Sitting of 14 May 1990

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

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's assessment of the effect of privatisation on price rises in the electricity industry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): I believe that the competition created by privatisation will bring benefits to all electricity consumers both in the price and in the quality of service.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that, now that inflation is climbing towards 10 per cent. and is likely to go even higher, although the price index that he has concocted will mean higher profits for the few, it will mean increased prices for domestic and industrial consumers, particularly in deprived areas such as Merseyside?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Customers consuming more than 1 MW are already benefiting from competition in the market and many have negotiated large price reductions. For those who need more time to negotiate longer-term arrangements, the industry has offered a real terms price freeze this year. For customers consuming less than 1 MW, the average increase this year will be about 9 per cent., but the price controls on the industry should prevent any further real increase until at least April 1993. That is good news for those consumers.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whereas privatisation usually brings down prices through competition, when new environmental protection mea-sures are to be introduced, they will incur extra costs, and the public must realise that they will add to prices?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes some very sound points. Of course, competition will be of benefit to the customer and the consumer. It will be for the generators to determine how best to meet the European Community large plant directive, but the capital costs of flue gas desulphurisation will be taken into account in setting the capital structures of National Power and PowerGen.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that, if a distribution company loses trade to other generators that supply power direct, its domestic consumers will find themselves making up the difference? Is not that why,
    580
    under the new scheme, the Merseyside and north Wales company will be entitled in future to impose price increases of 2·5 per cent. above inflation?
    Mr. Baldry: Price increases vary among the different companies, as they have in the past, reflecting the fact that they have different costs and earn different rates of return. Of course, it will be for the director general to monitor and enforce the licence conditions. The Opposition would do better to refrain from any comment on electricity prices, because during the last five years of the Labour Government, in real terms industrial prices rose by 1 per cent. and domestic prices by a staggering 22 per cent.

    British Coal
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State far Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the coal industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the coal industry.
    Mr. Baldry: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer these two questions together.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Minister meets the chairman of British Coal, will he discuss stocks at power stations? Is he aware that, under the privatisation legislation and the office of fuel security code, the equivalent of three months' worth of coal stocks would have to be kept by a small power station whereas the same does not apply to oil and gas? Surely that cannot be right according to the hon. Gentleman's ideas of fair competition. It means that the market is rigged against coal. When the hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of British Coal, will he make it clear that coal will not be treated adversely compared with oil and gas and other forms of fuel. Otherwise coal will carry a handicap that it does not deserve.
    Mr. Baldry: I should have made it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    British Coal has negotiated with the generators three-year coal contracts that will give the coal industry a stable future. British Coal is much more optimistic about its prospects than is the hon. Gentleman. The chairman recently commented that the contracts provide the coal industry with a known sales prospectus against which to plan and operate.
    Mr. Skinner: The man's thick.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Cummings.
    Mr. Cummings: When the Minister next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he tell him of the worries and frustrations of the miners and community of the Easington district, which he visited 10 days ago, about the 40,000 tonnes of imported low-sulphur coal that arrived in Hartlepool a week before his visit?
    Will he tell the chairman of British Coal of the worries of Easington district council about the proposed use of the Murton colliery spoil heaps, which are of strategic importance to the district's plans for the regeneration of industry and the provision of industrial estates?

    581
    Will he inform the miners of Easington colliery of their worth in terms of productivity and efficiency, even in the most exhausting circumstances that have arisen from recent flooding? Will he—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may ask only one question; otherwise he is not being fair to his colleagues.
    Mr. Cummings: Will the Minister give those miners some support and reassure them about the future of Easington colliery?
    Mr. Baldry: I welcomed my recent opportunity to visit East Durham coalfield and Easington colliery in particular. It seemed to me that, if Easington colliery continued to be productive, it had a sound future.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about coal imports. It is important to put those matters in perspective at all times. In 1988, the major importers of coal were the iron and steel industry and in that year total coal consumption in the power stations was 88 million tonnes, of which only 2·4 per cent. was imported. One has to put the matter in its context.
    During my visit to East Durham coalfield, the hon. Gentleman and others showed me areas about which they were concerned—one of which was the surplus land at Murton colliery. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have pursued the matter with British Coal and, as he also knows, British Coal has sought tenders for the sale of surplus land at that colliery. Once the site is restored, it should be eminently suitable for industrial and commercial development and I know that that will be warmly welcomed by Easington district council.
    The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the Department of Trade and Industry, with the support of Durham county council and Easington district council, is committed to establishing a task force to co-ordinate activities aimed at the continued economic regeneration of the East Durham coalfield area.
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that that response has demonstrated to the House what happens if— [Interruption.] It was not the Minister's fault. He was asked a number of questions. It would help if hon. Members asked single questions.
    Dr. Michael Clark: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he review with him the achievements of British Coal Enterprise, which, in the past five years, has created 1,640 jobs on sites no longer used by British Coal? In particular, will he congratulate the chairman of British Coal Enterprise on the success of Carcroft enterprise park where 60 companies now employ 500 people—more than were employed when British Coal was pursuing activities there five years ago?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Only the week before last I had the opportunity to see for myself the work of British Coal Enterprise and its projects in Blyth valley and Newcastle. Through a whole host of schemes, British Coal Enterprise has helped to create several new jobs in areas that previously had coal mining industries. It is important to bear in mind the fact that coal mining is an extractive industry. Ever since the last war capacity in coal mining areas has been closing and the largest closures took place under the Labour Government
    582
    of 1964 to 1970. So what British Coal Enterprise is doing is extremely constructive, in trying to ensure that new jobs replace those that may be lost in the coal industry.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Although British Coal has undoubtedly made enormous strides over the past few years and deserves to look forward to a stable future, I am concerned about that future for the east midlands. I am concerned that some of our major power stations may use gas or imported coal to meet existing and future environmental standards. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give us some assurances about that?
    Mr. Baldry: There is a question later on the Order Paper about flue gas desulphurisation. However, it might be helpful if I try to deal with my hon. Friend's question on that subject now. It must be borne in mind that under the European Community large plant directive there are three target dates: 1993, 1998 and 2003. We know how much coal British Coal will send to the generators in 1993 because that is part of the coal contracts that have already been entered into and that is a firm contractual commitment. Under that contractual commitment, British Coal has nothing to fear from gas or imported coal because we know the amount that will be used in 1993.
    The retrofitting to which the generators are already committed—the 8 GW—will enable them to meet the target under the European Community large plant directive for 1998. It is perfectly possible for generators to burn as much coal in 1998 as in 1993, if they so choose. We must put those concerns into perspective. However, the amount of coal that the generators burn will always depend on the competitiveness of coal in relation to other fuels.
    Mr. Benn: How can the Minister justify importing low-sulphur coal, which has a total foreign currency content, at a time when the Government are cutting investment in the scrubbing plant that would reduce pollution from coal produced in this country? Is the Minister aware that if Common Market regulations on sulphur emissions are applied by the end of the century, the coal import bill could be getting on for £2 billion a year against a background of an appalling balance of payments deficit? That would also freeze underground Britain's greatest natural resource.
    Mr. Baldry: It is not the Government's policy to prevent coal users from purchasing coal from the source of their choice. However, as I have already explained, only 2·4 per cent. of coal used by power stations is imported. Restricting competition from other coal will not bring long-term security to the British coal industry. The best protection is to produce reliable supplies that are competitive in the world market.

