the authorities concerned are run by the Labour party, which seems not to care about crime?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend, characteristically, has put his finger right on the matter. I wish only that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his colleagues, including the Leader of the Opposition, who was here to hear my hon. Friend's supplementary question, would write to those Labour-controlled councils and ask them to support neighbourhood watch and not to attack it.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Minister agree that the action of four local authorities is hardly justification for such an outburst of synthetic anger from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes)? Would not it be better to put more police men on the beat to patrol the streets rather than people having to rely on self-policing because of inadequate police resources?
    Mr. Patten: The list that I gave was rather modest. I could have added some London boroughs such as Hackney and Haringey, which are not exactly helpful towards neighbourhood watch schemes. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that in the past 10 years we have seen nearly 15,000 more policemen on the streets—there are more to come—and another 10,000 civilians supporting the police. If only we could discover the Labour party's policy towards law and order and how much it would cost in this new world of phantom politics, we should be better informed.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents are fortunate not to live in Socialist boroughs? Is he aware that the boroughs of Elmbridge and Guildford positively welcome neighbourhood watches, as do the Metropolitan and Surrey police? The importance of neighbourhood watches is community concern about crime prevention instead of reliance on the police. The police are grateful for the help that community and neighbourhood watch schemes provide.
    Mr. Patten: I congratulate my hon. Friend and, through him, the boroughs that he represents and the Surrey and Metropolitan police on their positive attitude. We now have 81,000 neighbourhood watch schemes, and the number is rising fast. They are strongly supported by the police, by the excellent organisation Crime Concern, and by the Home Office's safer cities unit. Alas, they are not strongly supported by the Labour party.

    Crime Victims
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to support victims of crime and what compensation is available to them.
    Mr. John Patten: In this financial year £3·7 million has been granted for local victim support schemes in England and Wales, and the amount will increase in the coming financial year. On 22 February 1990 my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced the publication of the new victims' charter. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend has announced extra staff and expenditure for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Our criminal injuries scheme is more generous and reaches more victims than any other in the western world.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his answer will he warmly welcomed by the many people who
    1232
    have been victims of crime because for far too long there has been a feeling that too much time is spent worrying about trying to justify the cause of the criminal rather than caring for and helping the victims who have suffered? Will he assure the House that any claims for compensation will be dealt with as swiftly as possible so as to minimise the continued suffering of victims of crime?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has exactly summed up my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's policy towards crime and punishment. My right hon. and learned Friend wants to put the victim first and the proper punishment of the criminal second, and to make those two things paramount in his policy. We are doing all that we can to ensure that those who deserve proper compensation from the most generous victim compensation scheme in the western world get that compensation as quickly as possible.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ward: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March 1990.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): 'This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today. This evening I shall speak at a dinner of the Royal Society, along with the Prime Ministers of Norway and Sweden, to conclude the international conference on surface water acidification.
    Mr. Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread welcome for the Government's determination to encourage saving and, in particular, for the Chancellor's announcement of the big increase in capital which may be held before people are no longer eligible for community charge rebates and housing and other benefits?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point. This was a vital part of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's very popular Budget for savers. It is right to recognise the conscientious efforts of people who have saved over the years especially for their retirement, and that is precisely what the Budget does.
    Mr. Kinnock: I welcome the fact that the Government have made a positive response to the demands that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made to the effect that retrospective payments should be given to people in Scotland who were denied poll tax rebates because of their modest savings. May I say, however, that this is ignominious retreat by Her Majesty's Government still deals with only one of the multitude of injustices in Scotland, England and Wales arising out of the poll tax?
    Does the Prime Minister not think that it would be proper for the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the House today to make full statements and to be available for questioning by hon. Members in all parts of the House? Is it not clear from the series of events between Tuesday's Budget and today that the poll tax cannot really be mitigated by concessions and that only abolition will do?
    The Prime Minister: No. The community charge will be very popular—[Interruption] with people living alone, such as widows and widowers, who for years have paid high rates and who will be far better off paying a fair and reasonable community charge. Those people—often people who have saved all their lives—have been ignored by Opposition Members.
    With regard to the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] earlier today, he will be considering—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a matter that the House wishes to hear about.
    The Prime Minister: He will be considering with colleagues and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities how a simple and workable scheme—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is anxious to hear the details of what the Prime Minister has to say. She must be given an opportunity to say it.
    The Prime Minister: They will consider how a simple and workable scheme of ex gratia payments can be devised. It will be a scheme administered and funded by the Scottish Office from within its existing resources. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] My right hon. and learned Friend will report the proposals to the House as soon as the details of a Scottish scheme have been fully worked out. I stress that the scheme is an ex gratia one—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These are important matters.
    Hon. Members: What about a statement?
    The Prime Minister: I stress that the scheme will be an ex gratia one. No new legal rights to retrospective payments will be created. There could be no new legal rights on a major statement in a Budget going far wider than the community charge, so the arguments that Ministers have made against formal retrospection stand. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that as soon as the scheme is fully worked out after consultation he will make a full statement to the House.
    Mr. Kinnock: In view of what the Prime Minister has just said and the interest on both sides of the House in the arrangements that the Government are making, why could not the Secretary of State for Scotland come to the House today and make a statement? Is it simply that he is afraid to acknowledge plainly the Government's gross incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the excellent proposals that we have made in the Budget were gross incompetence. They were in fact very good and very generous and could not possibly have been announced when a Labour Government were in charge of the economy.
    With regard to the way in which people in Scotland are treated—[Interruption.] Hon. Members want to ask questions, but they do not want to listen to the answers. Government expenditure per head of population is £2,100 in England, £2,400 in Wales and £2,800 in Scotland.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Hicks: When the law makers opposite become law breakers and stick to their campaign to encourage people not to pay the community charge and to break the law, as part of which they have invited leading highly paid pop stars to the Palace of Westminster next Monday, is that not a disgusting and highly irresponsible example to set the young people whom we represent?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is totally and utterly wrong to break the law, and very wrong to encourage by example young people to break the law. I trust that the Leader of the Opposition will disown this latest manifestation of intent to break the law—or does he depend too much on the 30 hon. Members whose action has made it clear that they should not belong to the Labour party?
    Mr. Sillars: On the question of competence, is the Prime Minister aware that, of all the Prime Ministers I have seen in the House, none has ever given a more incompetent performance than hers in answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition? Is not it true that the total value of the poll tax rebate concession in 1990 will be £120 million and that, proportionately, Scotland should receive between £10 million and £12 million but as today's so-called concession is worth only about £4 million the Prime Minister is robbing Peter to pay Paul? What has she got against the Scottish people that she must add insult to injury?
    The Prime Minister: The figure of £4 million is correct. I have mentioned the generous arrangements per head for Scotland with regard to public expenditure. With regard to the community charge, the aggregate Exchequer grant to Scotland towards local expenditure, plus the business rate, meets 80 per cent. of local authority expenditure. In England the aggregate Exchequer grant, plus business rate, meets only 70 per cent. of local authority expenditure. Scotland is far better off than England with regard to help from the taxpayer for local authority expenditure.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Thursday 22 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the comment made last week by the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, who said that not only is manufacturing output in this country at an all-time record level but exports are rising twice as quickly as world trade generally? Our share of world trade is also rising, and we now export more per person even than Japan. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the vast majority of British business men that the one way to put that trend disastrously into reverse would be to adopt the high-taxation, low-incentive and high-spending policies of the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am happy to confirm that last year

    1235
    manufacturing output reached an all-time record, as did manufacturing investment. This morning's trade figures show that since December our exports rose by 11 per cent. over last year's figure. Our imports are stable, which provides further clear evidence that the deficit is narrowing and that our policies are working. I note that under the last Labour Government manufacturing production actually fell.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who led the campaign to get justice——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that that falls within the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister, as she is responsible—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Come on, please.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister recognise that many people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will feel that it is unfair that they have been unable to claim rebates on their rates this year because they have more than £8,000? Will she examine the injustice of that as well?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the excellent Budget—[Interruption.]—on the excellent and generous provision that he made for capital disregards for a wide range of income benefits, and on a very good savers' Budget.
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Would my right hon. Friend like to contrast last Tuesday's Budget with certain previous Budgets? Does she recollect that before certain previous Budgets people used to queue to stock up in case prices rose too much? Does she also recollect that in some of those Budgets certain savings were taxed at a rate of 98 per cent., which led the New Statesman to assert that the Labour Government were driving the country from affluence into bankruptcy? Does the Prime Minister agree that whatever economic problems we have now are as nothing compared with those bequeathed by the last Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend and with the vigorous way in which he put his question. It
    1236
    is strange to see the Opposition supporting a savers' Budget when their whole policy was to put a savings tax on investment income. It was this Government who took it off.
    Mr. Ashdown: In view of this afternoon's humiliating turnaround in which Scotland was again treated as an afterthought, does the Prime Minister realise what a shambles her Government have descended to? She tells us that her Government is about leadership, but are there not now more Cabinet Ministers travelling behind the elephant clearing up the mess than in front telling it where to go?
    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could do better than that. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that from 1 April this year the capital disregard for four income support benefits is to be put up to as high as £16,000. I am surprised that the Liberal-whatever-it's-called party is not grateful for that. The Government whom it supported in office could never have done such a generous thing—their disregards would have been much lower. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the disregards at that time were about £2,000.
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady—[Interruption]—my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the deep, wounding insult to the people of the north-west made by the shadow sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), in undermining Manchester's bid for the Olympic games. Will she reaffirm that it is the intention of the Government to support Manchester's bid and to do all that they possibly can to ensure that the games come to Manchester?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we wholeheartedly support Manchester's bid for the 1996 Olympics. The city has put together an excellent brochure which shows how well Lancashire and the north-west have done under a Tory Government, and how they have been able to put up such a good bid. I hope that Manchester will be successful.
    Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after business questions.

Business of the House
3.33 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: First, I express the deep and widespread sorrow of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself at the sad and untimely death of our colleague and friend, Allan Roberts.
May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I echo the hon. Gentleman's remarks about his late colleague; we wish to be associated with them.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget statement.
Motions relating to Personal Community Charge (Relief) Regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 27 MARCH—Motion for the Easter adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 28 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
THURSDAY 29 MARCH—Until seven o'clock motions on Community Charge Benefit Regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 30 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 2 APRIL—Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
[Relevant Documents
Monday 26 March:
Personal Community Charge (Relief) (England)
Regulations (S.I. 1990, No. 2)
Personal Community Charge (Relief) (England) (Amendment) Regulations (S.I. 1990, No. 402) EDM 664 Personal Community Charge (Relief) (Wales) Regulations (S.I. 1990, No. 288) EDM 774
Thursday 29 March:
Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (No. 2) Regulations (S.I. 1990, No. 545) EDM 698 Community Charge Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations
Community Charge Benefits (Permitted Total) Order (S.I. 1990, No. 533) EDM 773
Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations.]
Dr. Cunningham: What further thoughts has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had about how the House will be able to deal with the proposals in the important though controversial Bill on embryology? Will it, for example, be possible for us to take as a separate issue in a debate on the Floor of the House the proposals for a 14-day limit on experiments on embryos?
Will any matter related to the issue of abortion law also be taken with a vote on the Floor of the House, rather than in Committee upstairs? It is important that all hon. Members, whatever their view of these important and controversial issues, have the opportunity to hear the
1238
arguments and to express their views in the Lobby as a Committee of the whole House.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to find some Opposition supply time before the Easter recess? Like his hon. Friends, Labour Members are anxious to have an opportunity to debate the developing shambles associated with the introduction of the poll tax. It is important that, before those impositions are imposed on our constituents and before the widespread distress that will result, the House has a further opportunity to consider all aspects of the poll tax and its implications.
Continuing with that issue, is not it clear that every time members of the Cabinet try to dodge issues and duck statements in the House, the Government get into even more trouble? Would not it have been much more preferable, and indeed proper, for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make his important announcement in the Chamber of the House rather than in front of the press, which prevented Scottish Members from asking questions of importance to their constituents? Will the Leader of the House arrange as soon as possible for the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House and make an oral statement about his intentions so that we may have an opportunity to ask those questions?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman is that the Government are seeking—and I shall certainly be seeking—to manage the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill as best as possible to give the House the opportunity that is wanted on both sides for views to be recorded and made effectively, regardless of any partisan alignments, because it is a matter of that kind.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that, when the Bill was introduced in another place, it had alternative versions of clause 11 before it. When it reaches this House it will have only one version. But I intend so to organise matters that this House will have a choice between comparable alternatives at the appropriate time. I am consulting widely within the House to work out the best way of handling all those matters, and I shall acquaint the House with my proposals as soon as I sensibly can.
I repudiate of course the ridiculous suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman that the Government's handling of the community charge is regarded as a shambles. It is precisely because that is wholly without foundation that we have no fewer than two occasions next week for consideration of further subordinate legislation in connection with it.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has made it plain, and I do so now, as the Prime Minister has already done, that when he is able to bring fully worked-out proposals forward, he will do so by reporting to the House at the earliest opportunity.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us when the House will have an opportunity to debate the report of the Department of Trade and Industry inspectors on the directors of the House of Fraser?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has sent an additional memorandum about wider aspects of merger policy and company law to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. He will, in addition, be giving oral evidence to the Committee next week. I do not

1239
think that a debate on the point raised by my hon. Friend would be desirable, at least in advance of the report of that Committee.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we have the statement for which I have now asked on nine separate occasions on wage rates in the Refreshment Department of the House? Is it possible that the reason for the posts that are being advertised not being filled at the moment is that the wages that we are paying are insufficient? Why does the Leader of the House persist in ignoring the requests for a statement on these matters?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot add anything to what I said a couple of weeks ago. The matter was also the subject of a question to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who answers to the House for the House of Commons Commission, which is, as the hon. Gentleman knows from the answer he received, looking at the matter. It is possible that one reason for difficulty in filling vacancies is the very high level of employment under this Government.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. and learned Friend has announced that next week there will be further consideration on the Floor of the House of the Social Security Bill. Is he able to tell the House today—it would be very helpful if he could do so—whether the Government intend to introduce during the remaining stages any measures on the raising of income support for those who have to find accommodation in private nursing homes and residential homes? Can he also say whether the Government have any intention of altering the taper in respect of those who wish to apply for a rebate, for housing benefit or for other benefits to which they are entitled, particularly in the light of the Government's announcement relating to the raising of the capital disregard?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will no doubt make his own opportunity for raising these matters in the course of the debate next week on the Social Security Bill. He will have to await the declaration of the Government's intentions at a later stage.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Can we have a discussion on the state of the franchise, whereby the poll tax is clearing people off the electoral register and, on the other hand, votes for expatriates are replacing them by people who are not involved in the procedures of this country or dependent upon its services? If the Government are doing this, why are they doing it so badly, because they are not doing anything to their advantage as far as their own electoral advance is concerned?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have seldom heard a more confused question. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the community charge is discouraging people from appearing on the electoral role. Any other charges, such as adding to the electoral roll for expatriate citizens, are taking place in accordance with legislation passed by the House.
Mr. Michael Jopling: In view of the answer that the Prime Minister gave a few moments ago, will the Leader of the House try to arrange a debate in the near future so that we can try to find ways in which England can get a fairer share of the public purse compared with Scotland?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot think of a more appropriate opportunity than the Budget debate for raising such far-ranging questions.
Mr. Alfred Morris: While we await the Government's response to their defeat last week over inadequate provision for frail and often confused old people in residential care, can we at least have an assurance in an urgent ministerial statement that there will be no evictions of elderly people who can no longer afford their fees?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there will be opportunities in the further debates on that Bill and on the Social Security Bill for raising such questions. I will, of course, bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Sir William Clark: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Minister for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider his position on the report on the House of Fraser? While one accepts the fact that a report will go to a Select Committee, this will mean further delay; it will also mean that in the meantime the House of Fraser, through Harrods, is continuing to run a bank. In view of the report, should not that bank licence be revoked immediately, and may we have a debate on the matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's point is more appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer than for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. As for the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, there is still some substance in the case that the matter should await his giving evidence on all these matters to the Select Committee.
Mr. David Alton: When the Leader of the House studies the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, will he consider the implications of the case in the Liverpool court yesterday? A drunken driver mowed down a pregnant women on a pedestrian crossing and her eight-month-old baby was killed. Is the Leader of the House aware that the judge in the case said that this unborn child had no rights in law and that the drunken driver was charged merely with reckless driving, fined £1 and sent to prison for a mere three months? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the safeguards for the unborn child are wholly inadequate and that this appalling state of affairs needs to be rectified?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I share the hon. Gentleman's distress about the facts of that case. The law appears to be as stated in the commentary on that case, but, clearly, it is a matter which I can bring to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and I shall do that.
Mr. Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend listen carefully to the Opposition's pleas for a debate on the community charge so that we can expose the deliberate and cynical manipulation of the introduction of the community charge by Labour councils and councillors to the disadvantage of old and poor people for short-term electoral gain?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend makes his point well. He will have an opportunity of doing so yet again in two debates next week.
Mr. Michael Foot: I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in advance if I misheard him. When will the Secretary of State for Scotland make a statement to the House? Did the Leader of the House tell us when it would happen and was it with his agreement that, instead, the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement to the press this afternoon? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree to that procedure?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made plain, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] When the details of the proposals have been sufficiently worked out, in a couple of weeks.
Mr. Richard Tracey: In the light of the less than adequate support for the police and neighbourhood watch exhibited by Labour Members in Home Office Question Time today, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate on police matters and neighbourhood watch so that the full-hearted support of Conservative Members for neighbourhood watch can be exhibited to the country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. I have been seeking an opportunity for some time for a debate on the Government's proposals for criminal justice. I will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind as well.
Mr. John McFall: The Leader of the House may be aware of the contents of an internal memorandum from the commodore of the Clyde submarine base, which has come to my attention. It says that all 7,000 workers at the base can sign a petition organised by the local Conservative association regarding planning permission for the peace camp out with that base. That introduces an element of partiality which has never existed before with the forces. Further information has come to me that a local Conservative councillor has had a meeting with the senior naval person at the base. Will the Leader of the House assure me that impartiality will be maintained in future and that he will have discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that such a disgraceful situation will never occur again?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My understanding of the present position is that the guidance issued by the naval authorities, following inquiries made by individual personnel, stressed that under Queen's regulations, service personnel have no right to engage in party politics. The question of planning permission was seen as a local issue, so the workers could, as private citizens and community chargepayers, sign a petition opposing planning permission for the Faslane peace camp if they wished.
Mr. Charles Wardle: When my right hon. and learned Friend considers the future business of the House, will he consider lending Government support to the proposal that each of the private Members' motions drawn in the ballot be time-limited so that each one gets at least one and a half hours' debate? Is he aware that I have the third motion on tomorrow's Order Paper which would provide the House with an ideal opportunity to consider, inter alia, the DTI inspectors' report into the House of Fraser affair?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can well understand my hon. Friend's urgent interest in that particular radical proposal for reform. However, I am afraid that I cannot promise to do anything to remedy the position before tomorrow.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that 4,500 severely disabled people rely very much on the independent living fund to cover the costs of disability and to keep some of them out of institutions? However, that fund is drying up this year and there are reports that the Treasury wants to end it. Is not that a matter of great concern and worthy of debate next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not familiar with the reports to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. However, I will bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. and learned Friend will be well aware that we have not had a debate on sport in Government time for many years. Before we rise for the Easter recess, may we have an opportunity in particular to debate Manchester's bid for Olympic games and the disgraceful comments made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) who tried to rubbish the bid? Would not such a debate give Labour Members an opportunity to say whether they support the right hon. Member for Small Heath and, like him, are betraying the interests of British sport in that matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has taken that opportunity to make his important point. He will have another opportunity to develop the point in the debate on the Easter Adjournment on Tuesday and perhaps in the Consolidated Fund debate.
Mr. Ron Brown: As the Government are apparently committed to market forces, is it not a little strange that the Scottish Development Agency—a Government quango in Scotland—should reach a secret deal with Barratts, the building company, to develop a large area in my constituency—West Pilton circus—with a subsidy estimated at £300,000 or perhaps more? Obviously that deal remains secret because Ministers refuse to divulge information. Is that part of the kick-back system and part of a bribe to the Government's friends elsewhere? Frankly, that is morally wrong. Many residents are suffering because Barratts is abusing planning permission in that area in my constituency. Can we have a debate early next week to discuss the role of Barratts, the Government and the SDA?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman can make an intervention as long as that about a deal that is secret, I tremble to think how long he could speak on a deal that was not secret. He can pursue that matter more fully in Scottish questions.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had an opportunity to see early-day motion 360 which relates to the economic policies of the Labour party?
[That this House, whilst accepting the reluctance of the Leader of the Opposition to make his policies known, wishes to know what the standard rate of income tax would be under Labour.]

1243
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that an opportunity will be found between now and Easter to debate the Labour party's policies—inasmuch as we know them—which we believe the Opposition have a duty to make clear and be frank about, instead of trying to mislead the electorate by saying nothing and doing nothing—or, as they say in Lancashire, saying nowt and doing nowt?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's wish to expose the high-tax policies that are characteristic of the Labour party and I hope that he will take every opportunity to do that, including any opportunity that may occur to him during the Budget debate.
Mr. Tony Banks: Now that the Leader of the House has been permanently grounded in London, has he noticed, like the rest of us, just how bad the situation is in our capital city? Is he also aware that the Henley Centre for Forecasting has stated that the great majority of Londoners are concerned about rising crime, transport chaos and homelessness? May we please have a general debate about London? The Leader of the House has been asked about that before, and he said that he would consider the matter.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will have to find his own opportunities to raise that matter in debates. I think that I am right in saying that there is likely to be a debate tomorrow on transport in London. That will be at least one opportunity.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: May we have a statement next week on whether the Prime Minister will see Nelson Mandela on his forthcoming visit to Britain to give her a chance to encourage him in his present statesmanlike approach to constitutional reform in South Africa?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a statement on that. My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about it if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. There was some opportunity to do what my hon. Friend suggests in the brief meeting yesterday between Mr. Mandela and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Government have not yet extended the inestimable boon of the community charge to Northern Ireland. Could we have a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office present in the House next week to make it clear whether ratepayers on small incomes will have the benefit of the raised limit on savings to entitle them to a rate rebate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. David Sumberg: May I support the plea made to my right hon. and learned Friend for a debate next week on sport to give us all a chance, particularly hon. Members for the north-west, to express or condemnation of the disgraceful statement of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell)? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in the
1244
north-west, from both sides of politics, have put time and effort into bringing the Olympic games to Manchester and do not want it scuppered by Labour politicians?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, particularly as I represented a seat in the north-west of England for some time. I shall take every opportunity to underline the points that he made.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House not hide behind the fact that the Select Committee will question the Secretary of State in the inquiry into the House of Fraser? May I express the view of the whole Committee by asking the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take part in a debate in the House as early as possible? The answers must be given by the Secretary of State to the whole House, not just to a Committee.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend. No doubt the Committee will have an opportunity to do so when he gives evidence to the next meeting.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Leader of the House recall that, at the Madrid summit last year, a commitment was made to European monetary union? Is he aware that the EC Commission has now reported to the Council of Ministers on that subject, that that report is distinct from the Delors report last year and that it will be considered by the Council of Ministers shortly when it meets in Ireland? Can he assure the House that the reports will be published and will be considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation so that the Committee can report to the House and make a recommendation on whether it should be debated?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman will know better than most of us, during the consideration of such a massive topic, many papers are produced and no doubt will be produced by different agencies of the Community for consideration by various council meetings and others. Some of them qualify for consideration by a Committee of the House and others do not. I shall find out whether the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred falls into that category.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate on water charges? Is the Leader of the House aware that Yorkshire Water plc, as it now is, proposes to increase the connection charge for domestic premises from £37 to over £500? That follows a 33 per cent. increase in standing charges. The textile industry in Bradford and elsewhere in Yorkshire is worried about the increase in water charges because, as the Leader of the House is no doubt keenly aware, that industry depends heavily on a supply of water. The increase in water charges is a potential threat to jobs at a time of high interest rates and the poor economic conditions created by the Government. May we have a debate to go into the matter in some detail?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are many aspects to such a question. For example, the House is as concerned about environmental matters as about employment. A great deal of the rise in charges payable to water authorities is a result of the rise in standards of environmental care. We always have to try to strike the right balance between them.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed unusually unknowing a couple of weeks ago when I asked him a question about the problems of marine archaeology. Has he now had time to do his homework? Does he realise that the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee issued recommendations some time ago, which still await legislative action? When are the Government likely to proceed with those matters, which are important to heritage concerns?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As a result of the hon. Gentleman's assiduity, I am now aware of those matters, but I am not yet in a position to promise them an early place in the legislative programme.
Mr. Robert Litherland: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 660, which refers to the lack of funding and education about the virulent disease hepatitis B?
[That this House expresses deep concern at the lack of funding and inadequate information relating to the hepatitis viruses; urges Her Majesty's Government to make provision for the necessary education campaign targeted at high risk groups, giving an assurance that vaccination will be made readily available to particularly vulnerable groups and including hepatitis B in the screening that is currently in progress on the incidence of AIDS and HIV; and congratulates the Russell Harty (Jimmy's) Hepatitis and Liver Research Fund in drawing public awareness to this highly infectious disease.]
I am astounded that hon. Members have such little knowledge about that disease, which kills more people in one day than AIDS kills in one year. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confer with his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health so that hepatitis B can be included in the AIDS programme? May we have a debate or a statement soon, please?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health recognises the seriousness of hepatitis viruses. I understand that the incidence of hepatitis B has been declining in recent years, but even so I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, not least because I understand that a new edition of the relevant handbook on these matters is under preparation by the Health Education Authority.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House confirm that next Tuesday the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement about the assessment studies in London? Will he allow the House to have a full debate on those studies, when, I hope, the Secretary of State will announce that he will abandon all the road-building schemes and instead put money into public transport? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that that debate is linked to the concerns that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about the growing worries about the deteriorating quality of life in London?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that my right hon. Friend is hoping to make a further statement about those matters before long. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have the opportunity of raising his points when the statement is made.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have a debate about the tragedy in which three children were killed when they were playing inside a fridge-freezer, the lid of which closed over them? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also bear in mind the need for regulations that would require local authorities to collect such fridge-freezers and to dispose of them safely? I ask that because of the extraordinary refusal of the Hinckley and Bosworth district council in Leicestershire to carry out such a collection, which has scandalised all the people of that county, irrespective of their political allegiance.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on what the hon. and learned Gentleman alleges to be the position of the council that is in proximity to his constituency. However, I can endorse his general anxiety about such accidents and shall bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Tom Pendry: May I echo the calls for a debate in the House on sport, during which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will be able to say that he endorses Manchester's bid for the Olympics, which he has always endorsed, and during which he and other Opposition Members will be able to highlight the problems that sportsmen and women in this country experience as a result of the Government's policies towards sport?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: A number of reasons seem to be developing about why the House wants a debate on sport. I am glad to have that expression of unanimity in support of Manchester.
Mr. George Foulkes rose——
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Madden.
Mr. Foulkes: I was born in England.
Mr. Max Madden: Is the Leader of the House aware of the allegations that three Chairmen of Select Committees hold financial interests that bear directly on the work of their Select Committees? Is he also aware that the Select Committee on Members' Interests will find great difficulty in bringing recommendations to the House before the summer recess because of its backlog of work? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman have discussions with the Chairman of that Select Committee to see whether there is any way in which the Committee can bring recommendations to the House to dispel public disquiet about that matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are procedures to deal with any individual allegation, and I encourage him to follow those if he wishes to pursue the matter. On the wider questions, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and his colleagues are considering the several matters before them in the way most likely to bring a conclusion before the House. I was in touch with the Chairman recently and I know that he is seeking to do his best.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Leader of the House please stop dodging and weaving on the question of a debate on the House of Fraser? During business questions last week he said that he would give the matter serious consideration. The Chair of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, behind which the right hon. And

1247
learned Gentleman is hiding, said last Thursday that he did not think that consideration of the matter by his Committee prevented debate in the House.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that once the matter has been referred to that Committee next week, he will confirm during business questions next Thursday, and certainly before we break for the Easter Recess, that he has finally made a decision?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady is energetic in pressing that cause upon me, and she is not alone in doing so. The matter, together with all the evidence from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will be fully considered by the Select Committee. It would be sensible to wait for that before reaching a conclusion.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. George Foulkes: My mother was born in England.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Scots have been very patient [Interruption.] There is an adage about the first coming last and the last coming first, and that happens from week to week, but this time I call Mr. Foulkes.
Mr. Foulkes: Good evening, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Leader of the House agree with so many Opposition Members that it is an insult to the House for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a detailed statement to the press at 2.30 pm instead of coming to the House to make a statement at 3.30 pm? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, in his earlier replies, he misunderstood—perhaps deliberately—what we were saying? We want a statement, but we do not want only to ask questions about a detailed statement after the scheme has been worked out; we want to ask questions about what the Secretary of State said today.
Why is the £4 million coming from the already overstretched Scottish Office budget? Which parts of the budget will have to be cut because of that? Will the Secretary of State come to the Dispatch Box at the first possible opportunity to do what he is paid to do, which is to answer to this House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will fully report his proposals to the House at the earliest opportunity after the details have been worked out.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Perhaps the Leader of the House could help us because of his previous experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Are we to understand that the statements about capital offsets were made in Cabinet and accepted by the whole of the Cabinet, and that it was not until the Secretary of State for Scotland threatened to resign and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) expressed his displeasure that a rapid turnabout occurred?
Will the Leader of the House assure us that the person who comes to the Dispatch Box before Scottish questions next Wednesday will be the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and not the hon. Member for Southend, East or the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)?
Above all, I invite all those who wish to pursue the campaign against the poll tax in Scotland to attend a rally in Glasgow on 31 March, when we intend to show our total opposition, not manufactured opposition, to the poll tax.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Despite my passion to help the hon. Gentleman and despite his newly independent status, I am not prepared to divulge what took place in Cabinet. I assure him that all his allegations stand on imagined foundations.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Leader of the House accept that the Secretary of State for Scotland has effectively been cut adrift by the rest of the Cabinet over this issue? In those circumstances, his future is at stake, and his inability to come to the House and tell us what a packed press conference heard is not only unacceptable but further undermines his already weakened position. Is not it a fact that the £4 million that he has put aside has come from his Scottish Office budget, which shows that the rest of the Cabinet have washed their hands of him?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no basis for reaching such a conclusion. As one would expect, my right hon. arid learned Friend has discussed the matter with his colleagues, including my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Prime Minister has already answered questions about it in the House, as have I. The position will be explained to the House in due course by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am tempted to say, "Good morning." As you have repeatedly said, Mr. Speaker, this is a United Kingdom Parliament. Bearing in mind the fact that, particularly since 1987, the Government's decisions have been vindictive and unfair to Scotland, will the Leader of the House undertake to have a debate in the House next week to consider the record of this Conservative and Unionist Government on damaging the Union?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Speaking as a Welshman for another national component of the United Kingdom, I find the sensitivity of the Scots on this matter difficult to understand. The Government seek to govern the United Kingdom, and do so effectively; Parliament seeks to represent the United Kingdom, and does so effectively. We shall continue to do so.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: When I previously asked the Leader of the House what should he done when important Scottish business was put through the House so that it minimised parliamentary scrutiny, he expressed some concern, yet once again he has allowed that to happen. It is insulting enough for Scotland to be treated as an afterthought, but worse still when parts of the Scottish Office budget are to be transferred and services endangered without the Secretary of State for Scotland being here in any shape, form or presence to answer for his actions. If his statement was made today, surely his response should also be made today.
What can be done about a Prime Minister who deliberately misleads the House —
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark. No Minister, or even hon. Member, misleads the House.
Mr. Welsh: I was only asking whether anything could be done, because clearly—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have done so, but I am asking him to rephrase his question.
Mr. Welsh: I shall certainly do so. What can be done about a Prime Minister who, perhaps accidentally, misleads the House? When she says that the poll tax will be popular, not only does she mislead the House, but she totally deludes herself.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed her opinion on the matter clearly, and it is one which we share. I hope that the House will also come to share it.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer the right hon. and learned Gentleman no apologies for staying with the issue of the implementation of poll tax concessions to people in Scotland. If the matter, as it relates to England and Wales, was important enough to be outlined in detail by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday, why have we heard only a statement of sorts today by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House concerning the Scottish poll tax payers? The issue is above party politics; an increasing proportion of our surgery workload each week is concerned with dealing with distressed, elderly constituents who simply cannot find the means to make their poll tax payments, be they weekly or whatever. A statement should be made from the Dispatch Box. Has the Leader of the House received any information in the past few minutes about whether such a statement is to be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on Monday or Tuesday of next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is because of the need for clarity about such matters, as the hon. Gentleman said, that I have said that my right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement to the House when the details have been fully worked out and can be understood.
Mr. William McKelvey: Does not the Leader of the House, with hindsight, confess that, had he given serious consideration to the setting up of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, the great disorder, the shambles, that is now apparent in the Scottish Office might not have occurred?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no such shambles in the Scottish Office; nor does the hon. Gentleman's argument add to those that have already been made about the possibility of setting up a Select Committee.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Why is the Secretary of State for Scotland being kept under wraps today? Does this latest victim of the pampering of the Scots by the Prime Minister have one black eye or two? As this must be just about the only example of a Secretary of State, on a Thursday, handing out from his overstretched budget £4 million in settlement of a claim that on the Wednesday he dismissed as bogus, may we now have a proper explanation?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Government as a whole, have responded sensibly, within the budgetary framework, to the case that has been canvassed in this House. The House will be told about it in due course by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that one day the last will be first.
Is the Leader of the House really saying that a Lobby briefing was given today on a scheme that had not been fully worked out, a scheme that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had said was impossible? Is not the real reason for the lack of a statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland the fact that such a statement would quickly expose the hollow sham of recycling money in the Scottish Office budget, by comparison with the provision of the new money that was announced by the Chancellor on Tuesday? Does the Leader of the House not understand the wish of Scottish Members to question the Secretary of State for Scotland? The only reason that we can think of for his remaining in office is the identity of his possible successor.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is again allowing his fancy to run riot. The fact is that the proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend has disclosed will be presented to the House in due time. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] When the details have been fully worked out.

Motion for Adjournment
4.16 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill on Tuesday 27 March. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 9 am on Monday 26 March. A list showing the subjects and the times will be published later that day. Normally the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer—up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: If I divine what it is about, I am not sure that I can answer it.
Mr. Foulkes: I am sure that you will do your best, Sir.
You will have heard the genuine anger from the Leader of the Labour Party, from the shadow Leader of the House, and from spokesmen of all other Opposition parties, about the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not made a statement to the House but, instead, has made a statement to the press. Will you, Mr. Speaker, raise again the question of the Government's ignoring the convention that statements should be made to the House and, instead, briefing the press? Perhaps you, with all your authority, can do something about it.
May I ask you, Sir, also to use your good offices to ensure that, if we cannot have a statement, the Secretary of State for Scotland might be allowed to speak from the
1252
Dispatch Box in the Budget debate to explain why he has made this amazing U-turn? As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has said, the Secretary of State has today acceded to a claim that yesterday he described as bogus. Can you use your influence to have the Secretary of State brought to the Dispatch Box? He is not usually reluctant to come to the Dispatch Box; indeed, he is normally very enthusiastic. Can you ensure that that enthusiasm is channelled?
Mr. Speaker: Who speaks from the Dispatch Box is not a matter for me. As to the press being briefed before hon. Members are briefed in the House, the whole House knows my strong feelings.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I emphasise that this is the third occasion on which the Secretary of State for Scotland has shown gross discourtesy to hon. Members and, through them, to their constituents. After all, it is our constituents whom we are elected to represent. Particular issues are the future of lowland airports, the distribution of fishing quotas—a vital matter in Scotland—and now cash limits under the community charge regulations. It seems that this discourtesy is becoming a matter of policy that is exercised by the Scottish Office.
These back-door announcements cannot be tolerated by Members, who are democratically elected to look after their constituents' interests. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of Back-Bench Members, to raise the matter directly with the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister, who was obviously finding great difficulty in responding to questions on the issue this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady knows that that is not a matter for me. Undoubtedly her remarks will have been heard by the Leader of the House. I remind the hon. Lady that there will be opportunities to raise the matter during the Easter Adjournment debate and during Scottish questions on Wednesday.

Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20 March].
  WAYS AND MEANS

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

    (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

    (b) for refunding any amount of tax;

    (c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

    (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.—[Mr. Major.]

    Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  [Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 9487/89 on the Annual Economic Report 1989–90 and the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 31st January 1990 on the final version of the Report as adopted by the Council.]
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I tell the House that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, but not enough to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches. If right hon. and hon. Members confine their speeches to about 15 minutes each, all those who wish to contribute to the debate will be able to do so.
  4.24 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)rose——
  Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to take up a remark that you made about the opportunities to raise a matter that concerns many Scottish Members. You referred to Scottish questions next week. Will you try to use your good offices to ensure that we have a statement at least by Wednesday? I appreciate that there are many Scottish questions tabled for that day.
  Mr. Speaker: That point has been made on numerous occasions by Opposition Members. I am sure that it has been heard by the Leader of the House, who has been present throughout.
  Mr. Ridley: We come to the trade and industry part of the debate on the Budget. I shall argue that, through the sound policies of this Government, we live in a very different world from that which we knew 10 years ago. That is too easily forgotten. The Budget, which I strongly commend to the House, will sustain and build on those achievements. It will allow industry and commerce to redouble their growing contribution as engines of growth. All this is in marked contrast with the empty words mouthed by the Labour party. I will press them again and again—and doubtless in vain—to put some flesh on the
  1254
  skeletons that they keep digging out of the cupboards of the 1960s and 1970s when they had responsibility for these matters.
  I commend the Budget for three reasons—first, because it is the right Budget to squeeze inflation out of the system, secondly, because it makes valuable changes in relation to the taxation of savings, charitable giving, workplace nurseries and other areas, and thirdly because I believe that it will be good for British business in all its manifestations. I intend to concentrate on the third of those areas.
  When Opposition Members talk of business they think of large manufacturing industry, no doubt because their paymasters are manufacturing industry trade unions. In fact, there is a wealth of activities, including small businesses, services such as retail, consultancy and financial services, and many others, as well as manufacturing. It is the success of all sectors which matters for our standard of living.
  In the past decade, thanks to the combined success of all these sectors, our standard of living has increased very substantially. I know that the mortgage rate, and the consequences of a spending spree by Labour local authorities are causing deep concern, and some hardship. But the take-home pay of a married man, with two children, on average earnings, has increased by more than a third in real terms since the Government took office. We should look at current difficulties against that background. Most people in this country are considerably better off now than they were in 1979–80.
  In relative terms, too, our standard of living has improved. Let us look at "Purchasing power parities", as published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. These make international comparisons of what our incomes will buy in different countries. During the 1970s Britain slipped back, and by 1980 we came eighth of the 12 EC countries. By 1988, we had moved up to fifth. We had overtaken Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium and had moved to within 5 per cent. of Germany and within 1 per cent. of France. Only Japan, of all the 24 OECD countries, has moved up the league table faster. What was the sick man of Europe is now doing very well.
  Figures of economic growth in member countries also show that gross domestic product in the United Kingdom grew at an average annual rate of 3·2 per cent. between 1981 and 1989. The figure for Germany was 2·2 per cent. and for France 2·1 per cent. Here is further proof of the resilience of the British economy under this Government.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If we are doing so well, where has the surplus on invisibles gone? Why has it evaporated?
  Mr. Ridley: I am glad that the hon. Member for Workington, (Mr. Campbell-Savours) acknowledges that we are doing so well, and I agree with him. I will give him the answer, if I may, later in my speech. I am coming to the very point that he has raised, but I would rather put it in the right context.
  All this is a far cry from the days of the last Labour Government when, with very high levels of unemployment and inflation and appalling standards of living, all the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place—could say—[Interruption.]—I quote him

  1255
  because I am sure that Opposition Members would like to hear what their last Chancellor said, so perhaps they would be quiet and listen—was:
  "of course there has been a fall in people's standard of life. And it has fallen this year and will fall again next year."
  That is the truth. Labour Chancellors promise misery; Conservative Chancellors have brought economic success.
  In examining the current state of business in Britain, I want to look at the various sectors I mentioned earlier. First, small businesses: in 1988 a total of 1,200 small businesses a week came into existence—that is a net figure, after allowing for firms going out of business. The corresponding figure in 1980 was 300 a week. Much of the credit for this belongs to the Government. Reductions in personal and corporate tax and succesive programmes of deregulation have produced in Britain one of the best climates in the world for the birth and early growth of new businesses. My right hon. Friend's Budget continues the good work in several ways.
  The increase in the profit limit for the small companies' rate of corporation tax and in the upper limit above which companies will pay the full rate will release £40 million in a full year which small businesses can use for investment. The measure will benefit 20,000 small companies, and it will mean that only companies with profits of more than £1 million will pay the full 35 per cent. rate of corporation tax. The House will recall that, when we took office, a company that made profits of more than £100,000 faced a swingeing 52 per cent. rate of corporation tax. We now have what is probably the most advantageous tax regime for small and medium enterprises of all our competitors.
  The changes in value added tax that my right hon. Friend announced will also reduce both the financial impact of this tax and its administrative burden. The new system for bad debt relief will benefit business to the tune of £150 million a year, as well as ending what has become widely seen as an injustice, and the simpler rule for VAT registation by new and growing businesses will bring a useful additional relief, as well as removing a worrying risk of an unwitting breach of the regulations.
  In Britain, as in other industrial countries, services account for a growing proportion of the economy. The service sector of the economy has grown by a third since 1981; employment in the service sector has increased by nearly 2·5 million people in the last six years, and services are a major contributor to the balance of trade. Last year, we earned a surplus of more than £4 billion on services. Many of the measures that we are fighting for in the single market negotiations are aimed at making a reality of competition in the supply of services in the community. The opportunities for competitive British suppliers, and the rewards, may well be greater than in manufacturing.
  Nowhere is international competition sharper than in the financial services sector, which alone contributed more than £7 billion a year to the balance of trade in 1988. Deregulation, and modern information technology, have revolutionised both the structure of this sector and its operations in a few short years. It is essential for the tax regime to keep pace with these developments.
  Stamp duty on share transactions accounts for a quarter of the cost of a modest transaction by a private investor, and for no less than three quarters of the cost of the largest transactions. Other financial centres in Europe are moving quickly to eliminate comparable taxes, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on doing the same; it is essential if we are not to put at risk the
  1256
  leading position that the City has attained over the years. Together with the introduction of TAURUS, that will enable us to keep London the prime financial centre of Europe. I know that the Labour party hates the City, but we all benefit from its success, including the Opposition.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about safeguarding and encouraging the City of London's international position, but does he agree that the abolition of that stamp duty will also help to widen share ownership?
  Mr. Ridley: I agree: in a year when the Chancellor did not have much to release from his Budget, that was a wise thing for him to do for our future prosperity and it will help greatly to widen share ownership.
  Manufacturing, too, to the disappointment of the Opposition, is a success story. Manufacturing output was up again by 5 per cent. in 1989 to its highest level ever —32 per cent. higher than in 1981 and 7 per cent. above the previous all-time peak in 1974.
  Manufacturing investment was up by 5 per cent. in 1989, following a 12 per cent. increase in 1988. Since 1983, the average annual rate of growth in manufacturing investment has been no less than 8 per cent.
  Manufacturing profits, too, are at their highest level for almost 20 years. Perhaps most remarkable of all, after our appalling performance of the 1970s, manufacturing productivity has risen by some 60 per cent. since 1980.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The obvious question to ask the Secretary of State is why, in view of what he is now claiming to be yet another economic miracle, we had a £21 billion deficit in manufactured goods last year. Why do we keep being told that all the imports are going into capital investment in industry? What are they equipping themselves with—Japanese hi-fi? We do not see any return in terms of the balance of payments on manufactured goods.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman simply has not understood or listened to what I was saying. This is the best industrial performance that we have seen in his lifetime, and probably for much longer than that. Why do the Opposition continue to denigrate it, knock it and pick holes in it?
  Mr. Tony Banks: A £21 billion deficit is not a hole, it is a chasm.
  Mr. Ridley: Many countries would give their eye teeth to be able to quote those figures. But, as I have said before, there is more to do.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point on behalf of the strength of British industry and our commercial resilience in the face of spurious attacks from the Opposition. Does he agree that that strength now gives us the opportunity to join the exchange rate mechanism without any further delay?
  Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor dealt with that in his Budget speech. I have nothing to add to, or subtract from, what he said.
  As I said, there is more to do. In particular, we need better education, better management education, and better skills training. We recognise that, and we have a clear policy.

  1257
  Training is primarily the responsibility of employers. Private sector spending on training is running at £18 billion a year. The number of employees receiving training rose by 70 per cent. in the five years to 1989. So business is rising to the challenge. The Government for their part are spending £2·5 billion a year on training, and here too, it is right that business should have a large say in the determination of priorities. That is why the training and enterprise councils are being established, to manage the greater part of the Government's training programmes.
  I believe that the TECs will revolutionise training in this country, but they never get a mention from the Labour party. The Chancellor's proposals to allow tax relief for a period of five years for business donations to TECs is a cost-effective incentive to further involvement in training by employers.
  Mr. John Garrett: May I revert to what some countries would give their eye teeth for? Is not the Government's forecast for the growth in manufacturing output next year nil? That must be a record since the Red Books were introduced. Precisely what is the right hon. Gentleman boasting about?
  Mr. Ridley: It is not a record. When the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, it used to go down every year.
  Research and development is equally vital to our industrial success, and here, too, the performance of business has been most encouraging. The value of industry's own-funded R and D was some £5 billion in 1988, having grown at the healthy rate of more than 6 per cent. a year in real terms over the previous five years. As a proportion of gross domestic product, industry's own-funded R and D in the United Kingdom in 1988 was on a par with that in the USA, and ahead of that in France and Italy. Government-funded R and D, as a proportion of GDP, was behind only France and the USA, and ahead of Germany and Japan.
  Despite all that, Labour Members go around predicting impending disaster for British industry.
  The predecessor of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), thought of all sorts of "remedies" for that hoped-for disaster, but it has not and will not materialise. He has now begun to shut up about the payroll tax, renationalisation without compensation, national investment banks and all the rest. He has fallen back on an "apple pie and motherhood" approach with nothing tangible in the way of policy. His buzz words now are "stability, consensus and partnership". Nobody could disagree with any of those. Indeed, I rather think that they are what we ourselves have given British industry over the 1980s. But in his mouth the words are meaningless, and I think that we would all be grateful if for once he would explain what they entail. What exchange rate or interest rate policy do they imply? What changes in taxation——
  Mr. John Smith: What is your policy?
  Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House on Tuesday what his was.
  What changes would the Labour party make to shareholders' rights and company law? Above all, how
  1258
  much will they cost the taxpayer? I realise that to spell it all out would really rock the markets, and there may be a lesson for the Labour party even in that. However, pious aspirations are no substiture for policy. I am prepared to allow the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) or the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to intervene.
  I see that they do not want to intervene. Exactly the same happened the last time I asked them the same questions, on 6 March. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East sat on the Bench as they are sitting today, mute and inglorious.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: As the idiots on the Opposition Benches are so incapable of answering my right hon. Friend's question, may I offer him one more to put to them? My right hon. Friend will know that Toyota is now active on site in my constituency creating a £700 million factory which will help us to turn around the balance of payments in future. Does he agree that the reason why companies such as Toyota come to Britain —there are many others like it—is that we have a substantially deregulated economy in which there is relatively little interference with business? Does he agree that if that little lot opposite got their hands on business, British or otherwise, the regulations would go on, the interference would go on and the compulsory investment pattern would go on, the subsidies would be re-created, the tax system changed, and those businesses would fly from this country as fast as ever they could?
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Would she have a word with Toyota to ask whether it has included in its costings the payroll tax that the Opposition said that they were going to impose? It must be important for Toyota to know the answer. I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer to her question, but perhaps one day the Opposition will.
  I wonder what the truth is. Either the Opposition have no real criticism of what the Government are doing, and thus no alternative policies to offer, or they intend to press ahead with—[Interruption.] I heard an Opposition Member say that they would not tell the electorate their policy until after the next election. That confirms my thoughts on the matter. I believe that the Opposition are still thinking in terms of imposing an East German solution on the problems of West Germany. They still do not understand that the process is the other way around, but they have wisely decided that discretion is the better part of valour.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind my asking a constituency question about the competitiveness of the shrunken British shipbuilding industry in the light of the unification of the two Germanies? Is he aware that, when the two Germanies become one, the German shipbuilding industry will be increased by 17 or 18 yards and by 55,000 lowly paid shipbuilding workers? Will those yards be entitled to claim subsidies under the sixth EC directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund?
  Mr. Ridley: It is not for me to interpret what the Commission might say to that, but I should imagine that the West German managers, in the bracing atmosphere of the Community, with all its policies on restricting state aid

  1259
  and getting to market pricing, would want to ensure that their capacity was either economic or taken out, as has happened here.
  The Opposition must realise that their form of genteel intervention has been rejected by tens of millions of people in east Europe. The drug of interventionism is addictive. East Europe has been so revolted by the full dose that it does not want the drug at all: it wants it banned. That is why East Germany voted last Sunday for the CDU, not the SPD. East Germans realise that the market economy works and Socialist intervention does not.
  The Opposition demanded a debate last month on one erratic set of trade figures. Today's trade figures—I am sure that the Opposition will welcome them—show a return to the progress that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor predicted would reduce the current account deficit over time. The deficit fell to £1·4 billion in February, reflecting the continued strong growth in export volume and the sharp slowdown on the growth of import volume which has been obvious for some time to all but the Opposition. Underlying export volumes have been growing more than twice as fast as underlying import volumes since last November—[Interruption.] It is odd that, whenever the Opposition hear good figures, they sit and shout. I am almost beginning to be delighted that the House is being televised; I hope that the public can see the way in which the Opposition react to good news.
  In the three months to February, export volumes, less oil and erratics, were 3·5 per cent. higher than in the previous three months and 11 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Import volumes, less oil and erratics, were 1 per cent. lower than three months earlier and only 0·5 per cent. higher than a year earlier. The trend remains good. The improved trade figures include an estimated zero contribution from the invisible sector, reflecting, among other factors, exceptionally high payments to the European Community and lower net earnings on interest, profits and dividends.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was right to say that it is demand which has grown too much. Export performance remains good. My right hon. Friend has taken steps in the Budget to keep demand under control while production and exports grow, to eliminate both inflationary pressures and the trade deficit.
  The task now for industry and Government alike is to ensure that the progress of the past 10 years is safeguarded and maintained through the 1990s. The level of pay settlements remains critical to industrial costs and to our ability to compete. It is far more vital, in fact, than the interest rate as an element of industrial costs. Unfortunately, our unit labour costs are once more rising faster than they are in some competitor countries. It is up to each company to consider what wages it can afford, bearing in mind its productivity and competitiveness. I hope that the trade unions will see that that has been our Achilles heel in the past.
  Partnership and consensus are vital. The Opposition are always eager to support any group hell bent on defying that principle, but the public should be aware that the inevitable result of such defiance is pricing ourselves out of world markets, which would lead in turn to higher unemployment or a loss of trade share.
  Internationally, we are working for open markets everywhere. We are doing so in the Community by a constructive contribution to the completion of the single market. Worldwide, we are taking an active part, through
  1260
  the Community, in the negotiations for the GATT Uruguay round. Huge opportunities for investment are opening up all over eastern Europe. Investment will lead to markets, and markets will lead to trade and to profits. Profits will help the trade deficit and the growth of the economy.
  In due course, this will lead to more direct trade opportunities, too. These opportunities cannot be exploited by the Opposition's mixture of milk-and-water Socialism and their ludicrous proposal for returning to the barter system. My recent visit to Poland convinced me that the way to help the Poles and ourselves is to encourage private investment. I am glad to say that our business men are taking the opportunities that exist there now.
  Unlike the Opposition's recipes, the Budget is a Budget for stability, growth and prosperity. It will drive down inflation, for which the Opposition have no policy, without harming production and exports. It will increase saving to fund more investment and it will ensure that the United Kingdom can meet the challenge of the coming decade.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: I now realise that when the previous Chancellor described 1990 as a year that would be dull, he meant not just that the economy would have a dull face but that the Budget would be dull and all the speeches about it from Ministers would be dull.
  I am surprised that we did not hear from the Secretary of State this afternoon a statement about the amendment that has just been made to the Budget, especially as it refers to the policy that the right hon. Gentleman was prominent in introducing—the poll tax—the policy which he used to call the flagship policy.
  On Tuesday, when making his announcement about the capital ceilings for poll tax rebates, the Chancellor refused on principle to provide those rebates to Scottish pensioners. On Wednesday, the Chief Secretary said that it could not be done in practice. Today we have the Cabinet in full retreat.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland should have come to the House this afternoon to explain the change of policy, to explain why it took the Opposition to secure that change, to explain what will be done to pay for the £4 million and which parts of the Scottish budget will be cut to make way for that expenditure and to explain that it is not the moderation of the poll tax that is now necessary, but its complete elimination.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not say that, in the Budget speech, the Chancellor had to admit that inflation will be above 7 per cent. by Christmas, the highest in Europe; that manufacturing industry will stagnate this year, the worst performance in western Europe; that interest rates will remain high during the year, and they are the highest in western Europe; that the downturn is likely to be quite severe, as the Chancellor put it; and that business investment will fall by 1 per cent. The Chancellor also said that unemployment may rise over the year. None of that was mentioned today by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Gentleman says that British industry will stagnate this year. Does he still stand by the Labour proposal to introduce a payroll tax of 0·;5 per cnt.—a tax on the

  1261
  payroll of every company in Britain—and, if so, what does he think that would do for the stagnation of British industry?
  Mr. Brown: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen to what is being said. I said that the Chancellor reported that manufacturing industry will stagnate this year.
  Mr. Hind: Answer my question.
  Mr. Brown: I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question when he gets his facts right. The Chancellor said that manufacturing industry will stagnate this year—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
  Mr. Brown: Our commitment to invest in training is well known and is expressed in our policy review. If the hon. Gentleman wants to read that, he can pick up a copy for £2·50 from the Labour party office.
  Mr. Ridley: I am grateful for that information. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the policy review proposals in relation to industry are still the policy of the Labour party?
  Mr. Brown: Of course the policy review proposals on trade and industry are still this party's policies. The policy review was passed by the party's annual conference. I have been going round the country talking to representatives of business and industry and they have made it clear that they want the implementation of Labour's policies to deal with the problems of the economy—[Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) spoke about manufacturing output. It is interesting to note that at the last general election the hon. Gentleman said:
  "inflation to be further reduced" —
  Mr. Hind: It was.
  Mr. Brown: He said:
  "interest rates falling…inflation, scourge of the poor and elderly, is under control."
  Mr. Richard Tracey: The hon. Gentleman says that industry is waiting for the implementation of Labour's policies. Will he confirm that a payroll tax, as spelt out in Labour's policy review, would add £1 billion to industry's costs? Or does he intend to fudge what he is saying this afternoon as he did in "The Money Programme" on BBC television at the end of February?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been noting what has been happening throughout the country. Good firms are complaining about the performance of bad ones.
  Mr. Tracey: Answer my question.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Brown: I am answering. Firms are saying that it is totally wrong for companies that do not train to poach people from other firms. They want policies that will deal with the situation in which half the people in British industry are at present not receiving any in-work training.
  1262
  Indeed, 100,000 young people leaving school and entering work are not receiving any training either. That is why they need the statutory undeRPInning that Labour policies will provide.
  We needed an investment Budget to deal with the problems of training in industry, a Budget that would pave the way for negotiations to enter the European monetary system, a Budget that would do something about the problems that industry now faces, with investment flat and falling away.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Since the Italian lira and the French franc entered the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS, those two currencies have been devalued against the mark by more than the pound. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how membership of the ERM would provide the stability of sterling which presumably he seeks?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be part of this debate. He should realise that the pound in relation to the mark has moved from 3·20 to 2·60 and now stands at about 2·70. It is precisely for the achievement of stability that industry wants us to open negotiations to join the ERM. The hon. Gentleman knows that many of his hon. Friends support that policy but dare not speak up because of the policy being pursued by the Prime Minister.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: The Labour party does not seem to have grasped the point. Since the ERM was established, the Italian lira has devalued against the deutschmark six times and the French franc has devalued four times. The idea that joining the ERM by itself provides monetary stability is abolute nonsense.
  Mr. Brown: France has 3 per cent. growth and 3 per cent. inflation and does not have the problems that we have as a result of the policies that have been pursued by Her Majesty's Government.
  We needed a Budget that would deal with the problems of investment and training, that would begin the negotiations to enter the EMS, that would do something about the problems of investment, that reflected the new consensus in Britain that is led by the Labour party, but which the Government are unable to join. We have had instead a Budget containing a series of small measures—on small business debts, on the poll tax, on football and on nurseries—about which we have been pressing the Government for some time.
  At the heart of the Budget is a yawning gap, a massive failure to address the central problems that the economy faces. What is left when we strip away from the Budget the measures that were pre-announced for the Budget of 1991, the measures that were re-announced from the Budgets of 1988 and 1989 and the measures that the Chancellor announced but which would have been better announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland?
  The Budget was dressed up to sound good on Tuesday, it drew scepticism on Wednesday, and today, Thursday, its hollow reality is being exposed. It contains nothing to bring interest rates down, nothing to raise investment this year and nothing to deal with our supply side problems.
  What does the Secretary of State do in Budget week? What is his contribution? He goes to Cambridge—one of his few public engagements in the country. It was so

  1263
  important an engagement that it was worth the effort of an advance press release, a speech and, I gather, even a photo call. Did he go to Cambridge to open a factory, to encourage small businesses, visit a science park or talk about new technologies? No. The purpose of his visit to Cambridge was to launch his new insolvency service for British business. Is not it grimly symbolic that the most conspicuous event in his diary for this week was the opening of the insolvency service in its new status as an executive agency?
  I have here a press release which says that the right hon. Gentleman launched the insolvency service as the Department of Trade and Industry's latest and biggest executive agency. This is what he said in Cambridge:
  "In making the Insolvency Service one of the new Next Steps agencies, we recognise that the major part of its business is the execution of Government policy."
  Perhaps there could be no better commentary on this week than that the Secretary of State heard the Budget on Tuesday and, on the following day, opened the new insolvency service.
  We have the highest interest rates in Europe, the biggest trade gap, the worst inflation, the slowest growth and the lowest investment.
  I come first to the Government's promise to create zero inflation. They have pushed up water charges by up to 20 per cent., electricity by 7 per cent., rents by up to 50 per cent., prescription charges by nearly 9 per cent.—affecting everyone. At the same time, inflation in Japan is just 3 per cent., in Germany less than 3 per cent., in France just over 3 per cent., and in America 5 per cent., while the average in the EEC is 5 per cent. Here it is 7·7 per cent. and rising.
  It is not international economic factors, it is not the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, it is not the oil sheikhs, it is not international situations and commodity prices beyond our control, and it is not the unions, as the Secretary of State tried to say. There is no one to blame for the inflation that has risen after 10 years but the Government themselves, through mistakes made in Downing street and mistakes that will continue throughout this year and even in the next few weeks as public sector rises continue.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us when a Labour Government last had inflation of 5 per cent. or below?
  Mr. Brown: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in the last full year of the Labour Government, 1978, inflation was at the European average and falling, even when massive oil problems throughout the world were affecting the economy. This year our inflation is well above the European average and the cause is problems created in the Treasury by Ministers themselves.
  I come to interest rates. We hear business men throughout the country complaining about high interest rates and the impact they have on industry. Yesterday we heard the Engineering Employers Federation, the small businesses federation and various business federations throughout the country complaining about what the Government's Budget had not done. We heard the finance director of one of Britain's largest companies saying that interest rate policy is more applicable to a three-ball shop. How slowing down manufacturing industry is good for the country needs explaining.
  What do the Government do? What is the Conservative party's policy? What do they say to these business men
  1264
  throughout the country about the impact of interest rate policy? I have here the Conservative party's own document, "The Economy: Questions and Answers". [Interruption.] Indeed, very useful and very interesting. We see on page 212:
  "Don't higher interest rates increase the cost of borrowing thereby hitting industrial investment?"
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Read the answer."] It goes on to say that, as the great majority of investment is funded from firms' own funds, the key to boosting investment is to create conditions to create profits. But, as the House knows, profits are not being sustained; businesses are having great problems. Then it says:
  "British business is actually less exposed to high interest rates than it has been for a number of years."
  [Interruption.]The Financial Secretary says, "That's right," but there has been a doubling of interest rates over the last 18 months.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has totally missed the point. Is he not aware that, as British industry is making record profits, far higher than it ever made under a Labour Government, it can finance a very high proportion of its investment without borrowing at all? That is the point which the hon. Gentleman failed to give when quoting from that document. He does not seem to understand it.
  Mr. Brown: I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware of what is happening throughout the country. Bankruptcies are rising by 19 per cent. in the construction trade, 20 per cent. in food and drink, 30 per cent. in the furniture trades, 40 per cent. in clothing and textiles and more than 50 per cent. in services, according to the latest survey. Yet he says that there is nothing to worry about. Bankruptcies have been rising in every region of the country and particularly in the south, and this is industry supposedly less exposed to high interest rates than ever before.
  Mr. Giles Radice: Clearly, the Secretary of State is not aware that the business sector is now in massive deficit.
  Mr. Brown: I thought that the Secretary of State would know that business borrowing has had to increase from £10 billion to £23 billion and that there has been a 67 per cent. increase in interest payments. But now he tells us that industries are less exposed to high interest rates than ever before. It is no wonder that all the business federations in this country are appalled at the failure of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to act.
  Our complaint is that these are problems not just of the last two years but of the last 10 years. Our argument is not just that interest rates, inflation and the trade gap are the worst in Europe. It is that a consumer boom without adequate investment in training and technology was bound to be unsustainable and to lead to the problems that we face. Without the necessary investment in our future, the problems with which the Secretary of State now has to cope will remain.
  Dr. Keith Hampson rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am not giving way again; I have already given way many times.
  When the problems of the economy are not just problems of demand but problems of capacity, not just problems of consumption, but problems of investment, and not just problems of the short term, but problems of

  1265
  the long term, a Budget that fails to address the shortage of capacity, the downturn in investment and the challenges of training and technology is the wrong Budget for Britain, based on the wrong analysis and pursuing the wrong policies.
  If the problem was only demand and not capacity and investment, if it was only consumption, as the Chancellor wanted us to believe yesterday, why has industrial production been falling? Why has manufacturing output fallen for four months? Why has investment fallen in the last three months? Why, this year, will investment be flat in this country, indeed declining, for many sectors of the economy but will rise in every other country—by 5 per cent. in Germany and France, 4 per cent. in Italy and more in many other countries? Why are we producing less in many of the important sectors of our economy than we produced even in 1979? Metal goods, mechanical engineering, motor vehicles, drink and tobacco, textiles, man-made fibres—these are all sectors in which we are now producing less than we did in 1979. Is not it true that, industry by industry, sector by sector, we have abandoned products and processes, leaving the field to foreign competitors, and that the Government have done nothing about it?
  Faced with the worst trading start that Britain has had in any year in its trading history the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry might have been expected to take the trade deficit seriously. instead, he said that the trade deficit was good. Britain is now in deficit in high technology as well as in traditional industries; in deficit over the year with eastern as well as western Europe; in deficit in the last six months in invisible as well as visible goods. Yet this is barely worthy of a mention by the Secretary of State responsible for industry and trade in this country.
  We used to be told not to worry about the manufacturing deficit because there was a large invisible surplus. That surplus has fallen from £9 billion in 1986, to £5 billion in 1988 and to just over £2 billion in 1989, and is predicted to fall to £1·5 billion in 1990. We have had a deficit in invisibles over the past six months of £700 million—a deficit not just in holidays and travel, but in aviation, shipping, services and consultancies. We have had a deterioration in City earnings and a deficit caused by the massive interest payments we are having to make for the hot money that must be brought into this country.
  Ours is now an economy increasingly at the mercy of hot money flowing in from overseas. The trade figures published today, with the emphasis on the invisibles position and how it is deteriorating, show that this is not a "loadsamoney" economy benefiting the people of Britain: this is now the hot money economy of benefit to the speculators of the world. The problems on the invisible and visible side of our trading performance cannot be addressed by a Government who insist on cutting and cutting the industry budget and the training budget in the run-up to 1992.
  Although we have all these problems—although we import 50 per cent. of our cars, 60 per cent. of our washing machines, 80 per cent. of our dishwashers and 90 per cent. of the most modern computer equipment; although we import massively, especially from the European
  1266
  Community countries—the only question that is asked of the Department of Trade and Industry is not what it will do, but what excuse it will give for doing nothing.
  Dr. Hampson: I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on his point about improving efficiency on the supply side, and especially with his point on training. However, does he recognise that there is a lead time in education and training of 10 to 15 years? Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the only Government since the war who cut the proportion of young people going into higher education were the Labour Government just over 10 years ago and that the only Government who cut the amount of money going into further education were the Labour Government? To deal with the unemployment of young people, the Labour Government had the youth opportunities programme, which created jobs counting lamp posts in Barnsley. That is the level of training with which they left this country, as the hon. Gentleman should know.
  Mr. Brown: That is not the case, and it does not help to begin to solve the massive problems this country faces. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the problems are now urgent, why does not he persuade the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Employment to act on our present training difficulties and training shortages? The problem is that there are no lengths to which the Department of Trade and Industry is now not prepared to go to do nothing.
  I make no apology for raising the matter of the Al-Fayeds. We know now from the accumulated evidence that they were guilty of proven and persistent misrepresentation. We know that they were found guilty by the inspectors of misinformation and deception, and that there were accusations of dishonesty. We know that the inspectors wanted them to be disqualified as directors and we know that, under section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, at which the Secretary of State chose to look, provision is made for such disqualification. What did the Secretary of State do? Absolutely nothing. His Department is the do-nothing Department, where anything goes.
  What had Ministers previously said about the importance of the disqualification of directors provisions in the legislation? The Secretary of State for Employment, when he was Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the City Minister— said:
  "The Government confirms its determination to support the disqualification provisions as a major deterrent to unacceptable conduct by a minority of company directors."
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry —the City and consumer Minister—who is now Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said:
  "The Act poses a real deterrent. It demonstrates our commitment to ensure that the public and shareholders are protected against the small minority of directors who are tempted to abuse their position."
  He was explaining that the disqualification procedure was not only a punishment for those who erred, but a deterrent, to uphold the standards of the City.
  Will the Secretary of State tell me what is left of the deterrent, when even proven wrongdoers go scot free without punishment? At what point is the public interest protected? Left with no possible means of acting to reinforce that deterrent, the Secretary of State does nothing. His is a do-nothing Department where anything goes. If it will not act where there is proven and persistent

  1267
  misrepresentation, in what circumstances will the Department act? How can the standards of the City be upheld by a Department that refuses to act when all the evidence is there?
  What of the rest of the Department? There is the same do-nothing attitude where anything goes in the rest of the Department. The Secretary of State announced the abolition of the market sectors division a few weeks ago. It was set up only two years ago by his predecessor as a new initiative and as the interface between the Department's headquarters and industry. How is the abolition of that division represented in the press release? It says:
  "The DTI given fresh focus…A more concentrated focus on long-term issues."
  If the abolition of the market division is described as a new focus, will abandoning regional policy be presented as a breakthrough for the north, or will cutting export services be described as winning the trade war? The Secretary of State appears determined to walk away from his responsibilities for the regions, for new technology, for standards, for consumer protection and for city regulations responsibilities that all other Governments accept as part of their duties. He is in the process of winding down the Department. It is a reworking of one of the best-known maxims in politics—"If you can't stand the heat, close down the kitchen."
  I have just seen the Department of Trade and Industry advertisements, such as "Where are you?" and "Ouetes-vous?", and other advertisements in Spanish, French, Italian and German. At first I thought that "Where are you?" was the Secretary of State trying to get through to industry, but I now know that "Where are you?" was industry trying to get through to the Secretary of State. When we need a presence, there is a void. When industry needs an advocate, it does not even have an apology. Instead, we have a whole Department devoted to doing absolutely nothing.
  I want to tell the Secretary of State what he should have said. When research and development, expenditure on the regions and incentives for investment are all behind what other countries can offer, when we spend a smaller proportion of our national income on those vital services, when market forces on their own have failed, when other countries with less to gain do more, but we with most to gain do least, and when even in America, the Government are considering an office of civilian research and a congressional report is demanding an industrial strategy, I urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in the interests of the trade and industry of Britain, to respond to the gap in research, in technology, in training and in investment. He should do so not by cutting the Department's budget further, as he plans to do, but by responding to the consensus that is developing throughout the country that we should invest for the long term, that we should tackle our supply side problems, that there should be a genuine partnership between Government and industry and that Britain works best when Britain works together.
  The Budget does nothing for the vast majority of families whose child benefit has been frozen. The Budget does nothing for the vast majority of pensioners whose pension rise has already been wiped out.
  The Budget does nothing for the vast majority of home owners who will have to live with high mortgage rates for many months. It does nothing for the crumbling and
  1268
  underfunded public services, because the Chancellor wants whatever Budget surplus he has left for tax cuts and not for public investment.
  This Conservative Government do nothing for our industries and companies, which have looked to them and now feel betrayed again and again. The Budget offers nothing for the future. This is a Government not of economic miracles, but of missed opportunities, not of long-term resolution, but of short-term expedients. This Government have walked away from the central challenge of our industrial economy and the country will judge them harshly for it.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Ian Stewart: We have just heard a remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). It was remarkable for its almost entire lack of serious content. The House and others will note that the only matter of substance that the hon. Gentleman vouchsafed about Labour party policy in this important Budget debate was that it was Labour policy to impose a tax on the payroll of British companies in the hope that that would in some way make them more efficient. The points that the hon. Gentleman tried to brush aside with a louder and more hectoring tone in response to inquiries from my hon. Friends about what the Labour party would do and about his understanding of the exchange rates, interest rates and inflation showed the emptiness of the Opposition's position on the Budget's central issue.
  I want to deal with two matters arising from the Budget statement, which I thought was an extraordinarily skilful and successful presentation of the problems and the way in which the Government propose to tackle them. I was disappointed by the final remarks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. As he approached his peroration, he said that he would tell us what needed to be done. but he then threw away the next half-dozen pages of his text. That demonstrated the nature of his approach to the problems.
  The two points to which I want to refer have already been raised in this debate. The first relates to the exchange rate mechanism and membership of the European monetary system, and the second is about inflation.
  I have listened to the debates and I believe that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the practical implications of what is involved in membership of the European monetary system. One of the arguments for early entry of sterling into the exchange rate mechanism is apparently that it would make life easier for industry. However, alongside that there is an assumption that somehow entry would provide a comfortable way out of high interest rates. I do not believe that that is possible. I want to explain why the practical reasons argue against an early entry of sterling into EMS, and why it is deceptive to suggest that entry is feasible under current circumstances.
  The present exchange rate of the deutschmark, which is about 2·72 to the pound, is the current rate at which we can exchange pounds for deutschmarks today. However, let us consider what the exchange rate would be in this case. If we wanted to do a deal today to make an exchange transaction in 12 months' time, there would be a discount of about 15 pfennigs. That is a premium in favour of the deutschmark and a discount against sterling. The exchange rate would be not DM 2·72, but about DM 2·57.

  1269
  That is miles outside the band in which the currencies operate within the exchange rate mechanism. It is about 5 per cent. instead of 2·25 per cent., which is the normal band.
  It would not be possible for the exchange rate mechanism to operate with sterling within it if the forward rates for six months out or a year out were not within the standard bands on which the mechanism is based. That is an overwhelming and decisive argument why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is correct to believe that we should not hasten to join the exchange rate mechanism until inflation and interest rates are lower. If we were to join now, interest rates would come down, but that would not assist the battle against inflation, as it would actually generate more expansionary economic and monetary conditions in this country, which would set off the inflationary spiral once again.
  Those of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and others who feel attached—sometimes I believe for emotional reasons —to membership of the exchange rate mechanism are missing a central point. Until the mechanism was consistent with the proper conduct of monetary policy in this county and would contribute to the effective management of monetary conditions that would lead to a reduction in inflation, membership would be not only unwise but be positively counter-productive. It would be more difficult—if conditions eventually became suitable for our joining—for our entry to come about.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right to restate the Madrid conditions and to say that we need lower inflation and lower interest rates before such a major step can be taken. When the time comes and those conditions are fulfilled, that will be another matter. However, for the time being, it is misleading to suggest to industry that its problems can be solved by early entry into the mechanism.
  Mr. Riddick: My right hon. Friend has suggested that there will still be a time for membership of the EMS, perhaps when inflation has come down. However, I have still not heard any convincing arguments in favour of joining the EMS. Why do we need to join even when the conditions are right?
  Mr. Stewart: If the exchange rate for sterling could be kept more stable against European currencies, I concede that that would be an advantage. It remains an open question whether it will be consistent with the proper conduct of our domestic monetary and economic policy for sterling to belong to the exchange rate mechanism. However, I am willing to contemplate that possibility and it is only sensible to consider it seriously if the conditions laid down at Madrid are fulfilled. If we tried to enter too early, that would cause far more difficulties than we face now in organising suitable monetary conditions in the fight against inflation. It is deceptive to suggest that entry is possible now.
  I should not consider it improper for sterling to join the exchange rate mechanism, if circumstances permit in due course, with a much wider band than the present 2·25 per cent., which applies to most of the currencies in the system. Over a considerable period, rather higher interest rates have been required in this country to keep the lid on
  1270
  inflationary pressures than in some other countries. No doubt in Germany that is because of the terrible experience of the inflationszeit a generation or two ago and the deep impact that that has had on the financial psychology of two or three generations of German citizens.
  It is also partly due to the different structure of their financial institutions. We should have to see progress in removing artificial constraints to German institutions investing in British or foreign bonds as well as the dismantling of exchange controls by the countries that still have them. I have an open mind about the practicality of that in due course. However, I want to emphasise that it is not in the bounds of possibility for entry to happen in the immediate future and it is misleading for anyone to suggest that that is the case.
  My second point relates to the inflation rate. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred in his Budget speech to retail price inflation, and there are references in the Red Book to retail prices index inflation. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have increasingly come to believe that the RPI is no longer a realistic basis for measuring the level of inflation. It should no longer be the key against which various benefits and other commitments are uprated.
  Including mortgage interest rates in the RPI exaggerates the rate of inflation when interest rates are rising. It understates it when interest rates are falling. The RPI fluctuates far more violently than the underlying level of inflation. That has a practical as well as a psychological effect. When inflationary pressures develop, if the Government are wise—as this Government are—they will take corrective action by raising interest rates to tighten monetary conditions. However, that very act will add to the recorded figure for the retail prices index and will then appear to suggest that inflationary pressures are building up as a direct result of measures taken to cool down those inflationary pressures.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also referred to the effect of more than 1 per cent. on the RPI, which will come through in the next month or two as a result of increased expenditure by local government through raising the community charge. I wonder whether it makes sense to include local government expenditure—financed locally—in the RPI, but not to include central Government expenditure funded by central taxation. After all, if an increase in the rates or community charge to fund extra local Government expenditure represents an increase in the retail prices index, all that the Government would have to do would be to give local authorities £10 billion or £20 billion and fund the whole of education, the police service or whatever. The retail prices increase would fall to zero and might even be negative. But everyone would know that the extra money was merely being collected by the central Exchequer instead of town halls. It would not represent an actual change in the economy.
  The distortion in the way in which the RPI is constructed means that we have a figure of almost 8 per cent. inflation at present, whereas the underlying level is only 6 per cent. If we add on a percentage point or more for changes in local government expenditure and further increases caused by rises in mortgage interest rates, we simply create an entirely artificial yardstick by which to measure inflation. We encourage unrealistic wage claims and slow down the process of change in employers' and

  1271
  consumers' understanding of what the inflation level is. Therefore, we make our task of using monetary measures to get on top of inflation harder.
  I tabled a question some time ago to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the implications of the construction of the RPI. He told me that most public service pension schemes and allowances such as the principal Civil Service scheme, the local government superannuation scheme, the police pension scheme, the retirement pension, widows' benefits, attendance allowance, the invalidity pension and so on are all uprated by reference to the RPI. The artificial distortions in the retail prices index mean that in some years those items are uprated by more than the underlying rate of inflation and in other years by far less.
  I wish to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer through my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary that we should take the opportunity over the next 12 months to plan to switch to a different index of inflation that does not include the interest cost of acquiring the capital assets of houses, which by no stretch of the imagination can be described as retail expenditure, and a more sensible approach to the treatment of local government expenditure. We need an index of inflation which is realistic, which enables monetary and economic policy to be conducted in a more sensible fashion, and which does not produce such misleading swings in the RPI upwards and downwards, which do not represent changes in the underlying level of inflation.
  The reason why I ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to speak to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in good time is that during the next year or two there will be an excellent opportunity to make such a change. It should be made only at a time when those who receive upratings of pensions or allowances would do better as a result of the change than if we stuck with the RPI.
  Just as the RPI goes up too far when interest rates rise, so it goes down too far when interest rates fall. When interest rates fall, the underlying inflation rate is higher than the retail prices index. The change could be made so that the beneficiaries of the various pensions and allowances upratings did better at the outset. Over time, it would even out and there would be no difference, but the adjustment would be more in line with the real level of inflation and not with a figure that is becoming increasingly artificial and unrepresentative of the rate of inflation.
  During the coming months we shall have many debates about the inflation rate. Hon. Members will be referring not to the inflation rate but to the retail prices index, which is a misleading indicator. Over the next few months, I do not expect inflationary pressures to increase, but the RPI will increase. We can look forward to interest rates coming down in the next year or two. That will reduce the RPI artificially. We may see the same reaction to that in the media and the press as we see in headlines when inflation rises.
  It is not healthy or sensible to conduct economic policy on the basis of an indicator that is so far removed from reality. The items that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer included in his Budget speech have drawn attention to the fact that the index can rise or fall by 7 per cent. as a result of factors that are not related to inflation.
  1272
  As a footnote to what I consider a skilful and admirable Budget, on which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should be congratulated, I ask him to look further at the presentation of the inflation rate. Also, he should riot hesitate to spell it out in discussions on the exchange rate that the Government do not have any political reason for being obstinate in not allowing sterling to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, but that there are good practical reasons for not entering it and it would be against the interests of Britain to do so when conditions are not appropriate.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun): I shall try to be brief because many hon. Members wish to speak. I wish to highlight two areas of economic policy. First, as a Scot, I must mention again the way in which 1he Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the amount of savings that people could have before being disqualified from a community charge rebate was to be raised from £8,000 to £16,000. The manner in which the House heard today of the change announced by the Secretary of State for Scotland was also most unsatisfactory. He should have come here to make a statement from the Dispatch Box because we have applied pressures not only on the Chancellor but on the Scottish Office.
  First, I must put the record straight. One newspaper from the popular press said that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was among the first to rise to his feet to protest that the increase in the amount of savings allowed would not be retrospective in Scotland. He was not among the first he was the very first-and that is how it should have been reported. Those of us who know him well were somewhat surprised at the way in which he protested-it was completely out of character for him to interrupt the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in such a fashion-but such was his anger and so greatly was he incensed at the manner in which the announcement was made that hon. Members, at least on this side of the House, owe him a debt.
  I used to enjoy the verbal swordsmanship between my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden and the Secretary of State for Scotland when both were on their mettle. It was something to see two trained advocates arguing the merits or demerits of legislation. It is extremely sad to see the demise of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is not the man he was and he does not argue his case with the passion that he used to show. Clearly, his heart is not in the statements that he is forced to make. Sometimes he seems to be unaware of the statements prior to being handed them. Certainly he seems not to be well briefed on them. While the stature of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and others on the Opposition Front Bench grows daily, the Secretary of State for Scotland is sadly but a shadow of his former self.
  Frankly, we in Scotland feel that, the sooner the right hon. and learned Gentleman packs up that job, the better for Scotland. I hope that he will read in Hansard what I have said about him in the Chamber. If I get the opportunity to do so in one of the Corridors, I shall tell him to his face, because that is how I think that people should hear such things. As the right hon. and learned

  1273
  Gentleman is not in the Chamber in person, however, and as I have not had time to change the address that I wish to give to the House, he may have to hear it this way.
  Although there appears to have been a change of heart about the rebate which is supposed to be paid to people in Scotland, hon. Members should be aware that the subject is not closed just because a statement has been made. I remind the House that in October last year there were rumblings of discontent about the poll tax at the Conservative party conference. The rumblings then began to gather strength and out of the blue— perhaps one should say, "out of the true blue"—policy was change on the hoof. There then followed an announcement by the Secretary of State for Scotland that transitional payments would be made to those who had to lay out more than £3 extra per week. That was interesting and good news for those of us in Scotland trying to protect the poorer people in our society who could not afford to pay the poll tax.
  Shortly after Christmas, I received a letter from the Secretary of State in response to a letter than I had sent to him asking when the scheme would be put into operation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the scheme was still being finalised. To this day, it appears that the scheme has not yet been finalised. Not one person in Scotland is in receipt of the transitional payment.
  I do not know when the scheme will be finalised, but I know that many people with small resources are greatly in need of transitional payments and are subject to abject poverty because the Scottish Office is unable to finalise the legislation and bring the scheme into being. I can advise the Scottish Office that when the legislation is finalised it will be almost impossible to put it into operation through the computer for at least another year. I have received representations to that effect from Strathclyde regional council.
  I therefore advise the House that any further policy which is made on the hoof to placate some of the forthcoming poll tax payers here in England may take years to come into operation. I hope that, by then, the poll tax will have disappeared from the statute book, because people will understand the difficulties of implementing such an obnoxious, unwanted and unwarranted form of taxation.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many people are incensed because, although the Government announced that anybody paying more than £3 per week more in poll tax than in rates would receive a rebate, the rebate is to be based only on the notional poll tax, rather than on the real poll tax? The Government's explanations do not wash. People feel that they have been cheated—and, indeed, they have been cheated.
  Mr. McKelvey: The hon. Gentleman makes a correct point. People are cheated not just once, but twice, if not thrice, because those provisions may never come to pass. If the Secretary of State is a man of honour, I trust that he will repair that anomaly before relinquishing his office, as I am sure that he will.
  Having dealt with one pending resignation, I now press for another. I refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose treatment of the Scotch whisky industry is utterly unacceptable. I am sure that the anger of the Scots will be
  1274
  heightened even further when they hear of his sabotage of that industry. The deal that has been struck is incredible, as is the way in which the Chancellor has treated that industry.
  Mr. Keith Raffan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a fall of 30 per cent. in the real value of the duty on spirits, including whisky, in the past 10 years? The Scotch whisky industry has fared extremely well under the Government.
  Mr. McKelvey: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that, of the £8, the price at which a bottle of whisky retails in the shops, £6 is tax. That is a whacking great tax. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also understand that, as we move towards 1992, when we hope that there will be an equalisation of measures such as the taxation and excise duty on spirits, we are not doing any favours to the Scotch whisky industry.
  Incidentally, Scotch whisky is produced almost entirely from products which are themselves produced in Scotland. Apart from the cork in the bottle, everything else—including the bottle, the label and the contents—is produced in Scotland. The £1·5 billion that the Scotch whisky industry earns for this country in exports is therefore the true figure. It is not like the export of cars, for instance, half of which are produced from imported parts. The Chancellor should recognise the value of that true figure of £1·5 billion.
  I notice from the press that the Revenue currently gives £350 million to the Treasury and that it is expecting a further £20 million as a result of the 10 per cent. rise in duty. I do not understand the way in which the Treasury works—the figures mystify me. From simple mathematics, I should have thought that 10 per cent. of £350 million worked out at roughly £31·5 million, so where is the missing £11·5 million? I can only assume that the Treasury is including in its calculations the assumption that, because the price is increased, customer resistance will also increase, which will reduce sales in the home market so that the Treasury takes less in tax.
  The Scotch whisky industry is extremely important to the economy of Scotland. More than 8,000 people are directly employed in that industry. There is more than the possibility of a threat—there is a real threat—to some of the jobs of those workers, especially in the bottling sheds. The Government and Conservative Members cannot simply pass off what has happened as an increase which should have been made years ago and say that the relative value is the same as 10 years ago. All hon. Members should recognise that a tax of £6 on a £8 item is a colossal tax.
  My main complaint about the Chancellor's activities in relation to duty relates to the increase of just 7p on a bottle of wine. Up in Banchory, workers at the distillery cannot understand why the Chancellor has imposed an additional tax on whisky. Those workers will not be dancing in the streets, although people will certainly be dancing in the streets of Bordeaux when they read what the Chancellor has done in relation to wine, which will be imported in ever-increasing quantities.
  Kilmarnock in my constituency is the home of Johnnie Walker whisky. People in the bottling sheds there will be scratching their heads and asking, "Why on earth is the Chancellor increasing the revenue difference between spirits and wines?" I hope that that will be equalised in 1992. The workers in Kilmarnock may be wondering what

  1275
  it is all about, but at this very minute the workers in Koblenz are probably not just naming a holiday after the Chancellor but naming a whole festive season in his honour because of the way in which his Budget will increase imports of their wine.
  What the Chancellor has done is absolutely inconveivable. I ask the Government to remember the value of the Scotch whisky industry, the number of people that it employs in this country and the prestige that Scotch whisky enjoys. All of that has been threatened by a Chancellor who has been so ill advised that he does not even begin to understand the difficulties facing the Scotch whisky industry at the moment. It is inconceivable that this should happen at a time when, through the efforts of the Scotch whisky industry—with, I grant, some assistance from the Government—Scotch whisky is managing to penetrate the Japanese market when for years we could not break down the Japanese tariff barriers.
  With some help, we have also managed to persuade the South Korean president to remove his country's barriers so that our whisky can penetrate the South Korean market. We now have an opportunity to penetrate the Taiwan market. That increase in exports is extremely welcome and is bringing more and more money into this country as we try to balance our trade deficiencies. Yet the Chancellor kicks the Scotch whicky industry in the teeth by imposing a whacking great increase of 10 per cent. in excise duty.
  Like other hon. Members, I must ask, why 10 per cent.? If inflation is running at 7·5, 7·9 or even 8 per cent., why choose 10 per cent.? The answer came when the Chancellor himself said that inflation would go up before it goes down. He has probably chosen the figure of 10 per cent. because he thinks that inflation will increase to 10 per cent. shortly. The Government must then explain why their policies have produced a 10 per cent. inflation rate, which is greater than the figure that they inherited in 1979.
  The Government's policies are not working—the House knows it, the voters in Mid-Staffordshire know it and people throughout the country know it. At the next election, which for me cannot come too soon, their voices will be heard. In the meantime, it would benefit the country if not only the Chancellor but the whole Cabinet resigned. I was about to suggest that the Prime Minister should also resign, but I do not actually want that—I want her to stay where she is, because she is our best guarantee that Labour will win the next general election.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Keith Raffan: I apologise to the House for the fact that I cannot remain for the reply to the debate as I am still recovering from a back problem. I am delighted to follow my fellow Scot, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). Even though I am a Scot sitting for a Welsh seat, I am well aware of the importance of the Scotch whisky industry. However, methinks he doth protest too much. There is no doubt that the industry has fared very well under this Government. Indeed, during the past 10 years the Treasury has been too susceptible to the industry's persuasive powers.
  As I shall explain later, there is a strong argument for a greater over-indexing of spirits than that introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on Tuesday. I am sorry to note that that makes the hon. Gentleman gasp. It
  1276
  appears that the whole of the population of Kilmarnock is employed in the Scotch whisky industry, something of which I was not aware.
  The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am being objective, because Wales also produces whisky. As a Scot, I must tell my fellow Scots on the Benches opposite that they have protested too much about the whole question of the community charge and the change in the capital rule. I am glad to note that my near parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. Being a wise man, he has kept a respectable silence during the past 48 hours—as, indeed, have all Welsh Members.
  We are aware that the community charge in Wales covers only 15 per cent. of local authority revenue. We do not shout that loudly in the House, especially when so many English Members are present. In Scotland, the community charge covers 18 per cent. of local authority revenue and in England it covers 23 or 24 per cent. That is substantially more. The Scots and the Welsh have done extremely well.
  I do not deny that there are good reasons for that, but Scottish Labour Members should be careful. If they ask for Budget favours, everything will be open to examination and analysis. Difficult questions might be put to Scottish Ministers about the very favourable budgetary circumstances and public spending for Scotland. Similar difficult questions are occasionally raised with Ministers during Welsh questions, even though we try to keep out English Members, especially when good news is about to be announced.
  I join in the congratulations extended to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, which came even from the Leader of the Opposition, who was generous and fair. My right hon. Friend's first Budget was an "excellent maiden sortie". The vast majority of Conservative Members thought that it was excellent not only in style but in substance—notwithstanding the short-term reaction from the City. The late lain Macleod once said that the reputation of a Budget that faced immediate adverse reaction invariably fared better six months later, whereas one that found favour seldom looked so good with hindsight.
  In the Budget statement, my right hon. Friend rightly emphasised the high level of business confidence and the underlying strength of the economy. He mentioned the 1,500 new businesses created every week, the rising level of employment and investment and the growth in exports. That strength is evident in my constituency and, indeed, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wrexham. I am sure that he would agree with that. Our constituencies, together with the constituency of Alyn and Deeside, which is wedged in between, have led the economy in north-east Wales, and in Wales as a whole, out of recession.
  There have been substantial reductions in the unemployment rates—52 per cent. cut in my constituency during the past two years. The new jobs created in my constituency have been predominantly male, predominantly full-time and predominantly in manufacturing. Formerly, our jobs were concentrated in just two industries—textiles and steel. Now there is a far more diversified industrial base, resulting in a much stronger local economy which is much more capable of withstanding periods of economic adversity.
  Dr. John Marek: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his good fortune in his constituency, but in mine many of the new jobs are predominantly female. There is nothing wrong in that, but they are low-paid and, in the main, part-time.
  Mr. Raffan: The old cry from the Opposition is that the new jobs are low-paid. Unemployment has been high in our constituencies. Indeed, four years ago male unemployment stood at 42 per cent. in two of my towns. If we can dramatically reduce the unemployment levels even further, wage levels will automatically rise as demand for labour exceeds supply. That is what will happen, and there is evidence of that already in our constituencies and throughout north-east Wales. We must question whether the Opposition are in favour of jobs, albeit relatively low-paid, or whether they would rather not have any jobs. Are they advocating unemployment?
  The hon. Member for Wrexham should be more generous about the Government. We on this side are fond of the hon. Gentleman, and the Government have introduced a great deal of industry to his constituency. He knows that he has done extremely well, especially with the Japanese. His constituency is one of the focal points of Japanese inward investment. We have 70 per cent. of Japanese United Kingdom investment in Wales, a great deal of it in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He prefers to keep quiet about that. The reason why Wales is attracting so much inward investment, especially from the Japanese—who are known to be rather discriminating—is that they believe in the underlying strength of our economy. The hon. Gentleman and his constituents are benefiting from that.
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, all the evidence from high street sales, the housing market and imports shows that demand is slowing, but it is not yet slowing quickly enough to curb inflation. In a flexible economy, the slowing of demand should contribute to a reduction in inflation by keeping wages in check. However, it is clear that wage levels are not yet responding to weaker demand. Action is needed to slow the economy further, to take away the demand granted by wage increases and to keep a tight lid on the growth in real disposable incomes. Taxation is obviously an instrument for doing that.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend did not fulfil media predictions that he would not fully index personal tax allowances. That would have hit the better-off, but it would have borne especially hard on those with low incomes as they would have been drawn up, through inflation, into the tax net.
  On the question of indirect taxation—this will no doubt cause another gasp and sigh from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun—some have argued for a standstill in excise duties to keep down the recorded rate of inflation. But there is a strong case for over-indexing cigarettes and alcohol, in particular, more than proposed in the Budget. There is no surer way to deflate demand. Of course, the higher recorded rates of inflation that will occur in the summer as a result—the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was right about that—will help my right hon. Friend, albeit indirectly, to maintain the high interest rates squeeze.
  Over-indexation this year will allow under-indexation next year and so bring a sharp fall in the published inflation rate. That is the reverse of what usually happens—
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Raffan: Perhaps my hon. Friend says that because of experience in his previous incarnation when there were standstills in excise duties. When a Chancellor begins to index again and to increase taxes in line with inflation, having not done so for two years, he will produce a marked inflationary bulge. We do not want that to happen again.
  There has been a drop of one third in the real value of duty on spirits during the 10 years of this Government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have raised duties even more on spirits and alcohol. There are good health reasons for doing so. Sooner or later we shall have to resolve the conflict between the Treasury's eagerness for revenue from the sale of alcohol and cigarettes and their consequent reluctance to impose penal taxation on either, and the massive National Health Service bill that we have to pick up as a result of smoking and alcohol abuse. Sooner or later, the Government must face that conflict.
  I strongly support the various measures brought in to encourage savings, such as the abolition of the composite rate tax and the introduction of TESSA. They will help "the culture of thrift", to use one of the memorable sound bites of the Budget, to replace the current epidemic of overborrowing. However, I strongly agree that interest rates must remain the main and most flexible weapon against inflation because they both discourage personal borrowing and reward personal savings.
  Like all hon. Members, I want rates to come down as soon as possible, but I want them to do so without dramatically reducing the exchange rate, because that not only increases the cost of imports but weakens British producers' resolve not to give in to inflationary wage claims. We do not want to trigger a wage spiral. That is what poses the greatest danger to the economy at present.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that inflation had proved far more stubborn than anybody had expected. He said, rightly, that the largest factor in that was the increase in local authority spending. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Wrexham is winding up the debate for the Opposition.
  Dr. Marek indicated assent.
  Mr. Raffan: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding. I shall read his speech with great care. I am only sorry that I shall not be here. I am sure that he will want to respond to this point. The Labour-controlled county council in Clwyd, covering my constituency and that of the hon. Gentleman, is greatly increasing projected spending. The hon. Gentleman may well look down at the floor of the Chamber, because the council is increasing spending by £28·5 million or 18 per cent. That is unjustifiable and inexcusable.
  Is that a foretaste of what the Labour party would do at national level should the nightmare occur and it got into government? There are so many questions on their policies that the Opposition have left unanswered. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry rightly said, how would a Labour Government effectively control inflation? How much would they add to public spending? I see that the shadow Chief Secretary is present. We read some interesting quotes from her in the press, particularly when she is cornered in television interviews. It is more difficult to corner her effectively here; she is not

  1279
  subjected to repeated questioning here. She always gives vague answers to questions about spending plans and how far the Opposition would raise taxation to pay for those plans.
  Any Opposition attacks on Government economic policy will be blunted and rendered ineffective by their inability and reluctance to answer such questions, and their evasiveness and ambiguity when forced to do so. As the months go by and we draw closer to a general election, that will become increasingly apparent.
  The trouble with the Labour party is that it is far more concerned to tell us how it would distribute wealth than how it would create it in the first place. We suffered some bad experiences, albeit 10 years ago. Ten years is not a lifetime: it is only a generation ago. We will remind those who have had the good fortune not to live under a Labour Government in this country exactly what happened under the last Labour Government. They promised the earth. They told us how they would distribute wealth, but they could not create it. Ultimately they had to go begging to the International Monetary Fund for the largest loan which that organisation has ever given to any country, banana republics included.
  The Labour party has failed to advance a credible policy on interest rates, exchange rates, inflation and spending or to answer the questions, about its spending plans. It promises so much to so many but few believe it can deliver. That is what ultimately undermines its credibility. That is why it will not win the country's confidence at the next general election.
  6.5 pm
  Miss Kate Hoey: I am pleased to make my contribution today—definitely for the last time as the newest Member and almost definitely, I hope, for the last time as the newest woman Member. I shall be brief, taking note of what the Father of the House told me when I first came to the House—that it is better to be brief than to be boring.
  I shall mention a couple of issues in the Budget about which I feel particularly strongly and which I believe should be brought to the attention of the House. There has been much talk about this being a Budget for savers and for women. I shall concentrate on why the vast majority of women have not gained from the Budget. Many women, particularly the low-paid, have lost as a result of Government policies over the past 10 years.
  The Budget has done absolutely nothing to help women home owners. who are still saddled with high mortgage interest payments—as well as having to pay the poll tax. It has also done nothing for the low-paid, two thirds of whom are women, or for mothers, particularly those whose child benefit has been frozen since 1987.
  There has been just one move forward for women and we all welcome it—the change for women whose children are in workplace nurseries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer finally gave in to pressure from the Labour party and from women throughout the country to go back on a previous Conservative measure. We should not forget that the tax was introduced in 1985 by a Conservative Government. Now they have turned around and flown in the face of what the Chancellor himself said when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Last year he said that the Government would not change that tax, and that its
  1280
  removal would have little effect on creating conditions to enable mothers who wished to work to have access to affordable means of child care.
  We welcome that change, but it will affect very few women. Only 3 per cent. of employers' organisations provide workplace nurseries. Not one new child care place will be created by that move. The women who have benefited from workplace nurseries since 1985 have, to date, paid an average of £4,500 in tax as a result. That money will not be refundable. The Budget does nothing for the millions of women who have to make difficult decisions about where and how they will work, whether they can afford to go back to work and how their children will be looked after.
  As recently as 26 October, in answer to a question during Prime Minister's Question Time about whether t he tax on workplace nurseries would be abolished, the Prime Minister replied categorically:
  "No. Workplace nurseries are treated just as other extra facilities are—as benefits in kind for those earning over a certain salary. It would be quite wrong if those who have nurseries available at work were not to regard that as a benefit in kind while other people who had to make their own arrangements had to pay out of net taxed income."—[Official Report, 26 October 1989; Vol. 158 c. 1041.]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has changed that policy, so presumably the Prime Minister has changed her mind—if not, according to the logic of her argument, she will have to come forward with measures to allow all women tax relief on child care. I hope that the Chancellor will bear that in mind.
  The second issue that I wish to mention relates to the reduction in tax on football pools and the way in which that money is to go back into football. That is very welcome, and something that Labour and the football industry have been recommending for some time. At last we have a Chancellor who takes a little more interest in sport even than the Minister for Sport. It is very important that that money should be spent correctly, and I am very pleased that it will go to the Football Trust—a body set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who was a member of the then Labour Government. The trust has shown that it can spend money wisely, and the Chancellor's decision was an admission that football has been starved of the funds needed if grounds are to be made safe. The Government have been pushed by the Taylor report into taking that action and of course we welcome it. We need to move towards the provision of all-seater stadiums.
  The money provided will help to improve ground safety, but we must not forget other aspects of the game. For instance, it is crucial that entrances to grounds and particularly the number and type of turnstiles should be taken into consideration.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Because of my hon. Friend's expertise in football, I am listening with great interest to her remarks. Does she agree that other sports will also need assistance? I am thinking particularly of cricket and rugby league, which face the same problems.
  Miss Hoey: It was my intention to deal with that very point and my hon. Friend's question reinforces that intention.
  If it is necessary to provide seating in order to save lives, can we afford to wait so long for action by individual clubs? The estimated total cost of making all football grounds safe is up to £200 million. Surely all works should

  1281
  begin simultaneously. The money could be made available to the football clubs and paid back over a period from the money generated from the extra pools revenue. Where safety is involved, it is not good enough to carry out work gradually—all schemes should be undertaken immediately. Financial arrangements such as I have described could be made.
  The Taylor report has had a knock-on effect on sport in general. I am thinking, for instance, of cricket, rugby league and rugby union. Clubs involved in all those sports will have to spend very large amounts of money on their grounds. Where will that money come from? In the case of designated cricket grounds, a huge amount of work will be needed. In the case of cricket grounds, such as the Oval in my constituency, clubs will have to spend at least £1 million in the very short term to satisfy the requirements of the Taylor report.
  Sport generates an enormous amount of income for the Government. It is time for the Government to step in and find ways to provide the necessary finance. That is what happens in other countries when safety considerations are involved. The Chancellor gets up to £1 million per year in VAT on the sale of tickets at cricket grounds. That money could immediately be returned to cricket clubs to enable them to bring their grounds up to proper safety standards. I hope that the present Chancellor, who is interested in sport, will take my suggestion on board.
  Very few people in my constituency will have been celebrating on the streets following the Budget. The greatest need in my area, just the other side of the river, is for housing, but the Budget contains not one suggestion, not one mention, not one proposal, to alleviate the housing problems in my borough and does nothing for the 15,000 people on the housing waiting lists there. It does nothing to help the many hundreds of families in the borough who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It also does nothing to help people—particularly young people—wishing to move out of the family home, to get married and to set up family life in an independent situation. The Chancellor, in his Budget, seems to have forgotten that this country faces a housing crisis.
  As I have said, the Budget does nothing to bring more women back into work, although there are the first signs of recognition that women are needed in the work force and that women want to work. In my constituency, however, many young single parents are sitting in their flats all day because they cannot afford the cost of child care. In those circumstances, it is nonsense for a single parent to go out looking for a job, especially one of the low-paid jobs available in my area. Having taken the first step in respect of workplace nurseries, the Prime Minister must stand by what she said in the House in October.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome the Budget as a prudent and responsible package of measures—notably the encouragement to savings in the form of the TESSA scheme and the abolition of the composite rate tax. I am particularly pleased that the Chancellor has introduced measures to encourage still further the process of wealth creation and dispersion. As an honorary director of Job Ownership Ltd., I am delighted with the small but important change in the
  1282
  treatment of capital gains tax—the roll-over relief for ESOPs, the employee share ownership plans. Wider share ownership is an excellent move in the right direction.
  The Budget will be seen as having adopted the appropriate fiscal stance for the current stage of the economic cycle. The Chancellor was absolutely right to place himself slightly on the tough side of neutral at a time when the relevant statistics still point in contradictory directions. In macro-economics and in politics it is always a good rule that, if one is not absolutely sure about the side on which one should lean, it is best to remain upright and to maintain broadly the existing policy stance.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was absolutely right when, in his excellent speech, he said that Labour's policy alternative, so far as one can divine it from the party's policy review and elsewhere, is either vacuous or, in some cases, outright dishonest. As The Independent put it in a recent editorial, Labour policy is really a combination of
  "warmed-over coporatism"—
  dating from the 1960s and the 1970s—
  "and vindictively higher taxation."
  The British public have already begun to see through that particular aspect of Labour's policy. According to a poll conducted recently for the BBC, the results of which were published in The Independent, nearly twice as many people still think that the economy would be weaker, and prices would rise faster, under Labour than under the Conservatives. More than twice as many people believe that, for the average family, taxes would be higher. These are potent public anxieties that reflect the common sense of the British electorate.
  Looking to the future, and regarding this excellent Budget as the first in a series of what I hope will be winning Budgets from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I hope that the Government will work towards two further institutional changes, which together would give them an even better chance not just of reducing but actually of eliminating altogether the scourge of inflation.
  Let me digress for a moment. I heard the compelling speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart). I should like to place on record my strong agreement with his view on the RPI and the distortions that it can reflect. I hope that, when we come to a quieter period of lower inflation, it will be possible for the Government and the RPI Advisory Committee to look again at this matter. My right hon. Friend's arguments were very persuasive.
  In relation to institutional changes, my first and foremost point relates to the statutory position of the Bank of England. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), for whom I was proud to work for two and a half years at the Treasury, that a new basis of statutory accountability to Parliament for the Bank of England would be in the national interest and in the interests of the British people. There are several reasons why I say that, but there are three principal reasons why the change would be beneficial which are worth putting on record.
  The first reason is that it would give undoubted added market credibility to the use of monetary policy as the principal anti-inflationary instrument of the Government and any other responsible Administration. Furthermore, it would assist the Bank of England, as the relevant body, in the administration of monetary policy. It would be the equivalent of good corporate management in a company

  1283
  where a division, or a part of the company, is given clear responsibility for an overriding task—in this instance, the elimination of inflation—and is allowed to get on with the job, with the requirement only that it should report back and be accountable. In this instance, I suggest that the Bank of England should be accountable to Parliament rather than to Ministers.
  The second reason why the idea is so attractive is that it would help to entrench a thoroughly non-inflationary approach to monetary policy within our political system. It would thereby help greatly to safeguard what Mr. Enoch Powell used to describe, rightly, as honest money against the temptations of the political cycle.
  The third reason—it is probably the least important of the three—is that it would equip us with an institutional framework which would be usefully compatible with the framework that operates already in the countries of our European Community partners, with which, no doubt, we shall be co-operating even more closely in the years ahead within an embryonic system of European central banks.
  I do not believe that at this stage in the economic development of the Community we should hasten too precipitately in the direction of a single central hank. Nor do I believe that it is necessary for the co-ordination of fiscal policy to be a vital accompaniment of the co-ordination of monetary policy. If we start from the angle of monetary policy, I think that we shall find that some virtuous consequences in fiscal policy flow automatically in market terms from that.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, who I know is listening carefully to the debate, that the statutory accountability of our central bank would be an important buttress to the success of our counter-inflationary policy over the next few years. I hope that it will receive careful attention.
  The other institutional change that I would urge upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he comes to consider these matters again at the appropriate time is something which I regret has become something of a King Charles's head, although it is none the less important for that. I refer to entry at the appropriate time into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North has already spoken about the matter and arrived at a different conclusion from the one at which I shall arrive.
  It seems from the evidence that I have seen, from the French and Italian experience in particular—in many ways, they started with a more difficult inflationary situation than our own—that, after an initial period of undoubted interest rate volatility, we would see the interest rate premium that we have to pay of 6 or 7 per cent. vis-a-vis West Germany diminish over time to the point where we would not have to pay it at all. We would find that in consequence the financial markets would have greater confidence in the rigour and discipline of our monetary policy. Ultimately, that would greatly reduce the exchange rate fluctuations. That would be a valuable development.
  Any senior industrialist or person in financial services will say that, of all the various non-tariff barriers which British industry and commerce are facing, none is more significant than exchange rate fluctuations and volatility. There is no doubt that the nations that have been within the ERM over the past few years and have managed to
  1284
  pursue the necessary monetary discipline to buttress the exchange rate mechanism have found considerable benefit for themselves and their export sector from being within the mechanism. I have no doubt that it would be one of the best ways in which we could take full advantage of the single European market.
  Now that most of the external conditions that were set by the Government at Madrid for our full participation in the ERM have been met, I trust that it is only a matter of economic and political judgment before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer decides that the time is ripe to take Britain into the mechanism.
  With the firm foundation of this sensible Budget and the prospect of the institutional changes which I have recommended, we shall defeat inflation, promote the revival of our economy from the present temporarily difficult phase and bring about still further improvements in the prosperity and living standards of the British people.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. John Garrett: With inflation due to rise to nearly 10 per cent. in the next few months, with a rate of economic growth down to a miserable 1 per cent. for the year and a forecast balance of payments deficit of £15 billion—the Government are usually optimistic in such forecasts—in earlier times our economic condition would have been characterised as stagflation, the constant problem of the vilified economic management of the 1960s and 1970s. The Government seem to be trying to give the impression that we face merely a temporary pause in our economic miracle, but we have only to read the forecasts in the Red Book to appreciate that the condition is far more serious than that.
  The major indicators show that we are in a worse position than that which we faced at the beginning of the great economic experiment a decade ago. The need for a neutral Budget is clear enough when we are about to face the deflationary effect of poll tax—equivalent to 2p on the standard rate of income tax—as well as an unprecedented rise in council rents of 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. in some areas—and high interest rates. It is clear why the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt unable to take more purchasing power out of the economy.
  The growth rate of I per cent. includes a significant increase in North sea oil output. That means that non-domestic oil output will increase by an amount so small as to be virtually unmeasurable, and certainly not a reliable figure. It must be a long time since the growth in manufacturing output was forecast as nil for the coming year. In anyone else's language, that means that we are heading for a recession, if not already in it.
  A significant increase in unemployment is inevitable regardless of the behaviour of wage bargainers, but there is no forecast in the Red Book or in any of the statements by Ministers of the level to which unemployment is expected to rise. The idea that inflation will fall from well over 9 per cent.—probably nearer 10 per cent.—in the spring to 7 per cent. in the autumn is hard to believe, let alone the notion that it will decrease to 5 per cent. next year. Of course, the Government always forecast that it will fall to 3 per cent. in the year after next, but we never manage to achieve that.
  The support that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given to guidelines or a code of practice for credit lending institutions is unlikely to have much effect. It is false to

  1285
  argue that credit controls cannot work in a deregulated financial system. Most non-housing lending is undertaken by banks and building societies which are licensed. A Bundesbank research paper issued this week states:
  "Reserve requirements help control liquidity in the money markets as well as automatically acting as a brake on the creation of money."
  One of the advisers to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee put the case for direct credit controls clearly when he said:
  "Whichever of the monetary policies the Chancellor might choose, his task in making it work would be easier were a minimum reserve asset system restored. The ability to limit money growth with lower interest rates than are at present required would also have a longer-term beneficial effect on inflation by reducing the extent to which capital investment plans are aborted. Indeed the Bank of England can still call for special deposits, and it might be advisable for it to do so."
  On other key indicators, fixed investment is likely to fall by 1·25 per cent. this year compared with an increase of 1·25 per cent. forecast as recently as last November. Manufacturing output, which will show no growth in 1990, will enjoy a recovery to only 0·75 per cent. in 1991—far below the rate of growth in other European economies and far below the rate of growth in East European economies, let alone those of our direct competitors. It is very hard to see how such a level of recession will prepare us for the increase in competition in 1992.
  British industry will continue to be under-invested, under-trained and inadequately supported by research and development in the next two years, and as far ahead as we can see. The Budget did nothing to meet those inadequacies in British industry which mark us out from our competitors—inadequate investment in new plant and machinery, in training, in research and innovation and in energy conservation. Those should be central concerns for the future.
  It is hard to see the tax relief for company contributions to training and enterprise councils as anything more than a gesture. No wonder the proposal has had a lukewarm response from business. It is Government's job to promote and fully fund training for industry—it is not for industry to make donations to training institutions. In any case, funding for the training and enterprise councils has been reduced, despite loud complaints from industry.
  Nor has there been a warm response to the ending of tax on workplace nurseries. There are only 3,000 places in workplace nurseries, mostly in hospitals, health authorities and local authorities. Working mothers need a network of nurseries provided by local authorities, or there should be a levy on employers to provide for public child care. In this country, 40 per cent. of three to five-year-olds attend nurseries compared with 95 per cent. in France. Working mothers will gain very little from the Chancellor's proposals.
  In this context, it is also right to mention child benefit, which after all partly replaced the tax allowance. It is a scandal that child benefit continues to be frozen, as there is no more effective device for the relief of family poverty.
  I welcome the differential tax on unleaded petrol, but I believe that much more could be done to limit environmental pollution by way of taxation or tax relief. A whole range of innovations is taking place throughout Europe using taxation or tax relief to promote
  1286
  environmental protection. In Sweden, there are taxes on sulphur emissions and there will be a tax on carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions, in Norway a tax on emission of CFCs, and in Finland a tax on phosphate fertilisers. In West Germany, motor taxation is being switched from engine size to classification by exhaust emission and noise, and in Italy there are taxes on sulphur dioxide, plastic products and herbicides.
  All those means could be used to set the tone for environmental protection, to show that the Government intend to discourage the use of pollutants. A variety of tax penalties and incentives could be used to give signals to industry about the need to reduce pollution or to invest in environmental equipment or energy conservation. The Budget could have provided an opportunity to set the direction for a programme of inducements to reduce pollution, but in that regard, as in most others, the Budget misses the opportunity. It could have addressed the long-term needs of the economy for productive and environmental investment, but in fact it is little more than window dressing by a Chancellor left no room for manoeuvre by his predecessor.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: I greatly welcome the Budget. It is doing what the economy requires at present. In particular, I regard the strong commitment expressed by the Chancellor to bear down on inflation and to continue the fight against it as one of the most important aspects of the Budget. Its fiscal stance is about right: fiscal tightness in the economy is at about the right level, just as monetary tightness is at about the right level.
  In particular, interest rates are probably about as high as they need to go, because one runs into a law of diminishing returns fairly soon: the higher interest rates go, the less effective they become. This is partly because of the political effects of interest rates, which need not be spelled out, given that we are a nation of home owners, but also partly because of the economic effects of high interest rates on wage rises and so forth. If, however, we accept that interest rates are as high as they need to go, we must also accept a degree of volatility and of uncertainty in the exchange rate which might be difficult to tolerate but which ought to be tolerated until such time as the interest rates have done their work and inflation starts to come down.
  The other side of this—also addressed in the Budget and also very welcome—is an emphasis on increasing savings and enabling people to transfer their money into the savings sector. The abolition of composite rate tax is one of the most exciting innovations in the Budget and one which will do a great deal of good, particularly for small savers and especially for the elderly and for young people who, on the whole, will not be taxpayers. It will boost savings and be of considerable benefit to the economy as a whole. Nevertheless, we must wait for the economic medicine to work, and we must try not to get upset about the economic problems that we undoubtedly face in the short term.
  It is often said that there are no alternatives to high interest rates, but this is incorrect. There are many alternatives to high interest rates. The great problem is that, on the whole, they do not work. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) spoke about credit controls. Such remarks are often made about the beneficial

  1287
  aspects of credit controls—the trouble is that they often come from theoretical economists rather than from people who have practical experience of how our banking system currently operates. It is not hard to see how many banks and financial institutions could get round any credit controls that Government imposed.
  Mr. John Garrett: I was quoting from a paper by the Bundesbank on the effectiveness of reserve asset ratios and other forms of control. West Germany happens to enjoy an inflation rate of 3 per cent. at the moment, so the West Germans may know quite a lot about the usefulness of such instruments.
  Mr. Carrington: The hon. Member anticipates me slightly—I was going to come on to reserve deposits in a moment. The Bundesbank report referred to the German economy and banking system, which are very different from our own and which have different regulatory frameworks, for reasons which I will come to in a moment.
  Going back to credit controls, because it is important to realise how mechanisms for getting round them would operate in practice, if a borrower was denied credit by a bank because the bank. for whatever reason, felt constrained not to lend by Government regulations, either that borrower would go to other financial institutions which would not be limited by the regulations imposed by the Government—thus creating an artificial impediment to competition and efficiency in the lending market—or, if that failed, and he could not borrow domestically inside the United Kingdom, in the absence of exchange controls, any borrower of any size—not necessarily a large size—could borrow offshore without problems.
  Nor would he have to borrow offshore from an institution which had no presence in the United Kingdom; he could do so from any subsidiary of any institution which was not under Bank of England control. An understanding of the way in which banking control works in the G7 countries and increasingly in the OECD countries means that any bank with its headquarters under the regulatory control of another central bank is controlled by that central bank and not by the Bank of England. Consequently, the ability of the Bank of England to stop a foreign institution lending to British nationals is severely limited. It would not be practical to control it even at that basic level. One has only to look back to the time before exchange controls were lifted to see how inefficient they were in preventing people from borrowing overseas.
  Reserve deposits are a little more complicated because they do not have an immediate and direct effect on the lender. They effectively make it more costly for banks to lend, which in turn pushes up the margin or spread that bankers charge on their loans, as happened last time we had reserve deposits, when they pushed up the cost to the borrower, which had the net effect of pushing up interest rates. In addition, there is intermediation from institutions not affected by the reserve deposits. It is difficult to devise a system which catches all the quasi-banks that are capable of lending. One has only to look at the various commercial organisations in the business of providing credit in one form or another to see that, and one has only to look overseas to see the people who would come in to get round the reserve deposit requirements.
  German markets still have reserve deposits, but they are being wound down and there is a great argument in Germany about how long they will survive. However, they
  1288
  work in Germany because the German economy is much more closed than ours. German banks maintain a tight control on the availability of the deutschmark, partly through tradition and partly because the German banks own so much of German industry.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman has given us the key to the problem. The Prime Minister boasts from the Dispatch Box that Britain has the most open economy in Europe, but is that not the problem rather than a measure of our success? If we adopted the German model, we might have a more successful economy.
  Mr. Carrington: The hon. Gentleman is right, except that the German economy is moving towards us rather than away from us and it is becoming more open. It is not more open, because the German banks still have a stranglehold, which they are slowly being forced to loosen as they start to conform with EC directives arid regulations.
  One reason why German banks have managed to maintain the stranglehold on the German economy for so long is that it is difficult to do business in Germany unless one speaks the language. I speak from experience, having done a considerable amount of banking in Germany at various times in my career as a banker before coming to this place. It is difficult to do business with middle-sized German companies unless one is a German speaker. The linguistic barriers to entry into the German market for foreign banks are substantial.
  Mr. John Garrett: I am greatly enjoying the hon. Gentleman's mini-lecture on banking for undergraduates. It is most instructive, but I took that course almost 30 years ago. Is he telling the House that the 80 per cent. of lending made by banks and building societies to private individuals for non-housing purposes cannot be controlled?
  Mr. Carrington: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finds my speech too elementary. It is a shame that he did not adjust his remarks to take account of the fact that what he was saying was wrong, which would have relieved me of the necessity of having to teach the hon. Gentleman a thing or two.
  Intermediation and the ability to borrow overseas is no longer largely dependent on the size of borrowing. In fact, it can be done at low levels for a variety of straightforward technical reasons, but they mean that most individuals, even with small amounts of borrowings, can have access to overseas funds without too much trouble.
  The third factor that is also mentioned is the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. It is said that if we join, it will bear down on interest rates arid so assist our economy. The commitment in the Budget to join the ERM at some stage in the future when circumstances are right is vital. I am strongly in favour of joining the ERM. Currency stability with our major European trading partners is an eminently desirable goal which would be good for industry.
  The only problem that we face at the moment is the straightforward practical one that there is not much to join.
  Mr. Tim Janman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Carrington: If my hon. Friend listens to my speech for a few more moments, he may find that his intervention is less pressing than he thought.
  There is not much to join in the ERM at the moment, because we are in for a nasty shock on the ability of European currencies to hold together, particularly now that the Germans are proposing to merge with East Germany at the rate of one ostmark for one deutschmark, which will throw serious pressures on to the German economy. No one at this stage can foretell the effect of those pressures, partly because we do not know how the Germans are proposing to fund it. However, given the way in which Germans have funded things in the past, the likelihood is that German interest rates will rise.
  Another consequence is that the deutschmark will become volatile in terms of its historic volatility, and that will not necessarily bear any relationship to the inherent instability and volatility of sterling that we have seen over recent years. Therefore, the ability to hold our currency in the short and even the medium term in relation to the deutschmark within any currency band would be severely constrained.
  But that is just a start. The instability of the deutschmark which will be caused by the reconstruction of East Germany is only one aspect of what is happening in Europe at the moment. The European Community will be faced with the major responsibility of ensuring the restructuring of the economies of Czechoslovakia, Hungary and, eventually, Poland. There will be a massive demand on Europe to support those fledgling economies. If we do not, the political risk of those countries ending up in chaos with internal disputes and major border disputes will be serious. That will have major financial consequences for Europe, for ERM and the EMS and it will cause a major rethinking in Europe on how monetary co-operation, let alone union, is to be tackled. At this stage, we cannot foretell how that will come out.
  Far from joining the ERM at the moment, we should seek an opportunity, particularly with the French and the Italians, who will be most adversely affected by the immediate changes in the deutschmark, to discuss ways to restructure European monetary co-operation in such a way that we can all co-operate on a basis which will not throw so much dependency on to the monetary control exercised by the Bundesbank as the ERM does at present.
  Abolishing the tax on workplace nurseries is a major move in the right direction. To some extent I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) that that is only the start of a major rethink of the way in which we provide support to working women who need or wish to go out to work and want their children cared for during the day. There will always be relatively few children for whom a workplace nursery will be appropriate because of the nature of the mother's work, or the father's work—let us not be sexist about it. I know of a number of instances in which it is more appropriate for the father to take the child to the workplace nursery.
  There will be times however, when such nurseries are not appropriate, either for the work or for the child. Many people say that, because of their association with the place of employment, it is not necessarily beneficial for the child to identify itself with being taken by mother or father to the place of work and then being placed in care there. We will need to expand the tax relief to cover other types of nursery provision.
  1290
  We must also address the question of self-employed women. Almost as much as any other women, they need to be able to afford child care so that their children can be looked after while they are working. At present, child care is not allowed as a business expense for self-employed women, and under no likely arrangement of tax deductibility for child care in nurseries would that be appropriate. I can envisage a position where we will have to allow that expense as a deductible business expense.
  My solution would be to raise the higher earnings limit from £8,500, as that would take many people out of taxation and benefits in kind, and would mean that we would save not only the considerable administrative burden in processing all the P11Ds, but ensure that the tax relief went to the least well-off, rather than going, as it will at present—if we expand it—to those who need it less with high marginal tax rates. We should raise the £8,500 higher earnings limit to something more realistic—perhaps close to £15,000.
  The Budget is greatly to be welcomed. It is a cautious Budget, but one which keeps the pressure on in the battle against inflation in a highly desirable way that will pay dividends as long as we have the patience to wait for the medicine to work and bring down inflation.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Pat Wall: I took a calculated risk in submitting my name for this debate, as I have suffered from voice problems for a couple of months—probably to the pleasure of Conservative Members, and perhaps occasionally that of some of my hon. Friends. Certainly the chances of my voice fully recovering are somewhat better than the chances of the Government recovering from the economic mess that they have inflicted on the country.
  We are told—and it is largely agreed—that this is a neutral Budget. It does nothing to address the gross inequalities in British society, nothing for the 9·4 million people who live on or below the poverty line, including 2·75 million children, nothing for the mass of pensioner couples who, by April this year, will have lost £20 per week in their pensions because of the severing of the link with average earnings, and nothing to make up the loss of child benefit, which has not been increased for the past three years. If anything, the Budget has marginally increased the trend away from direct taxation to indirect taxation and the consequent problems of the poorer sections of society.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the average couple with the average two children were better off than they had been 10 years ago. However, they now pay 5 per cent. of their incomes in value added tax, as opposed to 2·7 per cent. when the Government came to office.
  The Chancellor's attitude to the country's enormous balance of payments problem is certainly less cavalier than that of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), but he advances similar arguments. The former Chancellor gave three reasons why the trade deficit of £20 billion could largely be ignored. First, he believed that the deficit could be financed by inward investment, as has happened with the trade deficit in the United States in recent years. Secondly, many of the imports that led to that deficit were for capital equipment, which was only a

  1291
  sign of the enormous investment and productive boom in Britain. Thirdly, Government cash reserves were high and could meet any contingencies.
  We should look at the sheer volume of the deficit—£20 billion. It is greater still in manufacturing industry. Travelling here this morning, I listened to a city expert talking about the Budget and the general economic position. He said that, even if the Chancellor achieved a reduction in the trade deficit to £15 billion next year, had there been a Labour Government the press and the City would be screaming for the International Monetary Fund to come in and take over the British economy.
  The trade deficit can no longer be matched either by invisibles, which for the first time have gone into deficit—another Government record—or by the £80 billion from North sea oil, which has been largely wasted under the present Government. There is no net investment into Britain. In 1989, net capital outflow was £14·5 billion. Combined with the current account deficit, that amounts to a total deficit of some £35 billion, which has to be financed largely by hot money from abroad. That sum amounts to 3·9 per cent. of gross domestic product to cover the current account deficit, and 2·8 per cent. to cover the capital deficit. That is a total of 6·7 per cent.—again a Government record, and the highest figure in British history.
  The United States has a deficit for those combined two figures of only 1·6 per cent. Many of the so-called capital goods imports are classed by economists as intermediate goods, which could be better described as semi-consumer goods rather than capital goods. Britain used to have an export surplus in capital goods. The fact that it is now in deficit is a sign not of the strength of the British economy, but of its inherent weakness.
  The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), when he was Chancellor, talked of the official reserves. He should know a great deal about them—in one day under his Chancellorship those reserves fell by $1 billion. Since 1988, the reserves have fallen from £50 billion to £30 billion. That is why it is necessary to attract hot money into Britain, leading to a constant raising of interest rates and all the consequent damage to the economy and manufacturing production in Britain. That poses an awkward dilemma for the Government. There is a possibility of a recession. We are experiencing that already in Yorkshire and elsewhere in the textile industry, which is the fourth biggest industry in Britain. Once again it is suffering from redundancies, short-time working and lay-offs. In that much-vaunted sector of the economy, the service industries, there have been lay-offs in banking, in the City of London and in other sections of the economy.
  Mr. Janman: If we extrapolate from the hon. Gentleman's observations about the economy, it is clear that he is making a case for his party, if it returned to government, to reintroduce the exchange and import controls that the Conservative Government abolished in 1979, and which virtually every economy in eastern Europe is turning away from. If the Labour party won the next election, does the hon. Gentleman think it should reintroduce import controls, exchange controls and capital controls in the British economy?
  Mr. Wall: The last thing I have ever been is an import controller. If controls on finance and trade are introduced, they will be a result of what is happening in the world
  1292
  economy, which is now in the seventh year of the longest boom in post-war history. However, it has also been the weakest boom, with the lowest levels of growth and profitability. It is now coming to an end, especially in Britain because of the under-investment and under-capitalisation in the British economy.
  Our economy will face the dangers of recession far more sharply than those of our competitors in the Group of Seven. It is in those circumstances that trade wars and restrictions on the export of capital, finance and goods will arise. The conflict between Japan and America that is developing now reflects the difference between a surplus nation—Japan—and its interests, and a deficit nation—America—and its interests. That has nothing to do with political dogma; it has to do with world markets, and it explains why these conflicts will develop.
  I should like to give a few more illustrations of the nonsense of the so-called economic miracle. We are told that production has grown enormously, but growth in production in the 1930s was just as great as it has been in the past 10 years. Ignoring oil, which did not exist then, it stood at about 19 per cent. in both decades. Manufacturing output only reached the 1973 level in 1987, following the recession of 1979–81. It is now about 8 per cent. higher, but in the same period manufacturing production in West Germany rose by 40 per cent., in America by 70 per cent. and in Japan by 80 per cent.
  It is reckoned that British investment per head is only 60 per cent. of that in Japan and 80 per cent. of that in West Germany, while investment as a percentage of gross domestic product has risen over the past two years from 13·7 per cent. to 17·7 per cent. Virtually all that increase was in the service sector of the economy. Wynn Godley and Ken Coutts in The Political Quarterly reckon that investment in new plant and equipment and in replacing obsolete equipment, compared with the years 1971 to 1979, has fallen by 63 per cent. in real terms.
  This morning and yesterday a much vaunted increase in exports was announced, but I would argue that most of that increase has taken place because of the 10 per cent. devaluation of the pound since the present Chancellor came to office. Most capital investment is in banking and finance. As announced in the City today, in industries such as chemicals and metals, important to future exports, capital investment has virtually ceased and most of what is left is in banking, which does not bring in much export wealth to the country.
  PA Consultants brought out a report on 400 major international companies. The report showed that only 25 per cent. of United Kingdom manufacturers spend more than 5 per cent. of turnover on training and development; the comparable figures for West Germany and Japan are 71 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively.
  The only aspect of the British economy—and its only attraction—of which the Government can boast are the low wages that British workers are paid, as I well know as I come from the town of Bradford, which has the lowest wages of any town in the British isles. The Budget gave concessions and advantages to savers, which no one would oppose, but Conservative Members may not be aware that many of my constituents who receive their benefits or wages on Thursdays and who work in the mills and foundries will have spent the lot by the end of the weekend and have to eke out Tuesday and Wednesday on virtually no money. The attraction of savings therefore has little

  1293
  meaning for them. The Budget, and the Government and their policies, have done nothing to advance the interests of many of my constituents.
  We have heard today about eastern Europe. The Secretary of State talked about the attractions and superiority of the market economy. What the events in eastern Europe have marked more than anything else is the fact that any society which cannot improve its economy within a fairly short period is a society in crisis. That was clearly shown in eastern Europe by the bureaucratic regimes, with all their corruption, nepotism and rottenness and their failure to advance the economies of Russia and eastern Europe. That failure caused divisions.
  The British Government face the same problem, albeit on a lesser scale. They can no longer advance the economy of Britain, so what took place in eastern Europe will happen here. Divisions will begin to widen in the leadership of the Conservative party, just as they have developed among the leaderships of Russia and other eastern European countries in the past few months.
  Last year there was a leadership contest in the Conservative party in which, for the first time since the Roman emperor Caligula, a group of politicians sought leadership from a quadruped, however well meaning he was at the time. The Tory party now faces a different type of horse—a Trojan horse being prepared within its ranks, probably in Henley-on-Thames. The Conservative party cannot solve the problems of advancing the British economy. It does not matter who leads the Conservatives after the general election, whether it be a horse or someone swinging through the trees, because the Conservatives will be defeated at the election. Then at least we can begin to solve the problems which face working people in this country and to advance the interests of the mass of the population, not just those of a few spivs.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: In my relatively short time in the House I have heard quite a few examples of hypocrisy but I have never seen such a display of brass-neckedness as we just heard from the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall). The hon. Gentleman is virtually synonymous with corporatism, high taxation and Government intervention——
  Mr. Janman: Stalinism.
  Mr. Coombs: That is my hon. Friend's word, not mine. The hon. Member for Bradford, North argued about the benefits of the sort of revolutions that have taken place in eastern Europe. But the Czechs, Hungarians and Poles are all coming to Britain wanting to learn about the policies that this Government have championed——
  Mr. Janman: I should like to clarify the terminology for my hon. Friend. It is my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who is the corporatist; the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) is the Stalinist.
  Mr. Coombs: That sounds accurate.
  These countries have been coming here because they want to learn about privatisation, the free market, free enterprise and low taxation, all of which have been championed by the Government. So when the hon.
  1294
  Member for Bradford, North tries to argue that these revolutions support his dirigiste, socialist philosophy he is guilty of brass neck of the worst possible sort.
  As many of my hon. Friends have said, the Chancellor deserves our congratulations on introducing a balanced, sensible and cautious Budget. It is properly restrictive in monetary and fiscal terms and will produce the proper balance between controlling inflation and avoiding the potential danger of recession. It is in the reforming tradition of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson).
  It makes several supply side improvements, particularly in the taxation of husband and wife, in savings, in training and in access to the work force by women. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who is not here now, said, it rightly targets the football industry as in need of specific aid to implement the Taylor recommendations.
  It is good to see the markets taking a more sanguine and intelligent view of the effects of the Budget today than they did yesterday. One should not become too worried about what the markets say. I recall that, in 1981, the last time we produced a fiscally restrictive Budget, 365 so-called experts wrote to The Times saying that the Government would preside over an economy that would go into slump and depression, whereupon there followed eight years of unprecedented growth.
  So the fact that some commentators are saying that the Budget is not deflationary enough, while others are saying that the Chancellor has been unduly pessimistic about the possibility of controlling inflation, means that he has probably got it about right. He has maintained a consistent philosophy involving low rates of taxation, proper monetary control and improvements on the supply side, a policy that has resulted in eight years of consistent growth.
  I represent a manufacturing area, involved mainly in consumer durables, particularly the carpet industry. Although there has obviously been a slowdown in the consumer durables and carpet sector in recent months—as should have been the case, with higher interest rates; they were designed to achieve that end—industry bears in mind the economic background against which the changes are taking place.
  Companies recognise that they have been making better profits than at any time in the past 20 years. Indeed, when I visited a company in the traditional metal-bashing industry last week, I was told that the firm made 12 per cent. on turnover before tax, which is an extremely good example of some record profits that have been achieved in recent years.
  Investment has improved in my area, as it has throughout the economy. Companies are employing more people, and between December 1988 and December 1989, unemployment in my area dropped by over a third, to only 4·2 per cent., compared with about 16 per cent. seven years ago. That has been due to the massively improved performance of companies in the area.
  I believe that companies would not expect an athlete to go on breaking records year after year. There must be a time to slow down, take stock and draw breath. That is what 1990 will prove to be. There is no doubt that the Chancellor's deflationary measures are working. Consumer spending is slowing and there is a fall in orders and some retrenchment.
  The difference between the present fall in orders and retrenchment and other such movements in the past is that

  1295
  industry is today far better equipped to deal with that type of mini-recession. It is leaner and more efficient. The stock against output figures have dropped dramatically recently as destocking has taken place.
  The growth in world trade is healthier, more firms are turning to export markets and our exports are increasing twice as fast as world trade as a whole. Indeed, a carpet company in my area, Brintons Carpets Ltd., probably the biggest, increased its exports last year by no less than 50 per cent. Businesses are better prepared on this occasion in terms of their financial ratios and gearing for the downturn that we are currently experiencing.
  With imports flat and exports growing fast, the Chancellor may have erred on the side of pessimism in estimating that the trade balance will improve to only £15 billion this year. I estimate that there is a good chance of it improving much more quickly.
  The British Textile Confederation is prepared to see the multi-fibre arrangement wither on the vine, provided that GATT is adequately reformed to achieve a level playing field for exports. But it is concerned lest the Government and the European Commission do not take tough enough action against countries such as Turkey, which are effectively subsidised by their Governments and are dumping goods into this country.
  Turkey is now the largest exporter of textile goods to Europe. There are effectively no duties on its imports to us, yet when we try to export to Turkey, the duties average 200 per cent., including a contribution to that country's national housing fund. That is a particularly virulent form of protectionism, which must be addressed quickly by the British Government and the European Commission.
  Continued progress in improving our trade balance will depend on our competitiveness. While last year our unit wage costs increased by only 4 per cent.—although in many countries they did not increase at all—if productivity begins to slacken this year as capacity restraints are reached and as investment growth levels off, our competitive edge may be blunted unless there is a significant restraint on wages. That is crucial for our strategy, and I hope that groups such as the Engineering Employers Federation recognise it.
  We cannot take seriously the Labour party's regard for wage costs. Between 1974 and 1979, when Labour was in office, unit wage costs in Britain increased 50 per cent. faster than in any other European country, which inevitably damaged our competitiveness. Labour now proposes a payroll tax of 0·5 per cent. of turnover, which would cost industry £1·25 billion a year, and which again would damage our competitiveness.
  Even the Labour party's advisers have estimated that Labour's proposals for a minimum wage—half annual industrial wages working up to two thirds on hourly earnings—would cost, because of reduced competitiveness, about 750,000 jobs once that policy had been fully implemented. How the Labour party can have any credibility, bearing in mind its industrial strategy and proposals for improving competitiveness, is beyond belief.
  With industrial profit margins being reduced, there is a chance that industry will hold the line and that unit wage costs will be held down. That will be made more difficult because the labour market everywhere is extremely tight. I pointed out that in my constituency unemployment had fallen by a third in the past year. Skilled people are at a
  1296
  premium and every day one hears of companies, particularly smaller ones, poaching skilled people from their larger competitors.
  With that in mind, I urge on the Government two sets of policies which I believe still to be crucial if we are to improve the supply side of the economy. The first set concerns training. There is no doubt that the new training and enterprise councils—one has been set up in Wyre Forest entitled CETEC, the Central England training and enterprise council—will do an enormous amount to ensure that the £18 billion spent by private industry and the £3.5 billion spent by the Government on training will be devolved to where it will be used best and more efficiently.
  Equally, the improvements made by the Education Reform Act 1988, devolving more power to colleges and polytechnics, which can thereby improve their links with industry, will result in them providing courses that are more in tune with the needs of industry. Equally, it is good to see that the Government are still committed to doubling—albeit the figure has improved dramatically over the past 10 years, with 1 million people in higher education—the participation rate in higher education, when it fell under the previous Labour Government. All those things are very important.
  The one area in which training seems to be missing out is the small business sector. It is good that 1,200 new companies are formed every week. The problem is that those companies need skilled labour and they are often not training themselves but poaching from other companies. Ninety per cent. of training is done by firms with more than 10 employees, while firms with fewer than 10 employees account for one third of industrial output. So we must do something to ensure that smaller companies have an incentive to do the training audits and the training and therefore produce their own skilled people. I believe that a form of accelerated tax relief might well be in order.
  The second set of policies that is extremely important as has been recognised in the Budget—concerns increased participation of women in the work force. Already in this country we are extremely well developed—if I may use the expression—with regard to the number of women in the work force; 44 per cent. of the work force are women. Indeed, I am told that between 1987 and 1988 there was a net addition of 474,000 women to the work force, 81,000 of whom were part-time, so the vast majority were full time. Between 1988 and 1989, 516,000 women were added to the work force, and the number is going up all the time.
  The contribution of women is vital; there is no doubt about that. By 1995 there will be 1 million fewer 18 to 25-year-olds than there were in 1985, so we need all the skilled labour, whether women or men, that we can lay our hands on. Separate taxation will be an encouragement to women to come into the work force, and flexible working and home working are things that the companies can arrange in their own interest.
  In that regard, the proposal for workplace nurseries is excellent but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), I do not think that it goes far enough. Only 2 per cent. of working mothers—about 2,000 at present—can take advantage of workplace nurseries. The proposal set out by the Treasury in the Budget militates against small firms that cannot organise their own workplace nurseries. It discriminates against women who are not provided with a workplace nursery by their own firm but who send their children to private nurseries. As

  1297
  my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham said, it also discriminates against self-employed women, who are becoming a more important part of the work force.
  I appreciate that there is a delicate balance between encouraging parental responsibility, encouraging women to look after their own children and making sure that delinquency is minimised as a result, and improving the supply of women to the work force and therefore the efficiency of the work force. But I believe that the Government would not err, especially given that the arrangement that they are at present considering would cost only £10 million a year, according to the Budget details, if they gave tax assistance for direct payments by firms to private nurseries on behalf of their employees. In addition, I believe that expenses up to a certain limit per child for self-employed women should be regarded as deductible.
  Both sets of policies, concerning training and increased access for women, will be crucial in improving the non-inflationary growth potential of the economy. The only disappointing part of the Red Book was that it talked about a maximum non-inflationary growth potential for our economy of 2·75 per cent. We have just been told that the economy has been growing at 3 per cent. a year over the past eight years, on average. I think that we ought to be able to grow considerably faster than that. It is only by supply side measures of this type that that will be achieved.
  In the long term, the most imaginative schemes in the Budget are those for savings. Labour Front-Bench Members talk about support for savings, but the Labour Government diminished the real value of savings by an inflation rate that touched 27 per cent. in their last year in power. They imposed an investment income surcharge and hiked up taxes so that people could not save out of their disposable income. But now, pretending that they have changed their spots, Labour Members are proposing further taxation of investment income, in terms of national insurance contributions being levied on investment income. That is hypocritial nonsense.
  The new scheme is radical. It goes far beyond any suggestions that I have seen in the past for tax advantages for savings. Indeed, the only suggestion that I have seen, which was worth thinking about, was by Professor Mervyn King of the London school of economics, who talked about tax-free retirement accounts, where one would not be able to get one's hands on the capital after five years, as in the Government scheme, but not until one was 60. So the scheme is radical, it will be very popular and I believe that it will be economically useful. Indeed, it is very good value for the taxpayer at £200 million a year.
  This is a fair, sensible and intelligent Budget, based upon the sound economic achievements of the past 10 years. The blather, huff and puff and political sleight of hand that we heard from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) are not worth talking about in the same breath. Unlike him, this Budget takes up the economic challenges facing this country properly and seriously, and we commend it to the House.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: I shall not detain the House as long as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) did; I am sure that a lot of his hon. Friends will be very pleased about that.
  Tory Members have been whistling in the dark, keeping their fingers crossed and hoping that everything will turn out all right. The euphoric days of the past are well behind them now and they are in some kind of trouble. The Budget was not designed to solve the problems of the country. It was designed for the Mid-Staffordshire election today and for the local elections, in the hope that it would keep up the morale of the party and somehow or other get people who are deserting the party in droves to vote for the Conservatives. It will not have any lasting effects at all. Nowhere does it face up to the problems. It is a tinsel Budget, tinsel in the shop window, with no substance.
  If we were a European football team playing in the European League, we should be at the bottom. The goals against us would be remarkable—the highest level of inflation, the highest deficit and the lowest level of growth. The directors would by now be saying that they have every confidence in the manager, and we all know what that means. It is what the Tory grandees have been saying about the Prime Minister, and it usually means that it is time for the person to go.
  We can well understand why that in happening. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, inflation is starting to go up. It will go up to 9 per cent., which was almost its level when the Government came to power, so what have all the sacrifices of the past 10 years been for? Inflation is going up again[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) likes to mumble from behind, but what have the sacrifices been for? We are now facing all the problems that we were assured time after time that various Tory Chancellors would solve. None of the problems has been solved, and we are no nearer a solution than we were before.
  It was remarkable today that the Prime Minister claimed as a success story a £1·4 billion deficit for last month. She claimed it as a success story because the figure had come down from £2 billion. Even on the Chancellor's own figures—he talked about a £15 billion deficit for the whole year—that month's deficit would lead to an annual deficit of £16·8 billion if it were repeated throughout the year. Where is the success story there?
  We now know that there will be very little growth in the economy. The Chancellor said that growth would be about 1 per cent. overall, yet to listen to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry today, one would think that we had a remarkable growth record and that we were doing better than most of our competitors. Here again, we are bottom of the league.
  The Chancellor talked about the manufacture of television sets as a success story and said that we did not have a deficit in them. He was really talking about Japanese-manufactured television sets. From time to time, Conservative members wax eloquent about how the Japanese companies that have settled here in the motor industry will get rid of our deficit in European trade. They fail to say that we destroyed our own British television set industry just as we have largely destroyed our indigenous motor manufacturing industry. In research and development, we are dependent on other nations.