    Power Generation
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of how much power was generated from waste incineration and landfill gas schemes in 1989.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): Power generation capacity from waste incineration and landfill gas schemes during 1989 has been estimated at about 36 MW. Of that total, nearly 20 MW was from waste incineration and 16 MW from landfill gas schemes.
    Mr. Moss: In view of the contribution that methane gas makes to the greenhouse effect, is not it vital that that gas is harnessed whenever possible for the generation of power? In that regard, is not the Government's policy on ring-fencing renewables within the non-fossil fuel obligation welcomed by environmentalists and electricity consumers alike and likely to lead to an even greater use of landfill gas schemes in future?
    Mr. Morrison: The non-fossil fuel obligation, and its renewable aspect is very important. Our estimate for landfill gas schemes is that the capacity will increase to 60 MW by 1992 and to between 150 MW and 175 MW by the end of the century.
    Mr. Haynes: I want the Minister to listen carefully. I agree with incinerating waste for energy purposes, but the Minister must seriously consider cancelling the landfill business because it creates a time bomb for many areas. The Minister knows what I am talking about. I hope that the Department of Energy will take my points on board, with a view to stopping that process.
    Mr. Morrison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listened carefully—I could hardly do otherwise. However, he and I must agree to disagree on this matter because the production of landfill gas is a useful way of generating electricity.

    Renewable Energy Sources
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much his Department is investing in the development of renewable sources of energy.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Energy paper 55 sets out a 10-year programme of research and development worth £360 million with costs shared between Government and industry. This year, my Department expects to spend just over £20 million on renewable energy research.
    Mr. Mans: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. None the less, does he agree that in the medium term, renewable sources of energy will still constitute only a small percentage of our total energy needs and that the further development of other energy sources, such as nuclear power, which is so important to the north-west, should go ahead?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of nuclear power. As I, too, come from the north-west, I know how dependent we are up there on the nuclear industry. However, the necessary development and research into renewables is the right course to take.
    Dr. Kim Howells: As the Minister will be aware, on 28 March the EC agreed to a package of aid for this country to the tune of about £2·5 billion to cover our present and future liabilities for the nuclear industry. What sort of package did the Government aim for with regard to renewable sources of energy? Is it of the same order, and if so, what sort of projects will it cover?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my reply to the original question when I talked about £360 million of further research and development, shared between Government and industry. The obvious renewable energy sources will be considered, such as wind, wave and landfill gas production.

    Coal Privatisation
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made in preparing the coal industry for privatisation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Baldry: The coal market is being progressively opened up to greater competition. Privatisation of the coal industry is a matter for the next Parliament.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that with the closure of 90 pits, and a work force that is halving but with output remaining the same—mainly because of the 75 per cent. increase in productivity—the coal industry is moving inevitably towards privatisation? Does he further agree that the people of Great Britain will ask the Labour party time and again why it did not condemn the miners' strike in 1984–85? Is not it now apparent that the union leaders took Libyan blood money when they should have been looking after the interests of their members?
    Mr. Baldry: It remains the Government's firm intention to introduce legislation in the next Parliament to return British Coal's mining activities to the private sector. The way in which British Coal returns to the private sector will, to a certain extent, depend on the increases in productivity that the coal mining industry makes in the meantime. The activities of the National Union of Mineworkers during the strike are a matter for which the leadership will have to answer to its members. The future of the coal industry depends on it increasing its productivity. I believe that the industry has the investment and the technology and, more importantly, that it has the men with the skills, to make that possible.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that some of my hon. Friends will think that he was less than candid when he told us that there were no plans for privatising the coal industry? Does he accept that some of us think that plans for privatising the coal industry have already been made? Is he aware that there is great concern about the code of practice and the regulations governing safety in the mining industry and that there is little consultation between all the unions involved? The Minister should know that the Department of Energy has a joint consultative role when deciding on safety measures in the coal industry.
    Mr. Baldry: Obviously, I did not make myself clear enough, so for the avoidance of any doubt let me make it quite clear that when the Conservative party wins the next general election, it will privatise the coal industry. Let there be no doubt about that. But let there also be no doubt that Conservative Members are as committed to safety in the coal industry as is the hon. Gentleman, and safety in the coal industry is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my hon. Friend noticed that some of the best privatised industries have been formed as a result of workers' buy-outs? Therefore, will he assure the House that when British Coal is privatised after the next election, he will welcome offers from the National Union of Mineworkers to run the industry, as it seems to think that it knows better than British Coal?
    Mr. Baldry: As I have made clear, once we have won the next general election, we shall consider how to take