  1299
  We have been hearing about employment prospects all afternoon from Conservative Members. An article in The Times today says:
  "Bubble 'may burst on work prospects soon'".
  According to a survey carried out by Manpower,
  "only one in four employers intend taking on staff in the next three months."
  The economy is starting to run down. That was the Chancellor's fear when he worked out the Budget. If he did too much, he would have pushed us into recession, which is a real problem. He has preferred to do nothing, which will not lead to economic growth.
  Conservative Members often talk about the Japanese. I wish that they would study the way in which the Japanese do things. At present, there is an upturn in shipbuilding, for example. However, we cannot take advantage of it. We are still closing two of our most modern yards. I am sorry that the Minister for Industry has gone because he is trying to pick up the pieces in Sunderland. What is happening in Japan? The Japanese have put their yards into mothballs and now that there is a pick-up in shipbuilding——
  Mr. Barry Field: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is no spare capacity in the Japanese shipyards for an order before 1993 and that, in South Korea, inflation is running so high that the yards there have priced themselves out of the shipping market?
  Mr. Hoyle: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. Instead of closing the shipyards in Sunderland, we should be bringing them back into production to take advantage of the upturn in the market about which the hon. Gentleman is talking. The South Koreans are, of course, now having to charge more sensible prices. That is why the Japanese have benefited and why their shipyards are working to capacity. We cannot do that. We are left with Harland and Wolff and one yard in Scotland. Those are the only places where we can make the vessels now in demand in the world market, yet we could have used the two yards in Sunderland. It is a pity that we did not put them in mothballs. It would have have been better if we had put the Trade and Industry Front Bench—especially the Secretary of State after his performance this afternoon—into mothballs.
  Mr. Tony Banks: They are the only balls he has.
  Mr. Hoyle: I bow to my hon. Friend's superior knowledge of the Secretary of State's anatomy, but I know that British industry is not safe in the Secretary of State's hands or in those of his ministerial team. We are in a mess.
  The Chancellor recognised on Tuesday that he is striking a fine balance. To be successful, he not only needs a fair wind, but the world economic policies must be right. He is dealing with matters over which he has no control. Yet listening to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, one would have thought that everything in the garden was blooming. He never learns anything. All that I can say for him is that even when one thinks that he has given a truly awful performance one can guarantee that the next one will be even worse. That is the problem.
  Time is short for us. There is more than 50 per cent. import penetration in important sectors of industry. Not long ago, we heard from Conservative Members that the electronics industry was one of the sunrise industries which would save our economy. Now we have a large and increasing deficit in electronics. I have already mentioned the motor industry, in which there is more than 50 percent.
  1300
  import penetration. We are now trying to ensure the survival of the last British company in the motor car industry.
  The hon. Member for Wyre Forest has a great interest in the textile industry. He knows that that industry is facing more than 50 per cent. import penetration as well. Is the hon. Gentleman waiting for me to give way?
  Mr. James Cran: Do not encourage him.
  Mr. Hoyle: He needs no encouraging. He had a fair crack earlier. Like me, he is concerned about what will happen to the textile industry and he mentioned the unfair competition in relation to Turkey and other countries. It would be a tragedy if we destroyed the last remnant of the textile industry because of high imports.
  Our record on training in Britain is abysmal, as we provide almost no training and much of it is not real training. The Government take people off the unemployed lists, but those people turn up again months later having had no real training. There is a contrast between school leavers in this country and school leavers in West Germany. In West Germany, 90 per cent. find a job. Most of them obtain apprenticeships which lead to qualifications. It is no wonder that we are falling behind.
  The hon. Member for Wyre Forest talked about small firms and said that they do not provide training, but poach skilled employees from other firms. If they will not play their part, we should make them pay something towards real training. The Government are giving up their training role and relying on the voluntary sector, but we know that the private sector will not train people. The good firms which train people lose them to small firms which attract them by offering slightly higher wages.
  We have also heard about the invisibles today. We used to depend on the invisibles. Not long ago Conservative Members used to say that it does not matter about manufacturing because we have the invisibles.
  Mr. Tony Banks: They are really invisible now.
  Mr. Hoyle: As my hon. Friend says, we cannot see them now—they are completely invisible. They are in defecit and there is no sign of an improvement. The problem has been caused by hot money and high interest rates, and the invisibles have suddenly vanished.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Just like Labour policies.
  Mr. Hoyle: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is talking in his sleep again. It will not be very long before he can have a long sleep. I am afraid that his seat is in some jeopardy, but we will miss him in this place, if only for his remarks which none of us can understand.
  Invisibles were supposed to save the present Government and, presumably, future Conservative Governments, but they have vanished. We have not yet faced the rigours of the single market and what might happen to our insurance or banking systems. Frankfurt may even bid to take over from the City of London.
  One would not have known from any of the Conservative speeches today that the country faced a. crisis. We are on the threshold of the single European market which offers great challenges. If we had the right. training and the right enterprise in which help is provided

  1301
  for industry, and if we had the right transport system, we could meet those challenges. Unfortunately, we are getting none of those from the Government.
  The Government will blunder into 1992 and the single European market and we shall be decimated because we are not providing the training. We are also providing no research. If we want to compete with West Germany and Japan on research for civilian purposes, we must spend 50 times as much as we are spending now. Similarly, we need 50 times as many industrial research scientists as we have now.
  I rather surprised the Minister for Industry by explaining that Siemens of Germany trains more qualified graduate electrical engineers than are trained in the whole of the United Kingdom. That is a sorry story. We are not prepared for the single European market. The Germans, French and Italians are far better prepared and their industries are in better shape than ours. We must also face the Japanese and the Americans. However, there is complacency on the Government Benches about the problems that will beset us when we enter the single European market. We should be able to welcome that market just as we should be able to welcome the fact that eastern Europe is opening up. There are great opportunities for British industry in that area if we are equipped to enter it. Unfortunately, we are not so equipped.
  Manufacturing industry, is being crippled by high interest rates. It will be investing less, when it should be investing more. We are not providing the training required for a modern industrialised society. The balance of trade will not come right for the Conservative Government, although they have had the advantage of oil, which the Labour Government did not have.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): Nonsense.
  Mr. Hoyle: I know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury likes a fight—that has been well recorded. He has to say, "Nonsense," because he is on the Treasury Bench, but he must be aware that we are ill prepared to meet the challenges in Europe. If the Chief Secretary says "nonsense" again, he is more short-sighted than I believed him to be. He knows that I am right and that he has presided over the decline of British industry. In the early 1980s, the Government destroyed industry and we lost one third of our manufacturing industry. When the Government refer to a boom, they have very little basis for such a claim.
  There is not much hope so long as the Government remain in power. Their ideas and policies belong to the 1980s, not to the 1990s. The sooner we have a general election the better, even though we shall lose some of the familiar faces on the Conservative Benches. The sooner we elect a Government who will be responsible and believe in industry and training and will meet the challenges the better—and that Government, of course, will be a Labour Government.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: Some hours ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) reminded me of a parliamentary truism by
  1302
  telling me that the best way to keep a secret in the House is to include it in a Back-Bench speech during the Budget debate. Listening to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) it became abundantly clear that by this time in the Budget debate just about everything that can be said has probably been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is probably why the Press Gallery is empty. Nevertheless, I want to raise several points on behalf of my constituents.
  I thank my right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury for listening to our representations and for increasing the capital allowed against community charge rebate claims.
  Many of my constituents are retired and have sold family homes and invested in smaller homes, houses, bungalows or flats. They prudently put the remainder of their money aside as savings to provide for their old age in the certain expectation that they will have bills to meet over many years. They have found it offensive that their prudence has been reflected in the amount that they have been required to pay in the past while others, some of them couples living together, have been allowed much larger capital sums in the bank.
  The measures in the Budget on savings will be extremely welcome to many of the people in that category. I am delighted that the Government have recognised the need for prudence and thrift and have tried to recognise and encourage the culture of thrift.
  I wish only that my right hon. Friends had gone further and, while reconsidering, had looked again at the uniform business rate and in particular at its effect on mixed hereditaments. Many small hotel and guest house owners and shopkeepers in my constituency own or live in mixed hereditaments. They will bear a disproportionate burden of increased taxation because they will have to pay increased business charges as well as community charges. I hope and believe that as the regulations and legislation are reviewed, my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury will find it possible to take account of the genuine needs of a relatively small, but significant, number of business people.
  Mr. Allen McKay: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the increase from £8,000 to £16,000 of capital. The change will benefit a few of my constituents. More would benefit if the Government also reconsidered the taper between £3,000 and £16,000. Many people who think that they will receive help will not receive it. Is not it also a fact that the more that we alter the position, the more the people who do pay will have to contribute unless there is help from the Treasury?
  Mr. Gale: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The Treasury has considered the matter. I believe that the concessions in the Budget will affect a significant number of people positively. Above all, the concessions will send out the right signal. In the past we have said to perhaps too many people that it is no longer worth saving or, if one sells one's house, putting the money aside. It was better to some extent to spend the money and rely on benefit. The message that is now being sent is a Conservative message and the right one. It is the message that it is worth providing for one's old age by putting a capital sum aside, that people will benefit fully from doing so and will not be

  1303
  penalised for having a relatively small sum of money in the bank. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I believe that the Treasury has got the balance right.
  My last point is a matter already raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). Tax concessions have been offered on workplace nurseries and playgroups provided by the employer. It is a particularly welcome step in the right direction. I have many constituents who have children and would like to return to work. I have several employers in my constituency who would like to entice married ladies with children back to part-time or full-time work, depending on the ladies' personal circumstances. Employers have found that those ladies have been dissuaded from returning to work because of the additional burden of taxation that they will face.
  I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham and for Wyre Forest that we have not gone far enough. As I understand the new regulations, and as they have been explained to me by Inland Revenue officials, we shall remove from personal taxation t he benefits of workplace nurseries and playgroups provided by an employer or a group of employers who have joined together to provide a communal creche facility. The relevant factor in that equation appears to be that the employer must have a stake in the workplace provisions.
  In my constituency, we hope that, in the near future, a 170-acre business park will be constructed. It strikes me that it would make eminent sense for the developer to include in the heart of the business park a workplace creche. Under the proposed regulations, unless each and every employer has a stake in that creche, it will not qualify for tax relief. That seems to be an oversight.
  I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, who took the matter a stage further. He said that a significant number of ladies, sometimes single ladies, would dearly like to set up in business and be self-employed. They find it impossible to do so because they cannot provide care for their children while they work. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter and at the least permit employers, and particularly small business men who might not have the resources or space to provide creche facilities, to contract out child care for the children of their employees while they are at work.
  I entirely accept the potential dangers of allowing tax relief to the employee on money paid for the purpose of buying child care, but I can see no reason why it is not possible to extend the scheme further so that the small business man can buy care from a private child minder or nursery. That would make a significant difference and bring into this new pool of people to whom we wish to give opportunities, the employees of small business men as well as those of larger companies that may take advantage of the concessions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Valley was right to highlight the potential dangers of encouraging too many ladies to return to work too soon. A delicate balance needs to be struck between encouraging ladies to return to work and make the most of the opportunities that will be available in coming years, and creating a generation of child-minded or latch-key children. We all accept that that is a delicate balance, but there are social advantages, particularly for lone parents—male and female—in extending the opportunity to go out to work to those who find that their entire lives are spent at home. We should offer them not only the financial but the social advantage
  1304
  of getting out of the house for a few hours a day, perhaps in part-time work, in the knowledge that not all the money that they earn will be eaten up in providing care for the children whom they have to place in either a nursery or creche while they are at work.
  I welcome the announcement. I believe that it will be positive. I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to re-examine the possibility of extending the facility further to enable small businesses and the self-employed to take advantage of a worthwhile concession.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. John Battle: One point that has not been made so far in the Budget debate is that at the heart of the Budget there is a huge silence about the real problems of increasing low pay in Britain.
  In the concluding statement of his Budget speech, the Chancellor said:
  "this is a saver's Budget…It helps the less well-off. It sets the right course for the '90s."—[Official Report, 20 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1026.]
  I confront that claim with two facts. First, the figure for average weekly savings in west Yorkshire is one of the highest in the country, at £5·84 a week. That is higher than any other region in Britain, apart from the north-west. It is a strange irony that the areas that save the most and give the most in charitable donations receive some of the lowest pay in Britain. West Yorkshire is one of the lowest-paid regions. Only 28 per cent. of the people have an income of over £245 a week, and that is after 10 years of this Conservative Government.
  I challenge the Chancellor's notion that his Budget helps the less well-off. It is not a Budget for social justice. It does nothing to root out endemic poverty, particularly among those in low-paid work. The minor alterations to the capital rules for access to social security benefit are no big deal for the poor.
  The detailed measures in the Budget simply tinker at the margins. They go no way towards tackling the structural factors underlying the British economy as a result of the Government's policies of the past decade. If anything, they reinforce the current trend towards a two-tier economy, with those in relatively secure, full-time work, with rising incomes, in one tier and those in temporary, part-time, low-paid work, trapped in the low-wage economy, in the bottom tier. The long-tern structural trend towards part-time work in the service sector is directly linked to the decline and erosion of the manufacturing base to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) referred.
  We are therefore entitled to ask, "What does the Budget do for the those on low pay?" The short answer is that, after 10 years, the better-off have become even better off as a result of the Government's tax-cutting policies. This is the 1990 start-of-the-decade Budget that offers absolutely no help to the 7 million people in Britain who are on low pay and who pay taxes. This start-of-the-decade Budget contains tax cuts for companies, charitable donors, savers and the City, but it does nothing to assist the poorest wage earners to meet the extra costs of higher rents; higher mortgages; higher gas, electric and water charges; higher prescription charges; or the cost of the poll tax. The Government and their policies are directly responsible for

  1305
  all those increases. This start-of-the-decade Budget ensures that the 1990s will be the decade of the low-paid if the Government remain in office.
  The Budget is tough, but it is particularly tough on those in low-paid work who pay taxes. As a result of the Budget and the poll tax combined, the direct tax burden on a family of four on half average earnings is proportionately three times as big as it was in the financial year 1978–79. When the poll tax bites in April, a family on half average earnings will be about £1·80 a week worse off because of the Budget. Overall, two out of three households will lose and nearly 60 per cent. of households earning less than £75 a week will lose money.
  Many more people will be drawn down into dependence on means-tested benefits. About 5,000 will be drawn into income support, and 1·19 million people will be drawn into housing benefit as a result of the high poll tax charges that the Government are imposing. As tax allowances have not kept pace with earnings, 85,000 more people will be drawn up into the tax net, which means that they will be caught hard in the poverty trap.
  What did the Chancellor do to ease the burden on the low-paid or to help the less well-off, as he claimed? He made matters worse, The poor will not be better off, because the changes in the Budget have to be coupled with the effect of the poll tax. The London School of Economics has a computer model—TAX MOD—which has been used by the Low Pay Unit to analyse the combination of the Budget changes and the introduction of the poll tax in terms of the gainers and losers in our society as from 1 April this year. It shows that those on a weekly income range of between £150 and £175 a week—on an average income of, say, £162·50 a week—will lose the most because of the Budget. On average, they will lose £2·54 a week. All those on wages between £75 and £275 a week will lose between £1 and £2·50 a week. In other words, a family on about half average earnings will lose £1·80 a week. A household with earnings equivalent to the Council of Europe's decency threshold of £160 a week will lose £2·54 a week on average.
  Such is the crushing burden of the introduction of the poll tax that, coupled with the effect of the Budget, 64 per cent. of households in Britain will lose as much as £15 a week from 1 April 1990. Nearly 60 per cent. of households earning below £75 will lose; nearly 60 per cent. of home owners will lose and 56 per cent. of tenants will lose. For heads of households who earn £157 per week, the changes will mean a weekly loss of £10.
  However, worse even than the effect on individual incomes is the effect of the Budget when a combination of incomes is taken into account. Hon. Members should bear it in mind that the loss to a married couple will be £2·07 per week and that households with children will lose £2·35 per week. In other words, married couples with children will lose the most.
  A detailed analysis of the effects of the Budget and the poll tax combined shows that this is tantamount to an anti-family Budget for those in poverty or on low pay. In real terms, there is a heavy tax burden increase on those with children, who also have increasing prices to pay, not least as a result of the loss to families because of the freeze
  1306
  in child benefit. In Yorkshire alone, 1,090,000 children will lose out as a result of the Government's failure to uprate child benefit.
  Before we are told about workplace nursery tax—welcome though the concession is—let us make it absolutely clear that four in five couples where the wife works will lose an average of £2·79 a week anyway, which will begin to eat into that concession.
  During his speech, the Chancellor stated:
  "we tax people on low incomes who should not be taxed",
  and that following the removal of composite rate tax for non-payers with savings,
  "tax will fall on those who should pay it, and will not fall on those who should not pay it."—[Official Report, 20 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1023.]
  Although the Chancellor made that statement, he did absolutely nothing about it in the Budget itself. The Budget retains the Government's built-in bias against the low-paid. In case some may think that that is an overstatement of the Government's policy, I remind the house of the Government's policy as stated in their White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s", which was published in December 1988. Chapter 3 was entitled "Barriers to Employment: Pay". Pay is obviously, therefore, regarded as a barrier to employment. The Government are pricing people into work, regardless of whether those people can afford to live on the rate that they are offered. That is part of the Government's deliberate policy to manufacture low pay.
  That policy was made even more explicit in a recent speech by the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs. In his address to the February conference of the Confederation of British Industry on the subject of "the Japanese electronics industry in Britain", the Minister declared that one of the great advantages for Japanese industrialists investing in Britain was the
  "low cost of the workforce".
  He said:
  "Britain has one of the lowest labour costs in the EC—one half of the costs in Germany and one third of the costs in France or Italy. Only Greece, Portugal and Spain are cheaper. The workforce is also skilled and flexible since it is not limited by rigid labour laws. For example, women are permitted to work the same hours as men including—unlike in some countries, including Japan—a night shift."
  It is not the welcome that we are worried about; it is the terms of that welcome to the Japanese. The Minister welcomed them to a low-wage economy in which women are allowed to work a night shift although that is not allowed in Japan. So much for family values. Boasting about low wages is an insult to many of the people whom I represent and to hon. Members who represent other constituencies in west Yorkshire.
  In my constituency, some home workers earn £4·50 for knitting a sweater that can take about 30 hours, while others pack cards for catalogue companies and earn 50p an hour or less. According to the Yorkshire and Humberside Low Pay Unit, although the average male adult full-time earnings are £269·05 a week, the average female adult full-time earnings are only £182·03 a week. In Leeds, 12,000 men and women earn below £100 per week; 54,000 men and women earn less than £140 a week, and if the overtime earnings are excluded, the figure rises to 68,000 people.
  About 6,000 women in Leeds work part-time for less than £2·20 an hour; 15,000 work for less than £2·50 an hour and 30,000 work for less than £3 an hour. That is a damn sight less than hon. Members earn per hour. In other

  1307
  words, the structural shift from manufacturing to service work has a parallel shift from full-time to part-time work, and concomitant with that shift is an increase in low-paid work and family poverty.
  On 14 November 1989, I tabled a parliamentary question asking for a breakdown of the employment trends in Leeds during the 1980s, based on the standard industrial classification. The figures clearly show that between 1981 and 1987 the total number of jobs fell by about 7,000—full-time jobs fell by 8,600 and part-time jobs increased by 1,400. The number of manufacturing jobs fell by 13,900, and there was no increase in the number of full-time jobs for men in the service sector. Of the 10,000 new jobs in that sector, 7,000 were full-time jobs for women—paid at a lower rate than men—and a further 2,000 were part-time jobs for men, with the final 1,000 being part-time jobs for women. Therefore, there was no overall increase in employment. Indeed, there was no real increase in part-time employment for women. The new jobs in the service sector simply replaced those lost in manufacturing.
  There is a switch from men to women, but with that has come a reduction in pay because women generally are paid less than men. The Government might claim that the vacancy columns show that there are hard-to-fill vacancies, but that is because those jobs are extremely low paid. Despite the doctored unemployment figures, the figure for my constituency is 7·8 per cent., with pockets within that standing at 20 per cent. Some 10,583 people—16 per cent. of my constituents—are on income support; 2,800—4 per cent.—are on family credit. What are their prospects under the Budget?
  Paragraph 3.48 of the Red Book states:
  "With output growth expected to be low in 1990, the sharp rise in employment of the last few years is likely to tail off and unemployment may rise. But the employment and unemployment outlook depends crucially on wage settlements."
  The message is absolutely clear—that there is more unemployment to come, so cut wages; women's work and work in the service sector will be all. It is a return to the classic Tory message.
  A survey in The Sunday Times covering the top 250 companies in Britain showed that their directors had pay rises of 28 per cent. during the past year, and that their average pay was £221,000 a year. That is a startling contrast to the average pay of £10,206 for their employees. We are entitled to ask why the poor and those with low wages are kept down and effectively priced out of our society while the rich are encouraged to become richer.
  Since 1979, the bottom 50 per cent. of British society have lost £8.·50 per family because of the Government's tax changes, while the top 10 per cent. have gained £40 per family. That is not a version of trickle-down economics; it is more a direct redistribution from the poorest to the richest. We must not forget that the Social Security Act 1989 put in place the very mechanism that will cause people to accept jobs whatever the low wage offered. If this Government's so-called economic miracle is to be measured by anything, it should be by their exclusion of the poor and the low-paid in society.
  The Budget reinforces the Government's deliberate policy to push down wages and to shift from the one-nation approach, involving a jobs-for-all social democracy, to a two-nations approach in which there is a clear structural rift between the rich and the poor. The
  1308
  Budget underlines the fact that the 1990s will be the decade of low pay. It is too late for the Government to change their economic strategy. The only option for the people of Britain is to change the Government.
  8 14pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine: Page 16 of the Red Book shows a chart which sets out the course of house price inflation since 1983. There was an acceleration in prices towards the latter part of 1987, and in 1988 there was a significant surge. I believe that that significant surge in house prices had a great deal to do with our present difficulties, acting almost as an engine for inflation in other parts of the economy.
  Home owners, as holders of rapidly appreciating assets, realised that they could borrow against those assets, and they also felt more inclined to borrow. The growth of credit then fed upon itself. House prices were driven up beyond the reach of first-time buyers. People mortgaged themselves to the hilt to buy homes and, having done so, then felt the need to press for greater wage increases. Again, that meant inflationary pressure.
  There were other effects. Companies in my constituency and throughout the south and south-east found themselves short of skilled labour. They tried to recruit from other parts of the country where the labour market was less tight, but found that the high cost of housing in the south and south-east was a great deterrent to such recruitment—and so the rigidity of the labour market was reinforced.
  Part of the reason for the tendency towards house price inflation—which has been a feature of past economic booms, including the economic boom of the past three years—is the incentives for home ownership. I am all in favour of retaining existing incentives, because home ownership is excellent and should be encouraged, but we must face the fact that there has been an imbalance.
  For too long, the incentives, the advantages and the tax breaks have been excessively loaded towards home ownership. A redress of that imbalance is badly needed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was so right to shift the emphasis to other forms of personal saving, giving them the incentives and tax benefits that have been enjoyed by home owners. That is a significant move, which will benefit the economy, and perhaps, when the economy booms again will reduce the risk of house price inflation taking off as it did in the last boom.
  My right hon. Friend's theme of thrift fitted in well with his announcement of the capital limit for community charge benefit being raised from £8,000 to £16,000. If my correspondence and my experience of my constituency surgery are anything to go by, the original £8,000 limit was a source of great grievance and resentment. People thought of it as a tax on thrift and a penalty levied on those who had worked hard and saved for their old age, whereas those who had blown it, those who had spent their income rather than saving, benefited from rebates.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is in the Chamber and he should take his seat.
  Mr. Irvine: The level at which the community charge benefit cut-off was fixed was widely seen as unfair, and I am glad that the Government were wise enough to listen to the representations made to them by many hon. Members and to act accordingly.

  1309
  Another group of people are affected by the community charge in conjunction with high mortgage interest rates. I am concerned about young couples where the wife has stopped work to look after the children. Mortgage interest rate increases hit such couples hard and the community charge reinforces the impact of that, particularly when the husband is the only earner in a family with an income just above the cut-off point at which he would be entitled to a rebate.
  There is a good deal of force in the argument that wives and mothers in such families have made to me—that the Government are moving towards independent income tax for women but that, when it comes to qualifying for community charge rebates, the women's income is not considered in isolation but is taken together with her husband's. There is a risk of such couples facing considerable hardship. I hope that the Treasury Ministers and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will take account of that.
  In my constituency, the community charge is £440, and it will be no surprise to hon. Members to learn that there is a Labour borough council. It is true that the county council is Conservative, but the county council's budget is only 9 per cent. above the standard spending assessment. Yet Labour-run Ipswich borough council's budget is 96 per cent. above the standard spending assessment—the second largest percentage overspend in the country.
  Mr. Janman rose——
  Mr. Irvine: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.
  Although that degree of overspend is very much the fault of the local authority, it does not mitigate the hardship that families such as I have mentioned may suffer.
  One welcome item of news in my right hon. Friend's Budget and one which will certainly receive great praise in Ipswich was the generous and well judged financial boost to the game of football. The Taylor report and its implications were bound to put heavy burdens on the finances of football. I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury was also a supporter of Ipswich Town football club, and perhaps he still is, despite his move to the constituency of Mid-Norfolk. It is important that the Government have listened to the representations on behalf of the game of football, because that welcome boost of what is calculated over the next five years to be £100 million will make a significant difference to the game's well being.
  By and large, I share the view that the Budget has the balance about right. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor confronted dangers from both sides. There was the danger of being too easy on inflation. Some of the financial markets yesterday showed that they thought that he had fallen into that trap, but they were wrong and, judging from their much steadier performance today, it looks as though they have altered their judgment.
  My right hon. Friend could also have fallen into the trap of overkill. Not only are interest rates high, but he is also running a pretty tight fiscal policy. The combination of those two factors is already beginning to work its proper and intended effect.
  1310
  The magnificent surge in investment by British industry during past years is beginning to show in the immensely encouraging export figures—[Interruption.] Contrary to the jibes and jests of Opposition Members, there are definite and significant signs that things are coming right. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has got it about right—the balance is correct—and in the coming months and years we shall see the benefit of his wisdom and the correctness of his fine tuning.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), who is another Conservative Member who has suddenly discovered that the impact of the poll tax is not all good when examined against the detailed problems in a particular constituency. He was right to express concern about those families he described, but he should also realise that the Government have got the facts and figures wrong in their peculiar standard spending assessment system. The idea of blaming the local authority because it has spent over and above the Government's recommended expenditure is to miss the target. The real target should be those in Marsham street who got the SSA wrong in the first place.
  I wonder how much longer we shall have debates like this, when we go though an annual parliamentary ritual. The Budget is largely irrelevant in terms of setting the economic scene for the year ahead. We then have three and a half days, after the Budget has already been analysed to death by the commentators, in which to debate it in Parliament. I wonder whether that is the best use of our parliamentary time. On a night such as this, I begin to feel like one of the last few guests left at a boring party. The days have gone when Mr. Gladstone used to stand at the Dispatch Box and speak for seven hours, often without notes. The sort of things he said then would clearly affect the economy in the next 12 months and influence future events.
  When I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer speak, I thought that he was delivering his speech with his fingers crossed. He would have to do that, because what happens in the British economy is determined far more by what happens in Tokyo, Frankfurt, Washington and other capital cities around the world than what is said in the Budget speech at the Dispatch Box. Budgets are becoming rather like yesterday's newspapers—forgotten almost as soon as the Chancellor utters the last words.
  I was amused by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the former Chancellor, sitting during the Budget speech like the ghost of Christmas past. He had given the present Chancellor many of his problems by virtue of the enormous tax cuts that he handed out to the rich in 1989. He had a bit of a cheek to turn up to see his successor clear up the mess.
  It would be churlish not to congratulate the present Chancellor, who is a former distinguished member of Lambeth borough council. Indeed, he is one of a group of ex-Lambeth councillors in the House, including myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley). Of those Members, the Chancellor has done the best—so far. The rest of us

  1311
  stand around with our fingers crossed, just as the Chancellor did when he was making his speech on Tuesday.
  What the Chancellor presented was a Budget for the party. His purpose was to stimulate the party, to try to do something about the depression that now sits on Government Members. That is why they were all waving their Order Papers at the end. It was a Budget for the party, not a Budget for the country. Most Conservative Members are grateful just to wake up in the morning and find that they are still Members of Parliament. So long as that is the case, they will remain cheerful. But they are living very much on borrowed time, just like the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the economy. As has been said, the Chancellor tinkered with the problems of the British economy; deserves to be called Tinkerbell.
  The Budget did not address the underlying structural weaknesses of the economy. The skids are under this Government. It is obvious to everybody, inside and outside the House, that they are out of touch with reality. When a Government get totally out of touch with the outside world, one knows that they are finished. They start to believe their own propaganda. In the speeches that we have heard tonight, there has perhaps been more realism, but some things that Ministers have said, and certainly what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said today, might lead one to believe that we have an economic miracle on our hands, that our problems are the problems of success. A £21 billion balance of trade deficit, including a deficit of £16 billion on manufactured goods, is some miracle.
  There was a time when this country, decade after decade, ran a surplus in manufactured goods. In fact, it was a Conservative Government who took us into deficit for the first time since the Napoleonic wars. In the past, people would say, "Never mind—the invisibles are saving us." But the invisibles, too, are now disappearing. The situation is going from bad to worse. Our inflation rate of 7·7 per cent. is double that in the major countries with which we compete, and there is talk of a dramatic increase of up to as much as 10 per cent. We have the highest interest rates in Europe. We have heard the litany many times, but what we have heard is true; these are all facts. If this is what the Tories call a miracle, I urge caution on any of them before they attempt to walk on water.
  The only miracle that I can see is the disappearance, over the past 10 years, of £84 billion of North sea oil revenues, £27 billion of privatisation receipts, and £24 billion from land sales—a massive total of £135 billion. In exchange for that, after 10 years, we have one of the worst economies in the EEC. We have seen poverty and homeless double. We have transport chaos all around us, particularly in London; we have a crumbling infrastructure in the country as a whole; and we have stunning growth in social and economic division. It takes enormous skill for a Government to take in such resources and squander them. Without North sea oil revenue, the continuing crisis in the British economy would have become a calamity of proportions not seen in Europe since the 1930s.
  I take no pleasure in saying these things. People involved in party politics experience some warmth from seeing their political opponents in real trouble, but I think about the impact that all these problems—the problems that these statistics reveal—create for the people in the London borough of Newham, which I represent. It is not
  1312
  the Chancellor who will have to live with the consequences of his Budget decisions; it is the people in the country. He has been getting it wrong in the same way as the Government have been getting it wrong almost every year since 1979.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry claimed that we had a success story in achieving last month a balance of payments deficit of £1·4 billion. That is now success for this Government. The figure has gone down from £2 billion to £1·4 billion. Anywhere else in the EEC, figures of that sort would be considered absolutely disastrous, but in Britain in 1990 a Tory Government claim that they are somehow a mark of success. The whole economic language has been totally distorted by this Government. It is "Maggie in Wonderland": words mean exactly what she wants them to mean. That is the reality of our economy in 1990.
  The City did not like the Budget very much. But, of course, I do not like the City very much. I have never been particularly keen on people who simply make money out of money. There is no patriotism in capitalism. Hot money follows the highest returns. The Government have had to make sure that in this country the highest returns can be obtained through high interest rates.
  The Chancellor and other Ministers claim that the purpose of high interest rates is to control inflation, but high interest rates themselves create inflation by putting up prices, especially for industry. High interest rates are really needed to prop up the pound. Our economy does not have the structural strength to entice people with money to invest it here on the grounds that they will get a good return. Money is here only to earn high interest, and as soon as interest rates come down, the money goes elsewhere. There is more certainty in the economic strength of other European economies.
  The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) referred to the more restrictive nature of the German economy. He talked in particular about the banking system in Germany. It is certainly true that the system there is far more restrictive than the system in this country, but that is also true of the Japanese economy and banking system. The hon. Gentleman knows far more about banking than I do, but I should think that the same is probably true of virtually every other European economy also. The Prime Minister has made it a boast that we have the most open economy in Europe, but because of all the structural weaknesses, an open economy, as she describes it, is a source of difficulty. It is rather like having a patient on a life support system and leaving all the windows open and hoping that somehow the patient will recover.
  Mr. Carrington: Do the hon. Gentleman's remarks imply that he would advocate the return by his party to exchange controls?
  Mr. Banks: Straight away I say yes, but the party does not say yes. That is the big difference. I want to give an honest answer to the question. The leadership of the Labour party must think about what will happen when there is freedom to move money out. I did not see the centre pages of the Daily Express, but I heard something about them on the radio. Apparently the Daily Express said that, had there been a Labour Government, even more billions would have gone out of the country because of the freedom of exchange. That is a problem that we must address.

  1313
  I am quite sure that the leadership of my party is as acutely aware of it as are the leader writers of the Daily Express, and far more aware of it than I am, and I am quite sure that they will address it in terms of their preparedness to act when we win the next election. But I say again that my answer is that I should support a return to exchange controls.
  In Newham last night, I did a bit of research into reaction to the Budget. I must confess that my methodology was not based on scientific sampling techniques; actually, it was based on some discussions in a snug at my local pub, the Builder's Arms. The Budget did not go down very well in the Builder's Arms. The beer did, but the Budget did not. The Chancellor said—and it has been repeated—that this is a savers' Budget, but the point that was made to me in the pub last night is that we do not have very much in the way of savings. Fares have gone up by 15 per cent.; rents are going up by about 27 per cent. as a result of the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988; gas, electricity and water charges have gone up. Mortgage repayments have gone up by £153 a month on average since June 1988. Poll tax, of course, will add about 0·75 per cent. to I per cent. to the retail prices index.
  Those are all Government own goals in the stoking up of inflation. They all represent charges on people's income or supplementary benefit moneys, for example. People do not have money left at the end of the week, or month, to put into new and fancy forms of saving. Will the Budget measures tempt people to save or will they merely encourage savers to switch their savings from one form of savings to another.
  The people in Newham do not choose between expenditure and savings. They do not say at the end of the week or the month, "We have this amount of money left over so we shall put it into savings." They will not examine all the savings plans that are available before opting for the one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says offers the best return. Instead, they have used their savings to finance day-to-day expenditure. Most of them do not have any money left at the end of the week or the month to put into savings.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented a tinkering Budget. It has been described as neutral, but I would say that it is largely irrelevant to the real problems of the economy. It seems that Britain is heading pell mell towards the status of a banana monarchy but without the benefit of bananas. I suppose that a banana monarchy would be the best description of a country that is led by a semi-demented petty tyrant in No. 10 Downing street. Fortunately, the skids are under her, and that started tonight.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. James Cran: It is a stated truism that it would not have made any difference what Budget the Government had introduced. Like Pavlov's dogs, the Opposition would have done entirely the predictable. They have attacked the Budget, and they would have attacked any other Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced. We all know why that is so. It is clear that some Opposition Members do not like the Budget, but the Opposition's profession is to run down the United Kingdom's economy. That sort of cynicism in
  1314
  British politics has been punished before, and I have a suspicion that it will be punished yet again. We all know that what we have heard over the past two days from the Opposition has been uttered merely for electoral reasons.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was correct when he said:
  "During the last year, business confidence in Britain has remained a good deal stronger than many expected."—[Official Report, 20 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1010.]
  It is certainly a good deal stronger than the Opposition wanted it to be. The economic facts of life have been blithely ignored by every Opposition Member whom I have heard this evening. The technique of politics would appear to be to ignore facts and to pour out unsubstantiated opinions.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cran: No. I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was correct to underline the fact—it has been ignored by the Opposition this evening—that new business formation is at a record level. The number of those who are in employment is, again, at a record level. It is astonishing that 27 million men and women are employed.
  I was astonished when I heard the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), who is a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, as I am, say that business investment is low. In fact, it is at a record level. So is company profitability, but I must say to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that although it may be at a 20-year high, it is not high enough by international standards. We would want to see it improved.
  I am prepared to be lectured by those who have done better than the record that the Government can present, but I must stress that that does not include the Opposition. When they had the opportunity, they failed dismally and entirely. I see no reason to suppose that they would do anything different if they ever had responsibility in future, although I doubt very much that they will have.
  Opposition Members have ignored what is happening in the regions, especially in the northern regions. They know as well as I do that we have seen something which has not been evident before in post-war years. The northern economies have been recovering far faster than anyone expected, and in some instances faster than the southern regions. That includes, definitely, Yorkshire and Humberside, the region which I come from.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cran: No. Some of my hon. Friends wish to speak, and I wish to allow them to do so.
  I do not expect Opposition Members to accept what I say. That being so, I am happy for them to adopt that approach. Let us remember, however, what was said at the Yorkshire and Humberside council of the CBI, which was reported on 14 March 1990, which means that the quotation is entirely up to date:
  "the general picture is of employment prospects and investment holding up well. From its current firm base, the Yorkshire and Humberside economy can now be expected to begin to grow more quickly."
  That runs contrary to the rubbish which I have been hearing all evening from Opposition Members. They say what they do because they want to win the next general election. That is why they ignore the facts.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cran: No. Sit down and listen to some of the truth, for a change.
  Opposition Members might believe what is said by the Labour leader of the Humberside county council. At the end of last year, he said:
  "Humberside continues to receive record levels of investment enquiries, many from overseas companies…For example, planning applications for industrial and commercial floorspace are up on last year's total by 20 per cent."
  For the purpose of my argument, he neatly added:
  "And it should be remembered that we are building upon a record year in 1988."
  Let us examine what the largest company in my constituency, British Aerospace, is doing. A news release from 14 March 1990, says that 1989 has been
  "another record year for profits and turnover…During 1989, 60 per cent. of British Aerospace sales were overseas and in the last 10 years the direct contribution to the UK balance of payments…was over £20 billion."
  That is the proper argument, not the nonsense that I have heard from Opposition Members about the rundown of British manufacturing. The progress that we are seeing in the country generally, and especially in Yorkshire and Humberside, would go out of the window if inflationary pressures were allowed to get out of hand.
  I am clear in my mind, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his, that inflation is public enemy No. 1. When I was the northern director of the CBI, based at Newcastle from 1979 onwards, I saw at first hand what inflation does to a regional economy, to the companies in that economy and, unfortunately, to the work force. Jobs were like snow on a spring day—here today and gone tomorrow. I left an extremely demoralised region. That is not the position now. Opposition Members should go to the north-east to see what is happening there now.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is absolutely correct to put the control of inflation at the top of his list of priorities. It is therefore axiomatic that high interest rates are indispensable. I do not need lectures from Opposition Members or anyone else to tell me that high interest rates are unpopular; my mail tells me so. Mortgagors do not like the present level of mortgages, and I understand that. It is understandable that small businesses do not like high interest rates because of the money they have to borrow.
  I am afraid that I must tell them quite simply that it is better for their budget to be stretched now than for them to have no budget at all in the future, because that is what would happen if inflation were allowed to get out of control. Opposition Members are experts at allowing inflation to get out of control; their record on that is second to none, and we should lose no opportunity of reminding them and the British people of that.
  I entirely accept that fiscal policy has a supporting role. I also accept that the stance that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has adopted is a tight one. I just wonder whether it is tight enough, and I slightly reserve my position. Having said that, I echo the words of other Conservative Members: the reaction of the City yesterday was histrionic and totally unjustified. Happily, that has been rectified today, and I think that it will continue to be so.
  On the subject of business taxation, I have one carp—I could go on a lot longer, but I know that other Government Members would like to speak—which is a
  1316
  question mark over corporation tax. In 1983–84, corporation tax was under £8 billion; in 1988–89, it was £18 billion. The Financial Secretary would say—indeed I will do it for him—that that reflects growing profitability. So it does. Under this Government, companies have actually been allowed to make profits to invest, and that is why we have 27 million people in work.
  The Opposition totally failed to do any of those things. Nevertheless, when the opportunity occurs, I think that the business community is looking for those rates to be re-examined because, as a proportion of GDP, our corporation tax levels are the highest in Europe. I do not think that they should remain there.
  The Budget has been innovative in the encouragement of savings, but I am cynical about whether it will have the desired effect. I am a cross between a Scotsman and a Yorkshireman, a devastating combination as far as the saving ethic is concerned. I have been saving since I was so high because it was inculcated in me; my parents insisted that I save threepenny Post Office savings stamps. That has all gone, for reasons that I am not sure I entirely understand. My savings ratio is such that, if it were repeated by everybody else, we would have very high levels of unemployment—so I do not suggest that others follow in my footsteps.
  While I wholly accept what the Chancellor says about the need to encourage saving, I am bound to say that, if one cannot persuade people to save at present high levels of interest, I wonder if they will be encouraged to save by the introduction of the TESSA scheme. I hope that it will work, but I just wonder whether it will.
  With those few caveats, I am very supportive of my right hon. Friend's Budget and I congratulate him on it. Yesterday, the shadow Chancellor appeared to me rather like a Church of Scotland minister, giving a sermon which was rather too trite for me and rather too trite for the British people. There was a smirk on his face which I have a feeling he will regret when the Budget bears fruit in coming years and we win the next general election.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I notice that the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) has not lost his combative style, which I first encountered when we were candidates for our respective parties in 1983. It is appropriate that I speak after him because, not surprisingly, being the leader of my party in Scotland I cannot speak on this Budget without making some reference to the poll tax. In my constituency, Conservative councillors will have some difficulty in resigning because there is only one left—and the hon. Member for Beverley may soon find himself in the same situation, the way things are moving.
  The statement on Tuesday was extraordinary, but what is even more extraordinary was that the Chancellor, who admittedly is always cool and impassive, seemed totally oblivious of the reason why heat was being generated on the Opposition Benches and north of the border. The idea that there should be some increase in the capital exemption below which people qualify for benefits was trailed in the press and generally acknowledged as something that the Government were planning to do, so it cannot have been a surprise. I even had letters from constituents last week, saying that, if such a relief were brought in, they hoped that I would do my best to ensure that the Scots were

  1317
  treated equally with the English, and I did—the tragedy for the Conservative party is that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not.
  In consequence, the Secretary of State for Scotland has a considerable amount of egg on his face. He failed to defend Scottish interests in the Cabinet. He then compounded the felony, having apparently—although it is not clear—been hauled over the coals by the Prime Minister, by insisting yesterday that it was quite impossible for any retrospective measure to be introduced in Scotland. Then, at half-past two this afternoon he tells a packed press conference that he has found the money and is going to introduce a retrospective scheme.
  Interestingly, the right hon. Gentleman found the money because his colleagues in the Cabinet had abandoned him to his fate; they had decided that on this occasion the Secretary of State for Scotland would not have the support of the Cabinet and that he must get out of a mess of which he had failed to warn them in advance. Consequently, although it is welcome news for up to 20,000 people in Scotland who will benefit from the change, the fact remains that these social security benefits will have to be financed out of the Scottish Office budget. That is extraordinary when, in England and Wales, the benefits will effectively be financed out of the Department of Social Security budget. Such a precedent will create problems in future.
  The shambolic consequences of the poll tax, of which this is just the latest twist, only reinforce my view that it will eventually have to be swept away because it is so inefficient, ultimately to be replaced by a local income tax which is a much simpler administrative system and also takes proper account of ability to pay. But that will have to await even more shocks for the Government and, I suspect, the annihilation of the Conservative party north of the border.
  Today's debate, at least as far as the Front Bench spokesmen are concerned, relates to trade and industry. The Secretary of State had the audacity to come to the Dispatch Box and announce a £1·4 billion deficit as good news. He is the only member of the Cabinet who could have done that, completely insensitive to the reactions of everyone around him.
  Despite the best endeavours of Conservative Members, it cannot be claimed, and the Government do not claim, that the economy is in the best shape. The Government maintain that they have it under control and that it will all come right, but they cannot blame our current problems on the Labour Government. It is not my task to defend the Labour party, but after 11 years in office the Government must explain the current position in terms of their own record.
  There are one or two points that the country should address in greater detail and to which all parties should give more thought. I welcome the Chancellor's positive measures to encourage savings and thrift. No one disputes that they are desirable. We have an open, free market system with a minimum of regulation and control, in which companies can sell and be sold, be broken up, bought, amalgamated or merged with far greater freedom than in other countries.
  The only other major economy to operate in that way is the United States, and it is interesting to note that the
  1318
  United Kingdom and the United States both operate major balance of payments deficits. In contrast, West Germany and Japan, which operate on an institutional basis with a high savings ratio and a high degree of thrift and long-term commitment, have the strongest balance of payments surpluses.
  It is all very well for Conservative Members to denounce what they regard as the rigid stranglehold of the banks on the German economy, but one of the beneficial effects of the structure of the German and Japanese economies is that it creates a climate in which long-term investment is positively encouraged and financiers and the financial backers of industry share that commitment because they are part of the process and are locked into the system. They are usually major shareholders and they usually participate in the board and its decision making.
  That is the fundamental difference between our economy and the German economy. We are driven by short-termism, which often undermines investment generally and investment in training and in research and development in a way that the German system does not. If Germany is moving in our direction, we should also be moving in its direction if we are to ensure that in the long term we have the necessary savings, investment and long term commitment.
  It is important that we see workplace nurseries not just as a benefit to women as individuals but as a vital first step in enabling the British economy to continue to operate effectively. We shall have to have more women in the work force so that we can make full use of their skills. However, there is a case for going much further than the Chancellor has done. For example, vouchers for workplace nurseries might be a way forward. That would ensure that all women would benefit, either by enabling employers to group together to provide nurseries, for example on an industrial estate, or by enabling small businesses to provide a voucher which will enable women to take advantage of it.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) made a lengthy point about the implications of the increased duty on spirits. However, whisky is different from all other spirits, since it is a statutory requirement that it should mature for three years before it can be marketed as Scotch. Since the abolition of stock relief, it has been the constant complaint of the industry that it has been at a disadvantage compared with its competitors. In those circumstances, the case for a statutory maturation allowance, for which the industry has been campaigning, has been strengthened by the Chancellor's determination to index the duty on spirits by more than the current rate of inflation. Whisky's contribution to the United Kingdom economy is of such importance and its importance in Scotland is so great, that it is time that serious consideration was given to that.
  There is a major gap in the Budget—the omission of taxation measures designed to have a beneficial environmental impact. The absence of such measures shows that the Government are in considerable trouble in terms of reconciling the Prime Minister's rhetoric on environmental matters with their record on environmental matters. That reinforces something that I have noticed in the past year—that the Secretary of State for the Environment does not carry the Cabinet with him and is not getting his message across to his Cabinet colleagues so that they understand how pervasive environmentalism has to be if it is to be effective.

  1319
  The Chancellor made no acknowledgment of his potential to influence things in a positive direction. He could, for instance, have introduced changes in vehicle excise duty to take account of the size of engines. That would encourage people to use more efficient engines, and would benefit people on low incomes in rural areas, who could switch to lower-taxed smaller cars from higher-taxed large cars. He should also have proceeded rapidly with the abolition of company car privileges, which are one of the main reasons why London's roads are choked. That would have resolved two problems in one.
  The Chancellor should also have introduced tax incentives for catalytic converters, and he should have heralded grants for specific environmental projects—for example, grants to recover chlorofluorocarbons, both in industry and privately, and grants for energy efficiency. One thing that my party believes that he should have done was to introduce emission ceiling licences for toxic emissions. That must be implemented if we are to achieve real reductions in carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions. We cannot wait for the White Paper, or for next year's Budget. Plainly, although the Secretary of State for the Environment makes good speeches, his Cabinet colleagues do not listen to them.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Tim Janman: It would be tempting to go over some of the empty rhetoric and lectures that we have heard from Opposition Members tonight about how to run an economy. The Leader of the Opposition seems to think that he can run a capitalist economy better than the party that believes in capitalism. Sincere though they may be in their views on the current position, the Opposition Members who have spoken tonight came into politics not because of their commitment to capitalism or free markets but to try to disrupt that mechanism and to drag the country in exactly the direction from which the Soviet Union, East Germany, Hungary, Romania and others are running away as quickly as they can. That will become extremely obvious to the electorate at the time of the next general election.
  I want to concentrate on the monetary policy in the Budget. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran)—although he was talking about the fiscal aspects, and I believe that the monetary aspects are more important—in that I share his slight scepticism as to whether the Budget is tight enough.
  On page 12 of the Red Book, under the section on monetary policy, there is a nice little graph that charts narrow money and broad money growth from 1974 to 1989. It is noticeable that the narrow money line is in dark ink, whereas broad money is represented by a much fainter dotted line. That tells the reader how much importance the Treasury attaches to the two measures. The graph is rather meaningless, because it does not contain the line that it should have to show what the retail prices index was doing over a similar period. Anyone looking at the graph cannot see the relationship between narrow and broad money and what is happening to inflation.
  If we were to plot the retail prices index on an annual basis for that period, and draw it on the graph, it would be clear that there is a firm relationship not only between narrow money—M0—and inflation, but between broad
  1320
  money and inflation—allowing for the 18 to 24 months time lag that inevitably occurs between what is happening to broad money and what is happening to inflation.
  Dividing the graph into five periods shows that the excessive broad money growth between 1972 and 1973—the period of history just before the graph starts—caused the high inflation of 1974–75. A tighter broad money policy between 1974 and 1975 led to much lower inflation in 1976–78. Given the shambles that the Labour Government of the time had got the economy into, we then had one of the most hard-line monetarist Budgets of the past 15 to 20 years, which succeeded in bringing inflation down.
  With the general election of the late 1970s approaching, broad money growth was relaxed again in late 1977. That led to much higher inflation from late 1979 through to early 1981. Then broad money was tightened again, and between 1979 and 1985 a fairly firm grip on broad money was kept in the United Kingdom. It produced quite a long period of low inflation, from 1981 to 1986.
  Since 1985, an ever more relaxed attitude to broad money growth in the United Kingdom's economy has been adopted. As a result, since 1986 we have once again had higher inflation than we had in the early and middle 1980s.
  Contrary to what the Treasury says, it is therefore clear that there is a relationship between narrow money and inflation and between broad money and inflation. That means that the Chancellor is absolutely right to set a target of between 1 and 5 per cent. annual growth for narrow money and to reduce that target range from 1 to 5 per cent. to zero to 4 per cent. in the years ahead. How can my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, however, be so confident that with an annual growth in broad money of about 18 per cent. we can reach the sort of inflation targets that our party wants to reach?
  Furthermore, given that the broad money supply is important and related to inflation, why cannot we have some reduction in the standard rate of income tax? A cut in tax merely transfers money, and hence spending power, from the state to the individual. I hope that the Minister will address that point when he winds up the debate and that he will explain why that transfer is inflationary. After all, it is not only the notes and coins in circulation that are important for future inflationary trends; it is the total amount of money in the economy as measured by M4 or any other broad money measure.
  This has been a good and responsible Budget, which will steer the economy through the present fairly choppy waters back into the calm sea of the growth of the past few years. I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor once again to examine the importance of broad money and determine that there is a relationship between it and inflation. If broad money continues to grow at an annual rate of 18 per cent., my right hon. Friend will not meet the important inflation targets that he gave the House two days ago.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) began by talking about Socialists and Socialism, and it sounded as though he had lifted his remarks straight from a Conservative Central Office publication. I will explain to him why I became a Socialist many years ago. I saw people clearing snow because they had no alternative—they were

  1321
  obliged to do it or they would not receive any unemployment or other benefit. I saw people going without food, children without shoes and youngsters without trousers. I discovered that Tories, Tory politics and Tory policies had caused that situation, and I determined to do something about it when I could.
  I looked for the best party to help me to ameliorate those conditions. I examined the Communist party, but resolved that it was too rigid. The Labour party, I thought, had the right policies, attitudes and sensitivity. It was clearly the right party for me and for the people whom I later represented.
  I fear that those days would return. I am not referring to the precise circumstances that I saw all those years ago, but to a return to the type of Tory philosophy which caused that state of affairs to arise. I accept that people are not in those dire straits, although in some areas they are getting close to it.
  The hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) talked about Yorkshire and Humberside, when he should have talked about his constituency in that whole area. He should not have included my constituency by lumping the region under the title of Yorkshire and Humberside. I say that because my constituency has 14·1 per cent. male unemployment and 5·9 per cent. female unemployment. The unemployment rate among females is rising, against the national trend. If the hon. Gentleman studies the statistics for the whole area, he will see that the situation in south Yorkshire is totally different from the rest of Yorkshire. That is why he should not lump Yorkshire and Humberside together.
  The Government have got the poll tax issue all wrong. To begin with, the standard spending assessment is calculated on figures that were used for the rate support grant, and those figures were wrong in many respects. Two years ago, I told my constituents what the rate of poll tax would be and I was only £7 out, although I was £122 out, according to the Government.
  If we have to abide by the standard spending assessment that has been laid down, we shall have to close every nursery school, dismiss every home help, serve no meals on wheels and get rid of every non-statutory obligation that we are undertaking.
  Mr. Janman indicated dissent.
  Mr. McKay: It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. What I say is true. If he doubts it, I will provide him with the facts and figures. I fear that, by dissenting in that way, he wishes to return to the days and events which led me to become a Socialist. He does not know what he is talking about, and by dissenting in that way he is showing his insensitivity. That is typical of the Tories, and the people are fed up with them.
  The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when we first started to discuss the poll tax, my hon. Friends and I offered—because we knew that the Government were wrong—to have discussions about alternatives to the rating system, but our suggestion was turned down.
  The Chancellor has raised the savings limit up to which benefit can be received to £16,000, and I am grateful for that. But he omitted to tell people that, because of the way in which the taper will work between £3,000 and £16,000,
  1322
  a person with the maximum sum allowable in the bank with additional income of £52 on top of the pension will not receive benefit.
  Mr. Janman rose——
  Mr. McKay: I have only two minutes in which to speak. The hon. Gentleman had his chance.
  Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman should give way because he attacked me.
  Mr. McKay: No. I am anxious to raise a few matters which need urgent attention from the Government.
  Sir William Clark: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.
  Mr. McKay: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have not got my facts right, he can check them for himself, as I have checked them.
  Mr. Janman rose——
  Mr. McKay: No—sit down.
  I want the Government to take note of what is happening with Yorkshire Water. Water charges in the area have increased on average by 11 per cent., the standing charge has increased by 100 per cent., the connection charge for a new single dwelling has increased by 900 per cent. and there are proposals to add that amount of increase to each dwelling in a multiple-dwelling development, thus creating an impossible situation.
  Then there is the situation with regard to the sale of council houses. People come to me who are homeless and ask for help because they can no longer afford the council houses that they bought in good faith and which at the time seemed a good buy. We want local authorities to be able to buy those houses back, so that people will not be turned out but will be able to remain in their homes as tenants.
  9.20 pm
  Dr. John Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) should not worry too much about the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who is clearly quite in error if he thinks that one has to go to Russia to see privation and people who do not have enough money for a decent standard of living. One has only to go to the arches under Charing Cross station or anywhere along the Embankment to see young people begging. That was never seen under a Labour Government, but it is seen under this Conservative Government.
  The Budget and the Chancellor's Budget statement on Tuesday are set against the bleakest economic prospects that I can remember. Despite the once-for-all benefit of North sea oil revenues of £83 billion over the last 11 years, we are on the brink of a recession. Last year saw the biggest ever balance of payments deficit, £20·;4 billion, and in the final quarter of 1989, for the first time ever, our invisible earnings were in the red to the tune of £713 million. The Government have brought this situation about.
  That is not something which Government Members can spirit away; they cannot say that it is nothing to do with them, that it is the fickle British public borrowing more than they should and bringing in imports, and that the situation will eventually right itself. That cannot be the

  1323
  excuse. Inflation and a run on the pound will be the consequences of such a hands-off policy and in the long run no Government could hope to win any battle without addressing themselves to the crucial question of the balance of payments or of economic and monetary union.
  Since the possibility of economic and monetary union is not on the agenda, I looked for something in the Budget that would help our exports, or at least generate import substitution. But I looked in vain.
  I must thank all my hon. Friends for their contributions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). I am concerned about the health of the whisky industry. It is important to this country, and I hope that the increases will not place unacceptable limits on its operation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) made good points about football and the pools betting duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) made the valid point that the number of nurseries—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Croydon. South (Sir W. Clark) would not keep interrupting. It does not do either him or this debate and good. For the benefit of his Back Benchers, the winding up started 20 minutes late, so if he would allow me to get through what I have to say I should be very grateful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South made a number of points about nurseries and said that the Government's concession would not benefit as many people as had been hoped. He has apologised to the House because he has had to leave on an urgent matter, but I have to say to him—I am sure that he will read the record of the debate—that I hope that, as a result of the Government's concession on workplace nurseries, many more employers will set up nurseries.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made very good points about low pay, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) made pertinent points about training and, finally, my hon. Friend for Barnsley, West and Penistone made the real point that there is poverty and privation in this country and that the Government have done nothing about it.
  I looked in vain in the Budget for measures that would change the depressing economic situation we face. Since then, there have been changes. The Government have been forced to rewrite bits of the Budget and they are still rewriting them. I expect that there are many civil servants working out how they can do something about Scotland over the weekend before the Secretary of State has to make an announcement to the House next Monday or Tuesday.
  There are measures in the Budget that are not only acceptable to us, but to which we give a general welcome. An example is the proposed removal of workplace nurseries from the tax net. We opposed the introduction of such taxation while the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. We said then that, although we recognised and agreed with the Government's aim of removing unwarranted and unjustified tax breaks for privileged groups, workplace nurseries were not in that category. We said that they were essential to working women with children and not a luxury.
  I well remember well our debates in Committee on this subject—which were of no avail until now—so I welcome the Government's change of mind. The Government have
  1324
  gone about it in the right way by taking workplace nurseries out of the tax net. The reintroduction of a tax allowance would have created tax breaks which, for many, would have been unjustified and unnecessary. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made some points that deserve further consideration and which may have some validity.
  We also welcome the announcement of a scheme whereby VAT-registered traders will not have to pay VAT on bad debts. It has always been highly iniquitous that traders have had to pay VAT on outputs even though inputs could not eventually be recovered and a bad debt had virtually to be written off. However, I must give a word of caution. I hope that the scheme, when it is detailed in the Finance Bill, will be administratively good and that it will not lead to an increase in VAT evasion. I hope that the Economic Secretary will say a few words on that in his reply.
  We also welcome the help for charities. Reliefs for water ambulances and certain medical equipment are rightly being provided, but there are other possibilities on items such as advertising and building that could be explored. There was near-consensus on these matters last year in Committee, and I hope that the same will happen again this year. The Opposition will be tabling amendments on charities when the Finance Bill is in Committee.
  We are worried about the effects of the petrol price rise on the disabled who participate in the mobility scheme and who opt to give up the whole of the Department of Social Security disability allowance for the three-year lease or hire period. We wonder whether any compensatory effect could be introduced for that scheme. If the Economic Secretary cannot answer that point immediately, I hope that he will at least consider it. Again, it is a matter to which we can return when the Finance Bill is published.
  The help for football is especially welcome. I am worried that the first and second divisions of the Football League will gain most of the money and that the third and fourth divisions, as a result of their lower attendances and lesser needs for safety, may have nothing. The Economic Secretary is shaking his head. I am pleased at that, because every football club in the league needs at least a reasonable proportion of this money to make its ground safer. The question about money for other sports has not been addressed, and it needs to be addressed at some point.
  We are not so pleased about the way of increasing the company car scales. For many people, a company car is an extremely good perk and the present taxation is not sufficient. In the London area, far too many business executives drive their company cars with one passenger per car. That makes life a misery for commuters and the rest of the travelling public and the wife is often left stranded at home for the working day.
  There is also the problem of evasion. Some executives who should know better regularly allow their accountants to file tax returns that they know to be false. That cannot be good, and greater action—
  Sir William Clark: No.
  Dr. Marek: It is true. Greater action needs to be taken by the Inland Revenue. The other side of the coin is that, for many occupations, a car is a tool of the trade and a

  1325
  necessity. We therefore believe that the taxation system should do more to differentiate between that category of user and others.
  Yesterday, I went to a Budget briefing by Price Waterhouse. After what I am about to say, I do not know whether it will invite me to another. Many learned experts appeared on the television screen. They said that three things would appear on the next boardroom agenda. They were summarised as cars, creches and training. In some ways, it is a sad commentary on companies in this country that the first item to appear on boardroom agendas will be cars. That is a pity. I also hope that the unions will ensure that employers do not escape their responsibilities about creches as a result of any concessions.
  In that briefing, Price Waterhouse believed that company cars remain an excellent perk. I should like to know what Price Waterhouse told the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Was he told that company cars were an excellent perk, or was he told something different on behalf of Price Waterhouse clients? Price Waterhouse also said that directors will consider themselves lucky to have got away with £5 or so a week for running the biggest executive cars such as large Volvos, BMWs and Rolls-Royces. Price Waterhouse said that the 20 per cent. increase was 10 per cent. less than expected, and that people with company cars have done very well.
  The Government clearly have some way to go. We ask them to bear in mind the tool-of-the-trade car user for whom the use of a car is essential. However, company cars are an excellent perk and they must be taxed. We expect the Government to do something about that.
  The Budget, as I have said, will not solve the economy's major problems. The Government must play a vital part in providing conditions for proper training. However, they are set on reducing spending on employment training by £350 million over the next three years. The Budget's proposal that contributions to training and enterprise councils should be made tax-deductible will not compensate for those cuts in training. There can be no substitute for a proper training scheme to harness the latent skills of our people.
  An efficient and effective transport system is also vital. Industry needs to transport is goods, and people need to get to work. The roads are overcrowded and inadequate. British Rail, in its already underfunded state, will have its direct grants cut by one third to £345 million over the next three years. People who work in London will continue to have to put up with unacceptable conditions when they travel to and from work and they will be made to pay more for the privilege. Rail fare increases of between 9 and 15 per cent. have been announced. That is surely a good example of a Government inflationary own goal.
  A proper transport structure is essential; spending money on one need not be inflationary, and may even be counter-inflationary. As the Government are bearing down on inflation, why have they insisted that BR should raise its prices by between 9 and 15 per cent.? Was that an unintentional inflationary own goal? Not on your life. There have been other Government inflationary own goals. Energy prices are set to continue to increase well above inflation. The London electricity board has just announced plans to increase domestic tariffs by 9·5 per cent. and that will mean an extra £52 on the average bill of
  1326
  a domestic customer. Of course, the industry is being fattened up for privatisation, but those tariff increases will increase inflation.
  Council house rents are also rising. Tenants in Canterbury will pay an extra £12·29 a week. Redbridge tenants will pay an extra £15 a week—
  Mr. Gale: One third of the area of Canterbury city council area is in my constituency. Council tenants in Canterbury were offered the opportunity of housing association guaranteed rent rises of inflation plus 2 per cent. over five years. It was bad advice from the local Labour party that led them to the pass in which they now find themselves.
  Dr. Marek: They are in their present predicament because of the Government's policies, not for any other reason. They wanted to remain council tenants and that was their right. They did not want the ownership of their council houses transferred to an arbitrary body. They have kept that right, but at the expense of crippling increases in their council rents.
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman is trying to talk his way out of it.
  Dr. Marek: I have no need to do that.
  Water charges are increasing by well over the rate of inflation and will continue to do so if the Government remain in office. The average increase will be 13·5 per cent. All those increases are inflationary own goals by the Government, when inflation in other countries is much lower than it is here. The Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Conservative Back Benchers continue to tell us that they are firm in their intent to bear down on inflation. They had better start by tidying up their own back yard. All the measures that the Government have introduced relating to public utilities contribute to inflation, yet we are told that the Government are bearing down on inflation. They are bearing down in inflation by insisting on crippling interest rates which crucify anyone who has a mortgage.
  As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in his place, may I quote from a speech that he made on 19 March 1982 when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury? He said:
  "They argued that if the Government were to spend more money, we would get more business activity, more jobs, and with no adverse side effects."
  Presumably he was talking about Labour Members. He added:
  "We always argued that the adverse side effects of doing so would be higher interest rates; that the less the Government spent, the less it had to borrow, the lower interest rates would be."
  That was in 1982. Many years have gone by since then. Where are interest rates now? We have interest rates of 15 per cent.
  Mr. Ridley: Is not it truer than ever now that, if we were spending at the levels that the Labour party wants—the hon. Gentleman has put in his plea for extra spending in the past 10 minutes—we would have to have even higher interest rates than now?
  Dr. Marek: I have not put in any quantified plea for extra spending, but the speech of the Secretary of State stands on the record. After eight years, instead of lower

  1327
  interest rates, we have the highest interest rates, which crucify everyone in the United Kingdom who has a mortgage.
  In another speech, this time on 11 July 1980—going back a little further—the Secretary of State said:
  "Viewed from abroad, where spend much time,"— the only pity is that he does not spend more time there—"the admiration of our friends for the Government's policies is unbounded…Why is there such interest and such admiration overseas? I think the answer is that many people think that Britain has an economic sickness…What is the sickness, and what is the cure— The sickness is inflation."
  What inflation rate do we have now— It is 7·7 per cent. and predicted to rise to over 9 per cent. It could touch 10 per cent. by the end of the year.
  In his opening speech, the Secretary of State said that what had been the sick man of Europe was now doing well. I do not follow the logic of that. If we were sick in 1980, we are sick now. After 10 years of Tory rule, we have not improved. The most that the Conservative Government have done is bandage up the victim and leave him unattended in the hospital. Until we get rid of this Government, we shall not be able to employ any curative policies.
  Mr. Ridley: What is sick about an increase of one third in the net standard of living in real terms for the man on the average wage? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of another country that has done so well in 10 years? When did the Labour party ever achieve anything like that? What is sick about that?
  Dr. Marek: The standard of living has been increasing in the developed world. There is no doubt about that. It has increased in other countries a great deal more than it has in Britain. My criticism is that, although some people in employment in Britain have done well, people who have not been in employment, such as old-age pensioners and the unemployed, have not done well by comparison with those in employment.
  Mr. Ridley: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are more people in employment than ever before—almost 27 million? Does he realise that the figures I quoted were for the average wage? Does he realise that we have gained ground against the Germans, the French and all other countries in Europe, and even the United States in terms of net standard of living? Where does the hon. Gentleman get all his gloom from? One would have thought that he had never left Czechoslovakia.
  Dr. Marek: The Secretary of State should listen to what the Prime Minister has said. We still have to catch up with the French. The right hon. Gentleman will have to make his excuses to his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, because I shall take one minute of his time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind, but tonight's performance has been the greatest bout of activity from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that I have witnessed for a long time.
  The country has been split. It is true that some people have done well, but not if they have been unemployed, not if they are old-age pensioners and certainly not if they have a mortgage. The monthly mortgage increase for existing home buyers is £134·29—[Interruption.] No, that is a clear figure. No amount of tax cuts could make up for that increase.
  1328
  We can fight our way out of this terrible situation only if the Government recognise our position as a trading nation and as a creator of wealth. Manufacturing industry's growth rate has fallen from 8 per cent. to 1 per cent. Although manufacturing output rose by 4·75 per cent. in 1989, it is expected to stand still in 1990, and the Chancellor now predicts a fall in fixed investment of 1·25 per cent.
  We need measures to dampen the explosion in credit without using the one-club policy of interest rates. Negotiations about entering the ERM are necessary, as are incentives for manufacturing industry, but we looked in vain for them in the Budget. Any fiscal tightening that is necessary could have been achieved by reversing some of the huge tax cuts that were given to the super-rich in the infamous Budget of 1988. Opposition Members looked in vain for any measures that would benefit the country and all its people. We saw nothing in the Budget except some tinkering with which I have no argument. There was nothing in the Budget about the necessity for a sound economy.
  As the electors of Mid-Staffordshire are now demonstrating, the public agree with us and yearn for the day of the general election so that we can turf out this Government.
  9.41 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): May I begin by saying how sorry I was to hear earlier today about the death of the hon. Member for Bootle, Mr. Alan Roberts? He played an active role in the House and was an expert on many aspects of environmental policy. The condolences of the entire House go out to his family and friends.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), who have spoken, have expressed their apologies for not being present for the wind-up speeches.
  It is easy to forget—it has certainly been easy to forget this today while listening to some Opposition Members—that, over the past 10 years, the British people have achieved far, far more than the gloom merchants, such as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), thought possible in 1980. Output, manufacturing productivity, investment, jobs and prosperity increased at rates unwitnessed for decades. We only have to look around us in our constituencies to see new offices, new factories, new shopping centres, new homes and millions of new shareholders—all signs of Britain's new prosperity.
  We want to build on those successes in the 1990s—and we can do so as long as we control inflation. It penalises thrift and destroys savings. At present, inflation is too high. Interest rates may appear to some people to make it worse in the short term. To start with, of course, they do, but they also cure it. Once inflation is on a sustained downward path, interest and mortgage rates will follow. That will relieve the pressure on mortgage payers, especially young married couples, who find life difficult at present.
  This Budget is a tough Budget. It raises taxes for the first time since 1981, by nearly £500 million this year and £1 billion next year. It also means that we shall enjoy a fourth successive year of substantial debt repayment. No

  1329
  other major industrial country, except Japan, has a budget surplus. Ours is £7 billion. So it clearly flies in the face of the facts to argue that fiscal policy is not tight.
  This Budget is also a tough Budget because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it quite clear that interest rates will remain high for some time to come. There can be no relaxation in monetary policy—the battle against inflation is too important for that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and for Beverley (Mr. Cran) have argued so forcibly and effectively.
  As my hon. Friends know, the Budget reinforces our strong stand against inflation and our determination to reduce it. Indeed, inflation is forecast to fall to less than 5 per cent. during next year. The Government's policies are tackling the root of the problem, as I am sure the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) knows in his heart of hearts. Retail sales are now only 2 per cent. up on the year, which is significantly below the rate of growth in 1988 and early 1989. The housing market has slowed markedly and new car sales are also down.
  During the past few days there have been suggestions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should have done more with fiscal policy, as if fiscal policy could somehow take precedence over monetary policy in the fight against inflation. Fiscal policy has a clear role to play in supporting monetary policy; they act together. Using fiscal policy to try to manage demand in the short term would be impractical and inflexible. What is more, it would run counter to all that we have achieved over the past 10 years in getting down tax rates and creating a stable, consistent environment for businesses, earners and savers. At the same time, those lower tax rates have actually produced more revenue than did the high rates that we inherited from Labour in 1979.
  The Government are not in the habit of raising direct taxation, unlike Opposition Members—who, although they do not care to admit it, would like to return to the bad old days of penal tax rates and low incentives. They do not appear to have noticed the moves throughout the world to follow our lead in cutting taxes and broadening the tax base. Even the Socialist Governments of France, Sweden, Spain, Australia and New Zealand have all reduced their direct tax rates—yet the Opposition still want to raise taxes. They are far removed from reality.
  I wish to deal briefly with excise duties, which were raised not only by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) in the latter stages of the debate, but by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), who must have left to catch the sleeper. However, I want to answer his points.
  When setting excise duties, we need to take account of a number of factors, including inflation, health and revenue considerations. All those matters are borne in mind in reaching a judgment on the right level. We must also remember that the Budget will keep the real costs of some products on which Excise duties are paid at the same level as they were last year. For example, although the duties on petrol and DERV have gone up by more than the statutory indexation figure, the difference covers an unchanged vehicle excise duty—or road tax—for cars, buses, coaches, taxis and many lorries. The real cost of motoring will be the same as last year.
  1330
  The same is true of wine and beer. On cigarettes and spirits—the hon. Member for Gordon was especially interested in spirits—we are increasing duties above the rate of inflation, but only slightly so. It is just a little over 2p a packet more for cigarettes than would have been the case if we had simply indexed the duty, and 12p to 13p more for a bottle of spirits. The real level of duty on both those items has fallen during the past few years. Indeed, excise duties on spirits have not increased since 1985. Those points were made effectively by my hon. Friends the Members for Delyn and for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine).
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does not the Minister accept that whisky is in a special category? Its three-year maturation period means that it costs more than other spirits with which it has to compete.
  Mr. Ryder: No one underestimates the immense success and efficiency of the Scotch whisky industry. Spirit duties on whisky have not been raised since 1985. During that time, there has been about a 25 per cent. increase in the retail prices index. On that basis, no one can say that the Government have been unfair to the Scotch whisky industry.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon is a member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, and it was the Trades Union Congress that made Budget representations to the Government recommending that excise duties should be double-indexed. I advise the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon that, next year, he should have a word with his friends on the AUEW and the TUC to see whether they can review the Budget representations that they make to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  As the House knows, and as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) acknowledged, there are some important changes to business taxation in the Budget, some of which have been referred to in the debate and all of which have been widely welcomed. The extension of bad debt relief, referred to by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), should be of particular benefit to growing businesses. The simplification of VAT registration requirements removes a long-standing irritant from smaller firms. Instead of having to undergo four different turnover tests, they will be subject to just one simple test, based on turnover in the preceding 12 months.
  The increase in the small companies' corporation tax thresholds will mean that those limits have been doubled in two years, and will benefit 20,000 small and medium-sized companies. Our tax regime for small and medium-sized businesses is the best and most generous among major industrial countries. What a contrast that is to the structure that we inherited from Labour. Then, the small companies rate of corporation tax was 42 per cent., and now it is just 25 per cent. The main rate has fallen from 52 to 35 per cent. The small companies' threshold is now two thirds higher than it was under Labour in real terms. The upper limit, after which the main rate of CT is payable, has increased nearly fivefold.
  Arguments on investment were raised during today's and yesterday's debates. The rapid growth of investment is a clear sign that British firms have confidence in the future, and are prepared to make the commitment necessary to take advantage of the opportunities opening up in western

  1331
  and eastern Europe, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer highlighted at the start if his Budget speech.
  Business investment grew by almost 9 per cent. last year, bringing the increase over the past three years to more than 40 per cent. and total investment in 1987–88 showed the largest two-year increase since the war. The increase in investment is not just a short-term phenomenon. Even going all the way back to 1979, total investment has grown faster than total consumption. Total investment in the United Kingdom during the 1980s grew faster than in any other western European country and among the major non-EC countries has been exceeded by only Japan.
  We have heard some speeches from the Opposition about research and development expenditure. From what they have been saying, one could almost get the impression that the United Kingdom undertook no significant research and development. That is not correct. Britain is the fourth largest spender on research and development in the western world. British firms are not complacent. Expenditure on research and development by industry, as a percentage of its contribution to GDP, is about the same in the United Kingdom as that in both Japan and the United States, and is ahead of that in France and Italy. Of the major nations, only Germany does more, but not that much more.
  A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and for Gordon, emphasised the importance of environmental factors. As the hon. Member for Gordon knows, the Government are fully conscious of the importance of the environment and have already taken action on a number of fronts to benefit the environment and prevent pollution. Indeed, that is why the United Kingdom was a party to the EC agreement in Brussels a year ago that catalytic converters should be compulsory for most new cars by the end of 1992. That agreement makes it unnecessary for there to be any additional fiscal incentive at the moment. It is very encouraging that many manufacturers are already responding by including converters in new models, as we all know from the new advertising campaigns on television.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, referred to my right hon. Friend's measures concerning football. I am glad that my right hon. Friend's proposal has attracted a good response, not least from the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend is an avid supporter of football; he and I both support Ipswich Town.
  It was not just the hon. Members for Bradford constituencies, two of whom are in the Chamber at the moment, or my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who were appalled by the incidents at the Sheffield and Bradford stadiums. Football is our national sport, and we must improve the quality and safety of football grounds. We want to see stands filled with people who formerly supported football and with families, and we hope and expect that our prompt and positive response to Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations will help to achieve that aim.
  1332
  I can assure the hon. Member for Vauxhall that we are acting straight away——
  Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Ryder: I cannot give way.
  We are acting straight away. Officials will be meeting the pools promoters and the Football Trust next Tuesday. Let us all hope that agreement will be reached quickly, so that football clubs can start to reap the benefits of the change that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made.
  Some people have suggested that what we have done for football is not enough, but we are offering £100 million over five years, which, together with the £75 million that the Football Trust has already promised, is a considerable amount of money. Our discussions with the Football Trust will aim to ensure that the money saved from the cut in pool betting duty is distributed among clubs according to need. At the same time, I think that the House will agree that at least some of the money needed should be provided by the clubs themselves. The first reaction from the clubs has been positive, and I hope that they will respond favourably in the next few weeks.
  As hon. Members know, this measure is designed to help football. It is a sign of our strong concern that the football safety recommendations in the Taylor report should be carried out as quickly as possible. The money saved from pool betting duty arises almost wholly from betting on football, and it is right that those proceeds should go to the game to improve the lot of the fans. I think that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Vauxhall.
  It would be inappropriate not to end the debate today with a brief reference to the lack of alternatives from the Labour party. The Opposition have failed consistently to answer the key questions on the economy. What would the standard rate of income tax be under Labour? Which taxes would Labour raise? How much would people lose as a result of Labour's national insurance plans? Would Labour reintroduce exchange controls or import controls? Would Labour introduce mortgage controls?
  Those are the questions that the Labour party has repeatedly failed to answer during the debate. They are key questions, and we shall return to them time and again, until we get real answers from the Labour Front Bench. By its evasions this week, the Labour party has discarded any openness. The party, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, shrank from principle and dodged its duty to the electorate to explain its alternatives. Labour's daily veneration of verbosity at the expense of substance will be seen as exactly what it is—dishonest and discreditable.
  Contrary to the futile claims of the Labour party, Britain enjoyed a decade of unmatched prosperity in the 1980s. I am confident that my right hon. Friend's Budget will set a launch pad for another decade of success for Britain. This savers' Budget took no risks with inflation, helped the less well-off, gave women a fairer deal, assisted small businesses and provided a large boost to charities and sport.
  Debate adjourned—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  India
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick]
  10 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: I am pleased to introduce a short debate on relations between Her Majesty's Government and India, the first such debate in the House for some considerable time. I have recently returned from a brief visit to India, and I thank the authorities, especially the governor of the Punjab, for their assistance and co-operation, and a range of human rights organisations and their brave and dedicated members for their help and support during my visit.
  My main purpose was to investigate human rights in the Punjab. With the intractable problem of Northern Ireland much in my mind, I realise that no Britisher in India can feel superior when discussing human rights in the Punjab, where the forces of law and order are pitched against terrorists. I talked to police officers in the Punjab who, like security officers in Northern Ireland, told me that many of the terrorists were gangsters who preyed on Sikhs and Hindus for money and power. Few, they argued, were motivated by dreams of an independent Khalistan.
  I talked to human rights groups in the Punjab who, like their counterparts in Northern Ireland, told me that state violence and repression had alienated many in the Punjab, Sikh and Hindu, and had provoked widespread violence and terror. Both sides claimed, rightly I am sure, that all ordinary people in the Punjab, Sikh and non-Sikh, are sickened by violence and want an end to it. I talked to scores of those ordinary people, and their stories were deeply disturbing.
  I shall never forget the Sikh father whose 14-year-old daughter was raped and drowned by a police officer. The father was brutally beaten by police three times over two days. He was seeking the return of his daughter's body for cremation. He was warned that, if he did not stop complaining, what had happened to his 14-year-old daughter would happen to his seven-year-old daughter. The father is refusing to wear shoes until he gets justice.
  I shall not forget the young Sikh who was shot as a terrorist after he stood with his arms above his head in a field for five minutes. The police later admitted that they had made a mistake. Senior police officers saluted at the young man's cremation. His family is still waiting for the compensation that it was promised.
  I shall not forget the relatives of the young man who was shot while marching in a Sikh religious festival. Again, the police admitted a mistake. His brother has been warned off pressing for police officers to be punished.
  I shall not forget the 500 prisoners in the Amritsar security prison who lined up in the sun to meet me and my team. Each one was holding his record papers. There were more than 300 held on petty offences without bail. The youngest was a boy of 14½ who had been held in that prison for eight months without trial.
  There were mothers and daughters who talked about their husbands and brothers who had been abducted by the police months and even years ago. There were men and women who showed us bruises, scars, broken arms and broken legs that were the result of police interrogation. I shall never forget the men and women who complained of
  1334
  systematic police harassment, with regular house searches, property smashed, goods and money stolen, and threats of extortion of money to avoid imprisonment.
  There is no doubt that Operation Bluestar, the Army code name for the attack on the Golden temple in 1984, will never be forgotten or forgiven by most Sikhs. It defiled their holiest place and strengthened the view of many of them that the last Indian Government had embarked upon a deliberate policy of eradicating Sikhs, who form just 2 per cent. of India's population. Such feelings were intensified by the massacre of 5,000 Sikhs in Delhi hours after the assassination of Mrs. Indira Ghandi and of many Sikhs in other parts of India.
  In Delhi, I visited some of the 1,200 widows struggling to bring up their families alone. One woman cried bitterly as she showed me the photographs of her dead husband and sons. She lost 18 relatives to the murderous mobs. From the window of a two-roomed tenament, home to a family of six, I looked down across a mud hut village which is home to 1,000 families who fled east Delhi to find relative safety with other Sikhs in west Delhi. With the monsoons, this mud village becomes a sea of mud, with the summer heat a stinking cesspit. There are no drains, water supply or electricity; there are typhoid and cholera. The new governor of Delhi has promised these people a plot of land nearby where they can build decent homes. They hope that this promise will be kept and that the bulldozers will not return to demolish their huts.
  None of these people, the victims of murderous communalism, believe that what happened was spontaneous. The mobs were organised. They were led. The plan was to kill as many male Sikhs as possible, including boys and even babies.
  While the horror of the massacres will never dim, many Sikhs cheered last year's election of Mr. V. P. Singh as India's Prime Minister. The BJP, the Hindu fundamentalist party, appears opposed to Mr. Singh's pressing on with his plans, announced after his election victory, to secure reconciliation with the Sikhs in the Punjab. Elections to the Punjab state assembly are seen by Mr. Singh as a top priority. However, unless they are called by 11 May, President's rule will continue—and that will surely spark off more and escalating violence.
  There are those inside and outside the Punjab who believe that a new settlement for the Punjab is possible. A federal solution, with the central Government retaining powers over foreign relations, defence and communications, is widely supported. The Prime Minister and the new governor of the Punjab rightly stress that building confidence and trust is vital if reconciliation is to succeed. Early elections to the Punjab state assembly are seen by many as vital to that confidence-building process.
  There should also, in the view of many, be independent machinery for monitoring human rights in the Punjab, together with independent machinery for investigating complaints against the police. Amnesty International, which has hitherto, unfortunately, been refused permission to visit the Punjab, could offer the governor and the Government of India valuable advice about how to establish that machinery.
  During my visit, Sikhs complained to me about a number of problems. They complained about there being no Sikh in the Cabinet or in any of the senior executive positions in the Punjab Government. They complained about the apparent bar on Sikhs reaching the most senior

  1335
  ranks of the army. Many Sikhs believe that they are mistrusted. They resent the propaganda that has depicted the Sikh turban worldwide as a symbol of terrorism.
  People living overseas, including British citizens of Sikh origin, find it difficult to visit their families and friends. I hope that the British Government will make representations to the Indian Government to make that easier. I also hope that they will make representations to the Indian Government urging them to allow young Sikhs form the Punjab to study in Britain and other overseas countries. At the moment, they experience great difficulty in obtaining student visas to study here or elsewhere.
  If there is uncertainty about the future of the Punjab, there is great anxiety about the future of Kashmir. During my visit to Kashmir, there were many reports of mass protests involving anything up to I million people, with deaths, injuries and many more soldiers being deployed. It is now believed that between 200,000 and 300,000 security forces are deployed in Kashmir, and more are on the way. A permanent curfew has been in place for the past nine weeks.
  Many argue that the people of Kashmir should be given a referendum in which they could vote freely and fairly for their future. There appear to be three options—for them to remain part of India, for them to join Pakistan or, the option that has been gaining support, for Kashmir valley to join Azad Kashmir and parts of Jammu, to become a new independent state.
  During my visit, a prominent Kashmiri business man who favoured the third option said:
  "We could become the Switzerland of Asia, with tourism and the careful development of our natural resources. The borders could be guaranteed internationally, safeguarded by the United Nations. A state of 10 million people, we could become a tranquil, prosperous buffer between India and Pakistan."
  The Indian Government are making a serious mistake by alleging that there are those outside Kashmir and outside India who are instigating violence and disorder in Kashmir. In making those charges, the Indian Government's credibility is seriously undermined so long as they refuse permission to foreigners to visit Kashmir, and so long as they stop the world's media reporting what is happening in Kashmir.
  I hope that India's new Prime Minister will quickly see the difficulties that his Government will face if they continue that policy. I hope that he will allow visitors and the free reporting of what is happening in Kashmir. I hope that the Indian Government will agree to a request that I made informally today to the Indian high commission for a parliamentary delegation from the House to be allowed to visit Kashmir shortly. I welcome the visit that is to be made to Kashmir next month by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
  Some 56 British Members of Parliament, representing all political parties and from all parts of the United Kingdom, have now signed and supported motions on the Order Paper calling for the people of Kashmir to be allowed to determine their own destiny.
  At this time in Kashmir, there are severe shortages of food and water. There are drastic evacuations of non-Muslims from Kashmir. The authorities are transferring large numbers of prisoners from Kashmir to the much hotter climate of Rajastan, and there are worrying reports that death squads are being formed and trained. As I said earlier, there are reports of substantial extra troop deployments to Kashmir.
  1336
  There can be no doubt that what has happened in the Punjab since 1984 scars the reputation of India, the world's largest democracy, and that the popular uprising in Kashmir threatens peace in the region. All true friends of India—we are all well aware of the deep affection and regard that you, Mr. Speaker, have for that country, which is shared by many hon. Members—wish every good fortune to Mr. Singh and his Government in resolving the vexed and dangerous issues that threaten the future of his Government and, more important, the future and well-being of all the people of all religions of India.
  I hope that the Minister can say tonight that the Government are anxious to make representations to the Indian Government—especially on my requests for more efforts to facilitate visits by British citizens of Sikh origin to the Punjab, to help young Sikhs to study overseas, to allow foreign nationals to visit Kashmir and to allow the foreign media to report what is happening in Kashmir.
  I do not believe that the true friends of India would be unwilling to make such representations, because—as with any family—there are times when it is necessary for us to express our views robustly in private and, when the need arises, in public. The human rights position in the Punjab and the dangerous position in Kashmir; which seems to be deteriorating fast, call for the British Government to make such representations. Britain has a great historic responsibility for India's past, and it has a great responsibility now to speak up on behalf of people who have many relatives and friends there.
  The Kashmiri community are desperately worried about their families and their friends, and are concerned about the future of their country. Sikhs, too, have great worries. I hope that the Minister will echo their concerns, and will make it clear that the British Government, in the spirit of true friendship, are prepared to make representations to the Indian Government.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on raising the important subject of Britain's relations with India. Those relations are reinforced by strong links of many kinds and on many levels—historical, political, cultural, commercial and, indeed, personal. The planned state visit to Britain next month by the President of India will be an occasion to which to celebrate the closeness and the warmth of those relations—a closeness and warmth which I know that you experienced, Mr. Speaker, during your visit to India last August.
  I shall not take up the time of the House by speaking at too much length of Britain's involvement in India's history before independence, except to note that it has left us with many things in common beyond a language and an obsession with cricket. Our democratic, administrative and legal systems are similar, but many countries have parliaments, bureaucrats and courts. What matters in this case is that Britain and India both rely on those institutions to protect the same values, the same democratic rights and the same civil liberties. When an Englishman and an Indian talk of freedom of speech and of the rule of law, they are talking about the same thing. I am certain that the Indian Government, no less than the British Government, are committed to the maintenance and promotion of those values, rights and liberties.

  1337
  If I talk of a long historical connection, it is emphatically not out of a sense of nostalgia, but because our shared past gives both India and Britain common guideposts to the future in our shared determination to sustain democratic institutions and individual freedom under the law.
  One of the most important elements in relations between our two countries is represented by the many people of Indian origin who have settled in Britain. They have made a significant contribution to all aspects of national life here. Their continued involvement in, and concern for, their country of origin can be of great value in making our relations still closer, more substantial and more productive.
  The hon. Member raised certain human rights issues. I do not suggest that anybody in India would claim that India has a completely unblemished human rights record. Indeed, it is hard to point to a country that has. The Indian Government are the first to concede that abuses have taken place. As is scarcely surprising in so vast a developing country, the administration of law and order sometimes falls short of the best intentions of the Government. But India cannot reasonably be compared with countries that systematically abuse human rights as a matter of Government policy.
  India is a democratic country with an independent legal system to which those who believe they have been treated unfairly have recourse, and there is a vibrantly free press in which injustices can be and are exposed. I have no doubt of the genuine commitment of the Indian Government to the maintenance of political freedoms and civil liberties. Before we start to criticise, we need to consider the magnitude of the problems that India faces, in maintaining the unity and integrity of a secular state in so vast and complex a country, with its great diversity of race, religion, and language.
  The hon. Member also mentioned problems in Kashmir. Both the Indian and Pakistani Governments have been concerned by events there, and I believe, wish to avoid further increase in tension in the area. We have made clear our concern at the political unrest in the Kashmir valley, and at the loss of life that has resulted, whether through acts of terrorism, which, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, can solve nothing, or through the shooting of reportedly unarmed civilian demonstrators by the security forces.
  Our own long-standing position on the dispute over the status of Kashmir has been one of neutrality. We believe it can be settled only by agreement between the two Governments concerned. We have recently discussed the situation there with representatives of both the Pakistan and Indian Governments. We have made it clear that we believe that the dispute is one to be settled between them, and we hope that they will be able to reach a peaceful settlement of the issues involved. We have encouraged both sides to avoid a confrontation which we are convinced neither side wants. We have also made it clear that we have absolutely no sympathy with those who espouse violence for political ends. At the same time, we hope that the problems of law and order to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be handled with maximum restraint.
  1338
  There were a number of United Nations resolutions on Kashmir in 1948 and 1949. The issue at the time was whether Kashmir should accede to Pakistan or India. Britian voted in favour of these resolutions, the texts of which represented agreement between India and Pakistan at the time, but much has happened since, not least the 1972 Simla agreement on bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. Under that agreement, both countries agreed
  "to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed on between them".
  Both sides also committed themselves to
  "a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir".
  Our long-standing position is entirely consistent with the terms of the agreement. We are confident that real progress in settling this dispute can be made only by agreements reached between India and Pakistan.
  The hon. Member may have read that the Indian Prime Minister convened an all-party meeting on 7 March to discuss the situation in Kashmir. The next day, a senior delegation of Indian Members of Parliament visited Kashmir to assess the situation. Mr. V.P. Singh has since appointed a Cabinet Minister for Kashmir, and a multi-party committee to assist him. We welcome these moves and hope that they may contribute to the search for a peaceful solution to the current problems.
  The hon. Member was able to be among the first foreign parliamentarians to visit the Punjab recently to investigate reports of alleged human rights violations. The House will have been concerned at learning of the various incidents to which he referred; but I am sure that he will not expect me to comment on them. The fact of his visit is, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree, an encouraging sign of the determination of the Indian Government to find a solution to the current problems, and of their refusal to brush those problems under the carpet.
  I well understand the concern felt by many in the community here about their friends and families in India as a result of reports received about the situation in Punjab. However, we should look at the situation in the Punjab as a whole. In our view, many of the reports reaching people in this country do less than justice to the truth of this tragic and complex problem.
  The history of the current troubles in the Punjab is long and complex. The Sikh community in India have played a distinguished part in Indian life and customs, and continue to do so. Many of them seek to pursue their grievances and aspirations, as they are entitled to do, by legitimate constitutional means, but a minority are engaged in a bitter terrorist struggle against the authorities to achieve what they cannot achieve by democratic means—the dismemberment of the secular state of India. It is against this background that we need to view events in Punjab.
  Last year, tragically, over 2,000 people were reported killed in the Punjab in terrorist-related violence. There have been many reports during the last year of indiscriminate attacks on innocent people, including some by Sikhs on Sikhs trying to defend other members of the community. Earlier this month, we saw reports of terrorists firing on a bus in the Punjab. In the incident, 10 people were reported to have been shot dead. In the same week, we saw reports of an attack by terrorists who opened fire in a crowded bazaar in Abohar in the south of the

  1339
  Punjab, in which at least 31 people were left dead. Attempts to pin all responsibility for such outrages on the Indian Government fly in the face of the facts.
  Under the previous Government, in March last year a package of measures was introduced including the easing of restrictions and the release of detainees when no evidence could be brought against them. After being elected to office last November, the new Indian Government announced that they would give priority to resolving the current problems in the Punjab. Prime Minister V. P. Singh's visit to Amritsar in December was a brave and widely welcomed gesture.
  Last December and in January this year, he held two all-party meetings to discuss the Punjab. At the January meeting, the Indian Government introduced a package of measures which included a review of all detainee cases, and reminders to local police authorities of the need to maintain stricter police discipline, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomed that. The new Indian Government have also promised to bring to trial those accused of involvement in anti-Sikh riots which followed Mrs. Gandhi's assassination in late 1984.
  As the hon. Member went to the Punjab, he may be aware that the Indian Prime Minister visited the Punjab on 14 March and announced the formation of an advisory committee to help the administration of the state. That committee will consist of representatives of different political parties and social groups. I see that this development has been welcomed in the Indian press.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of building confidence. I agree with him, and I hope that he will agree that the measures to which I have referred are a step in that important direction.
  The Indian Government are determined—as any Government must be—to root out terrorism. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we support them in their attempts to maintain the unity and integrity of India and in taking the necessary measures to deal with those who use violence as a means of achieving their aims.
  1340
  The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of points on which he asked me to comment. He referred to encouraging young Sikhs to study in the United Kingdom. We welcome any overseas students from India who have been accepted for a full-time course of study and who can show that they have funds to support themselves here without working.
  In 1988–89, a total of 1,839 Indian students in the United Kingdom received British Government support. The special Foreign Office scholarships scheme for India has been increased since 1988, so that in this financial year we intend to spend just under £1 million, which will fund about 130 students here. We have no knowledge of students from the Punjab, or indeed from Kashmir, being prevented from attending courses.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to Amnesty International. We have commended Amnesty to the Indian Government at ministerial level as a serious and responsible organisation, but we accept that the issuing of visas is a matter for the Indian Government. We welcome the Indian Foreign Minister's answer to a parliamentary question on 15 March, when he said that the Indian Government were considering allowing an Amnesty International team to visit the Punjab.
  I return to the general subject of the debate—Britain's relations with India. I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said and I urge him to work with us to continue to improve those relations and to encourage those in this country who have ties of blood and of kinship with India to support those who seek to resolve the country's problems by peaceful and constitutional means. That is what we owe to India, and to the principles by which we in Britain and the people of India live.
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Cocaine
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of seizures of cocaine, in the most recent years for which figures are available, was of cocaine entering the United Kingdom from member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Percentage of United Kingdom routed via EC

  Weight of United Kingdom seizures routed via EC kg

  1987

  23·8

  86

  1988

  36·4

  101

  11989

  62·8

  266

  1 All 1989 figures are provisional.

  Personal Sector Debt
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amounts by which those in the personal sector were in debt in(a) 1979 and (b) 1989; and what proportion in the sector were not in debt at all in both years.

  Mr. Ryder
  The financial liabilities of the personal sector amounted to £70·9 billion in 1979 and £364·9 billion in 1989. These figures may be found in table 14·5 of "Financial Statistics" or on the CSO database which is accessible through the Library. No information is available on the proportion of those in the sector who were not in debt at all.

  European Community Budget Contributions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the net budget contribution of(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) West Germany to the EEC for 1989; what is his estimate for 1990, 1991 and 1992 both in absolute terms and per capita; and what are his proposals for reducing the British contribution.

  Mr. Ryder
  The latest published estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community budget in 1989, which appeared in the statement on the 1989 Community budget (Cm. 680), is £1,966 million. This figure is the equivalent of £34.43 per capita, on the basis of the estimated United Kingdom population of 57·1 million in 1988 which is contained in the 1990 edition of "Social Trends". A revised estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution in 1989, and an estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution in 1990, will be published shortly in the statement on the 1990 Community budget.688
  It is not the Government's practice to publish calendar year forecasts for future years; but the recent public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1018) provides estimates for the financial years up to and including 1992–93.

  Comparable figures for other member states' net contributions are not available.

  The United Kingdom's contribution to the Community budget is being significantly reduced by the Fontainebleau abatement mechanism. This will have produced a cumulative benefit of some £7·5 billion by the end of 1990.

  International Monetary Fund Quotas
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the negotiations on the ninth review of the International Monetary Fund quotas.

  Mr. Ryder
  Discussions are continuing in the International Monetary Fund board, and we very much hope that they can be concluded swiftly. One difficulty which had emerged was how to accommodate the special quota increase that Japan is seeking. The United Kingdom has helped to provide a solution by offering to give up some of its quota share: this enables Japan to move up to second rank in the fund without reducing the quota share of developing countries. Our offer has been widely welcomed. The rankings of the other major countries will be determined in the usual way, according to the quota formulas agreed by the whole International Monetary Fund membership. Taking account of the offer we have made, these formulas would reduce the United Kingdom's quota share from 6·9 per cent. to 6·0 per cent. and would move the United Kingdom to fourth position in the rankings; we are perfectly ready to accept that result. I hope that the remaining issues, on the overall size of the quota increase and on the problem of arrears on past International Monetary Fund lending, can be resolved soon.

  European Currency Unit
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's European currency unit Treasury bill programme.

  Mr. Ryder
  The programme has now reached a total outstanding of 3 billion ecu and we have been able to issue bills at one, three and six-month maturities on very fine terms. In view of this success and the unsatisfied demand which still exists, particularly at longer maturities, we shall be issuing an additional 100 million ecu of six-month bills each month from the April tender. This means an increase in the programme to a total of 3·6 billion ecu of bills outstanding by September—helping to develop the private ecu market in London and demonstrating the practical contribution the United Kingdom is making to greater economic and monetary integration in Europe.

  Tax Debts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many petitions have been presented by Her Majesty's Inland Revenue against(a) limited companies and (b) individuals to secure the repayment of tax debts in each of the last three years.
  689
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The number of winding-up and bankruptcy petitions filed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in each of the last three years is:

  Company winding up petitions

  Bankruptcy petitions

  1987

  308

  1,415

  1988

  277

  2,435

  1989

  317

  2,707

  The precise equivalent figures for Scotland cannot be ascertained without disproportionate cost, but do not exceed 20 companies and 70 individuals for any of those years.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value at current prices of the average pension received by civil servants on their retirement in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: I regret that directly comparable figures are not available. But, on the basis of information to hand, the value at current prices of the average pension received by civil servants who retired in 1979 is £2,614; for those who retired in 1969 it is £2,213. These figures include increases paid under the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (as amended).

  Inland Revenue Staff
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people staff the Inland Revenue survey of personal incomes.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The full-time equivalent of some 25 people, including about 10 in tax offices.

TRANSPORT

  Tyre Treads
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the consultation process on the European Economic Community proposals for a change in tyre tread depth regulations.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's consultation on draft regulations to introduce the mandatory tread depth requirements in Community directive 89/459/EEC from 1 January 1992 has been completed. A statutory instrument amending the Construction and Use Regulations will be laid before the House shortly.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total publicity and advertising expenditure, including for privatisation, of his Department and public bodies for which his Department has responsibility in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Atkins
  The total publicity and advertising expenditure, including for privatisation, of my 690
  Department and the non-departmental public bodies for which my Department is responsible, in the financial years 1979–80 and 1989–90 is as follows:

  Year

  Amount £

  1979–80

  5,840,000

  1989–90

  6,434,000

  The expenditure by my Department is recorded in financial years, not calendar years.

  Headington Roundabout
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on his Department's interim proposals for the Green road roundabout, Headington, Oxford.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has received representations from Oxfordshire county council which are now being considered. These concern the consideration of the possible need for a footbridge.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport according to what criteria his Department's proposals for a bus lane from Green road roundabout, Headington, Oxford, extending as far as Collinwood road, were decided.

  Mr. Atkins
  The westbound carriageway of the A40 between the Headington roundabout and Collinwood road is subject to serious traffic delays. Provision of a bus lane would enable buses to overtake queueing traffic.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider establishing a bus lane from Green road roundabout, Headington, Oxford, to Thornhill park and ride car park.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have no present plans to extend the bus lane beyond Collinwood road. The indications are that the cost would outweigh any benefits.

  Heavy Vehicles
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy on emissions from heavy diesel engined vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is today urging the European Commission at the Environment Council to make proposals to introduce tighter controls on gaseous emissions from heavy diesels and to set limits for the first time for particulate emissions from these vehicles. The Government regard these proposals as long overdue.

  Diesel emissions, in the form of oxides of nitrogen and particulates, are a significant cause of pollution and loss of amenity. Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) can damage plants and crops, as well as affect human health. Diesel particulates cause soiled buildings and discomfort to pedestrians and other road users.

  The Government believe that the Community's long-term aim should be to set a mid-1990s diesel standard based as closely as possible on the US 1994 standard, both in limit values and test procedure. This is the strictest of all the diesel emission standards being considered worldwide.

  691
  In particular, it would afford substantial reductions in the amount of NOx and particulates that new vehicles may emit. I strongly support early action towards setting these tougher standards.

ENERGY

  Electricity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the weighted average increase in domestic electricity prices in the 12 electricity board areas of England and Wales in the year commencing 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  Electricity prices are a matter for the industry, but I understand that the weighted average increase in domestic tariffs in England and Wales for 1990–91 is 9·2 per cent.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much was paid in fees to the organisations listed in his answer of 13 March,Official Report, columns 141–44.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to publish the sums paid to individual advisers or contractors in a privatisation.

  France (Nuclear Safety)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to obtain from the French nuclear safety authorities the report, "Nuclear Safety at Elecricité de France (EDF)," at the end of 1989, by the chief inspector for nuclear safety at EDF; and if he will seek an early meeting with the head of nuclear safety in France and his French counterpart to discuss nuclear safety.

  Mr. Baldry
  Both my Department and the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate have copies of the report. There are continuing and regular contacts between my officials and the inspectorate's and their French counterparts to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Alternative Energy
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to alternative energy to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  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 4 to 8 June.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he has made of the likely impact of privatisation on electricity prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 December 1989, c. 1–3]: As previously announced, the average
  692
  increase in electricity prices for all customers will be less than 6 per cent. this year. The Government have now agreed the controls on future price increases that will apply to the area electricity supply companies.

  For customers taking less than 1 MW, the final price will increase by an average of some 9 per cent. this year. The price controls agreed should prevent any further real increase to these customers until April 1993.

  Customers taking more than 1 MW are able to seek competing bids for supply. To allow time for these customers to negotiate contracts, the electricity industry has agreed to offer them a price freeze in real terms for one year. However, many of these customers will experience real reductions in price this year.

  These controls apply to the final price paid by customers. But in future the price will be made up of a number of different elements: the price for generating electricity in power stations; the charge for transmitting it across the national grid; the price for distributing it over the area electricity companies' local networks; the area supply company's margin; and the fossil fuel levy. The area supply companies have a monopoly on distribution and the National Grid Company has a monopoly on transmission. Their charges therefore need to be separately regulated within the overall controls on final prices to customers. Transmission and distribution respectively make up about 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the final price to customers.

  The price control applying to the National Grid Company will prevent its prices from rising by faster than the RPI. Increases in charges for transmission will therefore be held at or below the rate of inflation.

  The price control applying to the 12 area supply companies will prevent the charges for distribution from rising by more than RPI + X, where X ranges between the different companies from 0 to 2·5, with a weighted average of 1·1, as follows:

  RPI

  Eastern Electricity

  +0·25

  East Midlands Electricity

  +1·25

  LEB

  +0

  MANWEB

  +2·50

  MEB

  +1·15

  Northern Electric

  +1·55

  NORWEB

  +1·40

  Southern Electric

  +0·65

  SEEB

  +0·75

  South Wales Electricity

  +2·50

  SWEB

  +2·25

  Yorkshire Electricity

  +1·30

  Within the overall cap on final prices, charges for distribution may therefore rise on average by just 1·1 percentage point faster than inflation. This will allow investment of some £5 billion to be made in the capital-intensive distribution network to ensure the high standards of security are maintained. The area supply companies' price control will also prevent their supply margins from rising faster than inflation.

  Altogether, this package will protect the smaller customer from real price increases, and enable larger customers to benefit from competition. Within the overall price controls, the area supply companies and National Grid Company will be able to charge a price that enables them to finance the investment required.

PRIME MINISTER

  Fishing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received concerning the present economic circumstances of the catching section of the fishing industry; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are well aware of the current difficulties facing the fishing industry, but between 1983 and 1988 the value of landings increased by over 40 per cent. There is an urgent need to work for effective conservation of fish on a Communitywide basis and to adopt improved quota management measures which will bring fishing capacity more closely into line with available opportunities.

  South Africa
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on her policy towards South African political organisations which continue to advocate the use of violence.

  The Prime Minister
  We are stongly opposed to the use of violence for political ends in South Africa as elsewhere. We have repeatedly urged South African political organisations to enter negotiations in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides.

  European Council
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will urge at the next meeting of the European Council clarification of the extent to which the single market arrangements are proceeding; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Arrangements for the completion of the single European market are proceeding very well. Almost 60 per cent. of the legislation programme is now complete, including a number of important and contentious issues such as the liberalisation of capital movements, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and the mergers regulation.

  The Irish presidency is maintaining the political momentum, and reached agreement at the Internal Market Council on 22 February to extend public purchasing rules to the energy, telecommunications, water and transport sectors.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will invite the next meeting of the European Council to review the structure of contributions by member states; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The review of the Community's finances concluded at the European Council in Brussels on 11 to 13 February 1988 confirmed the arrangements for abating the United Kingdom's contributions. The Fontainebleau mechanism remains totally intact and it will last as long as the new own resources arrangements. Our cumulative benefit from the Fontainebleau mechanism will be some £7·5 billion by the end of 1990.

  East Germany
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has made to Chancellor Kohl about his proposal that West Germany should use its trade surplus to invest in East Germany; and how great she estimates Britain's contribution will be to rebuilding East Germany for 1990 if the process is financed on that basis.

  The Prime Minister
  The financing of the rebuilding of East Germany is a matter for the German authorities and individual companies, both in Germany and elsewhere.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have yet completed their review of the possibility of community charge-capping any local authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently considering the information which he has about local authorities' budgets. When he has completed his consideration he will announce to the House any decisions to cap authorities.

  Romanian Children
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the interdepartmental procedures operated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office and the Department of Health for co-ordinating the issuing of visas in respect of Romanian children adopted by United Kingdom citizens; if she will review these procedures to improve their efficiency; and what are the criteria applied when considering such visa applications.

  The Prime Minister
  When an application is made to bring to the United Kingdom a child who has been adopted abroad or who is coming here for adoption, the entry clearance officer first makes inquiries into the child's circumstances overseas and the circumstances in which the child became available for adoption. The application is then referred to the Home Office, which seeks advice from the Department of Health on the health and welfare aspects of the case before reaching a decision. The main consideration is whether the proposed adoption is in the child's best interests. Every effort is made to ensure that the necessary inquiries are completed as quickly as possible.

  Nuclear Test Treaties
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy, when she meets President Bush on 13 April in Bermuda, to raise(a) the forthcoming fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, (b) the forthcoming amendment conference of the 1963 partial test ban treaty and (c) the development of a common policy position by the three depository states for the non-proliferation treaty, for membership of the treaty of a united Germany.

  The Prime Minister
  I do not expect that these subjects will be considered in any detail.

  Engagements
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be speaking at a dinner given by the Royal Society, along with the Prime Ministers of Norway and Sweden, to conclude the last conference on surface water acidification.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Audit Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, at any time since June 1979, any Minister from his Department has publicly called upon auditing firms to publish annual reports and accounts.

  Mr. Redwood
  Not so far as I am aware.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy on following through decisions of the joint disciplinary scheme on matters referred by him to the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

  Mr. Redwood
  The outcome of a complaint referred by my Department to any of the professional accountancy bodies, whether or not it is subsequently referred to the joint disciplinary scheme, is noted and such action is taken as is appropriate.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to amend the Companies Act to require each set of annual accounts prepared in accordance with the historical cost convention to carry a statement that these accounts do not show realistic values of assets and may therefore be misleading.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Understanding figures in company accounts will always depend on understanding the conventions by which the accounts were prepared. It is inherent in accounts prepared under the historical cost accounting rules, as required by the Companies Act 1985 (unless the alternative accounting rules are used), that assets are carried at historical cost less depreciation.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department has any plans to legislate to require auditors of all large companies to examine the chairman's report.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his question on 12 March, at column 43.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department has any plans to require company auditors at annual general meetings to give details of the audit teams used on audits of companies.
  696
  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department plans to make any recommendations to companies on the accounting treatment of financial futures.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. This issue is being considered by the accounting profession and my Department is watching developments closely.

  Mergers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on his Department's policy on mergers between major auditing firms.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department's policy on mergers remains as set out in the Blue Paper published in 1988 entitled "Mergers Policy"—that the main consideration in deciding whether to refer a merger or proposed merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be the effect on competition in the United Kingdom. This applies equally to mergers between auditing firms as to any other mergers.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to launch the Insolvency Service as an executive agency.

  Mr. Ridley
  I established the Insolvency Service as an executive agency on 21 March.

  I expect the Insolvency Service, as an executive agency, to continue to bring proceedings for the disqualification of directors of failed companies in appropriate cases, to submit prosecution reports where there is evidence of criminal behaviour and to administer bankruptcies and compulsory liquidations in an increasingly effective manner.

  I have also set the Insolvency Service the following productivity and quality of service targets for 1990–91:
  to increase productivity in case administration by at least 8 per cent.;
  to complete the administration of at least 13,600 cases;
  to report to creditors on assets and liabilities within nine weeks in at least 60 per cent. of all cases;
  to hold meetings of creditors within 12 weeks in at least 90 per cent. of cases;
  to submit reports within 10 months in at least 80 per cent. of cases identified for investigation;
  to action at least 93 per cent. of payment requisitions within 10 days or by the due date.

  Additionally, the Insolvency Service will be required to reduce in real terms the average unit cost of the initial stage of bankruptcies and liquidations by at least 5 per cent. over the next three years.

  I have arranged for the framework document for the new agency to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the 250 jobs referred to in the reply by the hon. Member for Darwen and Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, 20 July 1989,Official Report, column 346, arise from ship repair or ship conversion activities.
  697
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 March 1990]: Of the 250 jobs referred to, approximately 10 people were employed by a company which was primarily engaged in ship repair business.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the dates and purposes of visits to Norway during 1988 and 1989 by(a) Ministers of his Department and (b) civil servants of grade 5 or above.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 March 1990]: My right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) visited Norway as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from 29 October to 1 November 1988 to discuss investment in the United Kingdom by Kvaerner Industrier and other Norwegian companies. He also announced that Kvaerner Govan Ltd. had placed orders with Clark Kincaid Ltd. for the engines for the first two gas ships to be built on the Clyde for their Norwegian clients. A number of other visits were made by DTI officials in the course of 1988 and 1989 for general discussions on bilateral issues and for discussions with Norwegian interests concerning the acquisition of United Kingdom shipbuilding capacity and ship and marine engine orders.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out the specific proposals of the Tyne and Wear development corporation for the redevelopment of the Southwick shipyard site in Sunderland.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 March 1990]: Detailed proposals depend on the outcome of negotiations with relevant parties. It is, however, the current intention of the development corporation to redevelop the Southwick shipyard site in Sunderland for general industrial uses.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out the various elements of state aid agreed by his Department in the disposal of the private sector of the British Shipbuilders facilities at(a) Govan, (b) Appledore, (c) Ailsa Ferguson (Troon), (d) Ferguson and (e) Clark Kincaid.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 March 1990]: The detailed terms of sale of the individual British Shipbuilders' companies are commercially confidential. Following is a summary of the net costs of disposal after taking account of the considerations paid in each case:
  (a) Govan Up to £25 million, including redundancy payments in respect of surplus staff, and a contribution to a programme of capital investment at the yard.
  (b) Appledore £3·4 million, including redundancy payments and costs arising from completion of existing work.
  (c) Ferguson-Ailsa (Troon) The assets of the Ailsa yard were sold on commerical terms, following closure of the company by British Shipbuilders.
  (d) Ferguson Net cost of disposal to British Shipbuilders was £3·8 million, primarily relating to the costs of redundancies at the yard.
  (e) Clark Kincaid £3·2 million, including redundancy payments, costs arising from completion of existing work, and a contribution to capital investment at the yard.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will update the estimate of the commercial costs to British Shipbuilders of closing North East Shipbuilders Ltd.
  698
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 March 1990]: A provision for an estimated extraordinary loss of £53·7 million relating to the closure of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. was made in the NESL accounts for 1987–88. A release of some of these provisions in the 1988–89 accounts has brought the estimated costs of closure down to £51 million. There may be further slight amendments in the 1989–90 accounts when published.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which riverside areas along the River Wear are affected by the advice of Sir Leon Brittan that a recommencement of shipbuilding would lead the European Commission to reconsider its agreement to the notification made by the British Government in December 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 March 1990]: There is no specific delineation by the Commission of the European Communities of land on the River Wear on which it would regard a recommencement of shipbuilding as prompting a reopening of the December 1988 notification. The Commission has, however, indicated that a restart of shipbuilding in Sunderland in general terms, even on land outside the confines of North East Shipbuilders Limited, would lead it to look again at the overall package. This view is taken on the grounds that the remedial measures programme for Sunderland was approved on the basis of the loss of shipbuilding jobs in the town.

  Professional Access Project
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consider financing in Scotland a pilot scheme similar to the British Council/DTI professional access project in Yorkshire/Humberside.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: I shall be interested to consider proposals for a professional access project in Scotland in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. My officials will also wish to discuss this with the British Council.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the projected budget is for the year 1990–91 broken down by designated category for the National Engineering Laboratory.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 19 March 1990]: The Secretary of State will be making decisions later this month about budget allocations for the next financial year. In the case of the National Engineering Laboratory, I expect the provision to be adequate for some 400 staff and associated costs.

  Exports
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a table showing for each of the European Community countries, the United States of America, Canada and Japan the amount of exports per head of population expressed on a comparable basis in £ sterling and as at the latest available date.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The information is in the table.
  699

  Exports per head of population 1988

  £

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  5,035

  Denmark

  2,970

  Federal Republic of Germany

  2,953

  France

  1,625

  Greece

  305

  Ireland

  2,973

  Italy

  1,261

  Netherlands

  3,919

  Portugal

  580

  Spain

  579

  United Kingdom

  1,426

  United States of America

  730

  Canada

  2,422

  Japan

  1,213

  Source: OECD Series 'A' and OECD MEI

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a table showing for each of the European Community countries, the United States of America, Canada and Japan exports expressed as a percentage of gross national product as at the latest available date.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The information is in the table.

  Exports as a percentage of GNP 1988

  Per cent.

  Belgium/Luxembourg1

  57·9

  Denmark

  26·3

  FR Germany

  26·8

  France1

  17·0

  Greece

  10·5

  Ireland

  65·4

  Italy1

  15·5

  Netherlands

  45·3

  Portugal1

  27·1

  Spain

  12·0

  United Kingdom

  17·4

  United States of America

  6·6

  Canada

  23·7

  Japan

  9·3

  1 GDP figures—GNP figures not readily available.

  Source: OECD Series 'A' and IMF International Financial Statistics.

  Hong Kong (Trade Balance)
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the United Kingdom's trade balance with Hong Kong.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 March 1990]: In 1989 imports of visible goods from Hong Kong exceeded United Kingdom's exports of visible goods to that country by £925 million.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain a copy of the article on rain forest destruction in the latest issue of the magazine Science for his Department library.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Yes.

WALES

  Health Conferences
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether he will issue guidelines to the National Health Service director in Wales to ensure that in any conferences organised by him all participants, including speakers, with particular expertise and experience in health care systems with administrative costs higher than the National Health Service, should contribute fees to the National Health Service commensurate with the learning curve benefit on management efficiency they derive;

  (2) whether he will issue guidelines to the National Health Service directorate and manpower consultancy service to ensure that all conferences it organises for National Health Service employees in Wales on health care management give preference to speakers with direct expertise and experience of health care systems with lower administrative costs than the United Kingdom National Health Service;

  (3) whether he will issue guidelines to Welsh health authorities on the maximum cost per National Health Service employee for attendance at conferences on non-medical subjects.

  Mr. Grist
  All conferences arranged by the NHS in Wales are designed to develop the service and are therefore ultimately for the benefit of patients. Speakers, whether from within the United Kingdom National Health Service or outside, are selected on the basis of the contribution they can make. Fees and related costs and charges are taken fully into account in making this judgment.

  I see no need to issue specific guidelines as these principles are well understood. It is a matter for local decision as to which conferences individual employees should attend.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost to the National Health Service in Wales of National Health Service employees attending the Yale university school of management health care management executive programme at the Metropole hotel, Llandrindod Wells, on 3 to 8 June.

  Mr. Grist
  It is estimated that up to 60 delegates will attend the healthcare management executive programme at Llandrindod Wells. The course is expected to be self-financing, but the Department has indicated that it will fund four delegates from each health authority, at a total cost of £60,000. Fee-paying delegates will be attending from the rest of the United Kingdom, and further places may be taken up by Welsh NHS employees at a cost of £1,500 per delegate.

  The programme is widely recognised as one of the best and most intensive training courses available in healthcare management and has previously been run in Australia, Spain and England, as well as the United States. Professor Fetter's team are world leaders, having developed the use of diagnosis related groups (DRGs) for the effective management of healthcare resources in a wide range of countries.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Probate
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the delay before sending personal applicants for probate an appointment for interview; what is the reason for the delay; how many applications are outstanding; and what plans he has to offer a better service to the public.

  The Attorney-General
  The delay before sending personal applicants for probate an appointment for interview is approximately four weeks at the current time. The reason for the delay is the seasonal large influx of cases, and some staffing difficulties in the London area. There are currently 771 outstanding cases, of which 202 are ready for appointment and the remainder are being processed. Arrears are gradually reducing as a result of increased computerisation and a reorganisation of working practices.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General when and why the probate personal application department of the London probate registry moved from Golden Cross house to Somerset house.

  The Attorney-General
  The personal application department moved from Golden Cross house to Somerset house on Monday 11 September 1989. The main reasons for the move were:(a) Economy. As a direct consequence of the move £250,000 was saved in accommodation charges and staff savings.
  (b) Greater efficiency. The senior probate staff, together with the judiciary, are in Somerset house and referrals to them can be made more speedily and efficiently.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to amend form PA2 to reflect the move of the probate personal application department to Somerset house; what was the level and value of stationery stock at the time of the move; how many staff are employed sticking change of address labels on the stationery; and at what cost.

  The Attorney-General
  Form PA2 was amended in November 1989 and distributed during that month. The level and value of stationery stock at the time of the move cannot now be accurately ascertained. Change of address labels are stuck on as and when the forms are completed by clerical staff. The only cost of applying sticky labels to forms is that of the labels themselves, which is £164·94 for 32,000.

SCOTLAND

  Capital Allocations
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of Glasgow district council's general services capital programme in the past five years has been funded from(a) capital receipts and (b) borrowing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:
  702

  £ million

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Year

  Total General Services Capital Expenditure

  Capital Receipts

  (b)-(c)

  1988–89

  13·499

  8·550

  4·949

  1987–88

  9·616

  5·037

  4·579

  1986–87

  9·287

  6·054

  3·233

  1985–86

  9·804

  5·521

  4·283

  1984–85

  10·243

  5·297

  4·946

  Note: Column (d) is the difference between columns (b) and (c) and includes borrowing, capital grants and current revenue used to finance capital expenditure. Information on these separate components is not available.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his criteria for deciding the capital allocations for general services for each district council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The allocation of resources for capital expenditure by local authorities is determined, within the resources available, on the basis of their relative needs. In the light of the financial plans which each authority submits each year, the relative needs of authorities are assessed having regard to a number of factors, including the priorities that Ministers attach to particular categories of expenditure, the capital costs of individual projects, previous spending patterns and forecasts of capital receipts. As part of the stability of the financial planning system, regard is also had, when the final allocations for any year are being decided, to the provisional allocations previously issued.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what change he is planning in real terms for 1991–92 in Glasgow district council's capital allocation for general services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The provisional figure notified to the City of Glasgow district council for its general services capital allocation in 1991–92 is £3·0 million, the same as the final allocation for 1990–91, or £0·1 million lower in real terms as measured by the change in GDP deflator assumed over these two years for public expenditure planning.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will review Glasgow district council's general services capital allocation for 1990–91.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans either to reduce, or to increase, the council's general services capital allocation for 1990–91.

  LocalGovernment Finance
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the average local income tax figures in each region or islands authority required to produce the amount being paid in community charge in 1989–90.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On the basis of the information available to my Department, it is not possible to estimate the average amount which would have been required to be paid in local income tax to replace the revenue which each region or islands authority will receive from the community charge in 1989–90.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated amount to be paid by
  703
  community charge payers in each region or islands area in their regional, district or island and water community charge in 1989–90, taking account of the rebates which are paid for by the Government out of the Exchequer.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities' most recent estimates of income raised in 1989–90 from personal and collective community charges are set out in the table. In establishing these figures local authorites take account both of community charge rebates and the rebate subsidy received from central Government. The amount actually paid by charge payers will be the amounts quoted in the table less the amounts paid as appropriate in community charge benefit (rebates) by local authorities. Details of the total amount of rebates by authority are not yet available.

  Information on the amount to be paid in community water charges is not held centrally.

  Personal and collective community charge income 1989–90

  £000

  Borders

  12,876

  Berwickshire

  423

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1,033

  Roxburgh

  1,119

  Tweeddale

  456

  Central

  37,519

  Clackmannan

  2,871

  Falkirk

  4,646

  Stirling

  5,287

  Dumfries and Galloway

  18,765

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,245

  Nithsdale

  1,605

  Stewartry

  630

  Wigtown

  853

  Fife

  51,860

  Dunfermline

  4,793

  Kirkcaldy

  6,370

  North East Fife

  3,910

  Grampian

  67,880

  Aberdeen

  12,676

  Banff and Buchan

  3,157

  Gordon

  2,067

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,114

  Moray

  2,366

  Highland

  24,607

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  259

  Caithness

  465

  Inverness

  1,102

  Lochaber

  478

  Nairn

  201

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,396

  Skye and Lochalsh

  180

  Sutherland

  53

  Lothian

  157,334

  East Lothian

  4,260

  Edinburgh

  26,983

  Midlothian

  3,364

  West Lothian

  5,476

  Strathclyde

  331,035

  Argyll and Bute

  2,683

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  2,225

  Clydebank

  2,639

  Clydesdale

  3,304

  Cumbernauld

  2,270

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1,734

  Cunninghame

  5,646

  Dumbarton

  4,403

  East Kilbride

  5,800

  Eastwood

  2,569

  Glasgow

  43,570

  704

  £000

  Hamilton

  5,353

  Inverclyde

  4,724

  Kilmarnock

  2,874

  Kyle and Carrick

  7,315

  Monklands

  5,366

  Motherwell

  8,519

  Renfrew

  10,229

  Strathkelvin

  4,783

  Tayside

  58,656

  Angus

  3,295

  Dundee

  9,799

  Perth and Kinross

  4,773

  Orkney

  1,626

  Shetland

  1,731

  Western Isles

  2,600

  Civil Engineering
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to encourage public sector bodies to increase their use of the private sector for civil engineering work.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Almost all civil engineering works commissioned by public authorities in Scotland are constructed by contractors from the private sector, on the basis of competitive tendering. In addition, all trunk road projects and many water and sewerage projects are designed and supervised by private sector consultants appointed on a competitive basis. There is no evidence that further action to encourage use of the private sector in civil engineering is necessary.

  Phoenix House Trust
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Scottish Homes plans to give a grant to the Phoenix House Trust for the purposes of converting the dwelling house at Kappochhill road into a drugs unit.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  When approving Scottish Homes' programme for any year my right hon. and learned Friend also agrees the amounts which Scottish Homes proposes should be spent on particular functions. The allocation of funds to specific areas or to individual projects is then a matter for Scottish Homes.

  Leukaemia
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the Gardner report on the incidence of leukaemia; and if he will make it his policy to make a statement on its application to Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The conclusions of Professor Gardner's study of childhood leukaemia in west Cumbria are of considerable concern. A similar study at Dounreay is being concluded as a matter of urgency and the results are expected by the summer.

  It is important that each study is not considered in isolation but together with all the other Government-funded studies emerging as a result of recommendations by the committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment, to whom the Government look for expert advice.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the regulation of the Scottish electricity industry.

  Mr. Rilkind
  I am making available to the House today model drafts of the licences to be issued to Scottish Power and Scotish Hydro-Electric, to independent generators including Scottish Nuclear Ltd. and to second-tier suppliers in Scotland. The licences for Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric are now largely in final form and ready to be granted shortly before vesting. Other generation and second-tier supply licensees will receive a licence based on the published drafts but adjusted to meet their particular circumstances and requirements.

  The public electricity supply, transmission and generation licences for the Scottish vertically integrated companies are contained in a composite licence document. They reflect the wider Great Britain framework but have been tailored where appropriate to meet specific Scottish circumstances. A particular example of this is the provision which will be included in the licence for Hydro-Electric to secure that the benefit of cheap hydro power will be applied to maintain transmission and distribution costs in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland at levels comparable with those in other parts of the country, thus underpinning our commitment to maintain common tariffs for customers throughout that area.

  The composite licence document includes provisions to control the maximum average prices charged by Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric. The average distribution, supply and transmission prices will be capped and indexed annually by an RPI-X formula. This will create incentives on the industry to improved performance and cost efficiency. The objective is to replicate market pressures to cost reduction on these monopoly services.

  The vertically integrated structure of the Scottish industry also requires that, within the overall prices charged to customers, there should be direct regulation of generation prices. We have decided that the maximum average generation price to customers should not be allowed to increase beyond changes in RPI over the next four years. During a further four-year transitional period, regulation will move over progressively to an index derived from average generation prices in the England and Wales competitive market. In this way, the disciplines of the wider market will be impressed upon the Scottish companies.

  Prices to consumers taking 10 MW or more will not be directly regulated in Scotland, nor will sales by the Scottish companies outside their areas. Prices in this part of the market are already being determined, quite properly, by competitive forces and this will continue to offer customers the best form of protection. To protect smaller customers who do not have a choice in their supplier, there will be a subsidiary cap on average prices to all consumers taking up to 1 MW which will restrict maximum average price rises to the movement in the overall price cap.

  Taken together, these regulatory controls will mean that average electricity price rises to customers in the regulated market in Scotland will be held below the rate of inflation over the next four years and thereafter they will increasingly reflect the downward pressures on prices in the fully competitive Great Britain market. The companies will, however, be free, subject to their licence conditions, to
  706
  set different tariffs to each individual group of consumers within the average price cap to reflect the economic costs of supply.

  For the more immediate term, I expect average tariff increases in Scotland next year to be about the rate of inflation. For larger customers above 1 MW, including contract customers, the Scottish industry does not expect that any customer will experience increases much out of line with inflation over the next year.

  It is important for the stability of prices and the industry's finances that there should not be excessive disruption in the market. We have, therefore, decided to introduce arrangements in Scotland which will ensure a smooth transition to a competitive market similar to those announced last month for England and Wales by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. These provisions will allow all suppliers to compete for supply to premises taking more than 1 MW at the outset of the new regime, for premises taking more than 100 KW after four years, and for all customers after eight years. While my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be disposed to act in accordance with the above restrictions, he will require to exercise discretion taking account of the specific circumstances of each case in its merits and the advice of the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken, and what action he intends taking, to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom."

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The report was prepared for the European Commission which has yet to develop any firm proposals. The Government take the view that policy on child care is a matter for member states and that families themselves should determine how their children are to be cared for. It is for parents to decide how to combine work and family responsibilities. The Government, through the ministerial group on women's issues, are encouraging the development of a range of quality day care.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Regional Functions
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what functions his Department carries out at the regional level; where the regional offices are located in each of the regions; what staff are employed and at what grades; what proportion of his Department's budget is spent in each of the regions; and what geographical boundaries determine his Department's regions.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has no administrative regional organisation, although HMI has a divisional structure. There is one administrative outstation in Darlington which deals with teachers' pensions and some other functions. Details of the Darlington outstation and of HMI's divisional structure are as follows:
  707

  Administrative outstation in Darlington Grades and numbers of staff

  Grades

  Number

  G5

  1

  G6

  2

  G7

  9

  SEO

  25

  HEO

  67

  EO

  127

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate's Divisional Structure

  Division

  Grade and Numbers of Staff

  Proportion of Department's 1 Budget Per cent.

  HMI

  Support Staff

  G5

  G6

  EO

  AO

  AA

  P/Sec

  Typist

  Eastern

  Barking and Dagenham, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Havering, Hertfordshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Newham, Redbridge, Suffolk, Waltham Forest

  1·0

  54·0

  1·0

  1·8

  3·5

  6·0

  10·0

  3·3

  Metropolitan South Midland

  Barnet, Brent, Buckinghamshire, Ealing, Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, ILEA, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire

  3·0

  62·0

  1·0

  1·0

  3·0

  6·0

  13·2

  3·9

  Midland

  Derbyshire, Hereford and Worcester, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, West Midlands

  4·0

  62·0

  1·0

  2·0

  1·0

  7·0

  15·0

  3·9

  Northern

  Cleveland, Cumbria, Durham, Humberside, Northumberland, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire

  3·0

  63·0

  1·0

  1·2

  3·0

  7·0

  15·5

  3·9

  North Western

  Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside

  4·0

  60·0

  1·0

  1·0

  2·6

  4·0

  13·0

  3·7

  Southern

  Berkshire, Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, East Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Kingston on Thames, Merton, Richmond on Thames, Surrey, Sutton, West Sussex

  12·0

  49·0

  1·0

  2·0

  4·5

  6·0

  12·1

  3·8

  South Western

  Avon, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucester, Isles of Scilly, Somerset, Wiltshire

  3·0

  44·0

  1·0

  1·0

  0·8

  5·0

  10·1

  2·8

  1 The percentage figures represent the proportion of the Department's running costs for 1990–91.

  Portage Schemes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Leyton, 29 January,Official Report, column 33, when he intends to place in the Library a copy of the Her Majesty's inspectorate survey on portage projects funded by education support grants.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A copy of the Her Majesty's inspectorate survey on portage project was sent to the Library on 9 February, but I have now placed further copies there.
  708

  Grades

  Number

  AO

  219

  AA

  133

  Typing

  27

  Support Grades

  52

  Proportion of Department's budget (per cent.)

  9·1

  City Technology College, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the city technology college in Bradford; and when he expects the school to open.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The main buildings for the Bradford technology college will be complete and the college will open in September 1990 with 180 first-form pupils.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make available further details of the method of application for top-up loans for students; and if he will make a statement.
  709
  Mr. MacGregor
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a paper summarising the student loans certification and application process. The academic institutions' role will be limited to making the forms available, identifying students and certifying their eligibility for loans and loan entitlement. Students will apply for loans direct to the Student Loans Company, through the post. The system is designed to ensure that loans reach eligible students with maximum speed and efficiency.

  School Meals and Milk
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning difficulties arising from schools being required to collect moneys from parents for meals and milk taken by pupils at school; how many local education authorities in England and Wales require schools to make such collections; what savings he estimates would be made in school administration costs if the requirement to collect moneys were removed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I am not aware of any such representations being received.

  The provision of school meals and milk, and the arrangements made to administer these services, are matters for local determination. Information is not collected centrally by the Department.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Social Security Act 1986 to permit local education authorities to provide meals and milk free to pupils; what representations he has received concerning difficulties caused by schools being required to collect moneys from parents for milk and meals taken by school pupils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to reintroduce powers for LEAs to provide free meals on a discretionary basis. Section 77 of the Social Security Act 1986 places LEAs under a duty to provide free school meals to pupils whose families are in receipt of income support.

  I am not aware of any representations being received in the Department about the collection of moneys for school meals and milk.

  Magnet Schools
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representions he has received from the leader of the Inner London education authority on the subject of magnet schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received no specific representations, although he receives letters from time to time, and holds meetings, where a number of issues are discussed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Regional Functions
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what functions his Department carries out at the regional level; where the regional offices are located in 710
  each of the regions; what staff are employed and at what grades; what proportion of his Department's budget is spent in each of the regions; and what geographical boundaries determine his Department's regions.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The regional offices of DOE (Central) perform a general representational role, involving liaison with local authorities and other bodies, and also carry out a number of executive functions in the housing, planning and urban policy fields. These include, for example, on housing distributing resources through the housing investment programme (HIP) system and establishing housing action trusts (HATs); on planning, advising on strategic planning, handling the approval of structure plans, and issuing decisions on certain types of planning appeals and other casework; and on urban policy, promoting urban development corporations (UDCs), liaising with local authorities on the urban programme (UP), participating in (and in some cases providing the secretariat for) city action teams (CATs), and processing applications for derelict land grant (DLG).

  DOE(C) has nine regional offices, in the north, north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside, east midlands, west midlands, eastern region, south-west, south-east and London. In addition there is a task force based in Merseyside. The geographical coverage of each region and the location of the main office is as set out in table A.

  I will write to the hon. Member with regard to the PSA at a later date.