    585
    forward our proposals to privatise the industry. Clearly, employee participation is one factor that it will be important to consider.
    Mr. Doran: Where are the Government's policies?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman asks where our policies are. Our policy is clearly that we intend to privatise the coal industry. That is clearer than the Labour party's policies on energy generally. If The Sunday Correspondent is to be believed, even such detailed policies as the Labour party has had on energy are now being abandoned as too turgid.
    Mr. Morgan: The Minister seems to be giving a display of the old English proverb: When Blackadder is away, Baldrick will play. Will he give serious thought to the fact that coal privatisation has just been put back five years, in part because of the abandonment of the qualifying industrial users schemes, by which large, intensive electricity users were able to buy some of their marginal coal at cheaper world prices? One of the beneficiaries of that practice was Brymbo steelworks, the closure of which was announced this morning, with the loss of about 1,000 jobs in the Wrexham area and of roughly the equivalent of the output of one medium-sized coal mine. That will impose a considerable additional burden on all domestic electricity users in the Merseyside and north Wales area, who will have to pick up the tab for the 200 MW worth of lost electricity sales in that district. Will the Minister confirm that one of the effects of the abandonment of the qualifying industrial users schemes for large coal users has been that users such as the sadly departed Brymbo steelworks expect a rise of 60 per cent. in three years in the price that they will pay for their industrial electricity?
    Mr. Baldry: The proposals to privatise the coal industry have not been set back by one day. The previous Secretary of State made a clear commitment to privatise the coal industry in the first half of the next Parliament. He made that commitment in November 1988——
    Mr. Barron: That was the historic pledge.
    Mr. Baldry: As the hon. Gentleman says, the historic pledge. That commitment to privatise the coal industry was restated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a reply on 30 April this year, and again when he was in Nottingham earlier this month. Let me make it clear, because it seems that Opposition Members have not understood it: when we win the next general election, the Conservative Government will privatise the coal industry. That will happen during the lifetime of the next Parliament, and not one day has been lost in that commitment.

    Oil and Gas Production
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the growth in oil and gas production in the south of England and in the English channel.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Production of oil and gas from onshore fields, most of which comes from southern England, has increased by about 85 per cent. since 1985. The current level is expected to increase fourfold when full
    586
    production from the second stage onshore development at Wytch farm starts later this year. There are no fields currently in production in the English channel.
    Mr. Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend assure visitors to Purbeck in my constituency of Dorset, South that when they come to that area, the site of the largest oil and gas field in the European Community, they will have the greatest ease in finding red squirrels, abundant wildlife and beautiful views, and find it almost impossible to see any sign of British Petroleum's oil extraction? Will he further reassure my constituents and visitors that, with the oilfield's expansion, his Department, in partnership with BP, will ensure that that excellent record continues?
    Mr. Morrison: I have been one of those visitors. I visited Wytch farm about two years ago and I was extremely impressed by the tremendous care that it takes of the environment. It goes into consultation in minute detail, and I have no doubt that for future stages it will consider everything that it hears and that the environment will in no sense suffer.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is just as much concern about transportation as about production of oil in the English channel? Will he have urgent talks with his colleagues in the Department of Transport to make sure that there is much better control of ships sailing under flags of convenience? Such a ship appears to have been involved in the spillage of 1,000 tonnes of crude oil in the channel over the weekend. Is he satisfied that the marine pollution control unit is doing its job properly and as quickly as possible? Above all, is he satisfied that the oil producer, or at least the transporter, will pay for the clean-up, not the poll tax payers in the coastal resorts of southern England?
    Mr. Morrison: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend's predecessor about the marine pollution control unit which led me to believe that the unit and all those involved in it are very professional.

    Flue Gas Desulphurisation
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the completion of the flue gas desulphurisation programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Baldry: Together with other measures, the 8 GW of flue gas desulphurisation retrofits that my right hon. Friend announced last month will enable National Power and PowerGen to achieve the reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions that are required by the European Community large combustion plant directive by 1998.
    Mr. Barnes: As late as last November the Prime Minister said that we were keen to get rid of our "dirty man of Europe" tag and were therefore committed to a 12,000 MW flue gas desulphurisation programme. That has now been reduced to 8,000 MW. Why is that? Is it because there is a commitment to import low-sulphur coal through ports such as those on the Humber? Why are private electricity companies given standards lower than those previously agreed with the nationalised industries?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is genuinely confused. I make it clear that the Government are determined to meet in full the European Community large plant combustion directive. The 8 GW retrofitting that has already been announced enables this country to meet in full the 1998 target. In terms of the 2003 target, the generators have not ruled out the prospect of further FGD retrofitting, but no decision needs to be taken in the immediate future for a target date that is about 13 years hence, not least because we hope that there will be continuing improvements in clean coal technology.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: What does my hon. Friend expect to be the cost of extending the principle of FGD to all coal-fired capacity in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that that would make coal a more economic method of producing power?
    Mr. Baldry: It is straightforward. This country is determined to meet the European Community large plant combustion directive. The Environmental Protection Bill will contain powers to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution can oversee the generators to make sure that they comply with the directive. It is for the generators to decide how to comply with it. The 8 GW of FGD already announced will enable National Power and PowerGen to achieve the necessary reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions that are required by the target date of 1998.
    Mr. Barron: Will the Minister answer a simple question? Why have the Government brought down the target for retrofitting FGD in Britain, designed to meet the targets agreed with EC, from 12 GW to 8 GW? What are the implications of the importation of lower-sulphur coal for our balance of payments and jobs in the mining industry? Why have the Government stood by while 49 collieries have been closed that could have supplied lower-sulphur coal to the market?
    Mr. Baldry: I again make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have not reduced the amount of retrofitting to take place in the industry. The position is straightforward. The Government and the country will meet the EC large plant combustion directive in full. How that directive is met will be the responsibility of the generators and they will have a legal and statutory obligation to do so. The 8 GW of retrofitting already announced by National Power and PowerGen will enable them to meet the 1988 target in full. With regard to the 2003 target, they have not ruled out the prospect of further retrofitting, but it is not necessary now to make decisions on a target date some 13 years hence.

    Gas Supply
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the prospects for increasing competition in the supply of gas.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: I am pleased to see early signs that competition is beginning to emerge in the supply of natural gas and I am confident that this trend will continue.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the fact that the price of gas to industrial consumers has fallen" and that the price
    588
    to the domestic consumer has also fallen if one does not take into account the rate of inflation, is a direct result of competition? Does he agree that the more competition increases the more likely we are to have lower prices?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. Competition has played an important part, as have the policies that the Government have pursued. That contrasts with what happened under the previous Labour Government; during their five years in office, prices increased substantially.
    Mr. Doran: One method that the Government are using to increase competition in the gas industry is the diversion of gas supplies to electricity generation. As there are genuine fears that that diversion will lead to increased costs for domestic consumers and an increase in the already large import bill of 15 million tonnes of gas in equivalent terms, is that method under review? Surely such a review is necessary given the two major difficulties that the Government face—inflation and our balance of trade problems.
    Mr. Morrison: I do not agree with the premise on which the hon. Gentleman asked his question. Gas is being used because it is extremely competitive; it happens to be environmentally good, too.

    Council of Energy Ministers
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he expects to attend future meetings of the European Community Council of Energy Ministers for discussions on energy saving and anti-pollution measures.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend expects to attend on 21 May the Energy Council which will consider the Commission's communication on energy and the environment, which covers energy saving.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Although, in future, energy saving will be more voluntary while anti-pollution measures are more compulsory, does my right hon. Friend agree that a package of such measures should be associated with the creation of the single market as well as the more commercial things to be done by the Department of Trade and Industry? When does my right hon. Friend believe that we shall catch up not only with the Community average on energy saving and anti-pollution measures, but with the best examples in Germany and elsewhere?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that energy saving and anti-pollution measures are not just Community matters, but worldwide ones. Therefore, it is important that Community members agree among themselves the best and most effective way ahead. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the lead we take on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a 11 to this end, is the proper way to go about things because of their global nature.

    Blaenant Colliery
    Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received on the impact of the proposed closure of Blaenant colliery on the coal industry.
    Mr. Baldry: I have received no representations on this matter.
    Mr. Coleman: Now that the closure is inevitable, which does not seem to worry the Prime Minister as she regards Welsh people as "a load of old tripe"—her words, not mine—will the hon. Gentleman say what future the coal industry has in south Wales? What is the future of the Aberthaw power station, since the industry and the power station are dependent upon coal from Blaenant for blending?
    Mr. Baldry: It is for the coal industry to decide its manpower requirements in the light of the tonnage that it can properly produce and sell in competition with other fuels. Decisions on the future of individual pits are taken by British Coal only after exhaustive review with the work force and the unions. I understand that Blaenant coal has a low volatile content and needs blending with coal from other sources to bring it to the required specification. The power station at Aberthaw can be supplied with such coal from other mines in south Wales.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Courts
    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on staffing levels in the Crown courts.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Staffing levels in the Crown court are kept under review in the light of workload trends.
    Mr. Carlile: Does the Solicitor-General agree that the heavy turnover of staff in Crown court offices is unacceptable? Does not he recognise that that is partly due to the reduction in the more senior management posts which have made a career in the Crown court unattractive?
    The Solicitor-General: I recognise the problem, particularly in London and parts of the south-east. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman about the cause, and it is worth remembering that the burden on the Crown court is down, with the number of cases committed for trial decreasing from 104,000 last year to 100,000 in the year just ended. Furthermore, the Crown prosecution service has taken on the job of drafting indictments. Obviously the career structure as a whole within the Government legal service is important.
    Mr. Lawrence: Of course, this is not the easiest time for the Treasury, but will my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the excellent reforms, transferring work from the High Court to the county court, which the Government are proposing will have important ramifications for staffing and cannot take place if the resources are not available?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. He should bear it in mind that over the past five years expenditure on the court services has increased from £145 million in 1984–85 to £261 million in 1989–90, and that there is an extra £70 million in the current year for the Lord Chancellor's Department although not all of it is for the court service.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Solicitor-General give an assurance that however much the Government want to save public expenditure on the courts they will in no way assist the National Front to become a limited liability company and possibly a charity, thereby enabling it to continue to publish material that incites racism behind a legal smokescreen which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry seems to be anxious to assist?
    The Solicitor-General: The National Front does not arise from this question. As for saving money on the courts, if an increase in expenditure of about 80 per cent. in five years, with further increases this year, is thought to be saving money, I should be interested to scrutinise the Opposition's proposed budget.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Attorney-General how many individuals were given legal aid costing £1,000 or less in the past year; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General: The great majority of legal aid payments for criminal cases in the magistrates court in 1988–90 were less than £1,000. The average bill for civil legal aid in 1988–89 was £1,153, and my hon. Friend will find fuller details in the Legal Aid Board's annul report, a copy of which is in the Library.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Kray brothers should repay any legal aid that they may have received, plus interest, out of the £266,000 so disgracefully paid to them for the film rights of their evil crimes? Will he see whether more can be done for people in need of small sums in legal aid, as he has said is already happening?
    The Solicitor-General: In so far as any criminal has resources from any source, including the sort of source mentioned, they would be taken into account in estimating legal aid entitlement. My hon. Friend was right to suggest that there has been an increase in the amount available for legal aid. During the past 11 years it has increased from £100 million to £607 million.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the Solicitor-General acknowledge that one reason why legal aid payments have increased is that the number of criminals has increased under a Tory Government? Does he further acknowledge that there is a crisis in the legal aid service because settlement for legal aid practitioners has been below the combination of the earnings index and the retail prices index? Will he and the Lord Chancelor ensure that, in the next legal aid settlement, the rate of remuneration for those carrying out legal aid work will not be lower than the rate of inflation which is chosen for those purposes?
    The Solicitor-General: On the first point, the amount being spent on legal aid has risen rapidly during our time in office. On the second point about individual annual legal aid settlements, I am not sure that I accept that the settlement for the current year was below what was reasonably to be expected.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although we want everyone to obtain justice, because of the legal aid system many people are opting for legal remedy who might otherwise settle their differences amicably? Has not it suddenly become a bottomless pit of