  Table A

  A Location and geographical boundaries of DOE(C) regional offices

  Counties covered

  Main office

  North West regional office

  Northumberland Tyne and Wear

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Durham

  Cleveland

  North West regional office

  Lancashire

  Manchester

  Greater Manchester

  Cheshire

  Cumbria

  Merseyside (planning work)

  Yorkshire and Humberside regional office

  North Yorkshire

  Leeds

  West Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  Humberside

  East Midlands regional office

  Derbyshire

  Nottingham

  Nottinghamshire

  Lincolnshire

  Leicestershire

  Northamptonshire

  West Midlands regional office

  Staffordshire

  Birmingham

  Shorpshire

  West Midlands

  Warwickshire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Eastern regional office

  Norfolk

  Bedford

  Suffolk

  Essex

  Cambridgeshire

  Bedfordshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Hertfordshire

  South West regional office

  Cornwall

  Bristol

  Devon

  Dorset

  711

  Counties covered

  Main office

  Somerset

  Avon

  Wiltshire

  Gloucestershire

  South East regional office

  Oxfordshire

  London

  Berkshire

  Surrey

  Hampshire

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  West Sussex

  Table B: Staff in post in DOE regional offices by grade (or equivalent grade) on 1 February 1990

  Grade 3

  Grade 4

  Grade 5

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Total

  NRO

  1·0

  —

  2·0

  1·0

  9·0

  10·0

  13·0

  22·0

  25·0

  8·0

  91·0

  NWRO

  1·0

  —

  2·0

  3·0

  15·5

  9·0

  23·0

  29·0

  47·5

  24·0

  154·0

  YHRO

  1·0

  —

  2·0

  1·0

  10·0

  15·0

  14·0

  21·0

  22·0

  13·5

  99·5

  EMRO

  —

  1·0

  —

  2·0

  7·0

  10·0

  11·0

  17·0

  23·0

  13·0

  84·0

  WMRO

  1·0

  —

  3·0

  1·0

  11·0

  6·0

  17·5

  23·5

  29·5

  3·0

  95·5

  ERO

  1·0

  —

  2·0

  1·0

  11·0

  7·0

  11·0

  16·0

  10·0

  6·0

  65·0

  SWRO

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  2·0

  8·0

  5·0

  12·0

  13·0

  14·0

  4·0

  60·0

  SERO

  1·0

  —

  3·0

  1·0

  10·0

  10·5

  13·0

  27·0

  16·0

  1·0

  82·5

  LRO

  1·0

  —

  3·0

  2·0

  18·0

  7·5

  24·0

  33·0

  24·0

  1·0

  113·5

  MTF

  —

  —

  2·0

  —

  6·0

  5·0

  11·0

  11·0

  11·0

  1·0

  47·0

  Total

  8·0

  1·0

  20·0

  14·0

  105·5

  85·0

  149·5

  212·5

  222·0

  74·5

  892·0

  The proportion of the Department's central administration vote spent in each of the regions in 1989–90 is set out in table C.

  Table C

  DOE Regional Offices Administrative expenditure as a percentage of the DOE (C) Central Administration Vote (1989–90)

  Per cent.

  NRO

  1·01

  NWRO

  1·56

  YHRO

  1·11

  EMRO

  0·82

  WMRO

  1·07

  ERO

  0·76

  SWRO

  0·69

  SERO

  1·01

  LRO

  1·32

  MTF

  0·55

  Total

  9·90

  Housing Starts
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new housing starts there were in the Yorkshire and Humberside region for 1979, 1983, 1987 and the most recent year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  There were 15,800 starts in Yorkshire and Humberside region in 1989. Figures for the earlier years appear in table 6·4(a) of "Housing and Construction Statistics, 1978–1988", which is in the Library.

  Neighbourhood Noise
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department's special working group on neighbourhood noise problems and the law is likely to produce its report.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The working party on the review of noise, chaired by Mr. James Batho, should produce its report in the summer.
  712

  Counties covered

  Main office

  East Sussex

  London regional office

  Greater London

  London

  Merseyside task force

  Merseyside

  Liverpool

  The staff employed, by grade, in each regional office on 1 February are set out in table B. These figures include staff in common service posts who provide support to the Department of Transport as well as DOE; regional directors also have responsibility for transport.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the occasions in the last 10 years that Her Majesty's Government have been informed under international agreements of any release of radioactive material that could be of radiological significance for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's Government have never been informed of a release of radioactive material of radiological significance to the United Kingdom under international agreements.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the occasions in the last 10 years that RIMNET has detected abnormal levels of radiation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  The RIMNET monitors were installed in June 1988. No abnormal levels of radiation have been detected since that date.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to report to Parliament the proceeds of the water share offers and associated costs; whether that report will include the total value of land and assets privatised under the Water Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Figures for proceeds from and overall costs to the Government of the water share offers are being compiled and will be reported shortly. Information on the assets of all the water holding companies was set out in the water share offers prospectus in November 1989.

  Waste Paper
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce measures to prevent the importation of waste paper from the United States of America.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. Such measures are not required. In 1989 United Kingdom mill consumption of waste paper and board amounted to some 2·578 million tonnes. Only 80,000 tonnes were imported, and of this less than 3 per cent. originated from north America.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had about market, legal or other obstacles faced by enterprises seeking to develop recycling of waste paper.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry have received many representations and comments about issues concerning the recycling of waste paper. For this reason the Government have established a recycling forum with a series of expert groups, including one specifically dealing with waste paper recycling. We hope to make the conclusions of the expert groups public shortly.

  East European Countries
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what request he has received for assistance towards improving the environment in(a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) Czechoslovakia, (d) East Germany and (e) the Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government are receiving a good deal of information from formal and informal sources about the environment in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We provided experts for two fact-finding missions to Poland and Hungary earlier this year. We are working actively through the G24 process—in which we are playing a leading part—and other appropriate multilateral and bilateral mechanisms to promote the adoption of environmentally sustainable policies within Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and the Soviet Union. Our overriding concern is to ensure that assistance for tackling the wide range of complex environmental problems involved should be based on sound science and a knowledge of the different priorities within each country.

  New Town Corporation Properties
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet made an assessment of the desirability of introducing a rents into mortgages scheme for the tenants of new town corporation properties.

  Mr. Chope
  No, but we are following the progress of the experimental rents into mortgages schemes for tenants of Scottish Homes and the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Language Teachers
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if foreign nationals temporarily resident in the United Kingdom for the purpose of foreign language teaching are liable to pay the poll tax.
  714
  Mr. Chope
  Everyone aged 18 or over, who is not exempt, and who is solely or mainly resident in England, Scotland or Wales will be subject to the personal community charge for the days on which the community charges registration officer for the area determines that they are so resident. The matter will be determined by the community charges registration officers in light of the facts of each case.

  Anyone who is aggrieved by a decision made by a community charge registration officer to enter him on the charging authority's registers as subject to a community charge may appeal to valuation and community charge tribunal.

  Drought Risk
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether water levels are now sufficient to avoid an immediate risk of drought conditions in 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  Water resources are now normal apart from a few pockets in Kent, East Anglia and east Yorkshire where groundwater levels have been slow to recover and supply difficulties may arise.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits for 1989–90.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes. To enable the transfer of some 4,500 dwellings from the Commission for the New Towns to Peterborough city council, I have issued a supplementary capital allocation of £24,039,200 to the council covering the transfer price. The non-voted cash limit DOE/NT1 (New Towns) has been correspondingly reduced by £24,039,200 from minus £420,646,000 to minus £444,685,200. The transaction will not therefore add to the total of planned public expenditure.

  Collective Community Change
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to make additional resources available to local authorities for the monitoring of the collection of moneys by landlords within properties designated for the collective community charge.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am confident that charging authorities have sufficient resources to collect the personal, standard and collective community charges. The chargeable person who is shown in the community charges register as subject to the collective charge will be required to maintain a record of the payments of contributions which he collects. The charging authority will be able to inspect these records.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was paid in fees to the organisations listed in his answer on 13 March,Official Report, columns 186–87.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is not the normal practice of Her Majesty's Government to publish the sums paid to individual advisers and contractors in a privatisation, as this information is a matter of commercial confidentiality.
  715
  Figures for overall costs to the Government of the water share offers are being compiled and will be reported shortly.

  Council Tenants (Transfers)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations about the likely effects of part VI of the Local Government Act 1989 on the movement of council tenants from the south to the north of England.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Boundary Review, Oxford
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce the outcome of the boundary review in respect of Oxford city.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 21 March 1990]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to announce his decision this month.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer of 12 March, if he will list the amounts spent by the Leeds development corporation in 1989–90, and planned to be spent in 1990–91 on(a) the promotion and marketing of the urban development area and of Leeds in general, (b) the promotion and marketing of specific sites, (c) keeping the local community informed of the development corporation's activities and (d) the production of an annual report.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 21 March 1990]: The information for 1989–90 is as follows:
  (a) the promotion and marketing of the urban development area and of Leeds in general: £175,000;
  (b) the promotion and marketing of specific sites: £30,000;
  (c) programme of liaison with the local community: £95,000;
  (d) the production of an annual report: £18,000.

  The total expenditure on the items identified in my substantive answer of 14 March is now estimated to be £335,000.

  Urban development corporations are responsible for determining their own spending priorities within budgets, and similar details are not available for 1990–91.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the latest estimate of the total cost of collecting and administering the community charge for 1990–91, excluding set-up costs, (b) the total set-up costs of the introduction of community charge, locally and nationally, (c) the estimated cost of the collection and administration of the rates in 1989–90 and (d) the number of staff employed in the calculations, collection and administration of the rates in 1989–90.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The latest estimate of the total cost of collecting and administering the community charge in 1990–91 is £400 million. The latest estimate made by authorities of the current cost of preparation is £207 million. The estimated capital cost of
  716
  preparation is £160 million. The estimated cost of collecting rates in 1989–90 was £200 million. The total number of staff employed in the calculation, collection arid administration of the rates in 1989–90 is not separately distinguishable in the available statistics.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish in the Official Report recalculations of the tables in annex J of Cmnd. 9714, "Paying for Local Government."

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 21 March 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 15 March, Official Report, volume 169, column 313.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total publicity and advertising expenditure of his Department and public bodies for which his Department has responsibility in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Total expenditure by the FCO (diplomatic wing) in 1979–80 on publicity and advertising was £100,226. For 1989–90 the estimated expenditure is £329,115.

  The expenditure for the public bodies for which the FCO is responsible is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Romanian Children (Adoption)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visas have been (i) applied for and (ii) issued since December 1989 in respect of Romanian children adopted by United Kingdom citizens.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Four such visas have been applied for and one has been granted.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the average time between applications for, and the issuing of, visas in respect of Romanian children adopted by United Kingdom citizens.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our visa procedures are designed to ensure that proper safeguards apply in cases of children brought to this country for adoption. These include inquiries into the child's circumstances overseas and reports by the prospective adopter's local authority. The length of time taken to complete these inquiries will depend on the circumstances of individual cases and it is not possible to estimate the average time for processing visa applications in respect of Romanian children adopted by United Kingdom citizens.

  Sudan
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Sudanese Government concerning the arrest of Farouk Mohammed Ibrahim of the university of Khartoum; and if he will make a statement.
  717
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Her Majesty's embassy has reported that Dr. Farouk Mohammed Ibrahim was released from custody on 10 March and has returned to his work at the university of Khartoum.

  Immigration
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the entry clearance officer's statement of refusal of entry was completed and the clearance officer's statement was forwarded to (i) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, and (ii) the immigration appeals office, London, in respect of Juliet C. Melville, née Crave, who applied for entry clearance in October 1989 at the British embassy in Manila, Philippines.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The entry clearance officer's explanatory statement accompanying Mrs. Melville's appeal, which had been lodged at the embassy in Manila in September 1989, was sent direct to the immigration appeals office on 5 March 1990.

  The delay in processing this appeal was due to disruption to the work of the embassy in November 1989 (move to new premises) and December 1989 (attempted coup), and increased demands on secretarial resources. The post in Manila has now taken on extra staff to help reduce the delay in processing appeals.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision will be taken on the application to enter the United Kingdom made to the United Kingdom's post in Islamabad by Abdul Hamid, who was born on 14 February 1964 (Serial Number: 64050); and if he will make a statement.

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

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom has discussed with its fellow depository member states for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the implications of German state unification for its membership of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have not yet discussed this question with the other depository states of the non-proliferation treaty (N PT). Both the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany are parties to the NPT.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the provenance of the 116 tonnes of ivory in Hong Kong that does not have CITES documents specified in the letter sent by the Hong Kong Agriculture and Fisheries Department to the World Wide Fund for Nature, Hong Kong, dated 27 February, a copy of which has been made available to him.
  718
  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 8 March 1990]: The Hong Kong authorities cannot provide a breakdown of the places of origin of the 116 tonnes of ivory in the territory that do not have CITES documentation. But these have been inspected by the Hong Kong authorities, which have found no evidence that any of these were illegally acquired. No stocks without CITES documentation may be exported from Hong Kong.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 2 February,Official Report, column 405, what further information he has about ivory stocks currently held in Hong Kong (a) that are not marked and registered in accordance with CITES regulations or (b) were illegally acquired.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 8 March 1990]: There are 116 tonnes of ivory in Hong Kong which do not have CITES documentation. The Hong Kong authorities have inspected all commercial ivory stocks in the territory. They have found no evidence that any of these stocks were illegally acquired.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest available figure for the current stock of elephant ivory held in Hong Kong under CITES regulations; and if he will indicate the reasons for the changes in the totals between(a) this figure, (b) the figure given in his answer of 2 February, Official Report, column 405 and (c) the figure given in his answer of 20 July 1989, Official Report, column 334.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 8 March 1990]: The latest available figure for the current stock of elephant ivory held in Hong Kong under CITES regulations (to the nearest tonne) is 356 tonnes, including 102 tonnes of worked ivory and 254 tonnes of raw ivory.

  The figure for worked ivory is slightly smaller than that given on 2 February (104 tonnes) because exports of two tonnes have been notified to the Hong Kong authorities since then. The reason why the total figure for the current ivory stock is substantially less than the figure of 670 tonnes given by my hon. Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 20 July 1989 is that the earlier figure was an estimate based on voluntary declarations by traders. The introduction of a statutory requirement for all commercial holdings of ivory to be licensed has made it possible to produce a much more accurate figure. Moreover, some 50 tonnes of ivory have been exported since the original declaration was made.

DEFENCE

  Regional Functions
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what functions his Department carries out at the regional level; where the regional offices are located in each of the regions; what staff are employed and at what grades; what proportion of his Department's budget is spent in each of the regions; and what geographical boundaries determine his Department's regions.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information relating to the regional distribution of service and civilian personnel together with
  719
  expenditure on defence equipment is already published in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, Cm. 675, volume 2. Expenditure across the defence budget as a whole is not accounted for on a regional basis.

  Personnel (Loans and Secondments)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the countries where service personnel are currently on(a) loan service and (b) secondment.

  Mr. Neubert
  Members of Her Majesty's armed forces are currently on loan service in the following countries.

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brunei

  Dominica

  Fiji

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Grenada

  Hong Kong

  Indonesia

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Lesotho

  Malaysia

  Mauritius

  Namibia

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Oman

  Qatar

  Saudi Arabia

  Singapore

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  United Arab Emirates

  Zimbabwe1

  1 Since January 1986 a wing of the British military advisory and training team has been specifically allocated to train Mozambican troops within Zimbabwe.

  Current policy is for overseas military assistance to foreign Governments to be provided on loan service rather than secondment terms but, in accordance with particular longstanding arrangements, some personnel are serving on secondment in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

  Patent Rights
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those instances where he has exercised his right to use without payment, or authorised others to use without payment, any patents for any Government purpose; and whether there are any patents falling within this right which he has paid for the use of.

  Mr. Neubert
  Patents which the Secretary of State has the right to use without payment, including the right to authorise others to use without payment, fall into two categories. The first category consists of patents owned by the Crown. The second category consists of patents for inventions which have arisen as a result of public funding in circumstances where the Secretary of State is granted such rights—for example, inventions which have arisen under contract.

  No account is kept of instances where patents in either of the above categories are used, and, where the Secretary
  720
  of State receives the right to use or authorise the use of a patent for an invention that has arisen as a result of public funding, there is no requirement to inform the patentee as to the extent of the use of the patent.

  There are no known instances of payment by the Secretary of State for the use of a patent which he has the right to use free of charge.

  Public House, Knightsbridge (Attack)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to write to the hon. Member for Leyton concerning the assault of a soldier, as undertaken in his answer of 26 October 1989,Official Report, column 562.

  Mr. Neubert
  The hon. Member should by now have received a reply from my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces.

  RAF Fylingdales
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for how long the proposed environmental study is to be undertaken around the new phased array radar system currently being installed at the Fylingdales Royal Air Force station;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to publish the results of the proposed environmental study to be undertaken around the new phased array radar system currently being installed at the Fylingdales Royal Air Force station;

  (3) what is the purpose of, and what parameters are to be measured in, the proposed environmental study to be undertaken around the new phased array radar system currently being installed at the Fylingdales Royal Air Force station;

  (4) which agency is to undertake the proposed environmental study to be undertaken around the new phased array radar system currently being installed at the Fylingdales Royal Air Force station.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are no plans for an environmental study to be undertaken round the new phased array radar being installed at RAF Fylingdales. The RAF signals engineering establishment will, however, conduct radio frequency assessments at the station over a period of about six months before the new radar system is brought into operation, to ensure that the radar transmissions from the system satisfy both the design specification and RAF safety regulations. On security grounds, it is not our practice to publish the results of such assessments.

  Overseas Territories
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all countries who have sent(a) military cadets and (b) senior service men to training schools in the United Kingdom since 1979; how many military persons were involved in each case; and what has been the total cost to the United Kingdom of this training.

  Mr. Neubert
  The following countries have sent military personnel for training at United Kingdom service establishments on at least one occasion since 1 January 1979. It is not possible to distinguish between military cadets and senior service men, as information is not held centrally in this form and could not be compiled without disproportionate cost.

  Afghanistan

  Anguilla

  721

  Antigua

  Argentina

  Australia

  Bahamas

  Bahrein

  Bangledesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Burma (Myanmar)

  Burundi

  Cameroons

  Canada

  Chad

  Chile

  Congo

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  Dominica

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Ethiopia

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gambia

  Germany (Federal Republic)

  Ghana

  Gibraltar

  Greece

  Guyana

  Honduras

  Hong Kong

  Iceland

  India

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Iraq

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Ivory Coast

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kiribati (Gilbert Islands)

  Kuwait

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Libya

  Liechtenstein

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Mauritius

  Montserrat

  Morocco

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Papua New Guinea

  Peru

  Philippines

  Portugal

  Qatar

  St. Kitts

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  722

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Somalia

  South Korea

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Syria

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Tonga

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Turkey

  Uganda

  United Arab Emirates

  Upper Volta (Burkina Faso)

  United States of America

  Venezuela

  Yemen

  Yugoslavia

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  The approximate numbers of overseas service men who attended United Kingdom military training courses in each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Numbers

  1979

  6,450

  1980

  5,300

  1 1981–82

  5,650

  1982–83

  4,600

  1983–84

  5,200

  1984–85

  5,450

  1985–86

  5,150

  1986–87

  5,500

  1987–88

  4,850

  1988–89

  5,150

  1 From 1981–82 statistics have been gathered by financial rather than calendar years.

  Further specific details about numbers trained are generally confidential between her Majesty's Government and the Government concerned.

  The bulk of this training has been carried out on repayment.

  Radar (Hazards)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the bio-hazard associated with the phased array radar currently under construction at Fylingdales.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 March 1990]: Theoretical assessments have indicated that the phased array radar will not produce power density levels at ground level beyond its immediate vicinity which will exceed those stipulated by current RAF regulations. Furthermore, a practical assessment will be carried out before the radar is brought into operational use to confirm these findings.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria currently govern the bio-hazards associated with radar emissions.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 March 1990]: The RAF is required to meet the standards set out in "Home

  723
  Office Safety Precautions Relating to Intense Radio Frequency Radiation, 1960", but has issued its own more stringent regulations which impose lower maximum power density levels.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what current research is being undertaken into the bio-hazards associated with radar emissions.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 March 1990]: No such research is being undertaken by the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the phased array radar currently under contruction at Fylingdales will radiate more energy than the current radar at Fylingdales.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 March 1990]: No.

HEALTH

  Children Act
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional financial resources will be made available to local authorities in order to assist them in the implementation of the provisions of the Children Act.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) on 9 March at column 897.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) further to table 6.13(a) of the general household survey for 1986, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each country in 1986, with the relevant base, the distribution by sex and marital status of heads of household for dwellings rented from local authorities and new towns, together with an estimate for 1988 and 1989;

  (2) further to table 6.13(b) of the general household survey for 1986, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each country in 1986, with the relevant base, the distribution of dwellings rented from local authorities and new towns of heads of household by sex and marital status, together with an estimate for 1988 and 1989;

  (3) further to table 6.14(a) of the general household survey for 1986, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each country, with the relevant base, the distribution of (a) mortgagors and (b) local authority and new town tenants by socio-economic group in 1986, together with an estimate for the years 1988 and 1989;

  (4) further to table 6.14(a) of the general household survey for 1986, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each country in 1986, with the relevant base, the distribution by sex and marital status of heads of household for dwellings rented from local authorities and new towns in 1986, together with an estimate for 1988 and 1989;

  (5) further to table 6.15(b) of the general household survey for 1986, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each country in 1986, with the
  724
  relevant base, the distribution by usual gross weekly household incomes in the case of local authority and new town tenants, together with an estimate for 1988 and 1989;

  (6) further to table 6.18(a) of the general household survey for 1986, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each region in 1986 I he distribution of the type of accommodation by tenure, together with (a) the implied populations and (b) an estimate for 1989 or if unavailable for 1988;

  (7) further to table 6.19 of the general household survey for 1986 whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each country and each region in 1986 the implied population of accommodation by types listed in table 6.18 in the case of local authority or new town tenures, together with an estimate for 1989 or if unavailable for 1988;

  (8) further to table 6.10 of the general household survey for 1986, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each country with the relevant base the distribution of mortgagors by income, in 1986, together with an estimate for 1988 and 1989;

  (9) further to table 6.10 of the general household survey for 1986, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each country, with the relevant base, the percentage of economically inactive heads of household by tenure in 1986, together with an estimate for 1989 and a forecast for 1990;

  (10) further to table 6.2 of the general household survey for 1986, whether he will publish in the Official Report the figures for each region for 1986 with the relevant base, together with an estimate for 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information that is available has been placed in the Library.

  Cancer (Yorkshire)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the figures held by the Yorkshire regional cancer registry of the number of people in the area of(a) Pontefract district health authority and (b) Wakefield district health authority, who have been diagnosed or treated for cancer or cancer-related disease including leukaemia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the Yorkshire regional cancer registry.

  Soviet Health Minister
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of 6 March,Official Report, column 580, if he will give details of the letter he received from the Soviet Health Minister; and what was his response.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Soviet Health Minister, Mr. E. Chazov, sent a letter which suggested that nuclear weapons testing posed a threat to life and health, and called for a test ban. I replied, among other things, that these tests posed no danger to public health and that as we wish to retain a nuclear deterrent, we should have to retain weapons testing.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of fatal births which can be attributed to(a) late births and (b) questionable handling and treatment of the mother.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of stillbirths by gestation week for England and Wales, 1988 is shown in the table. Information regarding the treatment of the mother in these cases is not available centrally.

  Gestation week

  Number of stillbirths

  28

  204

  29

  196

  30

  227

  31

  178

  32

  232

  33

  145

  34

  205

  Country

  1978

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Austria1

  15·0

  11·9

  11·4

  411·0

  10·3

  9·8

  —

  Belgium2

  13·3

  10·6

  10·7

  9·4

  49·7

  49·7

  —

  Denmark2

  8·8

  7·7

  7·7

  7·9

  8·2

  8·3

  —

  Finland1

  7·7

  6·2

  6·5

  6·3

  5·9

  n/a

  —

  France2

  10·7

  9·1

  8·3

  8·3

  8·0

  7·8

  —

  Germany Federal Republic2

  14·7

  10·2

  9·6

  9·0

  8·7

  8·3

  —

  Greece2

  19·3

  14·6

  14·3

  14·1

  12·2

  411·7

  —

  Ireland2

  14·9

  10·1

  9·6

  8·9

  48·7

  47·4

  —

  Italy2

  17·1

  12·3

  411·3

  410·3

  49·8

  49·6

  —

  Luxembourg2

  10·6

  11·2

  11·7

  9·0

  7·9

  9·4

  —

  Netherlands2

  9·6

  8·4

  8·3

  8·0

  7·7

  7·6

  —

  Norway1

  8·6

  7·9

  8·3

  8·5

  7·9

  n/a

  —

  Portugal2

  29·1

  19·2

  16·7

  17·8

  15·8

  14·2

  —

  Spain2

  15·3

  7·3

  9·9

  48·5

  48·8

  n/a

  —

  Sweden1

  7·8

  7·2

  6·4

  46·7

  45·9

  n/a

  —

  Switzerland1

  8·6

  7·5

  7·1

  6·9

  6·8

  6·8

  —

  United Kingdom3

  13·3

  10·2

  9·6

  9·4

  9·5

  9·1

  9·0

  England and Wales3

  13·2

  10·1

  9·5

  9·4

  9·6

  9·2

  9·0

  Rates provided are as published in:—

  1 World Health Organistion "World Health Statistics Annual",

  2 The Statistical Office of the European Community "Eurostat Demographic Statistics".

  3 Population Trends OPCS.

  4 Provisional.

  Infant mortality—Deaths under one year per 1,000 livebirths.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost in the latest year for which figures are available of treatment facilities for people with problems of drug abuse.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is (i) the cost and (ii) the proportion of total expenditure on facilities for people with problems of drug abuse incurred by(a) the National Health Service, (b) local authorities and (c) the non-statutory sector.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in the form requested.

  In 1989–90, the Department allocated £14·8 million to regional health authorities for the further development of all drug misuse services including treatment facilities. In addition, over £970,000 was allocated to local projects under the central funding initiative.
  726

  Gestation week

  Number of stillbirths

  35

  205

  36

  268

  37

  286

  38

  295

  39

  246

  40

  342

  41

  141

  42 and over

  80

  Total

  3,250

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on infant mortality in each European country.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows the infant mortality rate by country in 1978 and from 1983–88:

  Treatment (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rights to free National Health Service treatment in the United Kingdom(a) nationals of European Economic Community countries and (b) non-European Economic Community nationals have; and on what agreements and so on they are based.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All visitors to the United Kingdom are subject to at least the same charges for treatment within the NHS as United Kingdom residents. The NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1982 set out the basis on which charges should be applied in the case of patients not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom but also provide for exemptions inter alia from some charges for nationals or residents of other countries with which the United Kingdom has reciprocal health agreements, including the arrangements under the European Community social security regulations. The latter require that EC nationals visiting another member state be provided with immediately necessary treatment, the need for which arose during a visit, on the same basis as nationals of the host member state; they also provide
  727
  for EC member states to refer patients elsewhere in the Community specifically for treatment of pre-existing conditions. The costs incurred in respect of all such treatments for EC nationals are ultimately met by the patients' home state. The United Kingdom has bilateral reciprocal health agreements with 25 non-EC states, all of which cover immediately necessary treatment; 11 also allow for a limited number of referrals specifically for treatment for pre-existing conditions. These agreements provide for each of the signatories to meet the cost of the treatment provided in its own territory.

  Any visitor to the United Kingdom may apply to use the general medical services in the same way and on the same conditions as those who are ordinarily resident here. It is a matter for the discretion of the individual practitioner whether to accept someone for treatment as an NHS patient.

  Cancer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' recent publication, "Socio-demographic Differences in Cancer Survival 1971–83"; and what action he proposes to take on behalf of the various groups of people identified as being more prone to cancer and less likely to survive it.

  Mr. Freeman
  The report gives a valuable and detailed analysis of differences in cancer mortality between social groups which will be studied with interest by our expert advisers. It suggests that these differences are more likely to be attributable to variations in the incidence of cancer than in its treatment. The Government attach great importance to securing both reductions in incidence and improvements in survival for all groups, through comprehensive programmes of prevention, including health education and screening, and by encouraging equality of access to high-quality services.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take to increase the number of women attending for mammographs; and whether he has any plans to make more effective the breast cancer screening programme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Take-up among those invited for screening is an essential factor in the achievement of an effective screening programme. A number of initiatives have been undertaken to educate and encourage women to respond positively to their invitations. The programme is funding four cancer screening development workers' posts in districts with multi-ethnic populations to examine the acceptability of breast screening to women in these groups and find out whether any special approach is required. The Cancer Research Campaign is conducting a study into attendance and non-attendance of those invited for screening and how take-up might be encouraged by primary health care teams. The breast screening research sub-committee of the United Kingdom co-ordinating committee on cancer research has set up a working group to review and co-ordinate existing studies into acceptability and to stimulate new research in this area. The Health Education Authority has conducted research, produced leaflets and other forms of information on the programme and supported local health education initiatives. We also 728
  encourage women's voluntary organisations to promote the programme and to encourage their members to take up their screening invitations when they receive them.

  London Air Ambulance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what charges he expects to be generated by the London Air Ambulance; who he anticipates will be the payers and whom the beneficiaries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Express Newspapers plc is providing I he aircraft used by the helicopter emergency medical service completely free of charge to the National Health Service. This use of a medically staffed helicopter for emergency purposes is to be the subject of an independent evaluation to be carried out by Professor Brian Williams of the department of community medicine, Sheffield university.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total publicity and advertising expenditure of his Department and its predecessor and public bodies for which his Department and its predecessor has responsibility in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Freeman
  Estimated expenditure on publicity and advertising for the financial years 1978–79 and 1988–89 was:

  £ million

  1978–79

  13·5

  1988–89

  44·6

  These figures include expenditure by the Department of Health, health authorities in England, the Health Education Council (in 1978–79) and the Health Education Authority (in 1988–89). Information on publicity and advertising expenditure by other special health authorities and public bodies is not available centrally, but is not thought to be significant.

  Midwives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any proposals which could alter employment rights, pay and working conditions of midwives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Recommendations on pay for nurses and midwives are put forward each year by the independent pay review body for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine. Conditions of service are negotiated in the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council and the general Whitley council. We have no proposals to alter these arrangements.

  Under the Government's proposals for reform of the National Health Service as described in the White Paper "Working for Patients", National Health Service trusts will be free to settle the pay and conditions of their staff, including midwives. They will be able to follow national agreements or adopt partly or wholly different arrangements.

  Staff who transfer from health authority to National Health Service trust employment will retain their existing contracts and all rights arising from them, subject to

  729
  substitution of the new employer for the old and any consequential technical changes. It will be open to National Health Service trusts to seek to introduce changes in existing contracts at any time after transfer.

  Treatment Statistics
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish for each English and Welsh district health authority the number of residents treated in terms of the 1988–89 consultant episodes(a) for all specialties and (b) omitting the specialties of maternity and psychiatry.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information for English district health authorities is expected to be published towards the end of this year. Information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Lancashire (General Practitioners)
  Mr. Miscampbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners in Lancashire have applied to manage their own indicative budgets.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 20 March at column 540.

  Wheelchairs and Artificial Limbs
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how spinal injury units will recover the cost of the appliances from other regions under the new proposed arrangements for dispensing wheelchairs and artificial limbs.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under proposals in the NHS and Community Care Bill, services provided by spinal injury units after 1 April 1991 will be supplied and paid for under contracts in the same way as all other hospital and community health services.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the ring-fencing of funds for the dispensing of wheelchairs and artificial limbs will affect the consumers' choice of the best and most appropriate appliance; and whether health authorities will be able to spend over the ring-fenced budget.

  Mr. Freeman
  The ring fencing of funds will guarantee a minimum level of resources for these services sufficient to provide the extensive range of appliances already available and being developed. It will be for health authorities to decide how best to meet the needs of their population for these appliances and they will, of course, be able to spend on these services more than the ring-fenced amount by funding from their general allocations.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to introduce regulations under the provisions of the Abortion Act to require those charitable pregnancy counselling agencies which refer women for abortions to keep records of the numbers of such women they refer in any given year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Pregnancy advice bureaux are required to maintain registers which show, inter alia,730
  whether women are referred for abortion. These registers are inspected by the Departments' investigative officers in their inspection visits.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define "seriously handicapped" as used in statutory ground 4 of the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The opinion as to whether an abortion is justified in terms of ground 4, or any other ground, of the Abortion Act 1967 is for two registered medical practitioners to form in good faith, in the light of their clinical judgment of all the particular circumstances of the individual case.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has issued on abortions after 24 weeks' gestation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  When it became clear in 1985 that the consensus of the relevant professional bodies about the point at which a foetus could be said to be viable had changed in the light of medical and scientific developments to 24 weeks' gestation, the Department made it a condition of approval for those private sector clinics licensed to carry out abortions over 20 weeks that no abortions were carried out over 24 weeks' gestation. In addition, that view was drawn to the attention of clinicians working in both the private sector and in the NHS. There has been a significant reduction in recent years in the number of abortions after 24 weeks. Only 22 were carried out in England and Wales in 1988.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has issued any instructions to hospitals and private abortion clinics regarding the implications of Justice Brookes's recent ruling on the meaning of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The question of whether a child is capable of being born alive is for the court to decide in any particular case on the basis of the evidence before it.

  Nurses' Homes
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration was given by the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council at its meeting on 13 March to abating board and lodging charges for nurses living in nurses' homes by the rates element in respect of the collective community charge payable with effect from 18 April.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council has now reached agreement on lodging charges for 1990–91. To take account of the abolition of domestic rates in England and Wales, charges in those countries are being reduced by the element attributable to rates.

  Terminally Ill People
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is provided to people who are terminally ill in respect of prescriptions and other medical costs.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Terminally ill patients incur no charges for the treatment or medication that they
  731
  receive during their stay in hospital. Although they are not specifically exempted from prescription and other NHS charges there are wide-ranging exemption arrangements designed to help patients who might have difficulty in paying NHS charges. As the result of these arrangements over 75 per cent. of all items dispensed in the NHS are provided free. People who are not exempt but who need frequent medication can reduce the cost by purchasing a prepayment certificate.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his best estimates of the numbers of National Health Servie properties which have been designated for the collective community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken by health authorities to reduce the rate-inclusive rents paid by nurses and other staff living in health authority accommodation following the introduction of the community charge on 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities have been advised in circular EL(90)MB/43 that as from 1 April 1990 they should cease to collect the rates addition to rental charges. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The level of lodging charges for nursing staff is determined by the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council, which has recently reached agreement on charges for 1990–91. To take account of the abolition of domestic rates in England and Wales, charges in those countries are being reduced by the element attributable to rates.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the number of prescriptions issued by community pharmacists for the year 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many repeat prescriptions of benzodiazepines are given to patients without doctors seeing the patient for a check-up; and if he has any plans to prevent or reduce such practice.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested cannot be determined from centrally held information on prescribing. Doctors already have advice about the use of these drugs from the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Royal College of Physicians, Psychiatrists and General Practitioners, the British Medical Association and the British National Formulary.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those clinics and hospitals in England and Wales which specialise chiefly in helping people to withdraw from benzodiazepines.
  732
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state how much his Department is spending in 1990–91 on warning the public about the dangers of addiction to(a) hard drugs and (b) benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Freeman
  The current phase of the national drug publicity campaign cost £3·8 million, spread over two financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91. The campaign warns of the danger of misusing any drug. Further expenditure in 1990–91 will be considered as appropriate.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the blanket prescribing of benzodiazepine hypnotics in hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The use of benzodiazepines in the treatment of a patient is a matter of clinical judgment. Information on the volume of benzodiazepines prescribed in hospitals is not held centrally.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much the work force in employment in the United Kingdom has increased since 1983.

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 March 1990,c. 203–04]: I regret that the information given in my reply of 13 March 1990 was incorrect, as it gave employment estimates prior to the revisions following the publication, on 9 March 1990, of the 1989 labour force survey results. The correct information is as follows:
  Since 1983 the United Kingdom work force in employment has been on a rising trend. In September 1989 the latest dare for which information is available, the work force in employment was 26,955,000. This represents an increase of 3,391,000 of 14·4 per cent. since March 1983 when the figure was 23,564,000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Regional Functions
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what functions his Department carries out at the regional level; where the regional offices are located in each of the regions; what staff are employed and at what grades; what proportion of his Department's budget is spent in each of the regions; and what geographical boundaries determine his Department's regions.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department has a three-tier structure of regional, divisional and area offices. The geographical extent of the five regions and the location of the regional offices are as follows:

  Region

  Regional Office

  Area, by county

  South Western

  Bristol

  Avon, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wiltshire, Isles of Stilly.

  South Eastern

  Reading

  Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey, East and West Sussex, parts of the Greater London area.

  733

  Region

  Regional Office

  Area, by county

  Eastern

  Cambridge

  Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Suffolk, parts of the Greater London area.

  Midlands and Western

  Wolverhampton

  Cheshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester, West Midlands Metropolitan County, Hereford and Worcester.

  Northern

  Leeds

  Cleveland, Cumbria, Durham, Humberside, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, North, South and West Yorkshire.

  A wide range of functions are carried out at the regional level. These include the administration of a number of grants and subsidy schemes, the provision of scientific, professional and technical advice (both free and charged), the conduct of research and development, the statutory control of animal diseases, the provision of a veterinary laboratory diagnostic service, meat hygiene and consumer protection work and safeguarding animal welfare.

  As at 1 March 1990, the total number of staff of all grades stationed in each region was:

  Region

  Administrative

  ADAS

  FCS

  RDS

  SVS

  South Western

  469

  264

  12

  250

  South Eastern

  275·5

  212

  101

  Eastern

  427

  298

  110·5

  213

  Northern

  438

  239

  92·5

  Midlands and Western

  533·5

  326

  91

  165·5

  TOTAL

  2,143

  1,339

  407

  628·5

  ADAS: Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.

  FCS: Farm and Countryside Service.

  RDS: Research and Development Service.

  SVS: State Veterinary Service.

  734
  These figures do not include staff at the central veterinary and science laboratories, staff engaged on fisheries work and outstationed headquarters staff. Nor do they include the 345 ADAS officers stationed in Scotland and Wales.

  I regret that a detailed breakdown of the regional staff by grade and an analysis of the Department's budget by region are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate expense.

  Horses (Export)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the export of live horses to European abattoirs after 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are seeking to maintain controls to prevent the export of horses for slaughter.

  Leptospirosis Vaccine
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average cost of leptospirosis vaccine in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on its cost in New Zealand.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no information on the cost of leptospirosis vaccines in this country or New Zealand.

  Sheep Brains and Offals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research that is being carried out by his Department into infectious diseases passing into the human food chain by the use of sheep brains and offals being fed to pigs, sheep and poultry being reared for domestic consumption.

  Mr. Maclean
  A number of areas of current research are relevant to this topic, including:Monitoring of any spongiform encephalopathy in animals by brain histology.
  Pathology of experimental mouse scrapie.
  Inactivation studies in comparison with scrapie.
  Strain typing in comparison with BSE.
  Inactivation studies in relation to meat and bone meal.
  Technical developments in diagnosis by using scrapie associated fibrils and genotyping of farm sheep.
  Breeding programmes for resistance to scrapie.
  Transmission studies using marmosets, sheep and goats.

  Grade 1 Agricultural Land
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what are the current restrictions on release of grade 1 agricultural land;

  (2) what exceptions are permitted to the criteria governing the release of grade 1 agricultural land.

  Mr. Curry
  Responsibility for day-to-day planning control, including the consideration and determination of applications for planning permission, rests with the appropriate planning authority in the first instance. The Government issue guidance to local authorities on development involving agricultural land which is contained in DOE circular 16/87 issued on 8 May 1987. Annex B to that circular gives information and technical guidance on specific agricultural matters, including agricultural land quality, to assist local authorities in applying the policy contained in the main body of the circular. Copies of the circular are available in the Library of the House.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) of 13 December 1989,Official Report, column 695–97, whether there have been any changes in the membership of the Food Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Maclean
  There has been one change in the membership of the Food Advisory Committee since last December. I have recently accepted Mr. M. J. Boxall's resignation. I am currently considering suitable replacements and I will make an announcement when the appointment is decided.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy for each county of England and Wales for the four-week period ended 16 March.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  County

  Number

  Avon

  23

  Bedfordshire

  1

  Berkshire

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Cheshire

  27

  Cleveland

  1

  Clwyd

  5

  Cornwall

  83

  Cumbria

  9

  Derbyshire

  17

  Devon

  84

  Dorset

  78

  Durham

  2

  Dyfed

  24

  Essex

  6

  Gloucestershire

  25

  Gwent

  9

  Gwynedd

  4

  Hampshire

  37

  Hereford and Worcester

  18

  Hertfordshire

  3

  Humberside

  4

  736

  County

  Number

  Isle of Wight

  3

  Kent

  18

  Lancashire

  15

  Leicestershire

  22

  Lincolnshire

  3

  Norfolk

  16

  Northamptonshire

  9

  Northumberland

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  Oxfordshire

  27

  Powys

  8

  Shropshire

  19

  Somerset

  90

  Staffordshire

  19

  Suffolk

  11

  Surrey

  13

  Sussex East

  14

  Sussex West

  26

  West Midlands

  2

  Warwickshire

  16

  Wiltshire

  53

  Yorkshire North

  33

  Yorkshire South

  5

  Yorkshire West

  8

  Total

  909

  Abattoirs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much meat was produced in total from abattoirs in the United Kingdom in 1989.

  Mr. Gummer
  Total red meat production from United Kingdom abattoirs in 1989 was 2·276 million tonnes carcase weight.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much meat was consumed in the United Kingdom from non-European Community approved abattoirs in 1989.

  Mr. Gummer
  Data on consumption from particular abattoirs are not collected; red meat production from non EC-approved abattoirs in 1989 was 1·1525 million tonnes carcase weight.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the general conclusions by the European Community arising from their 1989 inspection visit to slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  A formal report from the European Commission has not been received. However, I will write to the hon. Member about the information which is available.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many European Community approved abattoirs received(a) suspension warnings and (b) suspensions in 1989 under the Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations.

  Mr. Gummer
  During 1989, five suspension warnings were issued and export approval was suspended in four cases.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much meat from European Community approved abattoirs in the United Kingdom
  737
  was (a) exported and (b) consumed in the United Kingdom in 1989 under the Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations.

  Mr. Gummer
  Abattoirs approved to engage in intra-Community trade under the Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1987 may produce fresh meat for sale on domestic markets as well as for export. It is a matter of commercial judgment for each operator to decide whether to produce meat for export or for domestic markets and figures are not held by my Department as to the destination of the meat from such plants.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the suspension on providing meat to the European Community from the slaughterhouse at North Torrington is still in force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes, this suspension of export approval is still in force. Since suspending export approval, officials have been in discussion with the plant management regarding the necessary improvements, and these are being carried out. Suspension will not be lifted till we are satisfied that the plant conforms to EC export conditions.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total number of abattoirs in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales; and how many were approved for export to the European Community for each year since 1983 for (i) England, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  Whether plants apply for export approval is a matter for their commercial judgment. The total number of abattoirs and of those which have export approval are as follows.

  Northern Ireland

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  United Kingdom

  1983

  EC

  16

  60

  22

  —

  98

  Total

  20

  873

  79

  69

  1,041

  1984

  EC

  16

  61

  22

  —

  99

  Total

  20

  861

  79

  70

  1,030

  1985

  EC

  17

  63

  24

  1

  105

  Total

  21

  852

  75

  72

  1,020

  1986

  EC

  17

  66

  23

  1

  107

  Total

  21

  815

  73

  72

  981

  1987

  EC

  17

  57

  24

  1

  99

  Total

  21

  793

  73

  71

  958

  1988

  EC

  18

  55

  24

  2

  99

  Total

  23

  782

  68

  65

  938

  1989

  EC

  17

  54

  24

  3

  98

  Total

  23

  783

  68

  66

  940

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he requests from applicants to the set-aside scheme with regard to the non-agricultural use of the land to be set aside and planning permission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Farmers wishing to set aside land to non-agricultural use are required to specify the land concerned and to describe the intended new use. Tenants must submit a copy of a consent form signed by the landlord showing that he is content that the land be used for non-agricultural purposes. As already indicated to the hon. Member, information as regards planning permission is not required from applicants, although advice on the point is given in the scheme literature.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, Official Report, 8 March 1990, c. 994]: I am sorry that some incorrect information was provided about grant rates available for flood protection work. At present, under the Land Drainage Act 1976, grant may be paid to the National Rivers Authority at one of four basic rates—15, 30, 45 and 55 per cent. In addition, a supplement of 15 per cent. is added for work to protect against flooding from the sea and tidal rivers. From April this supplement will increase to 20 per cent. and the maximum grant available will therefore be 75 per cent. For local authorities, the basic rate for flood defence work is 26 per cent. The 15 per cent. sea and tidal supplement may also apply at present and, again, the supplement will rise to 20 per cent. in April. Where local authorities carry out work under the Coast Protection Act 1949, grant may be payable within the range 24 to 70 per cent.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Government have to introduce legislation to ensure that all private pensions are index-linked; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 16 March at columns 403–04.

  Benefits
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the central Government expenditure on rent rebates, rent allowances, rate rebates and family credit in 1979 and 1989; and what was the income level at which these benefits ceased and the number of persons in receipt of such benefits in each year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information available is in the table. In 1979–80 assistance with housing costs was provided through the supplementary benefit scheme administered by the Department of Health and Social
  739
  Security and the rent and rate rebate and rent allowance schemes which were the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. The costs and numbers receiving assistance with housing costs through supplementary benefit are not available and the figures for 1979–80 therefore represent the Department of the Environment schemes only. Expenditure in 1989–90 is the amount of central Government grant paid to local authorities through housing benefit subsidy. Direct comparison of the two sets of figures would be misleading because of the limited nature of the information for 1979–80.

  Under both the 1979–80 schemes and the current scheme for supporting housing costs, the amount of help available to a person would be dependent partly upon those housing costs. There is, therefore, no single income level at which help would run out.

  In 1979, the income level at which family income supplement ceased depended upon the number of children in the family. In family credit the level depends on the number of children and their ages.

  1979–80

  1989–90

  £ million

  (000s)

  £ million

  (000s)

  Rent rebate

  238

  1,205

  2,748

  3,115

  Rent allowance

  40

  220

  1,260

  1,040

  Rate rebate

  200

  3,065

  1,178

  4,480

  Family Incomesupplement

  27

  80

  —

  —

  Family credit

  —

  —

  435

  315

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total publicity and advertising expenditure of his Department and its predecessor and public bodies for which his Department and its predecessor has responsibility in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  (a) The information requested for 1979 is not available.

  (b) Expenditure for 1989 was £16·7 million.

  Income Support
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the latest report on the number of claimants living in the Birkenhead constituency aged below 25 years, over 25 years and married couples, drawing income support and the number of dependants covered by each of these three groups of payments.

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

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to make a decision on the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommendation that work in ships' engine rooms be added to the list of prescribed occupations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The recommendations by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council contained in "Occupational Deafness" (Cm. 817) will be reviewed in the light of its further report of the operation and administration of the occupational deafness scheme which is expected later this year.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he is satisfied as to the levels of performance achieved by the social fund microcomputer;

  (2) when he anticipates incorporating the social fund into the mainframe computer system currently being installed for income support claims.

  Mr. Scott
  Yes. The present system is providing good support to local offices. We are continually seeking to improve the system and a team is currently working on plans to transfer the social fund on to the mainframe computer as part of the operational strategy. It will report in June 1990. Meanwhile, from April 1990, a new management system for the social fund will be operated using a mainframe computer.

  Attendance Allowance Board
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what external and independent agency's remit includes investigating the Attendance Allowance Board.

  Mr. Scott
  There is no external or independent agency with a remit to investigate the board, but there is a right of appeal to a social security commissioner on a point of law.

  Terminally Ill People
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State far Social Security what assistance is provided to people who are terminally ill in respect of attendance allowance and other benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  All the relevant social security benefits are available to people who are terminally ill. In addition, the current Social Security Bill includes provision to remove the six-month qualifying period for attendance allowance for terminally ill people from October this year. The Department's leaflet "Sick or Disabled?" (FB 28) gives information on the benefits available to sick and disabled people. A copy is in the Library.

  Community Care Grant
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the criteria governing the award of community care grant in order to ensure that there is adequate support for people in need.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to change the criteria governing eligibility for community care grants. Social! fund community care grants help people re-establish themselves or remain in the community, ease exceptional pressures on families and assist with certain travelling expenses. The social fund with its mixture of grants and interest-free loans provides extra help to those in receipt of income support.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of raising the savings limit for social security benefits from £8,000 to £16,000; and what would be the figure for application of such a limit solely to the community charge.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The current capital limits are £6,000 for income support and family credit, and £8,000
  741
  for housing benefit and community charge benefit. The estimates for raising these limits are in the table (assuming that the present rules for imputing a weekly income to capital of more than £3,000 are maintained).

  £

  Current capital limits increased to:

  16,000

  Full year cost at current rate (£ million)

  IS, FC, HB and CCB

  180

  CCB

  20

  Notes:

  Costs rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Assumes community charges in line with SSA based DOE estimates.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will raise the limit on personal savings below which reductions in community charge are allowed from £3,000 and £8,000 to £6,000 and £16,000, respectively; and if he will adjust the scale of relief accordingly.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The upper capital limit, above which there is no entitlement to community charge benefit, is to be raised to £16,000 from 1 April when the benefit scheme comes into operation. The first £3,000 of capital will continue to be ignored and the rules which assume some income from capital above that level will also continue.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much community charge benefit will be received by (i) a single person with capital of £3,000 and at

  Amount of benefit entitlement for a married or cohabiting couple aged up to 59

  (a) Housing Benefit, assuming that the whole rent shown is eligible for benefit

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Capital

  £25·00

  £30·00

  £35·00

  £40·00

  £45·00

  £50·00

  £55·00

  £60·00

  £65·00

  £70·00

  £75·00

  £80·00

  £85·00

  £90·00

  £95·00

  £100·00

  £3,000·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £16,000·00

  25·00

  30·00

  35·00

  40·00

  45·00

  50·00

  55·00

  60·00

  65·00

  70·00

  75·00

  80·00

  85·00

  90·00

  95·00

  100·00

  (b) Community Charge Benefit

  Community Charge per person

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £ annual

  250·00

  300·00

  350·00

  400·00

  450·00

  500·00

  £ weekly

  4·79

  5·75

  6·71

  7·67

  8·63

  9·59

  Capital

  £3,000·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £16,000·00

  7·66

  9·20

  10·74

  12·20

  13·80

  15·34

  Amount of benefit entitlement for a single person aged 25 to 59

  (a) Housing Benefit, assuming that the whole rent shown is eligible for benefit

  Capital

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  Rent

  not over

  £25·00

  £30·00

  £35·00

  £40·00

  £45·00

  £50·00

  £55·00

  £60·00

  £65·00

  £70·00

  £75·00

  £80·00

  £85·00

  £90·00

  £95·00

  £100·00

  £12,000·00

  25·00

  30·00

  35·00

  40·00

  45·00

  50·00

  55·00

  60·00

  65·00

  70·00

  75·00

  80·00

  85·00

  90·00

  95·00

  100·00

  £12,250·00

  24·81

  29·81

  34·81

  39·81

  44·81

  49·81

  54·81

  59·81

  64·81

  69·81

  74·81

  79·81

  84·81

  89·81

  94·81

  99·81

  £12,500·00

  24·16

  29·16

  34·16

  39·16

  44·16

  49·16

  54·16

  59·16

  64·16

  69·16

  74·16

  79·16

  84·16

  89·16

  94·16

  99·16

  £12,750·00

  23·51

  28·51

  33·51

  38·51

  43·51

  48·51

  53·51

  58·51

  63·51

  68·51

  73·51

  78·51

  83·51

  88·51

  93·51

  98·51

  £13,000·00

  22·86

  27·86

  32·86

  37·86

  42·86

  47·86

  52·86

  57·86

  62·86

  67·86

  72·86

  77·86

  82·86

  87·86

  92·86

  97·86

  £13,250·00

  22·21

  27·21

  32·21

  37·21

  42·21

  47·21

  52·21

  57·21

  62·21

  67·21

  72·21

  77·21

  82·21

  87·21

  92·21

  97·21

  £13,500·00

  21·56

  26·56

  31·56

  36·56

  41·56

  46·56

  51·56

  56·56

  61·56

  66·56

  71·56

  76·56

  81·56

  86·56

  91·56

  96·56

  £13,750·00

  20·91

  25·91

  30·91

  35·91

  40·91

  45·91

  50·91

  55·91

  60·91

  65·91

  70·91

  75·91

  80·91

  85·91

  90·91

  95·91

  £14,000·00

  20·26

  25·26

  30·26

  35·26

  40·26

  45·26

  50·26

  55·26

  60·26

  65·26

  70·26

  75·26

  80·26

  85·26

  90·26

  95·26

  £14,250·00

  19·61

  24·61

  29·61

  34·61

  39·61

  44·61

  49·61

  54·61

  59·61

  64·61

  69·61

  74·61

  79·61

  84·61

  89·61

  94·61

  £14,500·00

  18·96

  23·96

  28·96

  33·96

  38·96

  43·96

  48·96

  53·96

  58·96

  63·96

  68·96

  73·96

  78·96

  83·96

  88·96

  93·96

  £14,750·00

  18·31

  23·31

  28·31

  33·31

  38·31

  43·31

  48·31

  53·31

  58·31

  63·31

  68·31

  73·31

  78·31

  83·31

  88·31

  93·31

  £15,000·00

  17·66

  22·66

  27·66

  32·66

  37·66

  42·66

  47·66

  52·66

  57·66

  62·66

  67·66

  72·66

  77·66

  82·66

  87·66

  92·66

  £15,250·00

  17·01

  22·01

  27·01

  32·01

  37·01

  42·01

  47·01

  52·01

  57·01

  62·01

  67·01

  72·01

  77·01

  82·01

  87·01

  92·01

  £15,500·00

  16·36

  21·36

  26·36

  31·36

  36·36

  41·36

  46·36

  51·36

  56·36

  61·36

  66·36

  71·36

  76·36

  81·36

  86·36

  91·36

  £15,750·00

  15·71

  20·71

  25·71

  30·71

  35·71

  40·71

  45·71

  50·71

  55·71

  60·71

  65·71

  70·71

  75·71

  80·71

  85·71

  90·71

  £16,000·00

  15·06

  20·06

  25·06

  30·06

  35·06

  40·06

  45·06

  50·06

  55·06

  60·06

  65·06

  70·06

  75·06

  80·06

  85·06

  90·06

  742
  each £250 band to £16,000 and (ii) a married person with capital of £3,000 and at each £250 band to £8,000, assuming their partner holds the same level of capital, paying a community charge of (a) £250 per annum, (b) £300 per annum, (c) £350 per annum, (d) £400 per annum, (e) £450 per annum and (f) £500 per annum, giving, in each case, the amount of benefit attributable to raising the capital limit for singles and couples to £16,000;

  (2) how much housing benefit will be received by (a) a single person and (b) a married/cohabiting couple with capital of £3,000 and £16,000 and for each £250 between, paying rent of £25 per week and £100 per week and for each £5 between; and if he will indicate, in each case, how much of the benefit is attributable to raising the capital limit for singles and couples to £16,000.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The questions assume that the claimant has no resources other than capital. The calculations of entitlement to housing benefit and community charge benefit, therefore, take account only of assumed tariff income on the capital. For the couple, the result is that entitlement remains at the maximum, whatever the level of capital. For the single person, entitlement remains at the maximum until capital exceeds £12,000, at which point the tariff income exceeds the applicable amount and the respective tapers apply in the normal way.

  Wherever capital exceeds £8,000, benefit entitlement is attributable to the rise in the capital limit.

  The tables show the amount of entitlement to benefit.
  743

  (b) Community Charge Benefit

  Community Charge per person

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £ annually

  250·00

  300·00

  350·00

  400·00

  450·00

  500·00

  £ weekly

  4·79

  5·75

  6·71

  7·67

  8·63

  9·59

  Capital not over

  £12,000·00

  3·83

  4·60

  5·37

  6·14

  6·90

  7·67

  £12,250·00

  3·79

  4·56

  5·32

  6·09

  6·86

  7·63

  £12,500·00

  3·64

  4·41

  5·17

  5·94

  6·71

  7·48

  £12,750·00

  3·49

  4·26

  5·02

  5·79

  6·56

  7·33

  £13,000·00

  3·34

  4·11

  4·87

  5·64

  6·41

  7·18

  £13,250·00

  3·19

  3·96

  4·72

  5·49

  6·26

  7·03

  £13,500·00

  3·04

  3·81

  4·57

  5·34

  6·11

  6·88

  £13,750·00

  2·89

  3·66

  4·42

  5·19

  5·96

  6·73

  £14,000·00

  2·74

  3·51

  4·27

  5·04

  5·81

  6·58

  £14,250·00

  2·59

  3·36

  4·12

  4·89

  5·66

  6·43

  £14,500·00

  2·44

  3·21

  3·97

  4·74

  5·51

  6·28

  £14,750·00

  2·29

  3·06

  3·82

  4·59

  5·36

  6·13

  £15,000·00

  2·14

  2·91

  3·67

  4·44

  5·21

  5·98

  £15,250·00

  1·99

  2·76

  3·52

  4·29

  5·06

  5·83

  £15,500·00

  1·84

  2·61

  3·37

  4·14

  4·91

  5·68

  £15,750·00

  1·69

  2·46

  3·22

  3·99

  4·76

  5·53

  £16,000·00

  1·54

  2·31

  3·07

  3·84

  4·61

  5·38

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent figures for the total number of(a) widows in Scotland (b) widows who are also householders in Scotland and (c) widow householders who are also in receipt of housing benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: It is estimated that in May 1988 22,000 widows in Scotland who were receiving widows' benefit or war widows' pension were also receiving housing benefit. Information is not collected about numbers of other widows receiving housing benefit whose income did not include these widows' benefits. The number of widows and widow householders in Scotland is not available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of the findings of the inspector in the affairs of the House of Fraser and the A1 Fayed brothers, he will consider the immediate deporation of the Al Fayed brothers as undesirable aliens.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The report of the inspectors appointed under the Companies Act does not provide a basis for the use of deportation powers.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently serving a prison sentence in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 31 January 1990 there were about 36,250 sentenced prisoners in prison service establishments in England and Wales. This is 1,625 fewer than a year earlier.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population; what it was one year ago; and what projections he has made for the prison population over the next five years.
  744
  Mr. Mellor
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West and Torridge (Miss Nicholson).

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the population of England and Wales is currently in prison; and what are the figures for Germany, France, Italy, and Holland.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest information, for 1 September 1988, published by the Council of Europe is shown in the table. The prison population per 100,000 inhabitants in England and Wales has subsequently fallen to 93 on 31 January 1990.

  The Council of Europe publishes information on the prison population in member states twice a year in its "Prison Information Bulletin", copies of which are held in the Library. An article on "International comparisons of prison populations" by Collier and Tarling (Home Office research bulletin No. 23 pages 48 to 54) showed that the figures for different countries are unlikely to be strictly comparable, because the definitions of prisons and prisoners vary from one country to another, reflecting different legal and administrative systems. Examples of differences in the definitions are the inclusion or exclusion in a country's figures of juvenile offenders and mentally disordered offenders.

  Prison population per 100,000 inhabitants in selected member states of the Council of Europe on 1 February 1988.

  Member state

  Prison population per 100,000 inhabitants

  England and Wales1

  100

  West Germany

  85

  France

  81

  Italy

  60

  Netherlands

  40

  1 Includes those held in police cells.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of people in prison.
  745
  Mr. Mellor
  On Friday 16 March, there were 47,115 people held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. This represents a fall of 2,722 people since the same time last year.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the report of the prison department working group in the management of vulnerable prisoners.

  Mr. Mellor
  Prison rule 43 and young offender institution rule 46 were amended with effect from 18 December 1989 in accordance with recommendations of the working group. Instructions and guidance based on other recommendations are to be issued shortly.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has sought the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice on the new evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Birmingham city council on the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Birmingham city council on the Birmingham pub bombing case.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the new evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the new evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the new evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the new evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his consideration of the new evidence in his Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the new evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his consideration of the new evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case.
  746
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his consideration of the new evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his consideration of the new evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given on 21 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) at column 633.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on his proposals to make parents more responsible for crimes committed by their children.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on his proposals to make parents more responsible for crimes committed by their children.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since we published the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" last month we have received about 10 responses on the proposals to increase parental responsibility. These broadly support the proposals contained in the White Paper. We look forward to receiving more responses in the next few weeks.

  Drug Abuse
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nations will be represented at the world ministerial summit on drug misuse in London this May.

  Mr. Mellor
  The world ministerial summit to reduce the demand for drugs and to combat the cocaine threat will take place in London on 9 to 11 April. Replies to invitations are still coming in, but to date over 100 countries have indicated their intention to take part, and we are expecting a final attendance of between 120 and 140 countries.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of special constables now attached to police forces in England and Wales; and if he will encourage chief constables to recruit more, particularly among ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of special constables now attached to police forces in England and Wales; and if he will encourage chief constables to recruit more, particularly among ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of special constables now attached to police forces in England and Wales; and if he will encourage chief constables to recruit more, particularly among ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 31 December 1989, there were 15,589 special constables in England and Wales (10,390
  747
  men and 5,199 women). Of the total, 469 were from the ethnic minority communities. We encourage chief constables to recruit as many special constables as they can and to make special efforts to recruit from the ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the discussions he had in February with the Police Advisory Board on introducing further measures to improve recruitment of special constables.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The police advisory board welcomed a proposal for a national publicity campaign, which will commence later this year. There was a divergence of views on the question of an incentive payment or "bounty", and this will be further considered in the light of those views.

  Sunday Trading
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 266, whether he yet has figures available for prosecutions of retail outlets for trading on Sundays for (a) 1989 as a whole and (b) December 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990.

  Drug Traffickers
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current value of assets for which confiscation orders have been made in respect of drug trafficking offences in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The latest figures, which are in respect of confiscation orders made in 1987 and 1988, are given in table 7.25 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1988", a copy of which is in the Library. These show that over £9 million was ordered to be confiscated in those two years. The current estimate by the national drugs intelligence unit of the cumulative total of confiscation orders made since the Drug Trafficking Offences Act came into force in January 1987 is in excess of £16 million.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received in respect of alleged war crimes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received in respect of alleged war crimes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received in respect of alleged war crimes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  The issue of war crimes was fully discussed in the Second Reading debate on the War Crimes Bill earlier this week.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the United Kingdom's contribution to international co-operation against terrorism.

  Mr. Waddington
  The mainstay of our contribution to the international fight against terrorism is the daily advice, assistance and support that we provide to our partners in responding to terrorist threats and incidents. On top of that, we continue to be prominent in the TREVI group and other international fora in working towards joint agreement on effective, practical measures. Co-operation against terrorism is high on the agenda when I meet colleagues in other Governments bilaterally. I recently had such meetings with the State Secretary for the Ministry of the Interior of Spain and the Minister of Justice for Denmark, and I shall be meeting European Community colleagues collectively at the next meeting of TREVI Ministers in Dublin in June.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the implications for civil liberties of the public availability of personal information as a result of the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Mellor
  None. The only information which can be made available to the public from the community charge register is the address, surname and initials of those subject to the charge. This information may be inspected, but not copied out, by members of the public.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the data protection registrar into the number of incidents of alleged misuse of information held by poll tax registration officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no powers to do so. Any evidence of misuse of automated personal information will be investigated by the registrar, who has the responsibility for enforcing the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police units trained especially for domestic violence there are in the West Midlands police force.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police units trained especially for domestic violence there are in the West Midlands police force.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police units trained especially for domestic violence there are in the West Midlands police force.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no such units at present. All officers in the force receive training in the appropriate response to incidents of domestic violence.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now arrange to collect
  749
  information on prosecutions and convictions to distinguish domestic violence in each police force area in England and Wales.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now arrange to collect information on prosecutions and convictions to distinguish domestic violence in each police force area in England and Wales.

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

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special units have been established within the Metropolitan police area dealing with cases of domestic violence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are currently 34 such units.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes are now established in England and Wales.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes now operate in England and Wales.

  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes are now established in England and Wales.

  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes are now established in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington).

  White Paper
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in response to his White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public".

  Mr. John Patten
  We have invited comments on the proposals in the White Paper by 30 April. It received widespread support in both Houses upon publication on 6 February. Since then, we have received a number of responses which have generally welcomed the proposals.

  Policing Review
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received a copy of the operational policing review commissioned by the police staff associations and published on 8 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes. We look forward to discussion of the issues covered by the review in the course of the many opportunities which exist for exchanging views on police matters with the police staff and local authority associations.

  "Fresh Start"
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement on the operation of "fresh start."

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to my answer of 20 December 1989 to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) at columns 270–71. We have recruited nationally all the additional staff promised under the "fresh start" framework agreement and will continue to honour our commitments. There are nearly 20 per cent. more officers in post in establishments than three years ago.

  Drugs Seizures
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of seizures of illicit drugs occurs at British ports of entry.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 22 January 1990 at column 516.

  Deportations
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase over the past five years in the numbers of persons removed from the United Kingdom, either by deportations or as illegal immigrants, under his Department's enforcement powers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of persons removed from the United Kingdom under the enforcement powers in the Immigration Act 1971, either as illegal entrants or under the deportation process, increased from 1,357 in 1984 to 3,838 in 1989. More detailed information is published in tables 23 and 24 of the Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1988" (Cm. 726), and today, in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 8/90 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Fourth Quarter and Year 1989", copies of both of which are in the Library.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward measures to place restrictions on the ownership and sale of certain types of breeds of dangerous dogs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As I stated in my reply to questions from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on 22 February at column 917, the law was strengthened only last year by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. We are studying recent incidents closely and will consider whether the law would benefit from further revision.

  Missing Persons
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to establish a national missing persons bureau; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend is currently examining two possible methods of collecting
  751
  data about missing persons; the establishment of a national bureau and the possibility of putting missing persons on the planned replacement of the police national computer system which was referred to in the reply given to a question from the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on 12 February 1990 at columns 6–7. He expects to receive advice on the police national computer option shortly.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government propose to take to ensure that sentences served more accurately reflect the crimes for which they are imposed.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government propose to take to ensure that sentences served more accurately reflect the crimes for which they are imposed.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government propose to take to ensure that sentences served more accurately reflect the crimes for which they are imposed.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our proposals were set out in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" (Cm. 965) which was published on 6 February. The proposed statutory framework for sentencing aims to ensure the length of the sentence reflects the seriousness of the crime. All prisoners will serve at least half their sentences in custody and will be at risk of being returned to custody up to the end of their sentence, if convicted of a further imprisonable offence. All those serving sentences of a year or more will be supervised on release until three quarters of their sentence. Those serving sentences of four years or more would not get parole if this would put the public at risk of serious harm. These arrangements would replace the present system of parole and remission.

  Rape
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average sentence imposed for the crime of rape for the latest period for which figures are available and for 1979.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average sentence imposed for the crime of rape for the latest period for which figures are available and for 1979.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average sentence imposed for the crime of rape for the latest period for which figures are available and for 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  In England and Wales the average sentence length imposed on males for the crime of rape was 6·2 years in 1988 and 4·0 years in 1979.

  Data for 1989 will not be available until the autumn.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to monitor the response of police forces in England and Wales to Home Office circular 69/86 on the special needs of victims of rape trauma syndrome.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to monitor the 752
  response of police forces in England and Wales to Home Office circular 69/86 on the special needs of victims of rape trauma syndrome.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to monitor the response of police forces in England and Wales to Home Office circular 69/86 on the special needs of victims of rape trauma syndrome.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has asked Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to monitor arrangements for dealing with rape victims with police forces as part of its annual inspections. In doing so, it covers the main elements of Home Office circular 69–86.

  Police (Height Requirement)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the removal of the height requirement for Metropolitan police recruits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Commissioner's decision has been generally welcomed and we have received no representations about it.

  Council Meetings
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the public order implications of disruption of local council meetings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None, as far as I am aware.

  Crack
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of the possession of the drug crack are known to the Metropolitan police; and what further action he plans to take to deal with this potential threat.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Figures supplied by the police to the national drugs intelligence unit, which may not be completed, show that in the first two months of 1990 the. Metropolitan police made 11 seizures of crack. This compares with 86 seizures in the whole of 1989; 10 in 1988; three in 1987; and three in 1986.

  Over £2 million is being made available in 1990–91 for a new drug prevention initiative which will involve the setting up of local drug prevention teams in a number of areas at risk from drugs and in particular from threat of "crack". Areas in London are among those being considered as locations for such teams.

  In December 1989 a joint police/Customs task force was set up to combat the "crack" threat. The task force, which is based in London, will target the importation of cocaine linked to the manufacture and distribution of "crack".

  BBC
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends next meeting the chairman of the BBC; what matters he intends to discuss; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his question on 25 January at column 882.

  Crime Victims
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to support victims of crime; and what compensation is available to them.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

  Mr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now collect information on prosecutions and convictions in sufficient detail to identify the sex of victims in each police force in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to do so. Special studies of victims are published from time to time and the sex of the victim is already known in homicide cases and for nearly all sexual offences. To record the victim's sex for all offences would greatly add to the collection of costs.