    591
    taxpayers' money that is for ever expanding? Should not there be more careful scrutiny of applicants and the money that they repay afterwards?
    The Solicitor-General: There should certainly be careful scrutiny. The growth in the small claims court has encouraged many more rapid and less expensive settlements. It has provided effective access to justice for cases involving below £500 and, from early next year, cases below £1,000. My hon. Friend touched on the point made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) about the increased amount of legal aid. It is not simply that additional money is being spent—it is the number of criminals who are being brought to trial under this Government as opposed to the level of crime.

    Appeals
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General how many appeals against conviction and/or sentence were heard by the Court of Appeal during 1988–89, and so far during 1990, in which the appellant had been released from prison before the hearing of the appeal; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General: In 1989, of 2,951 appeals, 23 appellants were released from prison and a further 43 were released on parole before the hearing of their appeals. The figures for 1990 to date are that, of 1,006 cases, two appellants were released from prison and 12 were released on parole before the hearing of their appeals.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Solicitor-General aware that it is unacceptable that someone should have his appeal heard after he has finished serving his sentence? That does the law no credit. Is not the legal system brought into disrepute every time an appeal is so long delayed that it is of little value to the prisoner and reduces his sentence not a jot?
    The Solicitor-General: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in principle, but it must be realised that, for example, an 18-month sentence can lead to someone being released on parole in only just over six months. Of the cases coming forward, one third are ready within six months and 80 per cent. are ready within 12 months. The aim is always to bring on first those that are most urgent.

    Al Fayed Brothers
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General what contacts have taken place between Kleinwort Benson, bankers, and his Department in relation to the financing of the Al Fayed brothers over Harrods.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): None, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: May we have the Attorney-General's assurance that if one is rich enough, powerful enough and can get away with it, in such circumstances lying is now all right?
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that this unsatisfactory matter will not go away without further statements from the Government? Will he at least say today whether he has had contacts aim discussions with Treasury Ministers about the position of Harrods Bank Ltd?
    The Attorney-General: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions on 1 March. They said that they were satisfied that every line of inquiry by the police had been properly followed through and that at the end of it there was insufficient evidence of an admissible nature in criminal proceedings to warrant bringing a prosecution in respect of any matter raised in the Department of Trade and Industry inspectors' report. That is the area for which I carry ministerial responsibility. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise further matters with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he may do so.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.
    The Attorney-General: I last met the Director of Public Prosecutions on 5 April, when we discussed matters of departmental interest. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General met the Director on 25 April, in my absence abroad on departmental business.
    Mr. Skinner: Next time, why does not the Attorney-General have a word with the Director of Public Prosecutions about Harrods? Why do not they examine that matter in detail? Is not the truth of the matter that there are people connected with Harrods, such as the Sultan of Brunei, who are very close to No. 10 and to the present Government generally? That is why they are getting away with it. Is not it the case that the Sultan of Brunei—whose surrogates, the Al Fayed brothers, run Harrods—is the same man who handed over £5 billion when the pound was in trouble against the dollar in 1986, and when the Prime Minister asked him to bail out the Government? Is not that at the bottom of it all?
    The Attorney-General: I shall next see the Director of Public Prosecutions at half past four, but I shall not be raising any of those matters. The House, and possibly even the hon. Gentleman, may recall that publication of the report of the DTI inspectors into the Harrods affair was delayed for about 18 months. I dare say that, at the time, the hon. Gentleman was one of those who said that it was a cover-up, but in fact it was so that there should be no possible prejudice of any future prosecution by reason of the report's premature publication. It is a measure of the seriousness with which the two DTI inspectors viewed the possible criminality and the possibility of bringing proceedings in a criminal court that the report's publication was delayed for as long as it was.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Mozambique
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's response to the emergency appeal of the United Nations and Mozambiquan Government.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): As I told the House on 26 April, the