  Community Policing
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his monitoring of the effect of community policing on crime levels.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The effectiveness of each community policing initiative must be judged on its merits by the responsible chief office of police. This will involve both an assessment of the impact on crime levels and on police relations with the public, together with associated factors such as fear of crime. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, during its inspection of forces, examines in some detail the aims and objectives of each force and the means by which it is intended to measure effectiveness. In addition, a Home Office research study is currrently examining a wide range of community policing strategies and their effects upon local people.

  Tape Recorded Interviews
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the pilot scheme to be launched in Liverpool to log interviews with suspects on tapes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have received no such representations. Consultations with interested parties took place before the pilot scheme was established. The arrangements for it are described in my reply to a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on 1 March at column 273.

  Lewes Gaol
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any new proposals on prison conditions in the light of Mr. Stewart Fisher's report on Lewes gaol.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have already announced an increase of £80 million in the prison refurbishment programme for 1990–91, bringing the total available in that year to £120 million. The additional funding will allow for essential 754
  health, safety and security measures to be carried out, particularly in kitchens. In all, £400 million will be provided over the next three years to improve prison conditions.

  At Her Majesty's prison Lewes, capital expenditure of £2·6 million is already planned for the provision of a new kitchen and reception area, and an extension to the hospital.

  Acid House Parties
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to control acid house parties.

  Mr. John Patten
  The police and local authorities are already taking a variety of measures under existing powers to stop or regulate parties of this kind, but we consider that the law needs to be strengthened. Accordingly, we welcome the introduction by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) of the Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Bill. This seeks to empower the summary courts to impose fines of up to £20,000 or imprisonment for up to six months, or both, on people convicted of the relevant offences against the entertainment licensing laws. In addition, the provisions will give magistrates the power to order the confiscation of profits made by those convicted of organising illegal parties or allowing their land or premises to be used for them.

  Broadcasting Bill
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received regarding the Broadcasting Bill.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are continuing to receive representations, and to have meetings with groups and individuals, on a range of topics connected with the Broadcasting Bill.

  Ports (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the costs of policing ports.

  Mr. Waddington
  None so far this year. There are continuing discussions between the Home Office and the police forces and authorities concerned.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in response to his guidelines announcing a new framework for crime prevention partnership.

  Mr. John Patten
  The new guidelines on crime prevention have been issued in draft form. Written observations are requested by 3 April. Several sets of comments have been received, and I look forward to considering these, and others yet to be submitted, with my colleagues on the ministerial group on crime prevention.

  Northumbria Police
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the Chief Constable of Northumbria police; and what he proposes to discuss.
  755
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans to meet the Chief Constable of Northumbria police.

  Civil Disturbances
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of arrests in connection with civil disturbances and demonstrations in the last four weeks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on arrests in connection with demonstrations generally is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, I am advised that between 5 and 13 March 247 people were arrested following disorder at demonstrations to protest against the community charge.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to grant British citizenship.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average time taken to process applications of all types completed in February 1990 was 25 months.

  Missing Children
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest official estimate of missing children in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the latest official estimate of missing children in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no centrally collated figure. Chief officers of police are responsible locally for keeping records of missing persons and for deciding whether to keep separate records of the number of missing children.

  Gambling Machines
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to control the use of gambling machines by young people under 18 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Of the machines covered by part III of the Gaming Act 1968, "jackpot" machines are permitted only on premises to which young people do not normally have access. With respect to amusement-with-prizes machines, local authorities have extensive powers to prohibit them in premises where they are incidental to the main business, and local authorities also have wide discretion to refuse permits for new amusement arcades.

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new posts were given to the Devon and Cornwall constabulary in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has approved 17 additional police posts in 1990–91 for the Devon and Cornwall constabulary. This will increase the authorised establishment to 2,863 officers.

  Police Rent Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the representatives of the Police Federation in Nottingham, North to discuss the police rent allowance.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. This is a national issue, on which the chairman and secretary of the Police Federation have already made the views of their members clear to us.

  Prosecution Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now collect information on prosecutions and convictions in sufficient detail to identify the sex of victims in each police force area in England arid Wales.

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

  Random Breath Tests
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the issue of random breath testing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 21 March to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) at column 635.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why representatives of the National Association of Probation Officers were refused admission to the press conference launching the White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public".

  Mr. Waddington
  The Home Office did not hold a press conference to launch the White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public".

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer of 21 December,Official Report, column 386, whether he has yet decided whether there is scope for further improvement in self-regulation of the private security industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. We are still considering this matter.

  Fraud
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department collects statistics about fraud in Britain.

  Mr. John Patten
  Yes. The Department collects statistics concerning fraud in England and Wales which are published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" and quarterly in statistical bulletins. Copies of these publications are available in the Library. Information for Scotland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Prison Hospitals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will request a report on conditions in prison hospitals in the London area for Her Majesty's inspector of prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Medical facilities are examined by HM inspectorate of prisons in the course of all full inspections and some short inspections of individual establishments. In 1989 there were full inspections of Wandsworth and Latchmere house and a short inspection of Holloway, which included the medical facilities. Full inspections of Brixton (currently taking place) and Wormwood Scrubs, and a short inspection of Pentonville, are scheduled for this year. My right hon. and learned Friend is not persuaded of the case for asking the chief inspector to carry out a special study of prison hospitals.

  Greater Manchester Police
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an independent inquiry into the workings of Greater Manchester police in the light of the success of the appeal against conviction by Thomas Corby.

  Mr. Waddington
  No. The circumstances of Mr. Corley's case are already the subject of an investigation by Mr. C. F. Bailey, assistant chief constable of West Yorkshire, under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority.

  Oracle Service
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the Oracle text service on television.
  758
  Mr. Mellor
  The Broadcasting Bill will introduce a new regulatory regime for the allocation of the spare capacity on broadcasting signals. This regime will allow the development of new uses for this capacity, other than teletext.

  In view of concern that these proposals might result in the absence of a commercial teletext service after 1992, I announced on 15 March that we intended to amend the Bill to require the Independent Television Commission (ITC) to advertise a teletext service using part of the spare capacity on the Channel 3 and 4 signals. The amount of spare capacity to be allocated to this service by the ITC would be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The exact amount to be allocated will be a matter for further careful consultation. The necessary amendments to the Bill will he brought forward at the Report stage of the Bill.

  Subject to parliamentary approval, the new proposals will come into operation on 1 January 1993, when Oracle's present contract comes to an end. Oracle will be free to apply to the ITC for a new licence.

  Drugs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost, in the latest year for which figures are available, of customs operations directed at drug trafficking.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the financial year ending 31 March 1989 Customs and Excise estimates its expenditure on drugs enforcement and deterrence work at around £114·5 million. This includes the full costs of dedicated drugs investigation teams and the preventive staff employed at ports and airports whose duties include a prime responsibility for combating drugs smuggling.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

London-Sheffield Rail Link
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering providing funds to enable British Rail to electrify the Midland main line between London and Sheffield.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government would be ready to consider proposals from British Rail for further main line electrification where that would be commercially worth while. So far British Rail has not made any proposals to my right honourable friend for electrifying the Midland main line.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Will Her Majesty's Government continue to press British Rail as regards this scheme for electrification of this important connection between London and the industrial area of Sheffield?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the problem is that the Midland main line has a higher proportion of curves, junctions and stations than other main lines. That means that the existing high speed trains cannot be used at their full speed on the line. Any major improvements in speed would require major works to the track and route as a whole, whatever the form of traction. Electrification would reduce journey times by only one or two minutes and not by 25 per cent. as has been claimed in some quarters.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is not the case for electrification justified by the fact that British Rail in its corporate plan, which was published as recently as December last year, included the Midland main line along with the East and West coast main lines as definite routes to assist with the flow of trains from the Channel Tunnel to the North via the King's Cross low level international station? In the light of the inclusion of the Midland main line in the corporate plan, why is there no reference at all to the Midland main line in the report which followed the Section 40 consultations which set out the British Rail routes for international rail travellers to the North?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand that the Midland main line was not included in the 1989 corporate plan. That plan reported on six electrification schemes, one of which was the East coast main line. The British Rail Board's Section 40 plan. International Rail Services for the United Kingdom, serves a different purpose. It only
402
mentions one of the electrification schemes mentioned in the 1989 corporate plan. However, the two publications are entirely consistent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would it not amount to a strange alteration in the relations with British Rail for the Government to press it to undertake expenditure which they themselves do not recommend?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is absolutely correct. It is up to British Rail to put forward investment proposals within the parameters laid down by the Government.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that if this country is to derive the greatest benefit from the Channel Tunnel the infrastructure of the railways must be improved? As the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has suggested, would it not be wise for the Government to encourage British Rail to electrify this line in order to obtain the greatest possible benefit from the Channel Tunnel?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I repeat that it is up to British Rail to put its proposals to the Government. As regards this line, excessive expenditure would be involved in taking up the track and relaying it in a straight line. The East coast main line runs in a straight line from London to Edinburgh. When I asked my adviser why the East coast line was straight while the Midland line was all curves, he informed me that the Romans had probably built the former line.

Maudsley Hospital
3.5 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their intention with regard to the funding crisis facing the Maudsley Hospital, which threatens bed closures, cuts in innovative community services and a reduction in training places for psychiatric nurses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we do not accept that there is a crisis. The Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals Special Health Authority has been allocated a budget of £ 27 million for the coming year. This represents a cash increase of almost £ 2 million or 71 per cent. It is for the authority to decide how best to use this allocation and to make more effective use of its very valuable clinical resources.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is she not aware that the increase that has been awarded for next year represents a 5 per cent. increase on the current year's funding? However, that is £ 630,000 short of what is required to meet nationally agreed pay scale increases. Does not the noble Baroness agree that it will be inappropriate, with the current accent on community care for the mentally ill, for the hospital which is the leading training school for psychiatric nurses to have to reduce its intake of nurse trainees?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, we have increased the budget for this special health authority considerably in line with the increases for other special health authorities. The department is currently considering future funding arrangements for such authorities which will seek to safeguard their special interests, particularly in the light of the Government's proposals for the reform of the National Health Service.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that both the local and national press are complaining that Maudsley, which is one of the wonder hospitals of London as regards looking after mentally ill patients, is facing a crisis? It is no good for the noble Baroness to say that she knows nothing about that. The fact is that every newspaper states that. Why do the Government not take the initiative to get the matter straightened out?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are taking plenty of initiatives in the field of health care. The measures which are currently being proposed in the Maudsley Hospital reflect the changing pattern of need for mentally handicapped children and seriously disturbed adolescents. The shift in emphasis is to outreach facilities from hospital care. However, we believe that there is inbuilt in the budget and the allocation made to this special health authority the possibility for further savings within the authority's activities.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the walk-in service for psychiatric out-patients which I believe is managed by the emergency clinic at Maudsley?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the emergency clinic which provides a 24-hour walk-in service for people with psychiatric problems and a drop-in service for former in-patients is a highly rated service not only by patients who use its facilities but also by local general practitioners, social workers and voluntary organisations. In recognition of that and in addition to the budget increase to which I have referred, the department has agreed to fund a proposal to relocate this emergency clinic in new purpose built facilities on the Maudsley site. That funding amounts to an additional half a million pounds.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am absolutely amazed that she said that there is not a crisis at the Maudsley? A visit to the Maudsley and discussion with the consultants and the management team indicate that it is a crisis which, with a cut of £ 632,000, will mean reductions in the services for seriously mentally ill patients, the mentally handicapped at the Hilda Lewis hospital and the 24-hour emergency drop-in service. Does the Minister accept that the Maudsley is a national flagship of high quality services for the mentally ill and that for that hospital to have to make reductions after it has already made cuts of £ 1–4 million in the last three years is intolerable?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we recognise that the Maudsley represents a centre of excellence. That is
404
why the Government have supported it and continue to support it. The special health authority is funded in a way which takes account of its teaching and research role. In the case of the examples to which the noble Lord referred— the Hilda Lewis House and the Tyson House adolescent unit— the changes being made are, as I indicated previously, a reflection of the general shift in the pattern of services away from using hospital beds towards outreach programmes in the community.
Lord Ennals: Not so!
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in view of the anxiety about psychiatric treatment and training at the Maudsley, can the noble Baroness confirm that there is no truth in the rumours that the Cassel Hospital is also under threat of some closures, because that in its turn is an extremely famous hospital providing care and training in the same important field?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is a formal procedure which health authorities are required to follow when considering the closure or change of use of health buildings. The proposal to close the Cassel Hospital is currently out for consultation. As the matter may ultimately come before Ministers for decision it is not one on which I can comment. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that should the closure proposal come to Ministers it will receive the most careful consideration before any decision is taken in view of the important work that we recognise is carried on there.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, following what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, are the Government not already giving serious consideration to the future of Cassel mental hospital at Richmond, which is of national and international importance and not just a local hospital, and in that respect like the Maudsley? Is the noble Baroness aware that a recommendation has been made by the Riverside Health Authority for the closure of the hospital? Since the final decision is to be made in June should not the Government already be giving some consideration to the future of the hospital after June?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps we are moving away from the Question on the Order Paper. However, in response to the noble Earl, I can say that any application of that kind receives the most careful consideration within the department.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, returning to the Question on the Order Paper, will the Minister please discuss the matter with her right honourable friend? Does she recognise that the suggestion that the proposal is all part of a natural tendency to changes in psychiatric services is not accepted at all by the consultants and the doctors at the Maudsley who are horrified by what is about to happen? As president of MIND perhaps I may say that I share their horror. Will the noble Baroness take the matter more seriously and discuss it with the Secretary of State?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have had the pleasure and privilege of visiting the Maudsley Hospital, seeing the work that is carried out and meeting many of the people who work there. I recognise that they would like to have more funds. That is normal where people are intensely interested in the work they do. We believe that they have been treated very fairly and that the rise in funding will be adequate to meet their needs.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her colleague, the Minister of State for Health, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, today visited the Maudsley Hospital? Will she make sure that the Minister is made fully aware of the concern of everyone who has spoken in the House this afternoon?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am aware that my honourable friend visited the Maudsley this morning. I had an opportunity to speak to her subsequently. She felt that she had been able to reassure the people she met as to their future. As I said previously, in any event the department is considering future funding arrangements for special health authorities to safeguard their special interests, particularly in the light of the new proposals for the reform of the health service.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Baroness has failed to respond to the request of my noble friends Lord Ennals and Lord Rea. They asked her whether she will convey to the Secretary of State the profound concern of this House about the possible future of the Maudsley Hospital. She has not said that she will. Will she be good enough to do so?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret having perhaps given a misleading impression. I feel that it almost goes without saying that I shall certainly refer the remarks that have been made in this dicussion to my right honourable friend.

Processed Food: Export Refunds
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to prevent the European Commission from forfeiting the right to pay refunds to processed food exporters under the common agricultural policy without simultaneously phasing out the two-tier pricing system for raw materials.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government are not aware of any proposals from the Commission to end the arrangements for payment of export refunds on processed products. The Community has made it clear that it is not prepared to abandon the two-tier pricing system for agricultural commodities, nor to abolish the export refund system.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that there has been considerable pressure from the United States and the Cairns Group— which I believe comprises Australians and New Zealanders— to have export refunds taken out of the Community system within the common agricultural policy and to treat those refunds as subsidies? Is it not the case that there is quite considerable concern that the Commission, in giving consideration to the proposal, is not being sufficiently strong in resisting it? Is it also true that the British Government have not been particularly firm in encouraging the Commission to be strong? Can my noble friend comment on that point?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the EC is currently engaged with other GATT members in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations. Export refunds are an important issue in the negotiations. My noble friend is quite right. The United States and others are calling for their abolition. The European Community has made clear that that is unacceptable and has put forward alternative proposals to impose greater disciplines on export subsidisation.
The United Kingdon recognises the importance of adequate levels of support for exports of processed products. We have repeatedly emphasised that point in discussions in Brussels. Community proposals do not discriminate against food exports and would maintain the link with export refunds on the relevant raw materials.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, on this side of the House we are grateful for the assurances which the noble Baroness has given to the noble Lord in her second answer to him. We are very well aware of the difficult task the European negotiators under GATT have with the Cairns Group and the United States. Without prejudice to the outcome of those negotiations, would not the Community be in a stronger position overall if it studied some of the regimes with which it is currently apparently satisfied? In particular, will the noble Baroness urge her right honourable friend the Minister to ask the Community whether it is not possible to have a review of, for example, the sugar regime which is not scheduled to take place before June 1991 and where some of the worst effects of the two-tier system are to be found?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, refunds for processed products enable food exporters to benefit from aids which would have been paid on their agricultural raw materials. In fixing them food interests are taken into account as well as the needs of agricultural market management.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will my noble friend perhaps take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and invite her right honourable friend to suggest to the Commission that there is much room for improvement within the common agricultural policy, particularly in the sugar regime? When my noble friend said that the Commission was talking about greater disciplines within the export subsidies— a point which I think she mentioned in

407
her second answer— was she referring to that as export subsidies within other countries, or is that a hidden way in which the Commission is seeking to bring about what we fear; namely, reducing the export refunds?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Community proposes that subsidies to food exporters will be clearly limited to the difference between the price of raw materials on the domestic market and that on world markets. Where that difference is minimal, subsidies would not be available. Those proposals, if adopted, would not adversely affect food exporters.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in considering those matters, will the noble Baroness bear in mind successive reports of the Court of Auditors, our own Comptroller and Auditor General here and the Select Committee of this House, that it is in precisely that area of export refunds that the greatest frauds against this country and the Community take place?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for lowering his decibels on this occasion. I should point out to him that this country has led the way in the European Community in bringing forward the question of fraud and taking appropriate action.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that, when there is a Question on the Order Paper so difficult to understand as this one, it is a pleasure to hear an Answer that is so easy to follow?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is the only one that I have made up myself.

Flue Gas Desulphurisation
3.22 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have abandoned their commitment to install £ 2 billion worth of flue gas desulphurisation equipment in power stations.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are committed to reducing the United Kingdom's emissions of acid gases in accordance with the European Community's large combustion plants directive. Contracts have already been placed for the retrofitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment to the four gigawatt Drax power stations. Other retrofits are in prospect. A number of measures, including the burning of low-sulphur fuels, will also make a contribution.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is not an Answer to my Question. Is the noble Viscount aware that his own Government's consultation paper last August stated that the electricity supply industry would retrofit 12,000 megawatts of generating capacity with flue gas desulphurisation equipment?
408
Is he further aware that the Prime Minister told the United Nations in November:
"With regard to energy, we already have a £ 2 billion programme of improvements to reduce acid rain emissions from our power stations",
yet in February the noble Viscount's department said that the £ 2 billion programme would not be completed? Will he answer the Question on the Order Paper in the light of that evidence?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister were made nearly four months ago. Work on electricity privatisation has moved on since then. It is correct to say that, until fairly recently, it was the industry's expectation that it would have to meet the directive's requirements by retrofitting FGD equipment— if I may use that phrase— to 12 gigawatts of capacity. However, the advantages of combined cycle gas turbines, particularly their environmental benefits, have also become more widely appreciated. FGD retrofits will continue to form a part of the UK's programme for complying with the directive, but other measures will also contribute.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that 70 per cent. of the acid in Britain's rain comes from sulphur and that we are the largest emitters of sulphur dioxide in Europe? The Minister tells us that part of the programme to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise will depend on the import of low-sulphur coals. However, does he recall that in the past few years 49 low-sulphur coal-producing mines in this country have been closed? Will he reflect before he further damages the British mining industry by importing such fuels?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the burning of low-sulphur coal is an option open to the electricity generators as they prepare their plans to comply with the European Community large combustion plant directive. The source of such coal will be a matter for the generators. The best protection for the United Kingdom coal industry is for it to produce reliable supplies which are competitive on the world market.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when will that important but costly programme be completed? Will it be paid for by the consumers or the taxpayers, or a bit of each?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the order for the first four gigawatts that I mentioned in my original Answer was placed in February 1989. The capital cost of the programme and of further retrofits which will be required will be reflected in the capital structure of the two generators when they are marketed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister not understand that his Answer to the Question of my noble friend Lord Hatch means that, even with the improvements that he has announced, Great Britain will still be a massive contributor to acid rain and damage to the ozone layer? Does he realise that the programme that he has announced is not what was originally envisaged and announced by various Ministers, including the Prime Minister?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should point out that FGD technology is a retrograde technology and is environmentally disruptive. For instance, the FGD installation at a two gigawatt coal-fired power station would require some 300,000 tonnes of limestone per annum.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Viscount kindly elucidate what he said about the installation of combined cycle gas stations? That is obviously for the future. There are no such stations in operation at the moment. Does he agree that what is at issue is the existing stations which will continue to operate for many years? Will he therefore confirm that the new owners of the industry will go ahead with the originally proposed plan for getting rid of acid rain emissions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not think that I can go any further than I went in my original Answer. I must reiterate that the United Kingdom Government will comply with the EC directive. It is, as the noble Lord will know, part of that directive that we should reduce our emissions in 1993 by 20 per cent., in 1998 by 40 per cent. and in 2003 by 60 per cunt. The last figure, which takes us into the next century, will allow the construction of the power plants that I discussed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that his previous answer is bound to cause a certain amount of confusion? Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I heard him say that flue gas desulphurisation was a retrograde technology. If that is so, is that something which has been learnt since the Prime Minister made her statement about retrofitting a certain number of power stations, or is it more to do with privatisation than with the retrograde nature, or whatever it may be, of flue gas desulphurisation? While I am on my feet, perhaps I may also ask the Minister what further progress is being made with fluidised bed combustion.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, when I said that it was a retrograde technology, I meant that it also had those environmentally disruptive facets. Not only does it require the extensive mining of limestone: the FGD plants produce large quantities of gypsum as a by-product of the operation. I gave an example of what a 2 gigawatt station would require in terms of 300,000) tonnes of limestone. It would create between 400,000 and 500,000 tonnes of gypsum which would have.0 be removed from the station. Some of it might be sold but the rest would have to be disposed of to a suitable landfill site.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Viscount did not answer my last point about fluidised bed combustion. The answer that I sought to elicit from him referred to the Prime Minister's statement. She must have known all that when she announced the £ 2,000 million programme. What has happened since to undermine that programme?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not having answered his second question. Yes, the fluidised bed technique and also coal gasification are the techniques of the future for coal burn. A certain amount of investment is being made into the R&D of those processes.
In my answer to the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, I said that the advantages of combined cycle gas turbines, for instance, and in particular their environmental benefits, have recently become more widely appreciated. That is since the remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether the new proposals which concern a change in the way in which we are to carry out the directive have been cleared with the Commission in Brussels? Has the Commission said that it is satisfied that this is a proper or acceptable way of carrying out the directive? Does the noble Viscount realise that for 10 years now, ever since we tried to upgrade the environmental activity of the Community into a full directorate— which we finally achieved— the difficulty that friends of Britain have had all through Europe is that we have always seemed grudging about the implementation of every directive concerning the environment in matters such as this? Does he agree therefore that it is doubly important to take the Commission along with us and to have its approval?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not agree with the last part of the noble Lord's question. The United Kingdom's programme for complying with the directive has to be drawn up by the end of June. Discussions on the achievement of reductions with the generators and others who operate these large combustion plants are nearing completion and final decisions will be taken very soon.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Viscount has not explained when the Government suddenly discovered that the FGD process, which they mentioned in the consultative paper and which was referred to by the Prime Minister only last November, had become what he calls retrograde. As I understand it, it will still be applied in the Drax power station. When did the Government make that discovery? Is it not the case that the real discovery was that the generating companies which are to take over were not prepared to put that kind of money into cleaning up their gases and that the Government apparently were not prepared to give them what they asked for, namely, what is commonly known as a green dowry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it would be wrong to say that fitting FGD is a panacea for getting rid of all the greenhouse gases. The noble Lord will know that in fact it lowers the efficiency of the plants and therefore, in order to produce the same amount of power, more carbon dioxide will have to be pumped into the atmosphere.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, then can the noble Viscount say why this system was adopted? Why did the Prime Minister adopt it? Will he answer the second part of my question? Is it not the case that the new generating companies refused to pay that money and that the Government refuse to subsidise them?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the answer to the last question is no. Flue gas desulphurisation is one of the techniques required to reduce our emissions of sulphur dioxide by the percentages of the EC directive.

Business of the House: Debate, 4th April
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord McIntosh of Haringey set down for 4th April shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2i hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".— (Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Report received.
Strathclyde Regional Council Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is part of a package of measures to promote greater competition and consumer choice in the supply of beer. It will give tenants of pubs the same protection as other business tenants under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
The Bill arises from the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer. The report was published on 21st March last year. On 10th July last year my noble friend the then Secretary of State announced details of the Government's
412
response to your Lordships' House. This Bill forms part of that response. Other measures were implemented through the supply of beer orders which were debated by your Lordships on 18th December and are now in force.
The starting point for considering the Bill is the MMC report itself and its recommendations. In its report the MMC said that,
"tenants of on-licensed premises are not, under the present arrangements, able fully to act as independent businessmen. We therefore consider that it is essential that a tenant's interest in on-licensed premises should be legally protected".
The commission recommended in consequence that the interests of all tenants of on-licensed premises should be brought within the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 whether the premises were subject to a tie or not. The Bill is addressed to this recommendation.
The MMC also outlined a number of further measures to increase tenants' security. These included, in respect of tenants of licensed premises, disapplying the provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act that allows parties to an agreement to agree to apply to the court to contract out of the Act and a recommendation that the Director General of Fair Trading renegotiate the current Brewers' Society's code of practice with all interested parties. The code would then be given some mandatory status.
Following publication of the MMC's report the Government listened to representations from all shades of opinion. These included the Brewers' Society, individual brewers, representative organisations of licensed trade tenants and managers, individual tenants, consumer associations, members of the public, and, of course, Members of your Lordships' House. It became clear that the issue with tenants' security was how to increase protection without making the tenancy system so unattractive commercially that it would be killed off.
The Government concluded that it would not be right to set up a special class of tenancy under the Act just for licensed premises. It is a fundamental feature of the 1954 Act that all business tenancies are treated alike no matter what the nature of the business. The Bill therefore provides that licensed tenants should simply be placed on all fours with other business tenants.
Before touching on the issues that arose on the Bill during consideration by the other place, it may be convenient if I briefly summarise the provisions of the Bill, and of the 1954 Act to which it is an amendment.
The 1954 Act sets out rules for both landlords and tenants of business premises with regard to the beginning and ending of tenancy agreements. Under these rules if a tenant has paid the agreed rent on time and complied with the tenancy agreement the landlord can only bring the tenancy to an end at or after the end of the current tenancy by serving the tenant with a notice of termination.
Upon receipt of the notice the tenant has the right to apply to the court for a new tenancy, which it is bound to grant unless the landlord can show grounds

413
for being granted possession. Such grounds include failure by the tenant to comply with the conditions of the tenancy or that the landlord wishes to occupy the premises himself for the purposes of running a business, residence or to reconstruct the premises.
At present, Section 43 (1) (d) of the Landlord and Tenant Act Part II exempts tenancies of on-licensed premises. Under the Bill Section 43 (1) (d) is repealed.
The transitional provisions are intended to ensure that tenancies agreed before 11th July 1989 are unaffected if they end before 11th July 1992. Most brewery tenancies are for terms of three years and the Act will therefore apply in those cases only when a new tenancy is agreed. The significance of the 1992 date is that it is three years after the 10th July 1989 Statement.
Clause 1 (3) provides that where the Landlord and Tenant Act provides for statutory notices to be given by a landlord or a tenant, these notices can be validly served before July 1992, where appropriate.
Since the Bill was published in December last, tenants' organisations have lobbied energetically for changes to enhance the protection available under the Act. We must, however, bear in mind that pub tenancies, like rented residential or any other form of property, are part of a market, with terms governed by supply and demand. A pub tenancy agreement is the result of a commercial negotiation; and while we can set out what are fair procedures for reaching agreement, we cannot force the agreement to be more or less favourable to one side than what the market dictates.
I have referred already to the importance the Government attach to maintaining the existing balance of rights and obligations in the 1954 Act.
During consideration of this Bill in another place arguments were put forward that the licensed trade was different in a number of respects from the normal run of business tenancies, and that this should be reflected in the Bill. In particular it was argued that some way should be found to take account of the good will that a tenant had contributed to the business if a request for a new tenancy was successfully opposed because the landlord intended to take the premises into management.
The Government have looked at this matter further. We do not accept the argument that one class of business tenant should be treated differently under the 1954 Act from others. However, I have also drawn attention to the fact that this Bill is one of a number of measures taken in the light of the MMC Report. We recognise that there may be special problems of a transitional nature as brewers adjust to the new obligations being placed upon them to open their estates to increased competition.
I can announce that after further consideration the Government intend to bring forward an amendment which will recognise that special arrangements for compensation should apply during the period of adjustment to a more open market. The amendment will provide that for a transitional period, additional and separate compensation will be payable to tenants of on-licensed premises to which the Landlord and
414
Tenant Act 1954 Part II will apply because of the Bill, and where the landlord wishes to use them as on-licensed premises himself.
The Government believe that taking account in compensation of actual good will contributed by a tenant raises too many technical difficulties to be practicable. The special compensation will therefore be based on a proportion of the rateable value of the premises. The proportion will vary on a sliding scale depending on occupation.
As I have suggested, this Bill represents a carefully struck balance between the interests of tenants and those of their landlords, who are in most cases brewers. In this the approach mirrors the one the Government have taken with all the measures to deal with the MMC's findings. It is natural that tenants should press the case for the greatest possible protection. I hope, however, that they can accept the logic of the Government's case that there must be a balance between the conflicting interests involved. This is not, as some have suggested, because we do not want to disadvantage brewers. We must recognise that brewers, like other landlords, own pubs and let them out on tenancies because it pays them to do so. If the balance of commercial advantage swings against such tenancies, landlords will exercise their option not to have tenants.
This Bill represents a substantial improvement in the position of tenants of public houses. The protection offered, while perhaps not being everything sought by tenants and their representative organisations, is significant and is welcomed by them. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Trefgarne.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill and explaining its various provisions and responding to some of the arguments that were put forward when the Bill was considered in another place.
From these Benches I wish to give the Bill a general welcome. It is a useful measure so far as it goes. If we have reservations, which we do, they are reservations on some of the details of the provisions outlined rather than the principle. The principle that tenants of public houses should have the same rights as tenants of other commercial premises seems to us to be a proper principle for the Government to adopt; and we support it. It was indeed recommended by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as the noble Lord has stated; and we certainly support that.
If we have reservations, they are on points of detail. The noble Lord has covered some of the points. The first point that I wish to bring to the attention of the noble Lord is the problem of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Bill in front of us does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. It is clear that the Bill could not apply to Scotland for the simple reason that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 does not apply to Scotland. Therefore a Bill which amends an Act which does not apply to Scotland could not apply to Scotland. It would be absurd to try to bring the whole of the Landlord

415
and Tenant Act 1954 into Scottish law through the mechanism of this Bill. We therefore recognise that there is a problem.
Nevertheless it surely is a matter of equity that tenants in Scotland be treated on exactly the samp basis as tenants in England and Wales. I have been advised that to try to amend this Bill to make it apply to Scotland will be outside the scope of the Bill. We shall therefore not be tabling amendments for that in Committee. However, I have also been advised that under Scottish law the position in Scotland is somewhat different from the landlord and tenant arrangements in England and Wales. The advice I have received is that there is no need for this or a similar Bill in Scotland since the Scottish Act corresponding to the English Act of 1954 already appears to extend to all shops, including retailers of intoxicating liquor. I understand that we ought to be looking at the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949, as amended, and to the Shops Act 1950, which defines the word "shop" and "retail trade or business" in one of its sections.
I am not an expert on Scottish law, as I am sure your Lordships will be the first to acknowledge, but I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could assure the House that my advice is true and honest and that the Government take the view that my advisers have given me: that the Bill is not necessary to Scotland, and that the same protection is available to Scottish tenants as will be available to English and Welsh tenants under the terms of the Bill if it is enacted. When the noble Lord winds up the debate I should be grateful if he could give me that assurance.
Our next reservation is on the timing of the starting date of the Bill. We wish to see the starting date of the Bill brought forward to Royal Assent. At present there is considerable agitation in the brewing industry. As a result of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and of the subsequent debates and negotiations to which the Minister referred, a number of brewers are considering whether to be wholly in retailing and out of brewing, wholly in brewing and out of retailing or part in one and part in the other. There is a state of flux within the industry.
During such times of major disturbances within the industry due to government action and not to the market, the people exposed are those with least protection. In this case they are the tenants. We wish to see the protection for the tenant which the Bill provides start before 1992. If we wait until then the whole structure of the brewing industry and the retailing of intoxicating liquor could have changed completely. That is not to mention any intervention from the Community when it makes a decision about the timing. That is our first major reservation about the Bill.
Secondly, we have a reservation about contracting out. The 1954 Act provides for contracting out if the tenant and the landlord agree. They can remove themselves and the tenancy from the purview of the 1954 Act. The Minister addressed himself to the problem but we are not satisfied that he has given
416
us the right answer. He said that the market must rule. Our belief, which has been underlined in all our debates on the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, is that there is a complex monopoly in the brewing industry and that there are market failures. Therefore, the balance of power between the landlord and tenant in such cases is different from that in the ordinary run of cases under the 1954 Act. We argue that there should be a special provision for pub tenants giving them greater security than would normally be available under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
In its report the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended that the right of first refusal should be granted to the tenant when the brewer puts the pub up for sale. If there is such a right of first refusal it must be at the market price. If the tenant could not meet that price the right of first refusal would not apply. However, we believe that it is an honest option and we can see no reason why it should not be written into the provisions which the Government have announced. I accept that this is only one of a package of provisions but we can seen no reason why it should not be written in.
The Minister spoke about the acquisition of goodwill built up by the tenant before the pub is taken back into brewery management, a subject which was discussed in another place. He announced an amendment and we must wait until Committee to see what it means. I understood the Minister to mean that there would be compensation during the transition period. We wish to interrogate him closely in order to ascertain whether the compensation, if it is based on rateable values, should not properly be extended beyond the transition period.
There is also the question of the right of a spouse of a deceased tenant to continue to live in the premises. Frequently there is great hardship when a tenant dies and a spouse must leave his or her home almost immediately. We accept that if the Bill is enacted it will give greater protection to the spouse. Nevertheless, if contracting out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is allowed protection for the spouse is removed and we wish to see it reinstated in the Bill.
I have mentioned a number of reservations about the Bill and amendments which we shall bring forward in Committee for consideration. That does not detract from the general welcome which we give in principle to the Bill. However, we are suspicious about the relationship between the Government and the brewers, particularly the Brewers' Society. From time to time under Conservative Governments we see strong measures being proposed but then whittled down in negotiations as they move between the Government and the brewers. After the publication of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission we saw retreat in the face of a heavyweight attack from the Brewers' Society. We saw a weak response from Government Ministers. In Committee we shall try to strengthen the Bill. A measurement of the Government's sincerity will be shown by their sympathetic view to the amendments. Are they prepared to risk the wrath of the Brewers'

417
Society and give proper security to the pub tenant or are they doing the minimum necessary to avoid yet another political row? We shall see.
3.55 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, the Bill before us appears to be simple but it is deceptively complex. I compliment the Minister for outlining some of its aspects and difficulties. I wish to address some of the concerns felt by Members on these Benches. In many respects they reflect those outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, but I do not wish to articulate any suspicion about the relationship between the Government and the brewers. That would be somewhat over-egging the pudding. I look forward to hearing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball.
The Bill will bring the tenants of licensed premises under the scope of the 1954 Act. It gives the tenant security of tenure providing that he fulfils certain conditions. Tenancies of licensed premises were originally excluded from the Act primarily because it was thought that such security would prevent landlords from exercising their rights to evict tenants, even where a tenant's licence was revoked. Today that is not a relevant problem because of changes in the practices of licensing magistrates. Furthermore, a clause to cover such eventualities can be written into tenancy agreements.
That is not the reason why the Bill is before us today. If it were we should be happy to greet it without reservation and the status quo within the brewing industry would appear to fit adequately. That is not the case because the Bill is part of a package of measures which result from the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in respect of the supply of beer. There are differences of opinion about whether the complex monopoly which the commission found is as damaging to competition as it maintained.
Among other measures the commission recommended that, given the imbalance of negotiating power between the landlord and the tenant, licensed premises should be included under the 1954 Act. It considered that there was a serious undermining of competition and of the tenant's position, vis-à -vis the landlord. Tenants, particularly those who want to buy products at competitive prices, cannot act as independent businessmen able to provide the wide range of products and services available in pubs.
Clearly, to give a tenant more security cannot itself achieve the aim but that is obviously a vital element in the package. We recognise that. It will enable the tenant to withstand pressure from the brewers because that has undoubtedly existed in various forms; for example, as regards the right to sell guest beers and the right to put a price on soft drinks. That is a matter close to my heart which I have raised previously in your Lordships' House. I have drawn attention to the scandal of the differential between soft drinks, low alcohol or non-alcoholic beers and other alcoholic drinks.
Having conceded that security is desirable, we must ask ourselves whether the measures in the Bill
418
achieve that. Since 1970 there has been a brewers' code of practice which was supposed and intended to give tenants the same security which they would have had under the 1954 Act. Of course, that is legally unenforceable and was seen, rightly or wrongly, by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to be ineffective.
Beside that, there are increasing numbers of licensed premises such as wine bars which are not owned by the brewers. Those tenants also deserve protection.
It seems that bringing licensed premises under the Act is generally the right way to provide tenants with the security they deserve and which the public interest demands. Therefore, we agree with the basic thrust of the Government's proposed legislation. However, we are somewhat surprised that they have chosen a form which makes it difficult to see how the public interest and competition are going to be served.
The 1954 Act allows landlord and tenant to opt out of the provisions of the Act so long as both petition the court. The value of having to petition the court is quite obvious. In going through that process the tenant will become aware of his legal situation and the possible effects of what he is agreeing to. Contracting out, which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is a common option. The information I have is that in 1986 there were 11,651 applications to contract out, set against a figure of 16,500 or so new business tenancies.
Therefore, it seems very likely that given the option in the normal way of things and the pressures upon them to maximise profits, the brewers will simply say to the tenant, "If you do not agree to come to court with me and apply to opt out of the Act, then I shall offer the tenancy to someone who is prepared to do that." There are plenty of people waiting to become tenants of public houses, it will be argued. There is anxiety within the National Licensed Victuallers Association which feels that that is the most likely result.
If tenants are forced out of the provisions of the Act they will have no security of tenure and will be wide open to brewery pressure. The Minister spoke about the free market. Indeed, his right honourable friend in another place effectively resigned himself to the scenario when he said that,
"a pub tenancy agreement is the result of a commercial negotiation, and while we can set out what are fair procedures for reaching agreement we cannot force the agreement to be more or less favourable to one side than what the market dictates".
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that we on these Benches do not believe that this is all that can be done. Unfettered and free markets can, and often do, provide results which are in the public interest. We do not deny that. However, free markets are not by definition synonymous with public interest although one might be forgiven for thinking that the Government adhere to that view. However, it is perfectly possible, when it is right to do so, to place certain constraints to provide an outcome which best serves the public interest.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has completed a detailed study and has concluded that

419
tenants of licensed premises should be more protected than those of other business premises. I did not quite understand from the noble Lord's remarks whether or not the Government took on board that point. It seems that if one increases the protection to tenants, then one can reasonably assume that the supply of premises will decrease. However, this does not seem to be a case where that necessarily follows. The measures introduced as a result of the report of the commission are having a quite profound effect on the drinks industry. In order for those measures to become effective, it seems that it is of great importance that wherever possible tenants must be able to resist brewery pressure.
I return to my uncertainty about the noble Lord's comments. The pressures in the relationship we are discussing are somewhat complicated. First, tenants of pubs are often working from home. The pub is their home. They live there, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with their wives and families. To lose a tenancy effectively means losing your home. Therefore, the likelihood of giving into pressures from the brewers must be greater.
Also, unusually, the landlord and the tenant are in the same business. I cannot think of many other areas of commercial activity where that is so. It gives the landlord scope to exert pressure. I do not wish to build up a picture of evil brewers exerting pressure for the fun of it because they are in the business of making money and want to maximise their profits. However, another aspect is that if the tenant works hard and is successful in his outlet, the landlord can simply remove him and seek to maximise his profits by putting in a manager in place of the tenant.
I absolutely agree with the Minister that there is an overriding need to create a balance between the brewers' and tenants' interests. However, can we really believe the brewers when they say, as they do, that disallowing the option to opt out will make tenancies unattractive so that they will not be able to offer them? I am sceptical about that. As I said, brewers are in the business of making money. They would obviously prefer not to give to tenants any rights which may eat into their profit potential.
It is a fact of life that in recent times brewers have been separating their property interests from their brewing interests. Moving back to installing their own managers is not seen as an attractive option. The difficulties, the complexities and the skills required in successfully managing a pub these days are very specialised. To put managers in often creates more problems than there were before.
If landlords and tenants cannot opt out of the Act, as I suggest, landlords will not need to renew a tenant's lease unless the tenant is persistently behind in his rent or refuses to pay, refuses to maintain the property or is in breach of obligations under the lease. He will then be entitled to a market rent for the property. Under those circumstances I do not think that brewers could claim to be hard done by. That seems to us to be the right balance between the landlord and the tenant.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to timing. We do not agree with him. I am happy to say the Government have it about right. There
420
seemed to be some confusion, on reading the proceedings in another place, with regard to the timing and implementation of the Bill. All new tenancies will be covered by the Bill and any remaining old tenancy agreements which are not renewed by 11th July 1992 will be covered by the Act as they are. July 1992 was chosen because most tenancies run for three years. The Government quite rightly— if I correctly read their intentions— wish to minimise the prospect of retrospective legislation while also phasing in the Bill at the same time as other measures which will increase competition in the supply of beer and other drinks.
Going with the drift of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, we agree with the basic intentions of the legislation, bearing in mind the reservations I have articulated.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, there is no doubt that the National Licensed Victuallers Association has obtained an eloquent advocate in the shape of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. However, I am sure noble Lords do not want to be led down any road of sentimental attachment to the good publican, because we are discussing in this Bill a straight and profitable business relationship. I hope the House will remember that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that many of the effects of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the brewing industry can already be seen to be counter-productive. The rationale behind the Bill as it left another place, which places the relationship between brewer landlords and their tenants on the same footing as other businesses, is entirely understandable. What is critical is that that arrangement should be precisely that; no more and no less. Any suggestion that the arrangements between a brewer landlord and his tenant should be any different from those affecting other businesses is unreasonable and unjustified from any logical point of view.
The viability of a tenanted pub depends on a fair balance of benefits between the tenant and the landlord. The tenants of the major brewers have already been given an enormous concession, as was admitted by the noble Viscount, in that they now have the right to buy non-beer drinks outside the tie and they have the right to purchase a guest beer. That has already upset the existing relationship. A further tipping of the balance towards the tenant risks making tenancies an extremely unattractive proposition for brewers and places the whole system at risk.
Currently tenants of brewery owned pubs are protected by the code of practice. So often in this House we see that codes of practice of one decade become the law of another decade, in a somewhat modified form. As the legislation stands at the moment all the pre-11th July 1989 agreements have to be reviewed before 11th July 1992, involving over 30,000 new negotiations taking place.
The National Licensed Victuallers Association were demanding special treatment for when the

421
tenant is dispossessed. However, why should the compensation for the termination of a tenancy be treated differently from any other business? Why should the level of compensation for a pub tenant be greater than for any other business? The goodwill argument is simply not valid. The value of a public house is not based on its goodwill; it is assessed on what is called the "maintainable trade". If one uses the concept of maintainable trade and judges it against the hypothetical average tenant, goodwill has absolutely no value and is not reflected in the ingoing or outgoing valuation. The only matter that is of real value is the licence which is granted by the justices and that belongs to the brewery.
That has been a longstanding view of all professional valuers. They firmly take the view that when an exceptional licensee leaves, he takes that goodwill with him because he is the person who has created it. In fact it has no value to the ingoing landlord. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, tried to make— I will not say "mountain"— a hillock out of a molehill on the question of contracting out. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that contracting out agreements are openly negotiated by the court with both parties present. There are many arguments which say that this flexible arrangement is to the advantage of both the brewer and the incoming tenant for a short period. We should therefore view the question of "contracting out" in its true sense. It is not a way a brewer can get rid of a tenant and bring in one who is likely to be more compilable.
My noble friend the Minister will have to bring forward his amendments and we will see whether or not they can be supported by this side of the House. It is a very limited measure. It is a very doubtful necessity. I should like to think that if the committee of my noble friend Lord Rippon were judging what legislation should come forward, they might decide that in an over-burdened Session this was a little bit of legislation which was not necessary. However, I understand the rationale behind it and, provided my noble friend does not amend the Bill too drastically, we may be able to speed its progress.
4.18 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and the House for allowing me to intervene. I apologise for so doing. I shall be brief I declare an interest as the director of a regional brewery company and therefore it will come as no surprise to your Lordships to find that I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Kimball said.
More than any other business involving a landlord and tenant, the level of trade conducted in a pub depends very much on the licensee himself. I am therefore pleased to learn that goodwill will not be taken into account. However, I was concerned about compensation because the level of compensation already offered— six times rateable value, often exceeded by negotiation and agreement— is sufficient. I am worried that it may discourage brewers in their intentions to continue with tenanted public houses. As I believe I said when we were debating the matter of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission last year, this Bill may have the effect
422
of reducing brewery tenancies. As my noble friend Lord Kimball said, we shall have to wait and see, but I should be sorry to see that come about.
The contracting-out aspect is a good one because there are pubs in special circumstances where short tenancies are to everyone's advantage, and that should be allowed to prevail. Of course, much-needed probationary periods are desirable so that brewers can assess the suitability of licensees.
I thank your Lordships for your indulgence and I look forward to the next stages of the Bill.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe I am entitled to say that your Lordships have welcomed this Bill, even if that welcome is somewhat guarded and qualified. I shall endeavour to deal with some of the points raised without straying into too much detail, which no doubt your Lordships will want to do at the next stage.
I turn first to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He referred to the need to cover Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Landlord and Tenant Act does not, as the noble Lord knows, apply to Scotland and the Bill cannot therefore extend any of its provisions north of the Border. However, in terms of the issues addressed by the MMC, the Scottish Act— which I believe is called the Shops Act— already extends to retailers of intoxicating liquor. The need to consider the position of pub tenants in Scotland is much less acute since the pub tenancy system is much less prevalent in Scotland. I understand that only 3 per cent. of tenancies are north of the Border.
In Northern Ireland tenants are already covered by the Business Tenants Act 1964. The noble Lord asked whether the advice I have received agrees with the advice that he had. Since I believe we have the same advisers I daresay that it does.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I was not aware that I was being advised by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not confine my advice to that given by the Department of Trade and Industry. There are many other sources of advice available to all Members of your Lordships' House and I am happy to avail myself of those facilities.
Turning to the transitional provisions, I believe the noble Lord suggested that some of the protections which are not due to come into effect until the middle of 1992 should be brought in earlier. In drawing up the transitional arrangements the Government have had regard to two prime considerations: that legislation should not, as far as possible, be retrospective and disturb the basis of existing agreements to the detriment of the parties; and that all pub tenants should be protected before November 1992 when the national brewers are required to have released a portion of their estates from ties altogether.
Most brewery tenancies have been for three years. Any such tenancies which existed before 10th July 1989, when the Government announced their

423
intention to bring them within the framework of the 1954 Act, will be unaffected. That is right and proper. A landlord who agreed to let a pub to a tenant for a certain period in the expectation that he could recover the premises should not suddenly find the basis for that transaction undermined. In a minority of cases where longer term tenancies have been entered into the Government have felt it right, nevertheless, to bring them within the 1954 Act by the deadline of July 1992. This is to ensure that the tenants have the security that they need to profit from the release of certain pubs from ties when that is completed.
I appreciate that some tenants would like immediate protection, but it would be wholly unreasonable for the Government arbitrarily to change the basis of so many tenancy agreements that were entered into in good faith before it has been made clear that they were to be brought within the 1954 Act.
In regard to contracting out, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Liverpool, the 1954 Act did not originally contain any provision for landlord and tenant to contract out of its provisions. Contracting out was actually introduced in 1969 because it had been found that the Act was discouraging landlords from letting some types of property, particularly where the landlord might wish to let it for only a short period of time. I accept that the relationship between brewer and tenant is an unequal one, but failure to allow contracted-out tenancies in circumstances where they might better suit the parties would only diminish the supply of tenanted pubs. The Government are particularly concerned that entry into the market might become more difficult for new or inexperienced tenants. If the only option available for a brewer is a fully secure tenancy he would be much less inclined to take the risk of granting a tenancy to someone whose skills are not fully proven.
In general, brewers will want to attract tenants who will make a success of the business. They will need to offer appropriate terms. If there are too few tenancies compared with the number of tenants, that would not be helped by discouraging the supply of tenanted property.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to first refusal. The issue being addressed by the Bill is security of tenure for pub tenants. A tenant's security under the 1954 Act is unaffected by a change in ownership of the premises. Therefore, I see no reason why provision should be made for the tenant to have the right to buy in this case. Indeed, there is no general right to buy for any private business premises. Of course, the Government would be pleased if opportunities arose for tenants to buy their premises, and a landlord interested in selling a pub will not generally wish to turn down an offer from a tenant that matches the best offer he can obtain on the open market.
The noble Lord also referred to protection of the spouse in the event of the death of the tenant. As the noble Lord accepts, the right of a spouse who inherits a late tenant's estate will be given greater
424
protection when the Bill takes effect. As for what happens when a tenancy is contracted out, I accept that the protection for a spouse will not then apply; but that is a fact that prospective tenants must take into account when deciding whether or not to enter into such a tenancy. No one has to enter into a tenancy if the terms are not acceptable. Brewers generally wish to attract good tenants, as I said earlier.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked about the position of wine bar tenants. Wine bar tenants would fall for exclusion under Section 43 (1) (d) of the 1954 Act. As this provision is to be repealed by the present Bill they will in future be covered. The noble Viscount also asked about tenants of licensed premises having more protection than other business tenants. The Government's position is that tenants of licensed premises should be put on all-fours with other tenants. The 1954 Act provides a delicate and well-tested balance between the interests of tenants and of landlords.
The Government accept, of course, that this Bill is introduced in a special context; namely, the MMC report. To take account of this the Government propose that for a transitional period special compensation for tenants is appropriate. I referred to that in my opening remarks and we shall, of course, return to it in later stages of the Bill.
The noble Viscount also referred to model tenancy agreements— I think he had in mind a statutory code of practice. The Government and, indeed, successive governments, have rejected the concept of a standard model or form of lease or agreement. That would not sit well with the Government's policy that the market should operate freely. Landlords and tenants should be able to negotiate their own tenancy agreements as they wish. If the parties want to incorporate a code of practice in the agreement, it is up to them. It is entirely for the parties concerned to decide. The Government's concern is to ensure that the circumstances are flexible enough to deal with any situation which might arise.
I believe I have covered the principal points that have been raised, including those raised by my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Liverpool. We shall, of course, return to specific points at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Overseas Aid: Select Committee Report
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Overseas Aid [1st Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 16]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is a privilege to introduce this report on overseas aid which has been prepared by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. The contribution of science and technology to development is crucial. As

425
the Royal Society commented, excellence in this field,
"is a cornerstone of sustainable development".
I emphasise the word "sustainable" which runs through the whole of this report. I should like to thank all those who gave evidence to the committee, both oral and written, and all those who received the committee overseas and at the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute at Chatham. They gave us a very warm welcome and made extremely efficient arrangements for our visit.
In passing, I should like to say how impressed we were with the ODNRI at Chatham and with the work that it is doing in support of the ODA. I pay tribute to the members of the committee who worked extremely hard, contributing so much from their very wide experience. I am also most grateful for the dedicated work of our specialist adviser and our clerk who sifted through an enormous amount of written evidence and who drafted the report for us.
It was a very wide subject and it was impossible to visit all the countries involved. Some of us visited Nigeria, Ghana and India. We fully appreciate the danger of drawing general conclusions from these few visits. We asked the representatives of many recipient countries for their comments on the aid provided and it was encouraging to find that there was virtually no critical comment at all from those sources.
In order to limit the scope of the inquiry, the committee concentrated principally on bilateral aid. We noted the statement of aims of overseas aid given by Her Majesty's Government in reply to a report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in 1987 which stated:
"the aim is to promote sustainable economic and social progress and alleviate poverty in developing countries. This is entirely compatible with also serving our political, industrial and commercial interests".
In conducting its investigations into the scientific and technological aspects of overseas aid, the committee worked on the basis that in technical co-operation, as defined in paragraph 2.1, the interests of developing countries should always have priority in those few cases where any conflict arises between the interests of the recipient country and those of the United Kingdom. That does not imply that a reasonable proportion of programme aid— that is, direct financial support for essential imports— should not be tied to the purchase of United Kingdom products. But that raises issues far outside the scope of our investigation.
The essential contribution of science and technology to overseas aid was widely recognised. The committee saw as its principal task investigating as to whether this knowledge was properly and efficiently applied in our overseas aid programme, costing some £ 1.25 billion per annum. As indicated in the report, the committee concluded that the money is on the whole well spent and that those responsible for implementing the policy of the ODA are most dedicated in their work and carry it out in a competent and responsible way.
The evidence which we received both during our overseas visits and from other sources fully confirms
426
that view. The committee welcomed the very constructive part played by the British Council, which acts in many cases as an agent for the ODA, though, as indicated in paragraph 8.23, we believe that it would be wise to define more clearly the relationship between these two organisations. We saw them working very effectively together. But we felt that satisfactory working relationships relied very much on close and satisfactory personal relationships. Some formalisation of the relationships would be advantageous.
Despite the overall favourable view which your committee formed, we believe that there are a number of ways in which the effectiveness of the overseas aid programme can be further improved. The true measure of its success must be the extent to which it contributes to the building of local capability leading to a sustainable and constructive partnership between the less developed and the industrialised countries. To this end the contribution which science and technology can make to building a soundly based, scientific and technological infrastructure and improving local know-how and expertise is crucial. That will not only enable urgent local problems such as crop disease to be identified and solved but will also progressively lessen the need for overseas aid and help the recipient countries to be self-supporting.
On the whole, big capital projects such as road building, telecommunications and power stations are not the subject of bilateral aid but are carried out on a multilateral basis with supporting funds from such organisations as the World Bank. But the proper application of science and technology can make an enormous contribution to improving educational and research facilities within the recipient countries, so adding to the effectiveness of all types of aid.
During our visits to Ghana and Nigeria we saw many examples of this kind of aid to educational and research institutions. But clearly much remains to be done. Many institutions had little or no modern equipment. We were concerned to note that in too many cases the balance between the resources devoted to the training of scientific and technical manpower and the provision of adequate facilities was not optimised. For instance, we saw several examples of high-quality laboratory equipment that could not be used because it had not been adequately maintained due to the lack either of spare parts or of trained people to carry out the maintenance work, or both.
The fact is that well-trained people will not be attracted, and, even if they are, they cannot do good work if they are not provided with facilities of a reasonable standard. Nor can modem equipment be efficiently utilised unless there are trained people to operate and maintain it. So we concluded that considerably more attention needs to be given by the ODA to achieving a better balance between those requirements.
We were also concerned to note the serious lack of up-to-date technical publications in many establishments which we visited. Many of the technical publications were several years old and

427
therefore of little value. We recommend that further urgent attention should be given to this problem, particularly by the British Council acting as the agent for the ODA.
The committee also saw examples of the use of inappropriate technology which was very often too sophisticated for local needs. For instance, in Ghana we saw a small water supply scheme which was the subject of overseas aid. The mechanism for opening the valves from the small reservoir was operated by a complex system of pneumatic equipment. There were back-up handwheels which were used when the equipment did not work. Indeed, that pneumatic equipment had never worked and it was quite unnecessary. That is an example of wasted resources from using inappropriate technology.
The solution to the problem is not as easy as it may appear, since if relatively simple equipment is provided the recipients may feel that they are being palmed off with something cheap and nasty whereas they should have the best that is available. Therefore, there is an educational problem to be undertaken so as to make the best use of available resources.
One of the reasons that makes overseas aid necessary for lesser developed countries is the lack of foreign currency to purchase their needs. Therefore, it is vital to do everything possible to enable the countries to meet more of their own needs. In this, the application of the appropriate technology in manufacture is of supreme importance. The committee was impressed by the work being done by the Intermediate Technology Development Group. We welcome most warmly the continuing support from the ODA for the work of this well-organised charity.
Even greater attention should be given by the ODA to expanding work of this kind which can do so much to help the sustainable development of the economy of the recipient countries. The committee noted that many of those working in the overseas aid field served in the former Colonial Service and therefore had wide experience of the problems and local customs in lesser developed countries. That source of recruitment is now drying up. It is essential to make sure that it is replaced by bringing on younger people and giving them the appropriate training.
Stronger links should also be forged with the younger generation in recipient countries and there is a need for more funds to be made available for scholarships of all kinds. If full value is to be obtained through such scholarships from those who are trained in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, it is essential to maintain contact with them on a long-term basis both in their own interests of continuing education and traning and also in the interests of the United Kingdom in providing better opportunities for British industry to meet the needs of developing countries.
In general the committee concluded that more can be done by the ODA in producing clearly formulated policies and priorities and better communications with other donor organisations. There also appears to be a somewhat inadequate use of other sources of
428
expertise. We therefore recommend, in paragraph 6.11, that a panel of advisers should be set up. During our investigation we received evidence from many non-governmental organisations, mostly charities, and in our overseas visits we met representatives of some of them. We are delighted by the flexibility with which they can work in direct and sympathetic contact with those needing help. We were able to see at first hand one or two examples of the excellent work being done and were most impressed by its effectiveness and the dedication of those involved. We welcome most warmly the ODA's recognition of the value of these NGOs and the constructive financial support which it provides to them and which is so greatly appreciated.
Overall this was a most interesting investigation, somewhat different from the normal type of work carried out by your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology. The conclusions and recommendations are clearly summarised in Part 9 of the report and so I shall not weary the House by repeating them. But I should like briefly to draw attention to a few significant ones which I did not cover earlier. In paragraph 9.7 we stress the value of collaborative effort, including joint research. In paragraph 9.18 we recommend that more explicit consideration should be given to the relative costs and benefits of training in-country or in the United Kingdom. In paragraph 9.27 we recommend that aid-related research and development should be continued if there is a clear need, even in the absence of a commercial market or sponsor, which may come later on when the work is further developed.
In paragraph 9.28 we draw attention to the importance of local institution building contributing to the supply of well-trained manpower in agriculture in Africa. In paragraph 9.44 we warn that excessive delegation of activities to external organisations, on a commercial basis, could create difficulties for the ODA in obtaining impartial advice unless an adequate core of expert advisers is maintained within the ODA.
Finally, it is a real pleasure to be able to give a warm welcome to the work of the ODA and to conclude that the money allocated to it is, overall, effectively used and controlled, accepting of course that our investigation was inevitably limited in scope. But it is a good principle to build on success and the committee was concerned to note that the United Kingdom's contribution to overseas aid is about 0·3 per cent. of the gross national product whereas the recommended OECD target is 0·7 per cent. That is achieved and indeed exceeded by several countries in the OECD, some of which are much smaller than ourselves. In paragraph 9.4 we recommend that the Government should make a firm commitment to move steadily towards this target as quickly as possible. This would be of real benefit not only to our own interests but to those of recipient countries whose needs are as great as ever. I conclude by noting that progress towards this higher contribution would be greatly facilitated by an increased output from our own manufacturing industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology

429
on Overseas Aid [1st Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 16] .— (Viscount Caldecote.)
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I must first ask the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Ewart-Biggs, to forgive me if I have to slip away before the end of the debate. I hope to be able to stay to the end but I have to get away to catch a train.
I welcome the report and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the committee for the thoroughness with which they have tackled a wide and diverse subject. The report refers to the all-pervasiveness of science and technology. How very true that is and how very true is the statement made in the report that it is sometimes very difficult to quantify the importance and the advantages of science and technology.
I shall start by making one or two brief references to aspects of the report. First, it refers to the work of the British Council, to which the noble Viscount has already referred. Having just returned from a visit to Latin America and having seen some of the work of the British Council on the ground, I should like to underline the importance which the report attaches to the work of this body. Its work in English language teaching is invaluable. But like all organisations the British Council is suffering from cuts in its budget. If it is to make its full contribution to the work of overseas development it is important that more funds are made available to it.
Secondly, the report refers to the importance of in-country training. It mentions primary health care as a case in point. This cannot be over-emphasised. The extent of the training need in the developing countries is so vast that it would be impossible to provide that outside the countries concerned. In any case it is important that the training should be made part of the country's infrastructure so that it can deal with the particular problems of that country.
Thirdly, the report refers to the danger of the ODA becoming too commercialised and expecting a return on projects. Again, I agree with the underlying principle behind this. The needs of the country must be paramount where aid is being given. On the other hand, from my limited observations in Latin America— I stress that they are limited observations— it seems to me that this is a largely neglected area and that there is tremendous scope for British investment and trade. Investment and trade could not be developed without the guiding hand of the Foreign Office and the expertise of the ODA.
I turn now to my main area of concern, which is population and development. I welcome in particular paragraphs 3.19 to 3.23 of the report which refer to population activities. I welcome especially paragraph 3.23, which says:
"Her Majesty's Government should seek increased action on the issue in international fora wherever possible. Support for multilateral and non-governmental initiatives should be increased".
The paragraphs refer to the evidence from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population and Development. Here I must declare an interest. Not
430
only am I a member of that group, but I also had the privilege of being part of the parliamentary delegation referred to in the evidence which visited India and Nepal last year. I was also a member of a very recent delegation to Ecuador and Mexico. In Ecuador the first part of the delegation's responsibility was to attend the Second Western Hemisphere Conference of Parliamentarians on Population and Development. That was followed by visits to projects in the two countries.
The report of your Lordships' Committee refers to the interaction between population growth and the environment; and indeed to economic development as a whole. Having seen this in two different parts of the globe, to me the need for more help in the field of science and technology and technical aid could not be more clear. I venture to say that the time for increased help is now ripe.
Despite the overwhelming problems that one sees on such visits, two optimistic themes emerged. One was the changed attitudes pervading, and the second was the fact that NGOs in particular— and I am glad that the noble Viscount and the report referred to the work carried out by these organisations— are beginning to get down to the grass roots of the problem.
The barometer for reading the changing atmosphere goes back to 1969 when I first visited East Africa. At that time the whole subject of family planning was absolutely taboo. The International Planned Parenthood Federation found itself having to work under cover because people were not allowed to set up local organisations. Women's moves towards emancipation were expressed through informal groups practising local handcrafts, thereby gaining a little financial assistance and independence through very inadequate baby and mother clinics.
In 1980 I attended the UN Mid-term Conference on the Decade of Women in Copenhagen. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, led the delegation. The conference was almost ruined by the combined efforts of the Third World, including a very vocal element from Latin America, and the East European countries, supported by the teachings of the Catholic Church, to resist what were termed as the attempts of Western imperialism to prevent the natural growth of population in the Third World.
In India last year the attitude changed. Although parliamentarians whom we met confessed that they were reluctant to take population and family planning issues on to the public platform, they nevertheless expressed support for action in this field and praised the work of voluntary organisations. In Quito in Ecuador two weeks ago, parliamentarians from country after country openly talked about the policies being pursued in their countries. Eleven of the countries represented are working to a population policy. That is an important concept. It is concerned not only with fertility and family planning; it is also concerned with the wider issues such as mortality and migration, which by the natural process of events take it into the areas of health, environment and economic development.
Regrettably, the problem now is far greater than when I first became acquainted with it in 1969. As

431
the Duke of Edinburgh said in his 1989 Dimbleby Lecture, starting from a population of 1 billion in the year 1800, in i960 the world population was estimated to have grown to 3 billion. By 1980 it was estimated at 4 billion, by 1987 it had grown to 5 billion and by the year 2000 it is expected to reach 6 billion. Forty per cent. of that population is under 15 years of age. Therefore, the momentum for population growth cannot be immediately stopped. However, it can be slowed down and it could be brought to replacement level. Provided adequate policies are pursued, it can be contained under the figure of 10 billion; but if adequate policies are not pursued, it will rise much beyond that figure.
The pressure on resources of this growth in the world population are incalculable. The toll in human misery and degradation is appalling. If we take women's health as an indicator, the chances of a woman dying from complications arising in pregnancy are: in Africa one in 21; in South America one in 73; in the Caribbean one in 140; in North America one in 6,366; and, in Europe the figure is one in 9,850. The statistics for child mortality are equally appalling. Yet, as I said, there is hope. The International Planned Parenthood Federation projects which the British delegation saw in Ecuador, in Mexico and in India last year give rise to that optimism. In India the projects were concerned with family planning and spacing, with family health, with women's literacy, with pest and parasite control and with small economic developments.
In Mexico the problems were somewhat different. In the whole of Latin America and in the Caribbean early sexual activity is a cultural feature. That creates enormous problems of teenage pregnancy, very often outside marriage, which is also a cultural feature. Here the emphasis has to be on sex education and healthy sex, together with the development of a community health network.
Mexfam, the IPPF agent in Mexico, provides technical and financial assistance, training, materials, educational information and contraceptive supplies to doctors to set up clinics in both rural and urban areas where no services exist. After two years the doctors are expected to have established themselves and become largely self-sufficient. In effect, they hold a franchise from Mexfam. Through this work Mexfam supports 150 such community doctors catering for 2,500 families. That is a very small number when we think of the total population of a country like Mexico, and the demand is insatiable. The need and the demand for contraceptive supplies is also much greater than the present usage.
The Select Committee report calls for greater resources to ODA. It also calls for greater help to the NGOs. In its evidence the population and development group asked that 2 per cent. of the aid which ODA gives to overseas countries should be devoted to population and development problems. That is the very minimum and much more is needed.
To meet the unmet demands as more and more women become aware of their ability to control their fertility, greater assistance is needed. I emphasise that it is needed by the NGOs which can cut through
432
the bureaucracy that sometimes attaches to governmental aid. There is also a need to support programmes, such as the WHO special programme on research into human reproduction which is essential if those unmet demands are to be satisfied, and satisfied in a way that is convenient and safe for the women involved.
There is no field in which the all-pervasiveness of science and technology is more apparent than in the field of population and development. I hope that the Select Committee's report and recommendations will be noted by the Government.
5 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, it is my pleasure to open by paying a warm tribute to our chairman for the momentum which he enabled our sub-committee to maintain in its work despite the enormous scope of its studies. I should like to endorse his tribute to the quality and effectiveness of our clerk, Miss De Groose, and to the encyclopaedic knowledge of our specialist adviser, Mr. Barnett, who enabled us to keep abreast of knowledge.
I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, took as her main subject the crucial question of population in the context of overseas aid. Thirty years ago, when I first assumed some responsibility in the field of overseas aid, I puzzled over the apparent paradoxes of how one could justify the pouring of resources into attempts to assist developing countries when at that time it seemed that there was no possibility of population trends being arrested, with the effect that population would always outstrip increases in production. I used to be a doomster. I foresaw a scenario of inevitable decline in the world with aid as a minor mitigating factor only of relief. I am glad to say that I am no longer a doomster. I see an entirely different picture, a picture of a potential of sustainable development with the West priming the developing countries' pump.
We cannot take success for granted of course. It is a potential picture of hope. India, South East Asia and Africa can be countries with a modest improvement in their standard of living, and if that is to be realised, international aid will be an important, indeed perhaps a key, factor. The outcome will depend on population trends.
The Sub-Committee visited Nigeria. When I first served there some 25 years ago, the population was about 56 million. It is now over 100 million. It doubles every 15 years, and so in 30 years' time it is estimated that it will be 400 million. That growth is paralleled elsewhere in Africa with the prospect that the population of the continent, which was, in global terms, comparatively small, will rise to between 2 billion and 4 billion within 30 or 40 years.
The tradition of British development aid from its earliest years placed its main emphasis on technical co-operation, a term which embraced scientific skill and research. I am sure that that was right. It is tempting to put resources into striking projects of high publicity value and those can of course contribute massively to general economic progress. They can afford important markets for British exports. We rightly devote great efforts towards winning major development contracts, but as aid

433
resources are limited that must not be at the expense of our opportunities to help to build up skills. Whether the transfer of skill is by education here or by training in the recipient country, it is the single most valuable contribution that this country can make in the long term.
British aid should continue to be targeted mainly at the: transfer of skills at all levels. The Committee felt it necessary to issue a warning against short-termism. The committee had reservations about the current trend towards so-called projectisation; that is, identifying an objective and mounting a variety of attacks upon it with different kinds of skills. That is a useful means of ensuring an effective contribution in a specific field, but it would not be the best use of limited resources if that trend results in too little being available for the much more difficult but vital services directed at training and the transfer of skills. Those services are labour-intensive in administrative terms. They take a great deal of input of work in the ODA and the British Council, but that work is more than rewarded, and we should perhaps devote more administrative effort in the future than in the past towards creating a capability to meet specific training needs.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said, one area of special importance is the grant of scholarships. The arithmetic that there are more overseas students now than before we jacked up overseas students' fees has limited significance. Those students come because they can afford to do so, not necessarily because they are the students who can best take advantage of the opportunity. Their parents can afford to send them. What we need most is to help to educate here the men and women who will be the leaders in their respective fields in their own countries in later years. We should increase the number of men and women educated in this country. It is much to be welcomed that last year Her Majesty's Government increased the funds for scholarships from India. I hope that there will be further increases in respect of India but also in other parts of the world. That is very much in our own long-term interest because anyone who has had anything to do with trade or other forms of relations abroad knows how very much easier it is to develop contacts fruitfully with people who know this country.
I wish now to turn to Africa. As the World Bank stated in a very impressive report published in November, Africa is a crisis continent. When we have heard the term "external aid" in the past few weeks, it has been mentioned principally in the context of Eastern Europe where a vast new requirement has suddenly emerged. That represents a new challenge to the resources of Western countries. I am sure your Lordships agree that it would be nothing less than a tragedy if meeting the needs of Eastern Europe resulted in a diversion of resources from the developing world.
Africa is indeed in crisis. Its crisis may be attributed largely to some of its own weaknesses and we do not shut our eyes to that. Many of the governments in Africa are still dedicated to half-baked, doctrinaire, Marxist, collectivist
434
policies. Many of the governments are corrupt, but there are important signs of change. One of the countries that we visited, Ghana, has been the pilot in a structural adjustment programme which involves increased payment trouble for the population for a number of years. Nevertheless, Ghana set itself to that programme and it is carrying it through. At last it is starting to improve its performance with, I am glad to say, our help and the help of the rest of the international community. That is an important lead. There is some ground for hope that other countries in the dark continent will follow.
The scenario is not one of despair because in recent years there have been signs of the possibility of a green revolution in Africa. That is not, of course, the same kind of green revolution as has made such a remarkable impact in Asia, but nevertheless research has been carried out that holds out the possibility for African countries to pursue at last methods that can result in production outstripping population. When we visited the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Ibadan we were shown some very impressive research which has proved that it is possible by particular methods of cultivation in so-called alleys between shrubs, to increase production enormously and also to solve problems of humidity and drought. Terracing and forestry pioneering in other parts of Africa are also showing how to solve ancient problems. These methods can be spread quickly only by a massive increase in agricultural advisory extension services. That presents difficulties as regards how donor countries can contribute, as there is not necessarily much external input of the foreign exchange that is needed. However, skills and training are also needed. That is probably the key to the solution of the food problem in Africa, if it is to be solved.
I now turn to the question of resources to which the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and our report referred. The World Bank, in the review that I have mentioned, has concluded that there must be a substantial increase in net capital transfer in one form or another to the developing world if the serious slide towards catastrophe is to be avoided. Modest progress could be made. We are not talking just in terms of avoiding catastrophe. If the right policies are followed, there can be a modest improvement in living standards. That must be accompanied by strenuous and continued action on the part of the African governments themselves with their structural adjustments and a reversing of their policies which have discriminated against farmers. However, if donors generally can maintain the recent modest increases in the amount of resources moving towards Africa at a level of about 4 per cent. a year, the World Bank believes that the decline can be arrested, then levelled off and, finally, the bank believes there is a possibility of reducing aid to Africa. However, that may be a romantic dream.
My main point is that whereas for many years Asia and even Latin America have made significant progress, Africa has been a disaster area with apparently little hope. Now at last, for a combination of reasons, there are grounds for cautious hope. That should encourage us to maintain our contribution. The main effort must come from the countries

435
themselves and from their fanners but there is a need for increased effort as regards support and for an immense effort as regards education.
I conclude by stating that our own overseas aid is a comparatively small proportion of the total international picture. In the past we had rather inflated ideas of where we stood in terms of our contribution of resources. But it was impressed upon us when we visited India that our contribution is now a very modest proportion of international aid. Nevertheless, in terms of effectiveness it can still be enormously important. I would put it as high as to say that looking back over the past, British overseas aid can be regarded as 10 times as effective, pound for pound, in the field as the aid of other donors. Therefore, if we maintain this effectiveness and to some extent jack up our own resources, our contribution will remain of enormous importance in solving the problems of the third world.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I heard that the debate was to take place this afternoon only when I returned from Lesotho at the weekend. I have an inescapable engagement tonight and must therefore apologise if I am not able to stay until the end of the debate.
The core of our report consists of a series of recommendations aimed at raising the scientific and technical infrastructure of certain developing countries with which we have an aid relationship. Science and technical aid can only be successful if there are in the country concerned sufficient scientists and technologists who understand the nature of the science being introduced and know how to take advantage of it. Such an objective requires a long-term education and training relationship.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, pointed out, that is in the best traditions of British aid. It requires a gradual transfer of skills and culture to create a sufficient compost— if I may put it that way— of scientists and technicians, and patient training and education at all levels. That is not spectacular but it requires greater expenditure of human effort rather than dramatic expenditure of large sums of money. It involves a partnership with the developing country, enabling that country itself to raise the standards of its own society.
To that end your Lordships' Committee, as my noble friend Lord Caldecote pointed out, commends the process of institution building. That requires many forms of education and training; but especially it requires links. It requires links between departments of universities and other institutions in this country and departments in the institutions which are being aided. As the staff in the linked departments come to know each other better over a period of time the link becomes more effective. The British staff come to know where help and advice is most needed, where training is most effective and which young members of staff could best be brought to this country for specialised experience not available to them in their own departments overseas.
436
Some evidence was submitted to us of a new method of organising aid being developed by the ODA under the title of "projectisation". More and more aid is being delivered in projects. A package of different contributions is assembled to tackle a discrete problem. For example, with a particular capital input there might be packaged a training element, a set of seminars and book presentations. That is fine for a major project where at the planning stage what is needed is known or can be worked out. However, the blanket application of projectisation to smaller aid projects, especially those of a continuous nature, could be unfortunate.
For example, take the case of an expert seconded to a particular ministry in a small country. After some time in the ministry he may conclude that what is needed is further training or that two or three people ought to be sent to Britain for specialised experience. Under the old system he would turn to the local British Council officer who would try to arrange what was needed quickly and immediately. Under the new system those additional inputs would have to be renegotiated through the byzantine projectisation procedure, accompanied by the preparation of project data sheets and an amended project framework. That is clearly unsuitable for smaller projects or aid of a continuous kind, of which the type we are concerned with this afternoon— the improvement of scientific and technical infrastructure— is an excellent example.
Many old-style programmes in which British Council officers played a significant part are being phased out because of projectisation. Your Lordships' Committee recommends that the book presentation scheme of the British Council should be extended, for it is often an economical and effective way of increasing scientific and technological know-how. At present the British Council can make book presentations to any organisation. However, I understand that after 1991 book presentations are to be confined to projects so that a presentation to an organisation not directly involved in a project will not be possible.
I repeat that projectisation may be excellent for major projects but for smaller and continuous aid objectives, such as the improvement of the scientific infrastructure, the project is unlikely to be the appropriate vehicle. Such aid must be deployed in a continuous and unspectacular fashion, frequently, in small amounts and over a long period. It involves encouraging relationships between institutions, involving many people in a series of connected but different enterprises, training at all levels, research projects and generally a continuous effort which needs to go much wider than science and technology itself.
Perhaps I may give one example. Much science is available only in the English language. Improvement in the use of English is therefore vital. Again, and more fundamentally, science and technology can only be successfully carried out upon a wide cultural base in the society. That means open studies, postal studies, continuation courses, lifelong education, training for leisure and training for pleasure. Science and technology can only thrive in a society which rests upon the broadest cultural base.

437
Of all developed countries Britain is uniquely placed to deliver that kind of aid. We alone of all developed countries have created that ominpresent and powerful instrument, the British Council. No other developed country has anything like it, its officers working on a personal basis in so many developing countries, with their peoples and their educational systems— schools, universities, colleges and other institutions. No other developed country has created such an effective system. Through it we can forge partnerships with developing countries to improve and secure their scientific and technical bases without which the important benefits of modern science can never be successfully transferred.
Perhaps I may make one final point. Our report is rather orthodox because it assumes that aid generally is a good thing and then proceeds to inquire into the effectiveness and efficiency of our scientific and technical aid. There is of course another view about aid pioneered by my noble friend Lord Bauer. That view has recently been powerfully endorsed by a chilling indictment of aid, especialy of multi-lateral aid through such agencies as the World Bank and the United Nations and its satellite organsiations. That assessment of aid is written by Graham Hancock in a book with the arresting title Lords of Poverty, published by my noble friend Lord Stockton.
According to Mr. Hancock, world aid business, which is now estimated to be running at about $60 billion a year, has developed so many fundamental defects that the whole system has become flawed. That System inevitably encourages larger and larger projects in organisations where promotion goes to those who can dispose of funds in ever increasing amounts, more highly priced technologies, more grandiose schemes and no consultation of the poor who will be affected and might well be damaged by those projects. The ODA should take care not to go too far along the road of projectisation lest it falls within the terrifying strictures of Graham Hancock's condemnation.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, as other speakers have said, this report is a welcome one. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and his colleagues are to be congratulated upon it and thanked for it. I regard it as a most important contribution to meeting one of the basic problems of overseas development. That problem is now to give the developing countries the benefit of modern science, but at the same time to ensure that that is done without imposing on them technologies which are suitable for the developed world but not for the under-developed world.
The Committee has warned us of that danger by saying, as it does on page 20, that the wrong technology can have disastrous effects. In a letter which it sent to the Committee, Oxfam gave a pertinent illustration of that difficulty. It said that it and other relief agencies had spent great sums on the purchase of vehicles which were used for the transport of supplies, but, when those vehicles arrived at their destination, they were worked on very difficult terrain for which they were not suited;
438
it was difficult to maintain them; they broke down; it was difficult to obtain spare parts; and, in consequence, a great deal of money was less effectively used than it should have been. Oxfam went on to suggest:
"ODA could play a much more dynamic role by offering Land Rover technical collaboration on a joint project to design a vehicle appropriate to the needs of poor countries".
I suggest that that example and many others— the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, gave us an apt illustration of that problem when he spoke of the water supply system which he saw in Nigeria— provide a strong argument against undue tying of aid to British products and British services. I agree with Professor Hawkridge who is quoted in the report as saying that tying aid to the supply of domestically produced goods and services often leads to a choice of inappropriate technology.
The key words in that argument— I want to address myself to it— are "appropriate" and "inappropriate". In that connection, I was glad to see that the Committee had taken evidence, both oral and written, from the Intermediate Technology Development Group. I was glad to hear today from the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, that the Committee strongly commended the work of that organisation.
Perhaps I should here declare an interest, although most certainly not a financial interest, as I am one of the vice-presidents of that organisation. It did me that honour because, when I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Overseas Development, as it then was, I used to argue the case for intermediate technology and, after I left the Government, I worked with the ITDG as its development officer.
It was a great privilege to work with Dr. Fritz Schumacher, that brilliant economist who wrote a famous book called Small is Beautiful, to which he added the subtitle, "A study of economics as if people mattered". He applied that thesis and those words to his analysis of the needs of developing countries and of the means by which those needs could best be met. He taught us that the equipment which the peasant communities need— peasant communities represent the vast proportion of the economies of the third world— must be labour-intensive because there is an abundance of labour there and a great dearth of capital.
The equipment must use local skills and local materials and it must serve local markets. It must be simple to operate and to maintain, but— again, this point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote— that does not mean that it must be primitive or second best. Science needs to be applied to the devising of appropriate techniques for developing countries just as much as in the more complex technology of the modern developed world. That point needs emphasising because some recipients are prone to suspect that intermediate technology implies inferior or second best. That is by no means true. It is appropriate but not second best.
I therefore very much appreciate the attitude of the Committee of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, in considering intermediate technology. I hope that its

439
recommendations in those matters, which are at the top of page 49, will be followed by action on the part of the ODA. I recognise that the encouragement of local production of equipment to meet the needs of local markets might often conflict with the interests of British manufacturers and exporters. Reverting to the Oxfam illustration regarding vehicles, I am sure that the breakdown of vehicles in Africa leads to increased exports from our manufacturers. But surely if we take into account all the appropriate interests that is a very unsatisfactory way of proceeding. If there is a conflict between what is appropriate for development and what suits our exporters, again I commend the committee's view that the needs of the recipients must be paramount in the aid programme.
I should now like to say a few words about another aspect of the report and to call attention to the statement by Professor Bunting quoted on page 16. I believe that what he says is fundamentally crucial and correct. It tends to be overlooked in consideration of these problems. He says:
"Science and technology do not of themselves promote development. unless the development policy of government is sound and determined, and the actions it proposes are feasible and economically as well as socially sustainable, there will be no market for the products of science and technology".
It is worth quoting also from Professor Bunting's letter:
"As in most aid programmes, the technical professionals in ODA's natural resources department are less sensitive than I would wish to developmental, economic and social questions … I know I am right, because I have based my outlook on damn near half a century of experience of failures as well as successes".
I was delighted to read that because it shows that Professor Bunting is the same robust, self-confident and wise Professor Bunting whom I knew 25 years ago in my ODM days.
To sum up, the general thrust of this report I am glad to say is largely in line with what I have argued in respect of intermediate technology and with Professor Bunting's wish for proper social and economic development within which scientists and engineers can operate. I welcome the way in which the committee dealt with the problem of population growth, with which my noble friend Lady Lockwood dealt at some length. I welcome the committee's assertion that the needs of recipients should prevail over the United Kingdom's commercial interests in cases where conflict emerges. I welcome its emphasis on the need for institution-building as a major means by which the results of scientific and technological research can be disseminated throughout the third world. I also welcome the committee's understanding of the role of non-governmental organisations and of those NGOs' capacity for quick action and ready access to the grass roots of the economies that they have at heart. I welcome all those things and therefore, as I said at the beginning, I very much welcome this report.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I should like to preface my remarks with my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, the chairman of the committee on which I had the privilege to serve and to congratulate him on the
440
exemplary way in which he introduced this report. My thanks go also to our specialist adviser and our clerk, both of whom in their different ways were towers of strength to us in our deliberations here and in our expeditions overseas.
Let me say at the outset that I am a not uncritical but wholehearted enthusiastic supporter both of the Overseas Development Administration and the British Council. They both do admirable jobs. Although in the course of my remarks I may make some criticism of them, that does not in any way detract from my overall admiration and endorsement of what they do. The noble Viscount spoke of the inadequacy— that may not have been the word he used— of the actual resources that are available for overseas aid. Of course resources are inadequate. They could never be adequate. Overseas aid, properly administered, could swallow up far more than even the most enthusiastic supporters of overseas aid could envisage. But we should look very carefully at our record because it is not one of which we can be proud.
The present government quite rightly exhorts private individuals and businesses to give more in aid because they are doing well out of the economic recovery that we are told we are enjoying at the present time. But surely the fact that we have enjoyed and are having an economic recovery should mean that, at the same time as encouraging people in this country to give more in charity of one kind or another, we should be doing exactly the same thing in our aid (I shall not say charity) to those overseas who are less fortunate than ourselves. There are many millions of them. I shall not give the figures; they are all in the report. However, I refer noble Lords to Fig. 1 on page 11 which shows that, year after year in real terms, there has been not a steady but a continuing decline of our expenditure on overseas aid from 1979 until 1987. There was a welcome recovery in 1988. But even with that recovery our aid is still substantially lower than it was in 1979 and even lower than it was in 1981. That surely requires not only serious thought but heart searching on the part of those responsible for that state of affairs.
I should like to turn for a moment to the British Council which, as I said, does and has done magnificent work and whose relationship with ODA is by and large a very good one. It is worth mentioning that in the report it is pointed out that that good relationship very largely depends upon individual personal relationships. In fact if those personal relationships were to turn a little sour, it could result in a variety of administrative muddles and inefficiencies. It would be worthwhile the ODA and the British Council taking a serious look at their relationships in different countries so as to prevent such things happening. But for all that, I repeat once more that they do a very fine job and with more resources could do an even better one.
One aspect that stands out in my mind is the job that they do with regard to the education of the young, would-be graduates and postgraduates coming to this country. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, reminded us, those numbers have been falling. Yet the figures show a slight increase.

441
That is because the numbers have been reinforced by young people whose parents can afford to pay for them. These are not people who necessarily benefit most themselves, their countries or indeed us.
One very low level example comes to mind. Less than a year ago I was in Harare. Outside the British Council early in the morning, at eight o'clock, was a long queue of young people. I asked who they were. All were young people studying for their O-levels or A-levels in the basement library that the British Council had set aside for these purposes. The number of people it could accommodate was about 50. Once the place was full the doors were shut and those who had been unsuccessful were turned away. But they came back the next day, the next week and the next month. Such is the desire to receive education and obtain qualifications, such is the attitude towards the importance of the work of the British Council that these people get up in the very early hours, walk great distances and are prepared to stand for many hours in order to study.
A very small amount of extra money would enable the British Council to fulfil such requirements to the great benefit of the country, to the great benefit and joy of the individuals concerned, and to the eventual benefit of this country. These people may not necessarily attain influential government positions but they may be in a position to place orders. If they have been educated in this country, whether at lower levels or at higher graduate and postgraduate level, they will automatically turn to us. As it is, I am afraid that they will now turn increasingly to those countries where they received their education— the United States, Germany and France— and decreasingly to the United Kingdom.
Let me refer to some criticisms, again emphasising the fact that overall the job that the ODA does is first class. There is a danger that we are to some extent led astray by projectisation, as the noble Lord reminded us, and more particularly by the importance of projects. Big projects are exciting. Big projects bring kudos. Big projects bring headlines, But it is smaller projects which very often have the most influence on improving the lot of the really poor people of whatever country we are dealing with.
We must not forget— it is well brought out in the report— that the primary objective of aid is to improve the lot of the poorest inhabitants of the poorest countries. That must be done by concentrating on the individual people who will be affected by these new techniques, discoveries and improvements whether it concerns health, communications, water supply, or (of the greatest importance to my mind) the provision of food or other agricultural products.
I endorse entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said about the intermediate technology. ODA gives some assistance to those who are promoting it. I do not know whether it would do much better work if it were given extra money. But the concept of intermediate technology is one of vital importance. In order to bring about such technology we have to know a great deal more than most of us, including the aid givers, know about the conditions of the people about whom we are talking— how they live
442
and their living conditions. Until we understand that, we cannot come to any right and just assessment of what the priorities should be and how we should set about meeting them.
I give two examples of what I have in mind. In India I saw two medical projects of great interest. One was research into leprosy; another research into a disease about which perhaps some noble Lords may not have heard. It is called thalassaemia. Both are serious, unpleasant and occasionally fatal diseases. However, leprosy has to a large extent been conquered and thalassaemia hardly exists in India. It is a disease primarily of the Mediterranean and Caribbean area. There are many diseases, many factors, causing deaths among children, mothers and adults throughout the sub-continent which are responsible for far more suffering.
It is asked— and I am not satisfied with the answers— whether we have the means of assessing that one project which asks for money will do more good for the poorest people in the area than another. It is the decision making on priorities that I believe is not as strong as it should be in the present administration.
I should like to suggest the importance of the system of land ownership. Anyone who has studied the history of agricultural advance in the United Kingdom knows full well that we could not have made the advances that we did in the 17th, 18th and in particular the 19th century if it had not been for enclosures, the landlord-tenant system which grew up, and the creation of a form of rural society. We want the same advances made in Africa, Asia and in Latin America. But we know precious little about the systems of land ownership. We know precious little about how the money can be obtained or what money lenders or banking institutions there are. I am not referring to the World Bank or businesses in the cities. I am referring to the small peasant farming family wanting a little money to buy a plough, some fertiliser or some seed. How does that family obtain the money it needs? The farmer requires capital that he does not have: the money lender and the landowner will charge inordinate rates of interest. Who will share in the new increased productivity? Will the money lender take most? Will the landowner take most from his sharecropper or will the man who does the work reap the greatest reward? Before we can say that we will improve the productivity of the majority of people living in the poorest countries we must ask and obtain answers to those questions. I urge the ODA to give more thought to the agrarian structure of countries and the habits and customs of their people.
There are people educated in the extension services who play a vital role. Schoolteachers are essential because literacy is part of any progress. How are we to persuade schoolteachers, doctors and nurses to live in remote country districts far from the bright lights, the supply of piped water, electricity and any intellectual companionship? The only answer is to place more emphasis on improving the general standard of living in country districts so that young doctors, nurses and agricultural graduates are prepared to live there rather than sit in the air-conditioned offices of the capital and drive about in government motor cars.

443
Answers to those problems are essential if there is to be proper use of the results of research and development leading to advancement in the poorest parts of the world. Without the means of taking the results to the dirty boot farmer a great deal will be wasted.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I doubt whether anyone in this House disagrees with any paragraph in the report. Yet, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, essentially it is an orthodox report. He mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, with whom I took part in a television programme a few years ago. It took the format of a split screen and was on the proposition that overseas aid is dangerous. There was not much doubt that the audience believed that overseas aid is a good thing. Nevertheless, "a good thing" can be superficial, mealy-mouthed and merely accepted without a great deal of study.
In reading the report, I found a great deal of it to be commonplace, complacent and lacking in urgency. There is a particular lack of urgency when measured against the World Bank report, Crisis to Sustainable Development. That report shows what has happened to Africans during the past 10 years. It shows that they are now eating less, living shorter lives and more of their children are dying. Surely, it is to those critical issues that the committee should have turned its attention. Too often it accepts the status quo with a certain amount of superficial adjustment.
But the situation is desperate for millions of people. Only radical, fundamental and immediate changes can attempt to face the major challenges now presented to us by the people of African and other third world countries. I shall compare the report with, for example, the Aldington Report, which stirred people passionately both for and against aid. The report was not followed and its predictions have come true. However, if it had been followed there would have been fundamental changes in the way in which this country conducts its overseas trade.
The report makes no comments about the respective merits of an ODA or a Ministry of Overseas Development. My noble friend Lord Oram was a distinguished member of the Ministry and can say a great deal about the advantages of having a Ministry of Overseas Development with its Minister in the Cabinet. The Ministry was able to affect the activities of other departments. The report does not comment on the lively debate about the respective functions of the ODA as it now exists and the Departments of Trade and Industry and Education and Science. Several reports have proposed that part of the work now carried out by the ODA should be carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry because it involves trade rather than aid. There is nothing wrong with trade; we wish to encourage it. The Aldington Report attempts to encourage trade with third world countries. However, it is a trade issue and not an aid issue.
Government funds to support British companies in their attempts to obtain markets in third world
444
countries should come from the Department of Trade and Industry. If I had time I should relate an anecdote from Zimbabwe, where I tried to persuade the DTI to compete with the Dutch for the replacement of the whole civil aircraft industry there. I could not do so. However, the Dutch did it because they put their aid alongside their trade as part of their national policy. The anecdote is relevant and points out the general acceptance in the report that the situation will remain as it is, but with suggestions for improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, rightly and forthrightly raised the subject of the amount of aid. The report gives the amount of aid as being 0.29 per cent. of GNP in 1987. Last year it was 0.32 per cent. That is a welcome but tiny rise and I pay tribute to Christopher Patten for what he did in that respect. But it is 0.32 per cent. compared with 0.53 per cent. in 1979. It is not enough to say that the GNP was different. Whenever we have challenged the Government during the past 10 years we have been consistently told that the percentage allocated to overseas aid has fallen because times are bad. When the economy becomes a miracle economy, how is it that overseas aid does not rise with the miracle? How is it that it has not risen at least to its 1979 level? If the miracle is genuine today it would be competing with those of the Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes, the Norwegians and the Canadians. It should be not merely attaining but surpassing the 0.7 per cent. target.
When we are talking about figures like 0.32 per cent. or 0.7 per cent. we are really talking about resources. What has happened to resources? In fact, on balance, resources have been coming from the third world to the developed world. That is so today. That is as a result partly of debt and partly of the necessary emphasis on exports from the third world in order to obtain foreign currency. There are more resources every year leaving the third world for the developed world than the whole amount of official and unofficial aid going to the third world. Are the Government happy with that? Unfortunately, that is not mentioned in this report, but I should like to know what is the Government's view on that. How do they equate the economic miracle with sucking resources from third world people at a time when 17.5 million children are dying of starvation every year in the third world?
On some of the detailed points made, those of us who have lived in third world countries find that many of the comments made are almost irrelevant. Let us take that case of agriculture. Anyone who has lived in any third world country knows that the great gap in development has been the neglect of agriculture. That is so all over the African continent.
Pages 28 and 29 of the report deal with agriculture. However, in its recommendations concerning agriculture paragraph 4.46 states:
"The Committee consider that the factor most likely to improve African agricultural productivity would be the creation of a supply of well-trained, well-supported manpower for the agricultural professions and related research".
That does not touch the issue; namely, that African countries and governments have not been putting resources into and expanding agriculture. Some of

445
us have spent the last 25 years trying to persuade them to do so. They have not done that and are not doing that today. There are some exceptions; for example, Zimbabwe and Botswana. However, most of the third world countries are not doing that. I am not saying that we can tell them to do it but we can influence them in our aid policy. Nothing at all is said on that.
As regards the agricultural issue, intermediate technology has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Oram and by the noble Lord, Lord Waist on. However, let us go back to the days of Rene Dumont. He did have some effect and did teach that hoes should precede tractors. Read his book False Start in Africa and see the reports which he gave to Tanzania, Zambia and Sierra Leone as well as to the francophone countries which he knew so much better.
At page 42, paragraph 7.34, the report states:
"Evidence from the DTI suggests that the United Kingdom contractors do extremely well in winning contracts under multilateral aid".
That is not what we found in the Aldington Report. We found that the support given by governments among our major competitors— the French, Germans, Italians and Japanese— was far greater than the support given by this Government. When it came to contracting, we were left way behind because the national policy of our major competitors, as I pointed out earlier, was to combine aid and trade.
Let us take the case of personnel. In this respect I have a very personal grouse with what is reported. Paragraph 5.20 states:
"The Committee greatly regret the declining availability in the United Kingdom of S&T personnel".
It is only about two years ago that the University of East Anglia had a lobby here in which some of us took part. It asked us to organise a petition, and there was a petition in this House and a petition in the other place in order to save its undergraduate programme at the School of Development Studies. We did save that, but today there is only the finance to admit half the number of undergraduates which were there at that time.
Therefore, there is a lack of personnel. There is bound to be because there have been cuts in the finance available for supporting that personnel, which is doing first class and practical research work. If you come with me to the University of East Anglia you will see a map with pieces of ribbon going all over the world which show the contacts with institutions that that school has. That was almost killed by the cuts imposed by this Government.
One issue with which I think my noble friend Lord Oram would particularly sympathise is that nothing is said in the report about development education. There was a scheme on which some of us had worked for two years and we produced a report in July 1978. The report went to every government department concerned; it was costed and the budget was approved. When I spoke about that scheme in Geneva to all the non-governmental organisations I was told that it was the most imaginative and radical scheme on development education that had been
446
developed anywhere in the world. What happened to it? As soon as this Government came into power, they scrapped it. A number of members of that committee have stayed together and kept in contact. Where is the Government's development education programme today? There is not one. However, you cannot have a healthy and growing overseas aid programme without having the understanding and support of the public of this country. That was what the development education project aimed to do because it was devised by a committee under a Ministry.
Finally— and very briefly, but by no means of least importance; in fact I would say that it is most important— I turn to an issue which has been touched on. What vision did the committee have of the tremendous task of enabling developing peoples to raise their standard of living just to the point at which they can sustain life, without at the same time following our bad example of helping to destroy the environment of our planet?
That is an essential matter for science and technology. There is reference to the conservation of the environment, but that is the job of scientists and technologists. Some are already looking at this question. To mention my own university, they are looking at it in the school of environmental sciences along with the school of development studies in Norwich. The Government should provide the resources, the guidance and the encouragement to face this major task for the human race over the next quarter of a century.
I should mention that some parts of our aid programme are helping to pollute the planet. If one reads the booklet on aid and pollution in India it will be seen to what I am referring. There are many other examples. It is a major challenge to the future of the human race to find the means of technology by which developing peoples can raise their standards of living just to maintain life, using technology that does not involve the destruction of the environment; that does not involve burning down rain forests; that does not increase the size of the hole in the ozone layer and does not promote the greenhouse effect. That is a major challenge which, I am disappointed to see, has not been met in this report.
6.22 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I should like to concentrate on the small but nevertheless important part of this excellent report, which deals with population activities. Perhaps I may begin by quoting in full the admirable summary of the committee's opinion at paragraph 3.23. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, I too should like to commend the preceding paragraphs 3.19 to 3.22. Paragraph 3.23 states:
"The Committee strongly support ODA's commitment to population activities. All opportunities to undertake such activities, as part of the bilateral aid programme, should be seized. Her Majesty's Government should seek increased action on the issue in international fora wherever possible. Support for multilateral and non-governmental initiatives should be increased".
I am grateful to the committee for responding to the evidence, which was only in written form and which is printed on pages 197 to 199 of the volume of

447
evidence given to the Select Committee and which was submitted by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Population and Development. To declare my interest, I should say that I am the vice-chairman of that group. I should also make clear that I was not on the Select Committee which produced the report before us.
On reading the report it is clear that some members of the Select Committee who went to India were able to appreciate population pressures at first hand; the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, mentioned Nigeria. I should like to mention in this debate the very recent experiences that I had with a few other parliamentarians, including, as she said, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on a visit to family planning associations in Ecuador and Mexico while attending a conference as observers of the Inter-American Parliamentary Group on Population and Development in Quito. This consisted of delegations of parliamentarians from almost all countries in North and South America. Having gone all that way it is worth reporting two unexpected angles of the final outcome of the conference.
Throughout there had been mention in various contexts of the real effect of the overhanging burden of debt on so many countries. In brief, when cut-backs had to be made in order to service these debts, particularly in these times of high interest rates, one of the first programmes to be cut back was the family planning and related health services; this just at a time when such services are beginning to be widely accepted and valued.
On the final day of the conference, when a document called The Quito Declaration was presented for the approval of the conference, there was a lively and heated debate from the delegates, who succeeded in insisting that a strong mention should be added reflecting the concern of those trying to provide family planning services— which everyone wanted to provide— against the background of the huge unresolved debt which affected most countries there. These were feelings being expressed by fellow parliamentarians, although in some cases these were Front Benchers rather than Back Benchers.
The other unexpected angle arose from Latin American perceptions concerning what was happening in Eastern Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, with his experience in the DTI, will probably be familiar with this, but the fear was expressed in various contexts that we in Europe would now devote most of our energies to helping to sort out our neighbours in Eastern Europe and in consequence both trade and aid to Latin America would be neglected.
To return to the report before us, it confirms in detail that there are no simple answers in this field of population development. It is apparent in both the written and oral evidence of the department that their research and evaluation, undertaken both directly and in collaboration, is almost necessarily frustratingly slow in this area. However, progress is being made and the committee encourages that work.
448
Just as certain types of detailed research work are particularly suited to the scale of the ODA, other usually larger efforts in population activities are generally best left to the specialities and expertise of the multilateral and non-governmental agencies. The report says in paragraph 3.23 that support for multilateral and non-governmental initiatives should be increased. I shall come to multilateral organisations later, but perhaps I may first mention one of the two British NGOs in this area— Population Concern— of which I should say that I am on the campaign committee.
Fund raising in this country is difficult and the 100 per cent. government funding of the projects accepted is much appreciated and, in my opinion, represents very worthwhile value for money. The fact that the main returns and benefits of money spent now are long-term is one of the reasons why fund raising in particular and support for family planning is so difficult to tap and why this area is particularly appropriate for governmental action and support.
With the experience of Population Concern, whose schemes are locally managed in the countries concerned, I know that further funding could be successfully utilised. One further main and unique activity of Population Concern is education on these issues in this country, particularly among the young and mainly in the wider context of environmental issues.
At a large conference organised by Population Concern for older school children at Harrogate last year, the Minister, Mrs. Chalker, made an excellent keynote speech on the subject of population growth. In her conclusion she said:
"There is no time to lose",
and
"I do not believe we can afford to turn our backs on the problems raised by high population growth rates. To ignore population growth is to hasten environmental degradation".
Perhaps I may say that we are extremely fortunate that Mrs. Chalker has more than lived up to the legacy left to her in this field by her predecessor, Mr. Chris Patten. Her evidence to the committee, not just on population, but in particular her crystal ball gazing, was very impressive.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the multilateral organisations. The recommendation of the committee for increased support was echoed in the longer term thinking of the head of the United Nations Population Fund, Dr. Nafis Sadik, at a press conference in London to launch their report called The State of the World Population 1989. This focused mainly on the role of women, but among the many recommendations in the report was the proposal that substantial increases in funding could be beneficially used in this area and that, as a goal, by the year 2000 donor governments could aim to increase international assistance for family planning programmes from the present 0–5 billion dollars to 2–5 billion dollars annually. That is a fivefold increase and an indication of the scale of resources needed successfully to confront this aspect of development problems facing us.
Perhaps I may briefly quote a few words from the speech of the Prime Minister at the United Nations

449
last November. She was speaking in a debate on the global environment. She said:
"More than anything, our environment is threatened by the sheer lumbers of people and the plants and animals which go with them. When I was born the world's population was some 2 billion people. My grandson will grow up in a world of more than 6 billion people. Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities".
That extract should be read in its full context, as it was very much longer. When the Prime Minister referred to activities I am sure she was referring as much to the northern hemisphere as to the southern hemisphere.
The other great multilateral population organisation— The International Planned Parenthood Federation; the IPPF— has suggested that at least 2 billion dollars annually will be required by the end of the 1990s to meet the challenges in this field. The Secretary General of the IPPF, Dr. Mahler, following a talk he gave in this building last year, contributed an article to the environment edition of our House magazine of 12th February 1990. In that article he explained the thoughts behind the figures that I have just mentioned. Dr. Mahler was addressing politicians, so he also told us that he believes political action is most important in this area but that nationally and internationally it is sorely lacking.
These large figures of billions of dollars are not demands but estimates and indications of the scale of the problems still to be faced. I believe that our Government have a good record in this field and I hope they will be strengthened by this report now before us to go even further in our contribution to and co-operation with the IPPF.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, last week I had experience of seeing at first hand the work of the Family Planning Association in Ecuador and Mexico, funded mainly by the IPPF. I was extremely impressed by the sensitive and multi-faceted approach that we found; by the continuous and strict evaluation of the programmes; and that in the midst of shortage of funds attempts were being made to create sustainable, self-supporting, long-term solutions which we hope will not need continuous funding.
Given the present coverage of these countries, restricted by resources, we could see for ourselves how further funds could beneficially be used. So much seemed to depend on local expertise and understanding that has been built up over the years; and for a change, instead of just talking about the need to help women, we saw for ourselves the beneficiaries of the health and clinic services that have been provided. I am optimistic about the progress being made in this field in Latin America and I believe that increased funding can be profitably utilised.
I conclude by quoting paragraph 9.14 in the summary of recommendations in this excellent report:
"Her Majesty's Government should take up all opportunities for population activities under the bilateral programme, and seek increased action in international fora. Support for multilateral and non-governmental initiatives in the area of population and family planning should be increased".
6.34 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I too have an uneasy feeling about this report but not for the reasons advanced by my noble friend Lord Hatch. It seems to me that he has misunderstood the role of the committee. If he refers to the beginning of the report he will see that the committee— of which I was not a very active member because I was unable to play the part I had hoped— looked into a limited area. It was not looking into the organisation of overseas aid generally. I draw attention to paragraph 1.9:
"The range of areas which the Committee have considered includes research and development, technology transfer, provision of expert advice and consultancy, materials and equipment, information, training, education".
My goodness, that is a large enough area anyway, and the ability to confine it into a useful and effective report depended much on the chairman and the excellent professional help he had, not to mention the members of the committee.
The report goes on to say:
"The last [training and education] has been of special interest to the Committee for, as Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, said in inaugurating a meeting of the Society for International Development … 'It is through good education that science and technology are pressed into the service of the betterment of the individual and the nation' ".
Some of the subjects that my noble friend Lord Hatch had hoped would be covered, such as the greenhouse effect and pollution, have been covered by other reports produced by the committee, again looking at the subject in terms of science and technology. This was a difficult report to produce and of course it has limitations, but it is a very good job considering the constraints that had to be met in order to produce a report at all.
One of the difficulties with our report— I speak as, at one time, chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and, along with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, I was one of your Lordships' sponsors in developing this— was to get it into an intelligible form. One really needs to read all the evidence. There is any amount of wisdom in the evidence, in the cross-examination of witnesses, and so on. Therefore, I believe that a difficult job has been done very successfully.
The fact that I have anxieties does not arise from the nature of the report but from the difficulty of the subject. In this area there is so much of what might be called the popular view which is not certain. There is the book Small is Beautiful by that great man Schumacher. However, that is misleading because people then say that the science and technology they have must necessarily always be simple. I am glad to say that we now call it appropriate technology.
I give one example: the use of satellites. This is an area which the Select Committee examined. It put forward some strong recommendations together with some critical comments as far as concerns the Government. People may ask what possible use satellites are in developing countries; yet they are fundamental in developing the infrastructure and appropriate technology. It is shortsighted not to use them because they contribute to the land information system which is fundamental to the development of R&D and overseas development

451
generally. It is in the area of land information and geographic information services, and so on, where the new technologies are required. That does not mean that, on the ground, one needs advanced technology. I could give many examples of the use of, say, remote sensing for development areas, but I shall not take up the time of the House.
Some very interesting pamphlets have been published by Farnborough on the use of remote sensing in the developing parts of the world. I should like to see rather more spent in that area and at least some effort made to do as much, or nearly as much, as the French and the Germans. Again, from the report there is considerable criticism about the shortage of funds provided by the Government. It is in the remote sensing area where, again, the French and the Germans are giving a lead to the rest of the world and we are sitting back not playing the part which our own science and technology are capable of playing.
I turn briefly to one other aspect of the use of science and technology. I noticed a criticism in the New Scientist from the chief executive of the Intermediate Technology Development Group. He said:
"I thought the report excellent with one omission. It fails to recognise the importance of indigenous science and technology capacity. We work by looking at local organisations first and trying to build on".
The noble Viscount who chaired the commitee answered that criticism very fully and made clear that it was a recommendation of the committee to build up local institutions.
I wish to give one or two examples of how that is best done. In the application of science and technology it is important not to think always of direct benefit. Science does not exist simply on the basis of its application: there is the pursuit of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge will create the opportunities for improved living conditions. One has only to consider the work done in pure science. I do not regard the Antarctic as a development area because I do not want to see that area developed at all. There was the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer which was achieved purely in the pursuit of science. That was of tremendous importance in revealing the problems that confront us.
I wish to give some examples of how that kind of scientific work can contribute to the development of science and technology in developing countries. In this connection I refer to the Royal Geographical Society. Next Monday a lecture is to be given by Sir Crispin Tickell, the former Permanent Secretary of the ODA. He has recently returned from the successful negotiations with the Argentine. His lecture will be on the subject of the environment.
The Royal Geographical Society has taken a very clear view as to what its duties are concerning its projects. They are basically scientific undertakings but they have relevant application to this subject. I refer to the Mulu expedition in which I have a particular interest. On many occasions in 55 years I climbed Mulu carrying a theodolite. I did not have a satellite in those days to tell me where I was.
452
In connection with the new expedition the Royal Geographical Society arranged that the scientific results should first be published in the Sarawak Museum Journal.
There was another expedition into the Karakoram which I was able to visit. I spent half an hour at Gilgit and I now regard myself as an expert! One can do a great deal in half an hour. One can just look at the incredible country. The first review conference was held in Islamabad. The monograph from the Kora research project in 1983 was published by the National Museum of Kenya. In addition there was the Wahiba sands project. A seminar was held in Muscat and the report was published in the Journal of Oman Studies. One of the most important projects in Brazil is having the results published in Portuguese in the Brazilian journal Acta Amazonica.
The fundamental need to work with local scientists has been stressed by others. In the Maracá project there were 30 British scientists and 50 Brazilian scientists. The same was true of the Kimberley project which I was also able to visit. There were twice as many Australian scientists as British scientists. The policy of the Royal Geographical Society is similar to that of the Royal Society which is doing the overseas work. The policy is that the reports should be published and that a popular form of those reports should also be published and made available to schools. Sensitivity in the use of information of this kind is essential. That is a point I should have wished to see more strongly pressed. However, it comes through in the text of the report. We need to be very careful and to realise that scientific knowledge is valuable in the long run. The pursuit of knowledge and of science does not always have to have an immediate application.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, at the risk of boring your Lordships, I intend to focus on the subject which has already been discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and that is population. That being so, I must declare an interest. As a director of Marie Stopes International, I went to India last year to do some work in connection with the clinics that we run there. I shall be spending the Easter Recess in Kenya and Zimbabwe studying the development of our clinics and the work that is being carried out there by the organisations.
I want to deal with the population issue from a different perspective. It has been touched on only slightly by previous speakers. Before speaking about the population question as such, I wish to stress that this issue is part of a whole to which the problem of poverty in the developing countries is central. However much we may encourage modern practices of family planning birth control and any of the many other devices available for controlling the population, nothing is going to happen in these developing countries so long as poverty is of such a degree that the only people to whom the families can look for help in times of difficulty, and in the inevitable times of extreme difficulty such as old age, unemployment and sickness, are their own children.

453
There is no National Health Service, old age pension or sick pay. There is no support during life's emergencies. One has to rely on one's children. We are whistling in the wind if we think that we shall get people voluntarily to control their families before they obtain security in some other way. That is why the economic aspect of development and the ability to increase wealth in those countries is intimately tied up with population control. One cannot be achieved without the other.
Parts of the report deal with ways in which economic development can be assisted. There is also the question of the population problem which is also part of dealing with wealth creation. They are two parts of the whole. I agree with one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and that is the urgency of the issue. We have had the population figures quoted, and we have seen the statistics in the report.
The situation is not getting better. Indeed, regarding the world population and the problems arising from the excessive increases in that population, it is quickly getting worse. It is not a marginal matter. The central world problem is finding ways to control the population. I am not speaking about environmental issues, though they are intimately connected with the subject. The population issue is not one about which we can afford to do a little now, and then rather more later on when we can more easily afford it. The longer we leave the problem, the worse it will become.
Unless we give this subject a very high priority indeed and put other important and desirable issues lower down in the order of those that we must deal with, we shall find that later on we have considerable problems on our hands. They will be extremely difficult for us to deal with. I beg the Government to look again at what they feel able to do at the moment. In particular, I ask them to look again at the support they can give to the NGOs.
The report quite rightly stresses the ways in which NGOs are able to make a very considerable contribution. For a whole variety of reasons they are less bureaucratic and able to make and carry out decisions more quickly. That is not the situation in all cases. In most cases the NGOs can act more swiftly than can government. If the NGOs had more resources and support, they could work far more quickly on these very urgent problems. Can the Government not see that this is a matter in which our own self-interest as well at that of the developing countries is very much at stake?
I wish to refer in particular to one aspect of the way in which a fall in population can be brought about. It has already been referred to in the debate but only in passing. One factor that seems to correlate with voluntary restriction on family size is the education of women. The figures for illiteracy among women in developing countries are in every case higher than the figures for illiteracy among men. It is quite plain that there is an urgent need to improve opportunities for the education of women.
If women are illiterate they cannot read the instructions on labels to tell them what to do with birth control equipment. They have no means of supporting themselves because they have nothing
454
they can effectively sell in the world market and therefore they are entirely dependent for their livelihood, for their status and for their whole being on what they do inside the family. They are dependent in many cases on the determination of their menfolk to have more children.
In India— I do not know a great deal about other countries— there is considerable resistance among many men, partly for economic reasons but also for macho reasons, to restricting voluntarily the size of the family. Women who are illiterate and uneducated are unable to support themselves economically. They are very much at the mercy of the culture into which they are born and which their menfolk maintain. The education of women is vital. Educated women can make an economic contribution themselves. They are not so dependent on what their husbands are able to produce. They can earn money on their own which gives them an independent status which they would not otherwise have.
One way in which this can be done is by giving the opportunity for women to be educated and trained, first, in their own countries but also in this country. For those who will take leadership positions in the health services, in schools and in the technical field it is undoubtedly a great help that they should be able to study in this country. During the years I was working at the London School of Economics I saw large numbers of people from the developing countries. An important number of women were able to go back properly trained and equipped. This had a multiplier effect. It is a sad fact that the increase in fees for overseas students has made it more difficult for appropriate women to come here to be trained.
They must of course be the right women, women who have proved that they are capable of passing on this knowledge in their own countries. They should come not at the earlier stages of their education but when they have a good basis in their own country. They can then return and plough that knowledge and skill back into their own countries where it is badly needed.
Although these are urgent issues it is not good enough to say that the Government should do more. We all say that the Government should do more. I believe that the NGOs are there in many cases. They are established, they have their contacts and they have proved that they can be very effective. I wonder whether it would be possible to hold a small conference of key NGOs. I include schools, universities, women's organisations, churches, trade unions and employers' organisations. They might be able to put forward programmes for helping on the education front. Such work is going on already. Can not the Government do more to prime the pump for the NGOs. With extra resources a great many of them could make a considerable impact at the levels where they have contact— unions with unions, churches with churches, schools with schools, universities with universities. In this way one could speed up the development of education, which is absolutely vital if we are to get the population under control and if we are to bring about the increase in prosperity without which population will not be under control.

455
We are told that by the year 2025— that will be comfortably beyond my time although the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, may have to face it— the world population will be between 8.5 and 10 billion. The figure is so horrifying that we do not allow our minds to rest on it. It should be remembered that 94 per cent. of this development will occur in developing countries. We should do all we can now to restrict this development. It is a matter of the highest urgency. If we bring the NGOs together and provide some pump-priming money, within 10 years they will have achieved a great deal.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I congratulate the chairman and members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on their report. As previous speakers have said, the committee took on a vast subject. The result has been a good and constructive report.
My noble friend Lord Hatch said that the report lacked urgency and that it did not measure up to the desperate needs of third world countries. He compared our record with those of our European neighbours. I have a certain sympathy with what he said. Nevertheless I believe that his criticisms were more about what the report did not contain than what it did contain.
The part of the report concerning population has been well covered by no fewer than three speakers. My only experience of this subject was gained when I was in Kenya with UNICEF a few months ago. UNICEF experienced a certain amount of success in persuading women to take on birth control. However, when I went on to Sudan I found the very reverse. This proves the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Progress in this area depends very much on how prosperous a country is becoming.
The report said certain things which have been said before but which cannot be repeated too often. It stressed that aid should be first and foremost for the benefit of the recipients. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and my noble friend Lord Oram also made this point. It is enormously important to repeat that the needs of the recipients must be paramount in the aid programme.
My second point, which has often been made before, and made, I believe, from these Benches in particular, concerns the level of United Kingdom aid expenditure. The report stressed that the 0–29 per cent. of GNP as it was in 1987 was inadequate. Although it has risen slightly since then it still falls short of the United Nations target of 0–7 per cent. of GNP. This percentage has been exceeded by Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. It is right to remember that between 1975 and 1979 the average was 0–45 per cent. of GNP. In 1988 official development assistance was only 79 per cent. of its value in 1979.
Therefore I agree with the report's recommendation that expenditure on aid should move towards the UN target as quickly as is practicable. The noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Butterworth, made the point that the lack of quantity
456
of British aid has been made up by quality. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Hatch in that I should certainly like to see both factors.
I think that it was my noble friend Lord Shackleton who talked about there being another important category of research and development; namely, the indigenous knowledge and capacity for research and development which exists among the poorer communities. I believe that that is a very important point and one which should not be forgotten. In fact it could be said that while the report rightly places a great deal of emphasis on the building up of capabilities of local institutions, it rather perpetuates the view that science and technology mainly flow from the North to the South. Therefore, if we ignore or override the indigenous knowlege, we risk missing out on the potential to stimulate science and technology development at the level where it matters most.
The Intermediate Technology Development Group has been praised by all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. However, it is worth remembering that it was through a recommendation of the ODM 1977 working party on appropriate technology, which was set up by my noble friend Lady Hart, that funds were allocated to the ITDG in the first place. That was clearly a useful and very far-sighted move which has borne ample fruit so far as concerns this organisation, although it is a pity that the wider recommendations of the 1977 working party have never been pursued more vigorously. That fact was, perhaps, accepted by the Select Committee in that it went back to the ODA with a subsidiary question specifically asking about the progress made under that particular initiative in 1977.
The report comments on the relationship between the ODA and the British Council. The noble Viscount mentioned this as did the noble Lord, Lord Walston. The committee found that the two organisations co-operate effectively, despite complicated interaction whereby the council undertakes its own activities funded by "mixed money" from the Foreign Office and the ODA, as well as acting as managing agent on a contract basis. In view of this very complex relationship, I believe that the committee was very wise to recommend that the Foreign Office should define the areas of responsibility of the two organisations. I certainly share the admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the British Council; indeed, that goes without saying.
The Committee also felt that to ensure that science and technology are used to the best possible effect throughout the aid programme the Minister for Overseas Development should appoint an advisory panel of independent experts, including leading scientists and engineers from outside ODA. That seems an excellent recommendation as, indeed, was another recommendation requesting that additional assistance with British university fees and charges be introduced for students from the poorest developing countries, perhaps by way of an enhanced scholarship scheme. I must admit that I share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. He felt

457
that students coming from abroad might be the ones who can pay, rather than those who now deserve the opportunity to study.
I was also impressed by the committee's views about giving continued support to individuals after they had completed their course of study or training in this country in order to help them work as well as they can on their return to their home countries. It is easy to imagine that some former students might feel that it is really impossible to work in a difficult environment in a struggling country to which they returned without the contacts, information and support suggested by the committee.
The Select Committee took evidence from several NGOs and some noble Lords have mentioned this in their speeches. I was pleased to see that the committee agreed that such organisations were more successful at reaching the poor and identifying with them than were government agencies. It suggested that; he ODA should take note of that fact by increasing their funding. From my own experience in this field I believe that the great virtue of the ODA's finance for voluntary agencies is that such agencies can design the most appropriate technical interventions jointly with the communities they serve. Therefore, instead of costly top-down technologies which rarely translate successfully from the research stations to the poor farmer, a voluntary agency can respond to local conditions and constraints.
Indeed, in my work as President of SOS Sahel, which is an NGO that works in afforestation and environmental projects, I have seen how valuable such support can be. For example, in Sudan, SOS Sahel with ODA funds is implementing a successful community forestry programme where, for the first time, the sites for shelterbelts against desert encroachment are chosen, planted and managed by the threatened communities themselves. In Mali the ODA is financing an erosion control work which will enhance the agricultural production in an area of declining food security. In Ethiopia, as part of a bilateral aid programme, SOS Sahel will research ways of combating ubiquitous crop diseases directly with local peasant associations.
I believe that those are examples of work with some of the poorest communities in the poorest countries in the world. I think that the work of such NGOs, as the noble Baroness said, is something which the ODA must support. However, I should also say that it is most important to fund an agency which has identified projects which will truly help the local community. I say that because it can be very difficult to identify such projects.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that the report's recommendations and conclusions should really make an important contribution to our aid policies. I hope that the Government will take note of what it says. I should like to end my speech by quoting a section from the conclusions of a lecture which Princess Anne, in her capacity as President of the Save the Children Fund, made to the Royal Society. It is very much in the spirit of the Select Committee's report She concluded her lecture by saying:
"A much greater understanding of what is genuine aid is having its effect the importance of long-term projects with community
458
involvement, backed up always by education and training; the use of human and physical resources with practical concern for the environment; the use of applicable technology and tools for self-reliance; and finally, continuing assessment, evaluation and a lot more co-operation. As long as we learn our lessons well, international aid will become more and more effective … The Western world has so much to offer and so many people who are highly motivated to help, but we must not forget how long it has taken us to reach these levels of knowledge and how our own societies have not all been able to come to terms with the changes. How can we expect the developing world to be able to absorb and use all that knowledge in not much more than a generation? Our aid is on the right lines, but we can make it work better. Certainly we must if our world is to have a better future".
I believe that the contents of the report are very much in the spirit of those words. I very much hope that the Government will take note of its contents.
7.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I have a great deal of material to get through and therefore I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I deal with what I have to say at something of a gallop.
The Government have welcomed and encouraged the Select Committee's review of the UK's scientific and technical aid to developing countries. I should like to congratulate the committee on a comprehensive and balanced study of the issues involved. Your Lordships will understand that I am unable formally to anticipate the Government's official reply. This will be published early in April. Nevertheless, I have noted a number of recommendations in support of the work which we are doing. I take encouragement from that. The report calls on the Government to do more in some areas. We shall of course consider those recommendations in the context of our overall aid programme; but I point out that one cannot always have more of everything. The Government will have to look very carefully at the priorities that we have set on the various aspects of the aid programme and the costs (administrative and otherwise) which would be involved in devoting more effort to scientific and technical aid.
The development success stories of the past two decades can be attributed in large part to the capacity of certain countries to absorb modern technology by integrating it fully into their productive and service activities. They have profoundly changed the whole structure of their economy. In other cases, technological progress has made its most substantive impact in specific sectors. In agriculture and health, for example, major discoveries and their application in solving major problems have often been at the root of rapid advances. The green revolution, for example, and various health technologies have had deep developmental impacts in some countries.
Not all countries have been able effectively to apply such new technologies. Nor have technological solutions been found to all the problems. The impact of developments in science and technology has thus been uneven in different countries and parts of the world. Differences in scientific and technological capacity and the focus of international research efforts have profound consequences for a country's development path and performance. Moreover, some major recent advances are in highly

459
research-intensive areas where the impact is particularly diffuse; for example, new materials, telecommunications, space and remote sensing technologies. In those areas the advantages are available mainly to countries above a certain threshold in terms of human capital and institutional competence. On the other hand, some science and technology developments— for example, in biotechnology and information technology— are so fast and their propagation so easy that the issue, even for the least developed countries, is not whether to engage in those technologies but to what extent and for what purpose.
Faced with those challenges, what then should be the role of science and technology in the aid programme? The committee's report emphasises rightly that science and technology pervade most areas of aid. The report acknowledges that only some of what constitutes scientific and technical aid can be separately identified and quantified. In the Government's view it is important that science and technology are seen in the context of our basic development objective, which is to promote sustainable economic and social development and alleviate poverty in developing countries. The aid programme does not have a mission to spread a particular technology. Rather it must aim to deploy appropriate technology and science to help achieve carefully specified objectives furthering sustainable development.
We cannot use the aid programme to foster science for its own sake. Full account must be taken of environmental and local institutional considerations to ensure that the benefits are neither wasted nor give rise to undesirable side effects. A firm scientific and technological underpinning for aid projects and programmes is vital; but so is a clear awareness of the possible institutional, social and other constraints which are often the dominant ones. The Government believe that the appropriate and successful selection and design of aid projects requires collaboration between donors and recipients and frequently require an inter disciplinary approach. Only in that way can we be sure that the technologies adopted are appropriate to the economic circumstances and human resource base of the country concerned, and that local institutions responsible for project implementation have the managerial and technical skills to sustain their operation.
It is the needs and requirements of developing countries which drive the S&T input into the aid programme. But that does not mean that our work is essentially responsive. Britain is endowed with research expertise, in research institutes and other organisations, many of which have wide experience of developing countries. The Government draw to the full on the rich reservoir of talent in the planning and implementation of operational programmes and in the commissioning of R&D programmes geared to those requirements.
A feature of that work is its inter-disciplinary nature. The Government's R&D planning in the aid field increasingly recognises the requirement to involve a range of scientific disciplines. Those will
460
vary according to the type of research being conducted. The benefits of inter-disciplinary research are considerable. Research is no different from other components of the aid programme. What we do, must take into account the effect on the poorest peoples, relevant social factors and the environmental impact.
In areas of S&T infrastructure, the Government have done much to encourage links between specific British and overseas institutions. That includes training both in the UK and overseas. We are seeking to increase the extent to which local researchers and institutions can be associated with the scientific and technology research work supported by the Government. For example, link programmes in India based on research have resulted in the establishment of masters degree courses and short specialist courses, giving a greater degree of sustainability and wider dissemination of the research results. In future, more attention will be paid to involving local industry in applying research; to splitting research degrees, thus minimising training spent in UK; and to supporting specific programmes which strengthen links between bodies in the UK and institutions in selected tropical countries.
Many of the problems facing the developing countries are so complex and so widespread that research resources need to be deployed on an international scale. The Government make an important contribution to international research and development, in particular to the work of the international research centres of the CGIAR on food crops, animal production and disease, to the WHO'S tropical disease research programme, diarrhoeal disease control programme and the global programme on AIDS.
Among other projects supported is one managed by the Commonwealth Science Council entitled COMMANSAT which seeks to enhance North-South and South-North co-operation to strengthen local S&T capabilities. Britain also seeks actively to influence the European Community's science and technology for development programme managed and part-funded by the Commission's DGXII.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the points which have been raised during the course of the debate. I turn first to the admirable speech made by my noble friend Lord Caldecote. Her asked about the aid figure, especially in relation to our GNP. We accept in principle the United Nations targets set for official development assistance as a percentage of GNP— 0–7 per cent., of which 015 per cent. should be allocated to the least developed. But like previous administrations, and many other donors, we have not set a timetable for reaching that figure. Progress will depend upon economic circumstances and other claims on our resources. The important point is that the aid programme is growing in real terms.
My noble friend referred to the problem of high quality equipment supplied to some countries which cannot be used because of a lack of spare parts or trained personnel to maintain it. All aid projects take maintenance into account during their appraisal.

461
Maintenance and training are regularly, but not automatically, provided. It all depends upon a case-by-case examination. I recognise the problem to which my noble friend referred. I can recall seeing machinery and equipment supplied on an aid basis lying unused in some third world countries because of the problems to which he referred.
My noble friend also suggested that we should pay greater attention to the ITDG. At least one other noble Lord referred to that organisation. The ODA has just agreed a £ 7.06 million grant to the ITDG over the next three years. We have a high regard for that organisation. It is a leading practitioner of intermediate technology. My noble friend also referred to the relationship between the ODA and the British Council. A major area of that relationship was reviewed in 1989. Changes are already being introduced which should lead to a clearer definition of their respective roles and responsibilities. The ODA has a high regard for the local knowledge and experience of council staff in the field. ODA staff regularly visit council offices on their overseas visits to draw upon that knowledge. I too take the opportunity to visit British Council offices overseas whenever I can.
I turn now to the problem of population control which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Lockwood, were some of the speakers who referred to that The Government strongly support the need to reduce population growth and increase population awareness. Population will continue to be a priority for the British aid programme. Assistance in this area takes many forms: support for multilateral organisations' bilateral programmes and projects; and assistance to United Kingdom institutions and research projects. Support for multilateral organisations such as the United Nations population fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the World Health Organisation's human reproduction programme will continue to be at the heart of our population assistance.
Increasing bilateral assistance will also be made available with particular emphasis on Africa and South Asia where initiatives can be identified and implemented. In 1988 over £ 16.7 million was spent on population related activities compared to £ 6.5 million in 1981. The percentage of all United Kingdom aid spent on population activities has remained constant at just over 1 per cent.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Seear, and at least one other speaker referred to the importance of channelling help through non-governmental organisations. I very much agree with that sentiment. We are providing substantial and growing support through the joint funding scheme. We are currently supporting some 800 separate schemes, many with science and technology components. Further, we are helping to fund some 1,400 volunteers who come under the same category.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, expressed concern that aid to Eastern Europe might be used to squeeze
462
support for developing countries in Africa and possibly elsewhere. It is important that that should not happen. I agree with the sentiments expressed by both noble Lords. United Kingdom support for Eastern Europe is currently channelled essentially through the medium of the know-how fund. I shall not go into detail about that today as it is not particularly relevant. Nevertheless, it is important that we should maintain our regular aid programme in addition to whatever we may be able to provide, however important it may be, in Eastern Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and one or two other noble Lords raised the question of overseas students. The number of overseas students studying here under our Government support schemes has increased from 18,000 at a cost of some £ 80 million to 24,000 at a cost of some £ 127 million over the past four years. The majority are pursuing studies in the scientific and technological fields. The noble Lord mentioned the risk that too many of these students may be coming to this country to study because they can afford to do so rather than for the benefit they obtain from their studies. I should say that the Foreign Office has invested substantial funds in this area recently. I have already indicated the increase in funding which has taken place over recent years. That increased funding was established to cope with the problem that the noble Lord referred to. I do not believe that the increase in numbers of overseas students can be attributed simply to students coming over who can afford to do so. On the contrary, I think it has been the result of the increased Foreign Office funding to which I have referred. I agree that it is important that as many as possible of these students should be selected by virtue of their needs rather than by their ability to pay for their courses.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and my noble friend Lord Butterworth— my noble friend explained that he was unable to stay— pointed to the danger of what they called excessive projectisation. That is a way of more clearly identifying the aims and objectives and indeed the timetable of a particular area of aid support. I must emphasise that that does not preclude longer term commitments or a comprehensive approach. But our aid should be carefully targeted, considered and calculated. That does not always mean providing funds for some of the less specific projects that come to our notice.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked about natural resources advisers. He felt that they paid inadequate attention to social and economic criteria in the design and implementation of aid activities. The department certainly agrees on the need for adequate attention to be paid to social and economic criteria in the design and implementation of projects for promoting the sustainable development of renewable natural resources. That is achieved through an interdisciplinary approach of the kind to which I referred earlier, using advisory teams of natural resources experts with economists and sociologists. The point of the noble Lord is well made and it is well taken.
The noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Walston, and one or two others complained in general terms about the size of the aid budget. I am not sure that

463
that arises directly from the report we are considering. However, I should say that the aid programme, at £ 1,500 million in the current financial year, is substantial. It is planned to grow to £ 1,750 million by 1992 to 1993. That is an increase of 4 per cent. in real terms. Moreover, it is heavily targeted on the poorer countries. That, I think, is important. In 1988 nearly 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid went to countries with a per capita annual income of 700 dollars or less.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister knows that we have been over this ground before, but he still has not satisfied me. How can the Minister claim that the Government are aiming, even in principle, at a figure of 0.7 per cent. and at the same time claim that the aid budget is growing when it has fallen from 0.53 per cent. when this Government came into office to 0.32 per cent. now?
The Minister said that the aid budget depends on the economy. When the economy was in bad shape we were told that the Government could not afford increases in aid. However, over the past three years we have been told that we are experiencing an economic miracle. In that case why has the aid not been restored at least to the level it attained when this Government came into office?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the figure to which the noble Lord refers is a percentage of GNP. If the aid figure stays level or even grows, it does not necessarily grow as a percentage of GNP if GNP itself is substantially growing, as it is. The arithmetic is not as simple as the noble Lord may think. I do not claim to be be an arithmetical expert but I stand by the overall figures which I have given to the noble Lord. The aid programme stands at £ 1,500 million this year and is planned to grow to £ 1,750 million by 1992 to 1993. Those are substantial sums by any standard. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to recognise that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, also complained about the lack of environmental consideration emerging from the report we are considering tonight. However, I am not sure the noble Lord does the report adequate justice. If he looks at paragraph 7.22 of the report and the paragraphs that immediately follow, he will see that the environment is referred to rather effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, also referred to the Royal Geographical Society's activity. The ODA is happy to have recently extended its funding support for the excellent Maracá project to which the noble Lord referred on managing and conserving the rainforests of Amazonia. That is another extremely worthwhile programme. We very much welcome the involvement of the Royal Geographical Society and we are glad to be able to provide some ODA assistance in that area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the problem of women coming to the United Kingdon on training courses. She said that comparatively few women came to such courses. I share the concern of the noble Baroness that so few women attend such courses, particularly from certain countries.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord gave us figures about overseas students now coming to this country. Are they broken down by sex? As regards those figures, can the noble Lord tell the House roughly the percentage of men and women?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have the breakdown for which the noble Baroness asks. However, I shall find out whether it is available. I certainly accept that from some countries in particular many fewer women attend our courses than we would wish. We are exploring ways of correcting that problem. However, in many cases the problem arises from the social, economic and traditional situation in the countries concerned. I am not sure that we should disrupt those traditions in a way that would altogether meet the concern of the noble Baroness. However, I share her concern. Where there are ways of overcoming it we shall seek to do so.
The Government share the view of the Select Committee on the importance of science and technology in the process of development. We note the detailed recommendations of the Select Committee and we shall comment on them individually in our formal reply. We are acutely aware of the need to work at the international level and in developing countries to develop strategies and programmes which will harness the best of science and technology for development.
Here I believe that our record is a good one. The fields in which the Government believe that science and technology have the greatest contribution to make to the aid programme are precisely those which are affected in the ODA's professional capacity. Those include its own in-house advisers, the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute (ODNRI) and other specialised British institutions regularly supported by the ODA.
I can now give an answer to the noble Baroness about women students. I understand that only between 18 per cent. and 24 per cent. of overseas students who come to this country are women. I agree that that is too small a proportion.
I hope that your Lordships agree with me that this has been an interesting and worthwhile debate. The House will be most grateful to my noble friend and his committee for bringing forward the report.
7.32 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, which I agree with my noble friend has been a very interesting one. I am most grateful for the warm welcome which all speakers gave to the report. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was an exception but, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, his strictures were almost entirely irrelevant to the subject of the report. I should particularly like to thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for the welcome that he gave to the report and his constructive and encouraging comments.
The theme that ran through many of the speeches this evening was a warning to beware of major headline-catching projects. It was said that in general

465
we should get better value from concentrating our aid on a widespread effort to build a sound, cultural, educational and institutional base with the development of appropriate technology to the benefit of the whole of the community in the recipient countries, not least the poorest of them. I believe that the ODA, ably supported by the British Council, is making a very cost-effective contribution and could do much more. Therefore, I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will increase the allocation of resources to overseas aid as quickly as possible.
Once again I thank noble Lords for the welcome that they have given to the report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Chlorofluorocarbons (Control) Bill [H.L.]
7.33 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Baroness Robson of Kiddington.)
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the Bill passes through this House I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for her work in preparing the Bill and seeing it through all its stages to this final point.
I hope very much that the Minister who is to reply on behalf of the Government will be able to assure the House, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that the fact that the Government have not divided the House on any of the amendments or on Second Reading, indicates that they do not intend to sabotage the Bill by any means when it goes to another place. I stress "by any means" because there are various means by which, as shown in the: passage of this Bill, the Government can frustrate the will of this House, when the Bill goes to another place. I very much hope that the Minister has come tonight armed with the authority to say that the Government are prepared to give time and support to the Bill when it passes from this House to another place. I believe that that is his duty as we have spent time passing the Bill through all its stages in this House.
I should like to answer one or two of the points that have been raised in opposition to the Bill from the other Benches, and in particular from the Government Front Bench. I am supported in that by correspondence that I have received and personal contacts that I have been privileged to make in the commercial world.
Since the Bill was given its Second Reading a number of clauses have been added which have strengthened the prohibition of the production and use of a variety of gases and compounds. There is a view, which has been expressed by the Minister, that it is better to use those gases and compounds in preference to CFCs because they are less damaging.
466
I accept that they are less damaging. I also accept that those who have lobbied me on the subject, particularly General Chemicals, are working on a variety of alternatives to CFCs which, while it is not claimed that they do not damage the environment, are less damaging to the ozone layer than are CFCs. However, the reason for including those additional gases and compounds in the Bill and setting time limits for them is in order to encourage the discovery of substitutes for CFCs which will not damage the environment, whether it be the ozone layer or through the greenhouse effect. I wish the work that is being done by organisations such as General Chemicals well, provided that that is the objective.
Another objection that has been raised from the Government Front Bench is that such matters should be left to the companies, or what is euphemistically termed market forces but which I prefer to call the world of profit and loss.
Here I come to the nub of what I wish to say on the Motion. As the House knows, the appliances which are mainly responsible for the emission of CFCs are refrigerators and the various referigeration processes. It is calculated that they account for 10 per cent. of the world's CFC problems. Work is being done to prevent the emission of CFCs when refrigerators and refrigeration processes are decommissioned. It is estimated that in the United Kingdom alone 1,500 tonnes of CFCs are released into the atmosphere from scrapped appliances each year. It is also estimated that 22,500 tonnes of CFC gas could be prevented from being released into the atmosphere over the next 15 years, which is the approximate life of a fridge.
What, then, is preventing that? There is a general public opinion about CFCs and their effect on the ozone layer and the tremendous danger that that presents to the human race. There is a desire on the part of many local authorities to dispose of refrigerators without releasing the dangerous CFC gases.
What, then, is missing? What is missing is legislation. That was specifically spelt out to those of us who met the company that I mentioned earlier— the Bird group of companies— which claims to be able to dispose of refrigerators (both the 20 per cent. of the CFCs which are contained in the refrigerant and the 80 per cent. contained in the insulation material) without releasing any CFCs into the atmosphere and with the advantage of recycling the metal from which they are made.
However, that process costs money. It is heavily capital-intensive. It involves purpose-built facilities such as airtight containment buildings, air locks and a temperature-controlled environment maintained at a negative pressure. That is in addition to the mechanical plant for separating the insulating foam from other constituent materials of a refrigerator. The revenues generated by selling the recycled metals and plastics contribute to that expense, but they by no means approach it.
We are therefore left with a situation in which that process is possible, but is commercially viable only if legislation is passed so that local authorities use that process and the Government take responsibility,