    593
    Government have just pledged a further £3·5 million in emergency relief and 10,000 tonnes of food aid in response to the 1990 Mozambique emergency appeal.
    Mr. Eadie: Although I appreciate the right hon. Lady's reply, is she aware that 4 million people were displaced in Mozambique and that one in three children there aged under five die? The Minister will be aware that the Mozambique Government's $136 million appeal has been underfunded. In view of her reply, and as the matter is becoming more urgent, will she re-examine that very serious problem?
    Mrs. Chalker: Since 1987, we have pledged more than £55 million in emergency assistance, comprising emer-gency relief and food aid, and some £10 million last year —which included aid to Mozambique refugees. Particular attention was paid to the children among them. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's comments. Certainly we keep in regular contact, to ensure that we can help by every means available—including Operation Hunger, a non-governmental organisation which is very active in the area, particularly in relation to children.
    Mr. Burns: In view of the importance to Mozambique of prawn exports, what action are the Government taking to assist that important sector of the country's economy?
    Mrs. Chalker: Forty per cent. of Mozambique's export earnings come from the prawn industry. We are providing over £3·5 million to rehabilitate the prawn fishing fleet, modernise its processing facilities and build a jetty. Mozambique's prawns are fished by European Community fishing vessels which land the prawns as EC products. Therefore the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) need have no fear that the prawns from Mozambique do not meet EC standards. The onus is already on those who contribute to the Mozambique economy through their fishing licences to reach the necessary standards. They do so. We hope that the industry will continue to be viable and to thrive.
    Mrs. Clwyd: As Mozambique has the second highest death rate in the world, will the Minister condemn a new health threat facing Mozambique and other Third world countries? The vigorous promotion of very cheap and strong cigarettes by British American Tobacco will put an even greater strain on countries that are still fighting diseases such as malaria and tetanus. Will the Minister admit that the absence of international rules enables British American Tobacco to tell blatant lies about the safety of smoking? Is she prepared to join me in calling on BAT's shareholders to object at the annual general meeting on 31 May to BAT's making money by wilfully damaging the lungs of people in the Third world?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am not sure that the hon. Lady's question has anything to do with the emergency appeal of the United Nations and Mozambiquan Government, but never mind. The hon. Lady knows that I share her concern about smoking. I shall look into what she said. In a free world it will always be up to the individual, but I understand her concern.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: How can the Minister say that she will look into this matter when she is well aware that every year at European Community meetings she and her colleagues have approved the spending of £600 million solely to subsidise the growing and dumping of high-tar
    594
    tobacco in Third world countries? Would not it be a good idea if the Minister tried to do something about such a scandalous abuse of public money—the spending of £600 million of British and European taxpayers' money solely for the purpose of producing tobacco that no one in Europe wants, which we then dump at crazy, low prices in Mozambique and other Third world countries?
    Mrs. Chalker: I note what my hon. Friend says, but he knows full well that this country does not support that sort of dumping. The matter is of considerable concern and is being dealt with.

    Global Environmental Fund
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he supports the French proposal to establish a global environmental fund at the World bank.
    Mrs. Chalker: We warmly welcome the World bank's recent initiative in outlining a possible framework of international collaboration on global environmental issues. At the recent meeting of the development committee in Washington, we supported the proposal that the bank should carry out further work to elaborate its proposals, in consultation with interested parties.
    Mr. Cummings: Does the Minister agree that the industrialised nations should not expect the developing nations to stall, postpone or cancel their development plans to protect the global environment unless they are compensated for doing so? Does she also agree that the British Government's stance at the Bergen conference in opposing a new mechanism, whereby the industrialised countries of the north would compensate Third world countries, is a disgrace and a shame?
    Mrs. Chalker: A great deal more work is going on, initiated by us and other Ministers in the development committee, to explore the sort of help that developing countries will need when dealing with global environmen-tal problems. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Bergen conference. I do not believe that we shall oppose anything at that conference that would help the developing countries.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: I know that my right hon. Friend will share my pleasure that Britain is supporting the tropical forest action plan, which is just one aspect of our care for the environment. But has she seen the Friends of the Earth comment that casts doubt on the efficacy of the plan? Will my right hon. Friend look into that matter and reassure me that we are putting our money in the right place?
    Mrs. Chalker: I assure my hon. Friend that the tropical forest action plan is a mechanism—it is no more than that. Each country that applies for action under it must have a worked-out national plan. In November I called at the Food and Agriculture Organisation conference for a total review. That review has been set up because we are not satisfied with the mechanism; we are determined to ensure that every national forestry action plan is a worthy one, and we shall support it only if it is.

    Vietnam
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Government Ministers last discussed Vietnam with the United States Government.
    Mrs. Chalker: The Government keep in regular touch, both at ministerial and official level, with the United States Government on the problem of the Vietnamese boat people. I last discussed matters in Washington on 23 April.
    Mr. Orme: Did the right hon. Lady raise with the United States Government their opposition to the International Monetary Fund assisting Vietnam? Does she agree that Vietnam's economy must be put right? If it is put right, that will resolve some of the boat people's problems, so it is urgent that action be taken now.
    Mrs. Chalker: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is urgent that the economy of Vietnam is put right. I have urged a positive response by the United States to the international financial institutions, and the general issue of arrears owed to the IMF, including those of Vietnam, is being considered by the fund and bank in Washington.
    Mr. Butler: Did my right hon. Friend impress upon our American allies the necessity for them to open their doors to more Vietnamese boat people instead of berating us and the Hong Kong Government?
    Mrs. Chalker: I discussed with the United States people whom I saw the need for repatriation and the need to carry through the comprehensive plan of action, because without it there is no prospect of solving the problem of the boat people in Hong Kong. I hope that the United States will see the wisdom of the total programme that was agreed under the comprehensive plan of action.