467
either by paying directly or by paying through local authorities, for the extra expense. I shall quote one sentence from the letter that the Bird group of companies sent to me in preparation for this debate. It states:
"It is my firm belief that without legislation which requires the environmentally sensitive disposal of refrigerators, they will be landfilled or fly tipped, leading to 1,500 tonnes of CFCs being released into the stratosphere each year from the United Kingdom alone".
I put it to noble Lords that the Bill, provided that the Government give it their support and encourage and allow it to go through another place, can be a practical aid to those all over the world who have seen the danger of CFCs to the ozone layer and who want to take action, not just using fine words, in order to prevent that menace to the future of the human race.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches I join the commendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, who has brought this worthy measure before the House. My noble friend Lord Hatch explained at some length what he believes will help to persuade the Government to support the Bill in another place. I should like to address the Government much more briefly and I hope that they will listen equally carefully.
As my noble friend said, whether the Government are minded to give the Bill an easy passage— and approval is wholly within their gift— I am certain that there will be an opportunity in another place for them to obtain a great deal of kudos because the Bill will be supported throughout the House. That is a political advantage, but, as my noble friend pointed out, there are enormous advantages to the environment and to a range of other interests. I say earnestly to the Minister with such power as he might have with his ministerial colleagues: this is a small Bill, but it is not unimportant. It might be the vehicle by which the Government, by amendment, do what I am sure the noble Baroness wanted to do in the first place; namely, to put a few teeth, a bit of muscle and a bit of spunk behind so many words, which might well be empty words, not just from the Minister but from the Government in general.
I hope that, at this point in their travails, the Government will recognise that the Bill might be used to their own advantage. The people of my local community and of the British Isles, Europe and indeed the world will benefit from the Bill, amended or otherwise. It is up to the Minister to give a manifest of the Government's commitment and faith. We on these Benches give the Bill a warm welcome and wish it a speedy passage, and we hope that the Minister will say something helpful to encourage us.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, we have been talking about the 1,500 tonnes of CFCs which could be recovered and which at the moment go to waste. A large proportion of that comes from government
468
establishments so, regardless of waiting for legislation, I think that the Government should do something to put their own house in order.
Lord Reay: My Lords, perhaps it would be useful if I were to set out the Government's position before the Bill leaves this House.
The debates surrounding the Bill's progress have provided much food for thought. The Government have found them encouraging. They show that your Lordships share our concern— depletion of the ozone layer is an alarming problem and we must move as quickly as possible to eliminate its causes.
As I have said, that process can have any real effect only if it is carried through at the international level. Great efforts and achievements have already been made by British industry and consumers. That has happened in the context of restrictions on the overall supply of CFCs and in the knowledge that we are committed to their early elimination. In 1986, this country used about 6 per cent. of the world's total of CFCs. That figure has probably now fallen below 4 per cent. because we have already cut our consumption faster than most.
Getting rid of that 4 per cent. as quickly as possible is of course an urgent priority, but getting the world as a whole committed to similar action, on a similar timescale, is more effective, more important and more urgent.
To that end, the Government are concentrating on strengthening and broadening the Montreal Protocol. Progress in the negotiations is encouraging. We are broadly content with the emerging consensus on revisions to the protocol, although, for the CFCs themselves, we are finding it difficult to persuade our negotiating partners to cut their consumption as quickly as we should like.
It is also essential that more countries join in. Negotiations over assistance to developing countries, to help them comply with the protocol, are going well and I am confident that in the light of those, countries such as Brazil, India and China will join soon. The various strands of negotiation will come to a head at the meeting of the protocol parties which we are hosting in London in three months' time.
In the debate on Second Reading, I set out two different kinds of difficulty which the Government have with this Bill. The first is that we are already tackling the problems which it seeks to address, but in different ways, and in ways which are more consistent with the international process which is so vital. The Montreal Protocol is based on the reduction of overall production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances, rather than imposing timetables for ending specific uses. The second difficulty is that the schedule of dates contained in the Bill in our view is unrealistic. As we see it, it does not allow time for the necessary testing to ensure that substitutes are safe to work with.
The Bill has been made even less acceptable by the amendment which provides for the prohibition of many CFC substitutes by the year 2000. Such a provision would mean that the necessary investment in such substitutes would never be made, and this

469
in turn would delay the timetable for prohibiting the far more damaging CFCs until well into the next century. I must say therefore that it is unlikely that the Government will be able to support the Bill in another place.
None of this means that we shall merely sit back and do the minimum that the new protocol will require of us. We are encouraging the development of a Community-wide environmental labelling scheme. We are seeking to identify what more needs to be done to encourage recycling and the reduction of emissions. This should apply not only to CFCs but also to the new substitute chemicals, which do some environmental damage, albeit only a fraction of that done by the CFCs that they will replace.
Above all, we fully accept the need to cut CFC consumption more quickly than the protocol requires, if the protocol is not strengthened as much as we should want. The European Commission has already published a proposal for a regulation which is stronger than the revised protocol is likely to be. While the details still have to be sorted out, the Government are committed to early and substantial cuts, regardless of what is agreed for the world as a whole. They will not be as rapid as set out in this Bill, but I am confident that the Community will agree to measures which force the fastest reductions that c an realistically be achieved.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask this question. Can he explain why he says that the year 2000 is much too early? Does he agree with the findings of the United Nations environmental programme which give the end of 1999 as the timetable date? That is why the year 2000 was taken.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, in our view the danger would be that if they were to be prohibited by the year 2000, their manufacture would not be undertaken. As I said at Report stage, this was simply making the best the enemy of the good.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, do the Government believe that they know better than the United Nations environmental programme?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords, I do not say that. We believe that it is important to try to reduce the quantity of CFCs admitted to the atmosphere and the way in which I set forth that it should be done is in our view the best way to approach the matter.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the various stages of this Bill. I cannot hide the fact that I am desperately disappointed in the reply that the noble Lord has just given. He seems to take objection to one amendment in particular. When the Bill goes to another place, it can be amended again. It does not have to condemn the Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government will think again on this matter.
Many of the issues that have been discussed during the debates on this Bill have found some new answers, even in the past few days. I cut out of
470
today's Times a small notice which states that the Minister for the Environment, Mr. David Trippier, announced that the production and consumption of CFCs had been cut by more than half, 10 years ahead of time. I put to the noble Lord that that reduction has been achieved by consumer interest. It has not been achieved by government action.
The consumer interest which achieved that cut has gone as far as it can because consumers cannot influence general industrial production. They can decide whether or not to buy aerosols which contain CFCs. The general public in this country have done so. I should like the Government to put extra legal protection into the way in which we run our affairs with regard to CFCs in this country.
Much was said during the debate to the effect that we could not eliminate halon from fire extinguishers because it was the only safe way to extinguish a fire. This morning I received a letter from Chubb Fire Security Limited in which they say:
"You may be interested to know that Chubb Fire Ltd. is the UK's largest manufacturer of portable extinguishers and we have recently taken the decision to withdraw from the sale of portable halon extinguishers for general use … Furthermore portable halon extinguishers have in the past been sold in large numbers because of the effectiveness of halon as a fire extinguishant. It offered therefore an easy route to providing multi-risk fire protection … The consequence of this is that there are now considerable numbers of halon extinguishers, located in public, commercial and industrial premises as well as in Government and Local Government premises. I would suggest that in the vast majority of cases there are perfectly acceptable viable alternative extinguishers to these, ones which will provide at least as good fire protection cover as halon and in most cases at a reduced cost."
Can we appeal to the Government to remove the halon extinguishers at least from government premises?
The letter concludes:
"We support the content of your Bill".
I am delighted to hear that, because one of the arguments against the Bill was that halon was very difficult to remove from fire extinguishers. It is true that so far research has only been able to remove halon from portable fire extinguishers and certain fixed fire extinguishers still use it. But I do not believe that, having gone that far on the portable type of extinguisher, it is beyond the wit of man to remove halon from the fixed type. So things are moving. The country as a whole is in favour of legislation which will concentrate people's minds and make certain that we do not further damage the environment in which we live.
We have just listened to a debate on overseas aid. We know that the developing countries will develop some of the manufactured products that use CFCs and halon. I should like us as a nation to be able to go to the developing countries and not to say, "Do as I say but do not do as I do" but to say, "Do as I do".
We have the expertise and research facilities in this country. We have a duty to lead the world. The noble Lord said that this problem has to be solved at international level. There is no better way of solving it than to take the lead and prove to other countries that it can be done. I want this country to be in the forefront of environmental research and

471
improvement; not always lagging behind as we seem to do in many environmental matters. I therefore hope that the Government will give this Bill time in another place. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
8 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these regulations are to be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. Their purpose is to increase, by 8 per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the eligibility conditions on or after the 1st April 1990. The Government reviews these amounts each year and this year, as in previous years, we believe an increase is right to keep them in line with the value of money.
The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 was introduced by the last Labour Government, and the aim and purpose of the Act have the full support of this Government.
The Act to which these regulations apply is unique in Government legislation in that it provides compensation to employees who have suffered disease as a result of their employment. It is separate from social security benefits, because it is only available where there is no employer to sue. Sufferers do not have to prove fault in order to qualify for a payment. The Act set up a scheme to help those sufferers of certain prescribed dust-induced diseases who have no opportunity to sue relevant employers to obtain compensation because the employer has gone out of business. The main industries concerned are slate mining, potteries, textiles and asbestos-related industries.
The reason that compensation is provided in this way is because of the length of time taken for the disease to develop and the symptons to become apparent. It can be many years later when the sufferer discovers he has the disease, often long after he or she has left the employment which caused or contributed to the development of the disease.
The Act made provision for payment of such amounts as might be prescribed by regulation. It does not provide for automatic or regular uprating, but the Government have undertaken to Parliament to review the amounts each year. These regulations are the result of this year's review.
The original payment regulations set out a scale of payments related to age and degree of disability (as assessed by medical experts). They came into effect on 1st January 1980. A number of increases have been made since then with the aim of keeping the payments in line with the value of money.
Last year. Parliament approved an increase of 8 per cent. from April, the proposed increase this year is for 8 per cent. from 1st April 1990, and takes account of inflation.
We all recognise that no amount of money compensates individuals and families for their pain, suffering and loss. But the regulations allow us to give practical and material help. The Department of Employment considers each application individually and interprets the conditions of the Act so as to be as fair as the statute will allow in the best interests of those whom the Act was intended to help. However, it has never been the purpose of the Act to provide an alternative to taking action in the courts, and the Department of Employnment has to be satisfied that there is no employer against whom a claim for damages could be made.
It was never the intention of the Act that the state should take over the responsibilities which are properly those of employers.
Since the Act came into force in 1980 almost 5,000 people have made successful claims. Eighty-two per cent. of all claims to date were made in the first year of the scheme, although it is a sad fact that claims are still being received by the employment department. The total cost to date has been £ 28–6 million. Most of these payments are made to those in industries or occupations whch involved contact with asbestos. They reflect the poor conditions which applied in some workplaces a generation or more ago, and the indications are that as we moved into the '60s, '70s and '80s there has been a steady improvement in working conditions. The dangers of asbestos are now well recognised and extensive legislation is now in place which prevents such exposure today.
Your Lordships will readily understand the importance of uprating the amounts of compensation the Government pays to those disabled by these diseases. I commend the regulations to the House and ask for your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th February be approved. [11th Report from the Joint Committee] .— (The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the clear way in which he has explained the regulations. Of course we welcome the uprating which is broadly in line with inflation.
The regulations deal with a number of industrial diseases which produce severely disabling symptoms which severely restrict the lives, and indeed reduce the life chances, of those who suffer from them. Although the maximum award for 100 per cent. disability at age 37 or less is £ 41,849, I believe that the average award is only about £ 7,000. That must leave the recipients of awards very dependent on social security benefits. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House the total expenditure and the total number of people who were helped under the scheme last year.
I am not entirely clear on this point. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that awards under the

473
scheme do not prevent claimants pursuing an action for damages against an employer if they can trace one? Conversely, if compensation for damages has been paid by an employer, does it mean that a claimant is unable to receive an award under the scheme?
I conclude by repeating my thanks to the Minister and expressing support from these Benches for the regulations.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord raised a question about expenditure this year. Expenditure this year has been about £ 694,000 to 103 sufferers or their dependants.
In reply to the other point raised by the noble Lord, the scheme is designed to help those who have had no chance of bringing a court action. However, the Act does not prevent subsequent court action by the claimant if a relevant employer is later identified. But if claimants already have compensation awarded by a court a claimant cannot come withing the remit of the Act.
Having explained those points, I hope that I have given some assurance to the noble Lord. I commend the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1990
8.8 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 20th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order, which is being made under powers in Section 149 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, is concerned with the basis on which redundancy payments are calculated in the field of local government service. It amends the Redundancy Payments (Local Government) Modification Order which the House approved in July 1983. The 1983 order was previously amended in 1985 to take account of changes arising from the Local Government Act 1985 and was amended again in 1988 and 1989 bringing in several bodies that were omitted in 1983 and 1985, or had since come into existence.
I should explain that under the provisions of Part VI of the 1978 Act an employee who is discharged as redundant after at least two years' service is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment, calculated, among other things, according to his period of continuous service with his last employer. Local authorities and related institutions are legally distinct employers, so that on the strict basis of the statutory scheme on its own an employee would be entitled to a payment every time he became redundant even though he intended to move on to a post elsewhere in local government.
This situation would not, however, correctly reflect the realities of local government service in which a normal career progression commonly involves moving from one authority to another, perhaps several times during an individual's working life. Local government collective agreements therefore provide for local authorities to base their redundancy payments on total aggregated service in local government and the 1983 order secures a similar effect in the stututory redundancy scheme by replacing service with one employer with total "relevant local government service".
Because there is no convenient and comprehensive definition of what constitutes local government employment, it is necessary to list in the order all the employing authorities and bodies with whom service counts as local government service. Two lists are necessary. The first, in Schedule 1 to the 1983 order, lists those employers currently in being by whom anyone may be made redundant. The second, in the appendix to Schedule 2 in the same order, lists those bodies with which service may still be reckoned for redundancy purposes.
The amending order simply adds to the lists in Schedule 1 in the 1983 order bodies which have come into existence since the last amendment was made or omitted in 1983, 1985, 1988 and 1989. It is essentially a tidying up measure. The number of employees likely to be affected is small. I trust that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that these are necessary and innocuous amendments. I commend the order to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th February by approved. [11th Report from the Joint Committee] .— {The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clear way in which he explained the order, and we welcome it. The order tidies up the rules and extends the number of bodies in which continuous local government service can be achieved.
We do not agree with the primary and privatisation legislation that has been the cause of the order. However, this is not the time to debate the merits or otherwise of privatisation. We assume that by introducing the orders the Government are, by implication, undertaking that the protection of redundancy payments in local government services will continue. That will be particularly important next year with the abolition of the ILEA, for example. I confirm that we on these Benches have no objection to the order.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the noble Lord for explaining the order and accept it as it stands.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

South Africa
8.11 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso Lord St. John of Bletso rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for assisting in solving the fundamental social and economic problems facing South Africa, particularly in the urban areas.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity of initiating today's debate. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have put their names down to speak on this issue. It is fitting that this evening we follow the debate on overseas aid, although that report specifically excluded South Africa.
I have recently returned from a three-month visit to South Afica and I was there when the historic statements of intent were made by President de Klerk. I also witnessed the release of Nelson Mandela from the Victor Verster prison and the general euphoria which accompanied that. I consider myself fortunate to have been present during such momentous times.
In the past our discussions on South Africa have tended to be polarised, Before the state president's speech on 2nd February, issues in South Africa tended to be viewed from a rather simplistic viewpoint. They appeared to be either right or wrong. In my opinion, since the speech the doors have been thrown wide open. This is a time of great opportunity in South Africa but equally a time of considerable risk.
In previous speeches I have referred to the spectres of danger and disaster. By freeing the political arena and unbanning the various parties of opposition and the release of several political prisoners disaster has been averted in the short term. However, there is still a delicate, intricate and hard negotiation process to be pursued. As such there remains a considerable degree of risk for all those involved in the negotiations. Therefore, there remains an element of danger.
The negotiations process will highlight the fact that the issues are far from simple or static. In the light of the recent changes, it must be clear that the issues may no longer be discussed in an atmosphere of rhetoric. To that end I have addressed my Question this evening towards the fundamental social and economic problems facing South Africa particularly in the urban areas.
What is the South Africa about which it is hoped that negotiations will commence sooner rather than later? We are all familiar with the character of apartheid and the three legislative pillars which underpin it. They are the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts, the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act. However, according to the statements of the South African Government's chief negotiator and Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, Dr. Gerrit Viljoen, these pillars are bound to collapse. In mid-February he stated that he did not believe that there would be another election from which blacks would be excluded. That is an extremely positive step for South Africa. He stated that the Population Registration Act would lapse
476
with the demise of the tricameral parliamentary system. That system is a total waste of money. The Separate Amenities Act will go before Parliament for repeal in the second half of the current session. Negotiations on the repeal of the Land Act will commence, although it is unlikely to be repealed in the current session. Obviously the Group Areas Act cannot remain on the statute book once the Land Act has been repealed.
At the beginning of this month Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, the ex-chairman of the Anglo-American Corporation, said:
"Old fears, old prejudices, old customs and old ideologies die hard. The immoral policy of apartheid was born of the fear that whites had that they would be overwhelmed by the black majority. The hard lessons of experience have now been learnt by the great majority of white South Africans. The apartheid system is in a state of terminal disillusion. Remnants still remain but are obviously soon to go".
Nelson Mandela has committed himself to creating harmony in South Africa and to exploiting any opening that offers hope of a non-racial and democratic country. His ultimate aims are political, economic and social equality. Just prior to his release from prison he said:
"We must work towards a common destiny and that can only be achieved through a non-racial society",
I am totally convinced of the integrity and determination of President de Klerk to reach a negotiated settlement. A first meeting between the South African Government, the African National Congress and the 10 homelands' leaders is scheduled for 11th April in Cape Town. As a precursor to the negotiation process, the meeting will be vitally important for establishing a platform of mutual trust from which the negotiations may proceed. All the commentators have identified the spirit of mutual trust to be the most important single factor and the most visible pre-condition for the successful commencement, conduct and conclusion of negotiations.
The negotiations are not only about universal suffrage and good government but they must address the peculiarities of the demographic and economic environment in South Africa. Its current population is about 38 million. Of that, 60 per cent. are under the age of 20, and 42 per cent. are under the age of 15. Estimates of the population in the year 2000 vary from between 50 million and 55 million. Those figures will be realised if the current 3 per cent. per annum growth rate among the black population is maintained. The moot point is that South Africa will experience increases in the population of more than 1 million people each year.
What does that mean for the fundamental social and economic issues, particularly for the urban areas? In the days when the infamous influx control regulations were in force people nevertheless moved in their droves from the rural areas to the cities because of the envisaged opportunities there. Since the abolition of the pass laws, it has been estimated that more than 1 million people have moved into the towns each year. That rate is expected to continue for the next 20 years. That burgeoning influx is placing an increasing strain on the social and physical infrastructure of the towns and cities. Because of the policies of apartheid in the past those

477
infrastructures are severely underdeveloped and are incapable of satisfying the basic needs of most of those people, let alone those who are moving into the towns. In one residential area just outside Cape Town called Khayalitsha there are currently over 11,000 black people moving in every single month. Other visible evidence can be seen in the Johannesburg area where there are estimated to be 2 million squatters. In the Durban area, there are estimated to be 1.7 million people living in shanty towns in the hills around the city.
It is acknowledged that rural migrants require some time to settle into a new urban way of life before they can contribute fully to the economy. During that time they will require some form of assistance for the satisfaction of their most basic human needs. Recent interviews with shanty town residents near Cape Town have identified three priorities: a decent place to live, a steady job and proper education for their children. In addition, there is the need for proper health care. These are the services which are already under stress.
I should like to expand briefly on those issues. In the sphere of housing, the estimated need is for roughly 250,000 housing units per annum for the next decade in order to remove the existing backlog and to accommodate the expected growth. That obviously requires significant investment. With respect to education, it should be remembered that 60 per cent. of the population are of school-going age. The average pupil to teacher ratio in black schools is 50: 1 and in some areas is even 90: 1. The average in white schools is 16: 1. Black school-leaving pass rates were between 12 per cent. and 42 per cent. in 1989. The figure for white pupils was 97 per cent.
Those figures indicate the grossly disproportionate levels of spending in the past. In fact, there are 18 departments of education in South Africa. As long as there is a non-unitary education policy, those discrepancies cannot in my opinion be adequately addressed. However, it should be noted that recent official recognition of the discrepancies has resulted in a significant increase in the budgetary allocation for education. In the last budget, 19 per cent. of the total allocation was devoted to educational needs. That is most encouraging.
On health care, we find a similar bureaucratic position where there are 14 departments of health. In order adequately to equip the health service there is a need for an additional 3,000 hospital beds, 2,000 doctors and 3,000 nurses annually.
I turn to the subject of employment. During the 1980s the South African labour force increased by approximately 360,000 people per year. Sufficient jobs were created annually in the formal sector for only one-fifth of that number. One result of the shortfall has been a dramatic growth in the informal sector; one example being the formation of the black taxi federation. Some estimates place the value of the informed sector at between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of all the economic activity in South Africa.
The South African economy will require to grow by at least 5 per cent. per annum if there is to be any chance of accommodating the additional 400,000 people who will annually be entering the
478
job market. That is not an impossible target under normal social and political conditions and when international credit is available. It is my firm belief that the shortfall in employment has in a small measure contributed to the general unrest and obvious escalation in crime in the urban areas. Investment in the economy is not the full answer to the question of employment creation. It also needs to be tied to adequate secondary and technical training.
Thus far I have attempted to highlight the fundamental issues as I see them. In summary, South Africa exhibits the classic demographic traits of a third world nation; namely, an exponential population growth making demands on the economy which will be required to generate substantial growth to respond to those demands. The positive picture of the situation in South Africa is that the dynamics of the economy are capable of adequate response. That is the background against which negotiations will be taking place. The core issue of those negotiations will of course concern the normalisation of social and economic relationships.
A major element of that will undoubtedly focus on the redistribution of economic wealth. For a climate of normalisation, there will need to be a lifting of the current state of emergency. A major factor in that must be the resolving of the factional fighting especially between the Inkatha Movement and the United Democratic Front which has and is still causing so much bloodshed. It is estimated that more than 3,000 people have died in the past three years from factional fighting particularly in Natal and the Eastern Cape.
Surely a common concern for all those participating in the negotiation process must be the preservation of a strong economy. As I have tried to illustrate this evening, the bottom line is that without a strong, expanding and resilient economy the demands for the future cannot possibly be met. To that end, fears have been expressed following earlier statements from Nelson Mandela relating to the issue of nationalisation of banks and gold mines. I believe that demand to be a purely negotiating ploy. I have no doubt that nationalisation of such important sectors would actively discourage international investment and thereby undermine the ability of the South African economy to sustain growth.
Of course there are other options available for effecting economic redistribution. In my opinion, the debate should surely concentrate on methods and not just ideologies for redressing wealth imbalances. The character which Namibia has chosen to adopt gives good pointers to a rational resolution of those difficult economic issues. In my view, our Prime Minister has taken brave and realistic steps in easing some sanctions in response to the recent reform measures. I believe it to be hypocritical that while most of the black African nations support sanctions in open debate, every state in the continent now trades with South Africa and last year the volume of that trade increased by 40 per cent.
I have addressed my Question to how Her Majesty's Government plans to assist in solving the fundamental social and economic problems facing South Africa, particularly in the urban areas. It has

479
not been my wish to paint a picture of gloom or of desperation. I believe that South Africa has the potential for a dynamic and prosperous future. The South African Government have just announced the allocation of 1 billion rand to start addressing the backlog in education and housing. They have also announced the formation of a 2 billion rand fund to be used for socio-economic development. I am most encouraged by the manner in which Her Majesty's Government are targeting much needed aid into some of the areas which I have discussed this evening. Their recent assistance to the urban foundation— a private sector lobbying and development agency— will help to bring home ownership within the means of 40,000 families.
We know that the process of urbanisation is most stressful for all concerned. I recommend to Her Majesty's Government that their considerations of aid in South Africa be aimed at reducing discrepancies within the sectors which I have discussed, thereby reducing the levels of stress all round. There is an African saying which laments that when two elephants fight it is the grass that gets trampled. In my view the analogy in the case of South Africa is quite obvious. We trust that those around the negotiating table will be mindful of their responsibilities for the ultimate goal of one nation, one constitution, one citizenship, and the preservation of a strong economy for all to share in the future of South Africa.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay and Abingdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for asking this Question. It is very important that the social and economic problems which will face South Africa in the future are resolved to the best benefit of all races.
The noble Lord has a wealth of knowledge of the country to which he referred. However, it must be borne in mind— this is where I differ from the noble Lord— that South Africa is not an impoverished third world country in the true sense of the word. It is rich in natural resources and has an advanced commercial and industrial base. Therefore, while giving the South African Government all encouragement in their endeavours to overcome the social and economic problems that will arise following the ending of apartheid, they are the responsibility of that government. It is not for Her Majesty's Government to become too financially involved. After all, it was past South African governments since 1948 which created these unpleasant and now unacceptable urban areas.
We can best assist by investing in industry and increasing trade with South Africa, which, in the long run, will provide more jobs for the African population and thus benefit all South Africans and not just a small minority. The process of political and social reform has begun. The only thing which could have an adverse effect on this progress would be a Right-wing Afrikaans' backlash, which could well happen if the reforms of President de Klerk were met with calls for more stringent sanctions.
When I visited South Africa last year it was noticeable how full the shops were of goods produced
480
by our main trading competitors. I submit that, however well intentioned, sanctions do not work. That is not intended as an insult to those who do not share this view. Sanctions may hurt, but it is usually the very people that they are supposed to assist who suffer.
In conclusion, I should say that the best way we can help with the social and economic problems facing South Africa is by giving moral support to the reform process which, in the end, will bring majority rule, together with enhanced prosperity for all races in South Africa.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso— who always seems to address himself to me rather than the Government Front Bench— knows that I am very fond of him. He also knows that I like to tease him, but the teasing is quite serious. I begin by picking up some of the points he made. I may also say— I think he will appreciate this— that there used to be another South African noble Lord on the other side of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who was well over 90 when I knew him and of whom I was just as fond. He was just as useful to the House as is the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso.
Lord Barnby was brought up to assume that the philosophy of apartheid was the only philosophy of life. It was very useful for him to put that philosophy to the House. It is just as useful now for the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, to put the typical white liberal point of view to this House so that we can hear it and recognise some of the factors which are of paramount importance in South Africa.
The noble Lord talks about everything depending on mutual trust. Nobody disagrees with that statement. But what is mutual trust asking for? It is asking for those who have been repressed for 150 to 200 years to say, "Now we will trust you. We will forget all that you have done to our ancestors; we will forget all that you have done to our children and ourselves and we will trust you". I believe that they will do that.
It is a remarkable fact that almost all African people have a degree of forgiveness which is quite incredible in the world of Europe. When we are debating in our Parliament whether we should be prosecuting Nazi criminals from 50 years ago, the Africans in South Africa— like the Africans in what was Rhodesia, Namibia, Zambia, Mozambique and Angola— show no signs of wanting to take revenge against the massacres that they themselves have endured. I am not saying that one should parallel the genocide of the Nazis, but massacres there have been, as we know, and one needs only to mention Sharpeville.
The noble Lord made a number of selective quotes. I too can quote if he wishes. It was his new-found friend President de Klerk who said, "Do not expect me to negotiate myself out of power". He said that quite simply and quite directly. He has not withdrawn that statement. That is what he believes, and that is what he believes to be the basis of the negotiations in which he intends to take part.

481
However, there is a more important issue, which I mentioned earlier to the noble Lord. I do not apologise for repeating it, because it is essential to any understanding of what is happening or what is going, to happen in South Africa.
It is almost universal to talk about apartheid. It is not apartheid that the Africans are fighting against. If it was, all that would need to be said is, "Go back to the situation in which you were living in 1948". It was in 1948 that the word "apartheid" was invented. The Africans will not go back to 1948; they will not return to the conditions in which they were living in 1948 1938, 1908 or 1890. The prejudice and the discriminatory life that they and their ancestors have had to lead is what they are determined to change.
While the noble Lord may have learned late of the injustices that he listed— I am glad he did— some of us have been publicising these for the past 50 years. We were told, "You do not understand. You are not South African. You do not live in South Africa", or, "They' are not true". I am glad that the noble Lord has now seen how deeply these social, economic and political injustices go in South Africa.
We cannot entirely confine ourselves to the Question asked by the noble Lord, though I intend to address a few words to it. What happens in the townships; what happens to the social and economic life of the Africans in the future depends on the political issue. That is fundamental. No Africans will accept any kind of social or economic arrangement that is not based on political equality. That is focal to the whole issue. The noble Lord refers to ideology, but equality is ideology. We on these Benches believe in equality. It is part of our ideology and part of the Africans' ideology.
The noble Lord spoke about beginning negotiations. Negotiations are not yet in sight. The first thing in sight at the moment is discussion on what terms negotiations can begin— not the negotiations themselves. We must not delude ourselves or anybody else that negotiations are to start on 11th April. They are not. The discussions on that date are on what conditions the negotiations can be conducted.
What are those conditions? They have been made quite plain. Before Nelson Mandela was released, and since he has been released, they have been made absolutely plain in the Harare Declaration and in the United Nations. First is the release of all political prisoners and detainees. The second is the end of the state of emergency. Here, again I must refer to what the noble Lord said about the state of emergency. Yes, I deplore the bitter factional fighting in the towns. I remember it in 1949 when it was between black and Indian. Eventually the two congresses came together and stopped it. Unfortunately, it is now black and black. However, in quoting the shocking figure of 3,000 deaths in this factional fighting over the past three years, we must not forget that a very large number of black and coloured people have died in the same period not from black action but from police and military action. They are still dying as a result of police and military action.
Therefore, the end of the state of emergency is the second condition and that must be linked with the
482
abolition— not often spoken about— of the Internal Security Act. That is such a wide-ranging Act that it can be used to bring in virtually anybody on any charge.
Thirdly, there must be the repeal of all repressive legislation. Fourthly, all political trials must be halted. Perhaps the noble Lord has received the letter from Geoffrey Bindman today which draws attention to the fact that the courts are continuing to impose the death penalty and that the programme to build extra cells on death row continues. Meanwhile the Upington 14 and the other 49 known political prisoners on death row are in limbo; they are not at immediate risk but still under the shadow of the gallows.
The fifth condition is the removal of troops from the townships. I do not need to say more on that. Everyone knows of the conduct of the troops in the townships, and some of the revelations now brought out by the Marms Commission are giving legitimacy to what some of us have been saying for a long time.
Those conditions would lay down an opportunity for negotiations to start. What will the negotiations be about? First, the noble Lord may be quite convinced that President de Klerk and his friends are going to agree to adult suffrage. I am not. The concept that President de Klerk has put over and the five-year plan of the National Party does not suggest adult suffrage; not in the way that we know it and certainly not adult suffrage in a unitary state. It refers to group rights and group protection, as the noble Lord says.
The Population Registration Act must go. The Group Areas Act must go. There must be redistribution of land. Does the noble Lord seriously think that that will be accomplished, or even agreed to, by the present de Klerk Government without a great deal of pressure being applied— the same kind of pressure as brought them eventually to agree to the independence of Nambia?
There are other Acts. There is the Publication Act which again is so wide that it can bring any kind of publication or statement into censorship and simply ban it.
The noble Lord referred to education. Yes, there may be an increase and one hopes that there will be an increase in black education, but it is not just quantity but quality. There is also the type of education, because the whole purpose of the system under which the apartheid governments have organised African education has been based on the Bantu Education Act. They must be taught in their tribal languages and education must be kept within the culture and the community of their forefathers. They must be kept away from modem life. That, clearly, must go.
Above all, the Africans will settle for nothing less than total adult suffrage. The noble Lord at least hopes and perhaps sincerely believes that that can be negotiated by the present regime. I do not. I hope it can but I do not believe that it can. I believe that there will be a test of strength. I particularly believe that from looking at the history of similar countries; for example, Chile under Allende or republican Spain. They tried to experiment with democratic

483
forms but neither of them had effective command of the military forces. Nor does President de Klerk, as we are seeing continually, particularly in relation to General Malan.
We are now seeing revealed, even in the South African press, the atrocities that have been organised by the South African state; the state terrorism that has been deliberately organised by sections of the military and the police. As the noble Lord knows, a very dear friend of mine, my first hostess in South Africa— Ruth First— was murdered by the security forces of South Africa. She received a letter bomb in Maputo. My own car has been sabotaged twice— according to the AA, not just me. I am not saying that the South Africans did it— I cannot prove that— but I do not know of anybody else.
When one adds that to the strength of the Conservative Party (The Conservative Party had 31 per cent. of the vote at the last election) and the extreme AWB— the Terreblanche people— there remains a strong anti-reform group among the white community. It could be argued that the Africans will demand a Nuremburg-type trial for these atrocities. They will not because the Africans are not like that. It is said that they are unbelievably forgiving people.
My final point is in answer to what the noble Lord said, and was said also by the noble Earl opposite, about the importance of the strength of the economy in order to increase the opportunities for African development. It does not happen that way. When South Africa was most powerful economically and financially, all the pillars of apartheid were sunk. I was there. It was when the economy was booming that apartheid was put into place in legislation. It is not the case that when there is a prosperous South Africa it becomes liberal.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I appreciate his criticism of what has happened in South Africa, but does he not agree that there has been a considerable change in attitude in South Africa? Furthermore, does he not also agree that in order for there to be an economic growth rate of 5 per cent. there needs to be an injection of capital into South Africa? So far, the noble Lord has not mentioned any one point in respect of which he has any theory to help alleviate what I was saying about the problem of the future poverty and homelessness in South Africa in the years to come.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I appreciate that latter point. I say, as the Africans do, that you will not get rid of homelessness, alleviate poverty or re-distribute wealth until there is political power among the Africans. Mention was made of 5 per cent. growth in the economy. We have only 1 per cent. growth in this country for the coming year. When there was strong growth in the South African economy the apartheid regime was imposed. That is the point I am making and I make it in connection with what the noble Lord had to say about sanctions.
As the noble Lord knows, it was the National Party itself which, in its manifesto at the last election, said how sanctions were hurting the economy and that
484
only by becoming acceptable to the international community could the effects of sanctions be removed. That is still the case. The noble Lord has a great deal of effrontery to speak about the trade of black Africa with South Africa. We left black Africa economically dependent on South Africa. Militarily, black Africa was very largely at the mercy of South Africa. We tied up all their transport systems to South Africa. It was we, the British, who did that; black Africa is trading with South Africa now or dying because it has never had any other opportunity.
I believe that black Africa will wish to trade with a democratic South Africa. The purpose of sanctions was to force the South African white regime out of Angola, then Namibia and then to force negotiations with the blacks. The noble Lord speaks about Nelson Mandela being anxious to negotiate and to have peace: he always has been. That has always been the policy of the ANC. It was the white state that refused negotiations, constitutional means of reform and representation. For about 50 years the ANC was an entirely non-violent organisation. It simply wanted negotiations. We hope that now the ANC is going into negotiations. It must not go naked into the negotiating chamber.
If sanctions are removed then a great deal of the argument has also been removed that has sustained President de Klerk and his friends as well as Nelson Mandela. It is the opponents of reform who will claim the victory if sanctions are moved. They must be continued until the reform process has become irreversible.
I should like to continue by speaking of the social problems that the noble Lord mentioned. I shall deal with just one. The most important, dangerous and tragic social problem which faces the majority of South Africans today is the militarisation of the youth from the age of nine years onwards. Militarisation has taken place particularly because of the revolt by urban Africans against white domination. That militarisation is a tremendous headache. I know personally from discussions with black parents that that issue is a great problem and a great shadow over the future of black South Africa.
These are the issues that we have to tackle. I hope that the Government will give help towards a tremendous task. I hope they ensure that that help goes to the people who need it and that it does not go, as it does today, to the white regime.
8.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I rise with some reluctance to intervene in consideration of the Question before your Lordships' House this evening. I have no first-hand experience of life in South Africa. However, noble Lords might expect a contribution from the episcopal Bench, not least because of the involvement of the Churches in South Africa in social and economic affairs in the urban areas of that country.
Yesterday your Lordships' House was considering the far-reaching changes in Russia and Eastern Europe. Tonight, in the context of this Question, we are considering events in South Africa which are as

485
astonishing and as surprising. Many of us have been hoping and praying for a change in fundamental attitudes, relationships and expectations, which would bring about real change in the political, economic and social conditions of black and white South Africans. Such a change in attitude is now beginning and for the first time in decades there is a real basis for hope in South Africa.
The reasons for policy changes in South Africa are at least four-fold. They include the indomitable will of the four-fifths disenfranchised black community to create a democratic, non-racial and unitary state. They include also the unsustainable cost of equipping the national security state, the crippling cost of sanctions and the coming to power of a new leadership closer to Afrikaner business interests and open to considerations of enlightened self-interest.
President de Klerk's recent decisions have transformed the situation. The most far-reaching decision has been the release of Nelson Mandela and his resultant emergence as the most remarkable black South African in decades. Upon him and on the relationship that he builds with President de Klerk depends the future of South Africa. In the monumental role that he is called on to play, he and President de Klerk need our prayers as they near the moment of the initiation of negotiations.
The new realism of President de Klerk's administration is also evidenced in the decision to which the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, made reference; namely, to set aside two billion rand in the 1990–91 budget for the creation of a special fund to correct the imbalances created by apartheid. That has been made possible by a cut in real terms of the defence budget. Housing, education, training, literacy and basic health needs have been noted by the South African Finance Minister as needing to be met by this fund. The new fund must be welcomed as the first use of nationalist funds to address social imbalance and to respond to the poverty of the majority in creative ways.
Nevertheless, it remains the case that a major, perhaps the major, factor in the poverty experienced by millions of black South Africans is apartheid. Land dispossession, poor wages, the migrant labour system and the forced removal of surplus labour to the homelands have exacerbated poverty. The removal of apartheid and the emergence of a democratic society is a pre-requisite for a proper attack on poverty.
It is in this context that the issue of sanctions has to be considered. I take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Lindsey and Abingdon, in his remarks about sanctions. I believe that it is almost universally agreed that sanctions have contributed to bringing about the present hopeful situation. Their part in strengthening black resolve, in putting pressure on the white community and in contributing to real change is readily acknowledged by all. This pressure must be maintained— in this respect I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby— until it is clear that leaders in South Africa, black and white, are engaged in an irreversible process of negotiation for a democratic South Africa. The Government should join the European, Commonwealth and
486
international communities in keeping sanctions in place at this moment.
The Southern Africa Coalition in this country, composed of Churches, trade unions, development agencies and anti-apartheid bodies, pleading for a fundamental change in British policy towards South Africa which respects the victims of apartheid, wrote to the Foreign Secretary:
"While the British Government continues to give support to the South African Government, it is seen to be supporting the continued exploitation of the black majority. Unless Britain is clearly seen to be identifying with and supporting the legitimate demands of the black majority population, its policies towards South Africa will continue to favour the apartheid regime".
The Foreign Secretary has announced a £ 10 million increase in British aid to black South Africans. This is to be welcomed. Funds already provided have helped black South Africans enormously. The British ambassador in South Africa and his staff have infinitely better contact with the black community than some of their predecessors. However, two points need to be made. The first is that while apartheid remains in place such aid can at best only ameliorate for a handful of people the appalling living conditions which result directly from apartheid. These were conditions to which the Foreign Secretary referred after his recent visit.
The second point is that, if the British Government are committed to bringing about change, then such aid should be used in consultation with such community and religious bodies as the South Africa Council of Churches, the South Africa Catholic Bishops' Conference and the non-religious Kagiso Trust. This is the practice of our European partners and helps to ensure that funds assist the victims of apartheid and strengthen those movements which are committed to change and democracy.
Finally, I refer to a point already made by the noble Lords, Lord St. John of Bletso and Lord Hatch of Lusby. Surely the most precious commodity in bringing about the change for which we hope is trust. Without trust, negotiations will break down. There is evidence that such trust, astonishingly, is beginning to emerge in a situation which has for decades seemed to breed mistrust, hatred and violence. This growth of trust is the most remarkable of the far-reaching changes of recent. months; it is the foundation for realistic hope for the future.
President de Klerk has demonstrated trust in the release of Nelson Mandela. Mr. Mandela has said that he believes that President de Klerk is to be trusted. Nothing that this Government or any other external body do should jeopardise that trust. If it grows, and leads to the changes which will dismantle apartheid, then South Africa, with international support, will begin to overcome its social and economic problems.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord St. John for raising this important Question in a powerful, effective and wide-ranging speech. I cannot hope remotely to match his expertise or his in-depth knowledge, but it so happens that two days ago I returned from a 20-day

487
trip through southern Africa, embracing Namibia, where I spent six days, the Republic of South Africa, Ciskei, Transkei and Bophuthatswana. The trip covered several thousand kilometers, most of it overland. In the course of it I was able to talk to a very wide range of people of all races and to observe the very considerable changes that have occurred even in the three years since I was last there. I refer in particular to the enormous burgeoning in the numbers of comfortably-off black middle class people, particularly in Johannesburg itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, also made a wide-ranging speech covering both the history of South Africa, about which he knows a great deal, and also what he imagines to be current affairs and sentiments in South Africa, about which I venture to say he is somewhat less up to date. I would gladly correct him on two or three points if time permitted and if the debate covered South Africa as a whole, but time does not permit and the debate does not, alas, cover South Africa as a whole, and so I think I ought to return to the actual Question asked by my noble friend.
I have a very slight reservation about the framing of the Unstarred Question in that it suggests obliquely that problems are concentrated mainly in urban areas and that more effective urbanisation is the key to the problem. I realise that it is now somewhat unfashionable but I still believe that there is a good deal to be said, in social terms even if not in strict economic terms, for bringing work to people rather than encouraging people to flock hundreds of miles for work, thereby avoiding the creation of massive, unwieldy, polluted, crime-ridden, slum-infested conurbations on the Latin American model. I see no joy in turning Johannesburg into a replica of Mexico City or Lima.
Apart from the merits of the geographical diversification of industry— we call it regional policy in this country— surely there is still a great deal to be said for improving agricultural techniques. After all, there is nothing wrong with the soil of the Transkei that proper terracing and crop rotation would not cure. This would raise the rural standard of living generally as well as the urban standard of living.
It was good incidentally to see the improved quality of rural housing both in the Transkei and in KwaZulu. It was particularly interesting to hear of a new scheme recently devised by the electricity board in Natal to connect dwellings in rural areas to the electricity supply on an ingenious low-cost basis, thereby not only improving the quality of life for the occupants but also raising their standard of living. As I understand it, it costs almost three times as much to cook using paraffin as it does using electricity. Whether British assistance has been concentrated on urban or rural areas or both, it is obvious that calls on the Government's purse, or to be more accurate, the taxpayers' purse, must inevitably be strictly limited.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lindsey, said, there are a great many other parts of the world— that is, not just other parts of Africa, but parts of Asia, Latin
488
America and the Caribbean— where poverty is very much greater than in South Africa. They must therefore have an equal or greater claim on our financial generosity. That is not to say that there should not be as much direct economic assistance as can be afforded, but it should be carefully and precisely targeted. For example, there could be assistance for vocational training, especially in trades connected with housing. I refer to vocational training of bricklayers, plasterers, joiners, electricians, plumbers and so on, in view of the urgent need, as has already been said, for very much more low-cost housing.
A number of middle-classs black parents told me that they are particularly anxious for their sons— and in some instances their daughters— to receive training in business administration. Therefore a few bursaries in this respect might not be totally amiss. It is gratifying to know that it is business administration and technical skills generally to which so many people aspire these days rather than the law.
But the main thrust of British government assistance ought really to come from the removal of artificially created obstacles to growth in the South African economy— by which, of course, I mean sanctions. There is a naive notion— not, I may say, shared by such far-sighted intelligent blacks as the editor of the Soweto newspaper— which is prevalent not only in ANC and PNC circles but also in certain circles overseas that South Africa is a "rich" country and that all one has to do is to dig billions of dollars' worth of gold out of the ground with a spade and then everyone will live in the lap of luxury for evermore. There are thinly populated countries such as Kuwait or Libya which can indeed live fairly well off their mineral wealth, provided that the price of that wealth holds up. In contrast. South Africa has a large and extremely rapidly growing population, to say nothing of such endemic disadvantages as a totally inadequate water supply for the population which is projected for the year 2000 and beyond.
The South African economy may not be completely a tender plant, but it still needs careful nurturing if it is to get anywhere near to performing the miracles which are expected of it in the future for the people of the region. In parenthesis I should say that the notion that South Africa can ever emulate Taiwan or South Korea is a total pipe dream. I contend that for reasons into which I shall not go on this occasion.
There is another hazard which must be mentioned, unpleasant though it is. There are 60,000 black people with AIDS in South Africa at present. A medical conference in Johannesburg at the end of last month forecast that that figure would double every eight-and-a-half months. I wonder whether your Lordships realise the full significance of that fact. It means that 500,000 cases of AIDS are expected by the middle of 1992, a million cases by the spring of 1993 and 2 million by Christmas 1993; that is, if the projections given by the conference prove to be correct. It is a most horrifying thought.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord will allow me to intervene at this point.

489
Can he say how many cases of AIDS there are among the white population?
Lord Monson: My Lords, there are a few cases. Without being too flippant, I think I can say that I read somewhere that it is fairly prevalent among the stewards of South African Airways and so on, and among the white homosexual community generally. However, AIDS is not in any way endemic in the heterosexual white population as it is among the black population generally.
To the extent that sanctions work— and I am bound to say that during my entire trip I never heard the word "sanctions" mentioned— they tend to drive many thousands of highly skilled and qualified people with internationally marketable skills to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on. That has a very adverse effect upon the country and therefore, naturally, upon the well-being of the inhabitants of all races.
Political consequences also flow from that emigration. The people who emigrate tend to be well disposed to the idea of rapid political change, not least because if the gamble fails they at least have skills which they can take elsewhere. In contrast, those who stay behind— that is, those without internationally marketable skills and, in some cases, without even internally marketable skills— tend to be highly resistant to change, as one might expect. In my opinion the real division among South African whites is not between Afrikaner and British; it is between those with higher education who may indeed be mainly of British descent and those without higher education. The differences go very deep. Next, as we know, sanctions cause unemployment among the whites, the coloureds, the Indians and the blacks. However, this occurs mainly among the blacks, with great attendant hardship because unemployment pay is very low.
This may come as a surprise to noble Lords, but it was heartening to observe how little racial hostility or even tension there is in South Africa at the moment. Judging by the press reports of court cases, such unprovoked racial attacks as there are seem predominantly the work of young unemployed people on both sides. Surely we have learnt from 21 years of bloody conflict in Northern Ireland that the more unemployment that exists among working-class Catholics and Protestants, the more likely they are to attack one another. Why should working-class whites and blacks, respectively, in South Africa react any differently? Multicultural, multiracial and multilingual societies are fragile and volatile at the best of times. We need look only at Transylvania, Kosovo, Nagorno Karabakh, the Punjab, the beautiful island of Sri Lanka, the Palestinian West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Cyprus and Northern Ireland, to name but a few.
The only way such societies have a hope of functioning smoothly— Belgium is one example; we must remember how great the tensions were between the Walloons and the Flemings at the end of World War Two— without strife and tension, is in conditions of increasing prosperity for all sections of the community and minimal unemployment. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do
490
everything they can to help bring about those conditions.
9.15 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for giving us the opportunity to discuss not just the Question on the Order Paper but some of the implications of that Question. He put most eloquently and clearly the situation as he has seen it over the past three months in South Africa. How lucky we are to have someone who was in the country on 2nd February, who heard the speech of President de Klerk and witnessed the release of Mr. Mandela. Many of the figures he gave and much of the picture of South Africa that he painted is helpful and interesting to anyone who takes an interest in developments in South Africa.
I am not sure that I share the optimism of some of the noble Lord's remarks or some of his ideas as to how matters may progress. I share the realism, if I may put it that way, of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. I would not call his views pessimistic because I know him well. I know of his long involvement in and knowledge of that country. What appears to be a pessimistic view of the way things will develop is based upon many years of experience. Many of the things he said tonight must be borne well in mind. I wish that the two noble Lords could continue what seemed, at the beginning of the debate, to be a two-horse race on television or the radio; because what they both have to say would be of enormous interest and importance to many people in this country. I hope that that point will be listened to somewhere in the House.
The Question on the Order Paper is not easy to answer. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply, to which I shall listen carefully. There is no doubt about the British potential to help economically and socially in South Africa and in many other areas of the world. The question at this stage seems to be whether direct intervention is suitable, necessary or something that we want. I doubt whether there is much that we could do at this stage and whether it would be welcomed.
There is one thing that we must do— I agree here with the right reverend Prelate: we must trust what was said on that momentous day (2nd February) by President de Klerk and accept it with relief We welcome of course the long-awaited release of Mr. Mandela. What president de Klerk suggests is a new South Africa, cleansed of the obscenity of apartheid, creating a new unity among all races with justice, both social and economic, to bind together a new nation where humanity replaces systemised victimisation and persecution and structured racial privilege.
That is what is suggested and is what is required and what we would all want. However, nothing that I have read or heard has mentioned the future. We are talking about the present. President de Klerk has been talking about what will happen now and what steps he intends to take. I have not been able to determine any clear idea of how things will progress, or indeed what system of government President de

491
Klerk has in mind. What kind of government will be adopted and what will be the exact nature of the constitution of a new South Africa? What sequence of events will lead towards universal suffrage? That can be the only answer in South Africa and the only thing that the black population will accept. They will accept nothing less.
Let us be under no illusions as to how it came about that on 2nd February President de Klerk made his historic speech. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that that speech was made as a result of tremendous pressure from within his country and outside, and as a result of a situation of increasing economic stagnation. I agree that the country has enormous potential and riches, but financially it is not a country that many South Africans would describe as vibrant and productive at this stage.
We have heard the speeches of Mr. Mandela. No one who has heard his speeches or seen him on television can have remained unimpressed by the dignity and restraint of the content of his messages. However, it is clear that, as regards Mr. Mandela and the black people for whom he speaks, it is not enough just to clear away the exterior fabric of the apartheid system. That will not be accepted by the black population of South Africa. The imbalance between the races as regards social and economic affairs is a problem which President de Klerk faces. The resolution of that imbalance must be a formidable task for him. We must believe him to be sincere in his wish to create a new South Africa, because only by creating a new South Africa can that country survive and be in a position to develop its undoubted potential.
But before we or any other country can offer South Africa help of the kind suggested in this Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, changes in South Africa must be initiated and be seen to be progressing, and be seen to be taken by South Africans themselves. There will have to be a massive re-education of people of all races in South Africa. That again is a huge problem. That cannot be achieved overnight. It will take many years to change attitudes that have been hardened over many years of structured racism, from whichever quarter they emerge.
How does one carve out of that sad history a common sense of identity? Other noble Lords have referred to that matter. That common sense of identity is, I believe, absolutely essential for the future of South Africa. As regards the economy of that country, how will the Government of South Africa go about controlling and guiding an economy where the vast majority of people perceive themselves to be disadvantaged? That is another enormous problem. It is hard to see how a free market can work initially in South Africa under such conditions. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, but I believe that a degree of nationalisation in South Africa has to be faced. That is in general something that is not particularly attractive to me, and I daresay it is not particularly attractive to the Minister. Nevertheless, I venture to suggest that in the situation in South Africa that I have described state control will be necessary to
492
nurture the development of the economy in order for it to ripen and succeed.
Fears and passions obviously run high in South Africa. Among the blacks we know what resentment has built up and what they now expect. Unless they see the kind of development that has been signalled by President de Klerk, and should the edifice of apartheid remain and all that we have seen and heard be purely cosmetic, I am afraid that there will be enormous violence and mayhem in that country. All reasonable people of all races in South Africa know full well that black domination cannot replace white domination. That would produce catastrophe.
I was heartened to see a television programme on Channel 4— another of that channel's brilliant programmes— on a debate which took place at Stellenbosch University a short time ago. It included a representative number of leading figures in Afrikaner life. Unhappily, representatives of the Conservative Party declined the invitation to attend. It was explained that that was because of the presence of an Afrikaner poet who had been imprisoned for terrorism some years previously.
The commitment that was shown among the members of that group was impressive and fascinating. The difficulties that they faced were not ignored by any of the politicians and intellectuals who were gathered there. They take a particular interest in the future development of the country because the Afrikaner community has an enormous historical and cultural commitment. They are Africans— that is what Afrikaner means.
It was interesting to learn from that programme that it is calculated that between 7 per cent. and 10 per cent. of all Afrikaners are unashamedly zenophobic or racist, and will have nothing whatever to do with anything short of partition in their country. One may think that 7 per cent. to 10 per cent. is a small number. Those views are not held only by Afrikaners; they are also held by many other white South Africans, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, will confirm. That represents a significant, hard view which has to be taken into account. It is no good writing it off. Those people have to be accommodated, changed, and shown that there is another way.
Many more South Africans are worried and uncertain but know that change has to take place. There is a will in society in South Africa to achieve a new, strong and humane state. However, the problems and the fear of the future will be difficult to overcome. We wish them well in their immense task.
The British have enormous influence in many of the countries to the north of South Africa. I spent some time in those countries during the 1970s. At that time it was impossible for me to go to South Africa even if I had wanted to. Most of those countries became independent in the 1960s. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said about their trading with South Africa. Those of us with any knowledge of Africa know that all those countries trade with South Africa, as the noble, Lord St. John, said; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said, they have no alternative. They were put in that position by the British Government.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is not only former British colonies which trade with South Africa. It is also former French colonies for which we cannot be held responsible.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, but I did not wish to bring the French into the argument at this stage. That would complicate matters enormously.
In those countries where British influence is still strong., there has been a sad miscalculation of the future of Africa in which those countries would play a part. Their agriculture has become inefficient, their views about industrialisation have not come to fruition and they have become increasingly impoverished, corrupt and inefficient.
Nevertheless, the British still have enormous influence in those countries. It is to be hoped that the new South Africa that we all wish to appear will be of enormous value to those countries because, after all, South Africa— a prosperous South Africa with the identity that I have described— will be a way of bringing black Africa out of the enormous pit of despair, poverty and disease into which it has sunk. When the potential of South Africa has been realised, they can help practically with technology and economic aid.
The changes in Eastern Europe are already felt in Africa where Soviet and Eastern bloc support for some African countries created alarming tension with the West which reacted accordingly. I recently met an Ethiopian businessman who had come from Addis Ababa on a purchasing mission. He said that in that country, where there is a repressive and violent Marxist regime, there have already been signs that changes are taking place there because they fear that the support which they had hitherto has now evaporated.
Africa is therefore in a state of change. South Africa is in a state of change. Surely now is the time for Britain to prepare for a new Africa and to help it as best it can to develop quickly, although such change will not be rapid. We must have faith. The possibility is there. The scenario has been well described by other noble Lords. To reiterate the words of the right reverend Prelate, we must, above all, have trust.
9.33 p m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for giving us this opportunity because, after all, the subject of South Africa is close to our thoughts and hopes. I found the account of his recent visit that the noble Lord gave of great fascination and very moving.
We began to hope for South Africa when the South African president took the first step towards setting up a new order in his country. Since then, we have allowed our hopes to grow as we marvel at Mr. Mandela's actions and words, his genuine wish for reconciliation and his lack of bitterness or feeling of revenge. Those are a great factor in the future of South Africa.
This evening, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, asks how Her Majesty's Government can best
494
assist the South African Government in solving their social and economic problems. I shall confine myself to that question. As noble Lords have said, there can be little doubt that the social and economic situation in South Africa is fundamentally affected by the political regime. While apartheid is in place, there can be no instant cure for the economic ills of the country and the deplorable social conditions of the black population.
Her Majesty's Government believe that the best way of giving support to President de Klerk in his attempts to move his country toward a democratic non-racist system and thereby re-establish economic strength, is by the removal of sanctions. The noble Lord, Lord St. John, and the noble Earl who spoke this evening— and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Monson— all agree with him.
Although we on these Benches share the same hope and aim as Her Majesty's Government— we also want a democratic, non-racist South Africa— we see differently the way to achieve it. We believe that we should remain in line with our European partners with regard to sanctions and wait for the political dialogue in South Africa to develop. We believe that the process of dismantling apartheid should at least be put in motion before the outside world gives South Africa the economic support afforded by the lifting of sanctions, and also the accolade that would go with it. To me at any rate it would also seem prudent to allow the anti-apartheid movement to retain in its hands the all-important trump card (if I may call it that) of sanctions, to assist in its long and complex negotiations with the South African Government regarding the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke about the effects of sanctions in South Africa. Nevertheless no doubt he would agree that there is another side to that issue— the withdrawal of American banks and businesses and the, so to speak, unofficial sanctions undoubtedly were highly instrumental in bringing about the present change and improved situation in South Africa.
I should like to say just a few words about South Africa's social problems. I have only a superficial knowledge of those problems through visiting many ODA-assisted projects in townships when I was last in South Africa in 1988. That is rather later than the noble Lords who spoke previously. First, it must be recognised that most of the social problems of black South Africans are a direct result of apartheid. For example, while South Africa is the richest country in sub-Saharan Africa, measured by per capita income, according to data from the World Bank the average life expectancy of birth there is lower than that in the neighbouring country of Zimbabwe. Research shows that 52·2 per cent. of all blacks lived below the minimum living level poverty line in 1985 compared with only 1·6 per cent. of all whites. Unemployment among blacks is immensely high. In fact, as estimated by a Wits University professor in 1986, the figure was between 4· million and 5·5 million. The housing situation, which has been mentioned this evening, is again deplorable. With the acute shortage of land and lack of state provision of low income housing, as many as one in every six South Africans

495
are homeless. While the Group Area Act remains, as has already been said little can be done to remedy the situation.
The fact that the Urban Foundation in conjunction with the private sector has announced a new scheme to provide finance for low-cost housing is not a way of dealing with the problem. Surely it is the responsibility of government to provide housing which is needed on such an enormous scale. From those few figures it is quite clear that black South Africans have very little share in their country's prosperity. It is quite clear that the social problems affecting them can only be satisfactorily solved with the removal of apartheid.
So the question is: what can be done in this transitional period? What can be done to work towards setting up mechanisms to deal with social problems at the same time as negotiations are set in motion to resolve the political future of South Africa? Since 1979 Britain has provided assistance for black South Africans through a bilateral programme providing scholarships, the financing of educational and community development activities and for self-help projects in the very deprived urban and rural areas. Britain has also contributed to the special programme of assistance for black South Africans set up by the European Community.
I have visited many self-help projects in the black townships— Soweto, Crossroads, Alexandria. I have visited such projects in Sudan, Kenya and Northern Ireland. Those are projects of exactly the same kind but with a great difference. Most of the projects that I visited in the black townships were necessary only because of apartheid. I remember visiting a project where bricks were being made. I asked why it was necessary for that project to fabricate bricks. I was told that it was impossible for the blacks in the township to purchase bricks.
We must plan our assistance so that it is channelled in the best possible way to give support to the South African people. One channel for that has now been created by the development of a mass democratic movement and the setting up of the Kagiso Trust. It is by working through the people who have brought about change in South Africa— those who know the needs of the South African people, who are working on the ground— that the social problems can be finally dealt with. Britain must continue to provide assistance. But it must be assistance which is agreed with the ANC rather than solely with the South African Government.
I should like to make one other point, regarding the participation of international organisations in South Africa. At the present time there are no United Nations organisations operating in a country where apartheid is central to the political system. There is therefore no presence in South Africa. But I believe that the time has now come to develop an ongoing dialogue between the relevant UN agencies and bodies and those who will help to lead the post-apartheid South Africa. I am thinking of such bodies as the UN Development Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation, the International Labour
496
Organisation, UNESCO, UNICEF and the office of the UN High Commission for Refugees. I also believe that the role of the two great financial institutions— the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund— need to be thought through.
Although some of those bodies, such as the UNHCR, already have links outside South Africa with the ANC, I can foresee much possible co-operation in the future— as the development policies of the Government in post-apartheid South Africa are planned and implemented— with whoever forms that post-apartheid government. Such complex issues as land tenure and agricultural development, the provision of help in improving basic health care, educational opportunities, industrial relations, urban and rural housing and the return of refugees in their initial resettlement, will all come within the possible remit of the UN.
Given the costs and complexities of the dismantling of apartheid, the UN will surely have a key role to play, both in planning and in helping to finance and implement major programmes. The UN agencies should at least be considering how to set about this preliminary work for the future, and Her Majesty's Government should be encouraging that process.
Through my involvement with UNICEF with the British committee, I assure your Lordships that the role of UNICEF would be enormous in South Africa. In fact, its absence now is very noticeable. It leaves a great void. Very little is known about children's issues in South Africa— such issues as the level of child mortality rates, the level of immunisation, of malnutrition, and indeed the effect that conflict will have on the emotional development of children. As Nelson Mandela said, when adults suffer they can take it, but the suffering of children has lifelong effects. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hatch in saying that it is a terrible heritage for the future for South Africa to have had a generation of children who have suffered and who have seen such terrible events in their childhood.
For the time being, UNICEF can fill a role only from the sidelines in providing support to South Africa's NGOs, which are concerned with children. It can assist with the work of researching the needs of children in South Africa. It can focus international attention on the needs of those children. It is preparatory for the day when the political situation will make it possible for the agency to operate within the country.
I am sure that we all fervently hope that the intolerable system of apartheid will be lifted, and that the people of South Africa will be brought back into the international family. At that point the people in the rest of the world will go the same way as have black South Africans; they will try to forgive and forget and give their support to the rebuilding of that country.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject of South Africa this evening. It is a country in which there

497
have recently been political developments of great importance. He introduced the debate with a humane and realistic speech. His knowledge about the matters of which he speaks is second to none in your Lordships' House, and we must all listen with respect to what he says. I have also listened with interest to the contributions of other noble Lords who have spoken. I welcome this opportunity to set out in your Lordships' House the Government's approach and record on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Lindsey is right in saying that South Africa is potentially a very wealthy country. It is rich in mineral resources and agriculturally productive land. It has the most developed industrial base and sophisticated infastructure in Africa. It is all the more tragic therefore that many South Africans suffer extreme social and economic deprivation. A recent study estimates that some 15 million South Africans (out of a total population of more than 30 million) live in conditions of absolute poverty. For many South Africans housing conditions in the towns and in the countryside are primitive, and schooling, where it exists at all, is rudimentary. Unemployment is high; even conservative estimates put this at 11 per cent. South Africa's population is increasing at the rate of 2 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord St. John, gave even more statistics to illustrate the burden that that poses on the economy.
These problems are not unique to South Africa. Similar conditions exist across Africa, Asia and Latin America. The difference is that South Africa has the resources to improve them. But real progress cannot be made while apartheid still exists and I agree with the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness. The injustice and disproportionate distribution of wealth inherent in apartheid has ensured that, for example, average white per capita income is four times higher than it is for blacks. The South African Government spend approximately six times as much educating a white pupil as a black pupil. Last year only 9 per cent. of the 196,000 black students who sat the South African matriculation exam passed well enough to be eligible to go to university (the corresponding figure for whites was 42 per cent.). Moreover, apartheid has bred an inflated bureaucracy and a multiplicity and racially inspired regulations. These are a heavy additional burden on the South African economy and prevent the growth that is essential if South Africa is to cater adequately for its growing population.
We have made no secret of our detestation of apartheid and our belief that it must be abolished. We condemn it utterly. The prime responsibility for addressing South African social and economic problems lies with the South Africans themselves. But we believe that governments with influence in South Africa, such as ourselves, have a role to play in encouraging change. We should like to see the transition to a democratic non-racial South Africa managed peacefully through negotiation, in ways which do not damage the country's economy or the basis for its future welfare. Our policy is designed to maximise the ways in which we can contribute to this objective. It is a policy of contact, not of isolation. It is a policy of applying pressure
498
on the South African Government to take concrete steps to end apartheid and encouragement when the South African Government react in a way we have urged them to do.
In the six months since he became President, Mr. de Klerk has transformed the political climate in South Africa. He has made quite clear his commitment to ending apartheid through negotiations and has taken many of the steps for which the international community has long been calling to open the way to dialogue. In doing so he has taken great risks and for him there is no going back. That is why we believe it is so important for the international community to acknowledge the steps President de Klerk has taken and to encourage him to go further. As he takes the further steps necessary to open negotiations and dismantle apartheid we shall continue to respond in a measured way with concrete gestures. We hope that the opposition groups too will respond constructively by seizing the unique opportunity President de Klerk has created to negotiate in conditions of peace a non-racial, democratic future for South Africa.
The talks due to take place on 11th April between the ANC and President de Klerk to discuss how the remaining obstacles to negotiations can be removed are welcome evidence of their readiness to do so. President de Klerk has said that he is prepared to discuss all issues with them on an open agenda including those to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred. It is only through those important contacts that negotiations proper for a new constitution for South Africa can begin. President de Klerk has said that he does not wish to prescribe the outcome of those negotiations and that it is for the representatives of the South African people to decide the form of constitution best suited to their own circumstances. We welcome those words.
We also welcome the moves the South African Government have now taken to address the country's pressing socio-economic needs. Indeed, it is their responsibility to do so, as the noble Baroness said. In the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance on 14th March he announced the setting up of a new 2 billion rand (£ 500 million) fund, specifically to help those most disadvantaged in housing, education and training, literacy and basic health care. On 16th March, President de Klerk announced an additional 1 billion rand for this fund to be raised from the proceeds of future privatisations. This is a small step in relation to the problem. But it is a signifcant one.
We believe there is also a role for outside governments. In our case, an active and carefully targeted aid programme is making a significant impact. Including our share of European community aid we shall be spending over £ 40 million in the period 1987–92. Only this week in South Africa the Foreign Secretary announced that our programme would be increased by a further £ 10 million, concentrated on education and training. We provide scholarships for undergraduate study at South African universities and for post-graduate courses and specialist training in Britain. In 1990 we will be supporting about 1,000 black South Africans in higher education both here and in South Africa. In

499
this way we are helping to prepare for the day when South Africa's black citizens will be playing a major role in government and in economic development.
All our aid is planned and implemented directly with community groups, with NGOs and some universities. Indeed, some is channelled through the very organisations mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. It is directed explicitly for the benefit of black South Africans, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was alleging in his closing words; and the South African Government are not involved in the programmes.
Others too are helping. The European Community's positive measures programme, which is likely to focus increasingly on education, housing, and other humanitarian support, will total around £ 15 million this year. Our contribution will be around £ 3 million. The United Nations and the Commonwealth secetariat both run scholarship schemes for black South Africans to each of which we are contributing £ 75,000 this year. Other bilateral donors with substantial aid programmes for black South Africans include the United States, West Germany and Canada.
We are also contributing to a major initiative to help ease the tremendous housing problems caused by a combination of population growth and rapid urbanisation in the 1980s. We are contributing ourselves, and successfully encouraged others to contribute, to a scheme set up by the Urban Foundation aimed at generating new low-cost owner-occupied homes for a quarter of a million black South Africans over the next five years using private sector finance. We have also helped finance schemes to help shack-dwellers rebuild their homes after flood damage and to protect their homes more effectively from wind and rain. We would like to do
500
more to help those who cannot afford formal housing and are looking at ways of expanding our assistance to the squatter settlements.
We are providing support to over 250 community projects throughout the country both in urban and rural areas. These include community centres, self-help manufacturing projects, support for community-based health clinics, old peoples homes, covered markets and support for schools.
Our aid programme is therefore focused on just those areas identified by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso; education, housing, employment creation and health. It also reaches many of the rural areas which receive no other outside support. That was a point the noble Lord, Lord Monson, brought to our attention.
Together our political and aid programmes are an effective and practical demonstration of our determination to contribute to the ending of apartheid in South Africa. Our approach is two-fold: pressure on all parties in South Africa to bring about the conditions in which negotiations to end apartheid can take place, and practical help to alleviate the social and economic problems its victims face. In this way we can play a role in ensuring a brighter political, social and economic future for all the people of South Africa.

Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes before ten o'clock.

  CONSUMER PANEL MEMBERSHIP
  CONSUMER PANEL MEMBERSHIP
  NEW COVENT GARDEN MARKET
  NEW COVENT GARDEN MARKET
  BEEF OFFALS: IMPORTS FROM IRELAND
  BEEF OFFALS: IMPORTS FROM IRELAND
  STUDENT LOANS
  STUDENT LOANS