    Renewable Energy Sources
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid Her Majesty's Government are giving to assist developing countries in developing renewable energy sources.
    Mrs. Chalker: In 1988 expenditure from the bilateral aid programme on the development of renewable energy sources was some £15 million. In addition renewable energy components such as solar and wind-powered pumps, solar-powered refrigerators, solar water distillation and solar water heating have been incorporated in projects which are not primarily energy focused.
    Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister take into account the fact that in developing countries there is a temptation to use fossil fuels with all the associated environmental problems when crude methods of burning them are used? Can greater emphasis be put on the better use of fossil fuels and of renewable sources?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is right: fossil fuels create problems not only of ash disposal but of what they emit into the atmosphere. That is why we are looking with each country at power efficiency, linked closely to the environmental concern to which the burning of fossil fuels can give rise. But we shall also continue our research with the intermediate technology development group to ensure that we have more effective equipment that can use the renewable sources of energy.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Tam Dalyell.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In conjunction with my right hon. Friend——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to move his application under Standing Order No. 20, not to raise a point of order.

Atlas Steel Foundry
3.33 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Under Standing Order No. 20, and in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), chairman and secretary respectively of the Amalgamated Engineering Union group, I seek leave to raise an issue which I believe should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the action of the Department of Trade and Industry on the Atlas steel foundry in my constituency and on its referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in the light of the verdict in the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Friday afternoon giving an interdict."
I should like to acknowledge the presence of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
That matter is important because it concerns the future of basic heavy manufacturing industry in Britain. It is definite because it was the subject of court proceedings on Friday. I can put the matter no better in terms of urgency than the letter from the solicitors concerned to Nigel Harris of the AEU. Mrs. Laura Walker says:
"May I stress that, although the Interim Interdict stands until it is recalled, we anticipate that Cooks will now attempt to recall it. It is therefore imperative that the Union ascertains from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and from the Office of Fair Trading what they are going to do about the breach of the undertaking so that they can take appropriate action, as they are the bodies who, in the eyes of the Court, have both title and interest to sue."
The debate is urgent because of the need to ascertain what the Department of Trade and Industry will do in
598
relation to section 74(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973, under which a Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument,

"(a) prohibit or restrict the doing of things which in his opinion would constitute action to which this subsection applies, or

(b) impose on any person concerned obligations as to the carrying on of any activities or the safeguarding of any assets".

It is the Armadale assets that are vital to continue the heavy industry, which this country would not have if Armadale ceased to exist.
The Act continues:

"(c) provide for the carrying on of any activities or the safeguarding of any assets either by the appointment of a person to conduct or supervise the conduct of any activities (on such terms and with such powers as may be specified or described in the order) or in any other manner, or

(d) exercise any of the powers which, by virtue of paragraph 12 of Schedule 8"——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely:
"The Department of Trade and Industry action in the light of Lord Milligan's granting interdict in the Atlas case."
As the House knows, I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. As the hon. Gentleman equally knows, I have listened with care to what he has said, but I must determine whether his application comes within the scope of the Standing Order. I regret that in this case the matter does not meet those requirements, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.37 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be grateful to know if you have had any indication from the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Health that there will be a statement later today, or tomorrow, about the many recently reported cases of people posing as health visitors or social workers on visits to the homes of families with young children in Manchester and many other parts of the country. There is now deep and widespread public concern about these visits and a statement is urgently necessary. It would be especially helpful to the House to have a statement from the Home Secretary about the outcome of today's meeting in Sheffield on the co-ordination of police activity in this important matter.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no request for a statement, but if a meeting is taking place today, there may be a statement tomorrow. I am sure that what the right hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by the Leader of the House and by the Patronage Secretary.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I trust that your attention has been drawn to an article in today's "Londoner's Diary" of the Evening Standard, which suggests that you, Mr. Speaker, would open the pigeon loft to hon. Members. I discussed the matter with a reporter from "Londoner's Diary", as the elected Chairman of the New Building Sub-Committee. When we discussed the allocation of rooms that could become available above Speaker's House, I gave him no indication that I or any members of the Sub-Committee had barged into Speaker's House. It was on your invitation, Mr. Speaker.
Knowing full well that there were available rooms there, you asked the Sub-Committee to investigate to see if those rooms would be acceptable to hon. Members. The reporter might have suggested that he had written a light-hearted article, but earlier this afternoon I reminded him on the telephone that it is not a light-hearted matter for Members of Parliament who have been waiting five or six years for suitable accommodation in which to undertake their work.
To ensure that the record is set straight, I should like to make it clear that the members of the Committee came to Speaker's House at your invitation, Mr. Speaker, and examined the rooms. I hope that. in the not-too-distant future, these rooms will be made available for allocation to Members. I thought that I should make the position clear to ensure that you, Sir, are not implicated.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) mentioned an article in today's Evening Standard. I have not seen today's article, but I saw last Friday's. I am grateful to the hon. Member for having put the record straight.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Mind the stool pigeons!
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important matter for Members. It was mentioned to me by several Members and by several people this weekend.
It might be for the benefit of all concerned if I were to add that it has always been the intention to implement plans to make these rooms available for the benefit of
600
Members, subject to the necessary financial provisions being made available and to provision of a means of access, without which the rooms could not be used at all.
As the completion of phase 1 is now in prospect, I thought that it would facilitate planning for members of the New Building Sub-Committee to see for themselves what these rooms were like. Accordingly, as the hon. Member said, it was at my invitation that the members of the Sub-Committee came to Speaker's House last week. I thank the hon. Member for putting that matter right.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you have seen the excellent 250-page report on low flying which was produced this morning by the Select Committee on Defence. There is a hole in the report, which raises an important procedural question and which shows the perverse effects of our rules. The report criticises the Royal Air Force's resistance to the use of simulators, yet the public expected the report to deal at some length with simulators for the training of pilots.
The Committee asked a firm called Link-Miles to write a letter setting out its position but, contrary to what the public would want, the Committee failed to take evidence from that firm. I put it to you, Sir, that it did not take evidence from Link-Miles because the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence is a consultant to that company——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Committee was plainly compromised—[Interruption.] It is quite unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is making very serious allegations about an hon. Member of this House. If he wishes to make those allegations, he knows that he must not do so under the guise of a point of order, but should do so by a motion on the Order Paper. This is not a matter for me.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not a matter of allegation, Sir. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) has declared his interests in the Register of Members' Interests and——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: —and—[Interruption.]—com-promises the work of the Committee.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to have allegations of this kind made about an hon. Member under the guise of a point of order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Well, why——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must take up the matter in the proper way and make his allegations to the Select Committee concerned. I will not have such allegations made in the Chamber. That is reprehensible.
Mr. Tony Banks: Returning to the previous point of order about those spare rooms you seem to have, Mr. Speaker. I find myself in rather straitened circumstances, as I have to share a room. As you obviously carry some clout in this place, Sir, I wonder whether, if I volunteered to powder your wig and polish your buckles, I might stand a chance of having one of those rooms.
Mr. Speaker: It may take a little while for the rooms to become available, but if the hon. Gentleman sets about procuring some powder and some polish, they may stand him in good stead with my successor.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you are aware that, with the new polished-up image of the Labour party, no Labour Member is allowed to appear on television unless he is wearing a collar and tie, and also that no Member of the Italian Parliament is allowed to enter the parliamentary building unless he is wearing a collar and tie. Given that we are trying to set examples to deter would-be football hooligans, is it not time that you exercised your authority to ensure that no Member of Parliament disports himself here in a manner that would prevent him from being admitted to the Italian parliamentary building?
Mr. Speaker: I am responsible for a great many things, but the way in which hon. Members dress is not one of them.
Mr. Holt: It is in "Erskine May".
Mr. Speaker: It may be in "Erskine May". The hon. Gentleman must not press me to give reasons why I call or do not call hon. Members, although I must say that those who appear in what I would call casual dress do not stand quite as good a chance as some other hon. Members.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on this matter? I am sure that you will agree that being a Member of Parliament is an important job but that what is most important is that a Member of Parliament should represent the interests of the constituents who elect him or her, rather than those of commercial pressure groups or similar organisations. Will you confirm that it is most important that Members of Parliament should do that? Will you also confirm that at least three hon. Members in the Chamber are not wearing ties—including yourself'? I should not dream of saying that you or any of my female comrades were improperly dressed.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I should declare an interest. I suppose that I could be said to have a commercial interest in the way in which hon. Members dress, so I am not prepared to give a judgment on the matter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I am not taking a point of order——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not propose to take a point of order——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must sit down when I am on my feet. I am not prepared to take a point of order on the matter that he has just raised. He must deal with it through the proper channels.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with the matter in the proper way, through the Select Committee on Members' Interests. It is not a matter that he can raise in the Chamber. I am saying that to him straight, and I do not expect him to raise the matter again if I call him.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is the question that I want to raise with you, Mr. Speaker. What is the Speaker of the House of Commons responsible for? If he is responsible for preserving the integrity of Parliament, he should surely wish to concern himself with the matter that I have raised, which goes to the heart of what Parliament is all about. If a Select Committee report has a hole in it because of the commercial interests of the Chairman of that Committee, Mr. Speaker surely has a responsibility in relation to the matter. It cannot be left to other Committees, which are often a little reticent about making decisions.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman sought to speculate on the motives of a Committee in failing to take evidence from a certain company. That is certainly not a point of order, and it is not a matter for me. The companies from which the Select Committee takes evidence are a matter for that Committee and not for me.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 4704/90 relating to motor vehicle emissions be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Taxation (Opposition Policies)
3.49 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I beg to move,
That this House notes the Labour Party's continued commitment to massive increases in public expenditure funded by the imposition of new taxes on savings, jobs and property and increases in rates of income tax and national insurance; contrasts the Labour Party's refusal to reveal its plans for the basic rate of income tax with the Government's goal for the basic rate of just 20p; believes that Labour will be forced substantially to increase the burden of tax on many lower and middle income earners to realise their public expenditure plans; notes that Labour plans run counter to the growing international consensus on the case for low taxes; and believes that the imposition of higher taxes and new taxes would stifle enterprise, drive firms and individuals abroad and gravely weaken the wealth-creating capacity of the United Kingdom economy and create unemployment.
I hunted around for a text from which I might take the keynote of my speech today, and I thought that it would be appropriate to quote a little bit of Lewis Carroll. The quotation begins "The time has come", and indeed the time has come. The quotation also reflects the way in which the Labour party is trying to delude the public about the way in which it might take decisions if it was in office.
My quotation begins:

"'The time has come …

'To talk of many thing:

Of shoes—and ships—and sealing wax—

Of cabbages—and kings—

And why the sea is boiling hot—

And whether pigs have wings.'"

Hon. Members may recall that that little piece ended after the conversation between the Walrus and the Carpenter and there was no reply from the oysters which had been carrying on a conversation on the beach. There was no reply, because the oysters had all been eaten.
I suggest that the result of the Labour party's tax policy would be that incomes in this country were reduced to a very low level. Indeed, taxpayers would not be able to pay for the expensive policies instituted by the Labour party.
The time has come to speak of these things because many people, misguidedly, have elected to vote Labour in recent elections. The Labour party increased its number of seats in the local government elections and it is essential that we should warn the electorate and make them clear about the consequences for taxation policy of electing a Labour Government. When we talk about tax policies, we are talking about a reflection of the Labour party's priorities and philosophy in its approach to government.
Labour's dilemma is that it seeks to spend more and more money on social services, health services, and education and local government services. The Labour party promises the electorate that that spending can be achieved without an increase in taxation. Where taxation will be increased, the Labour party tries to suggest that that will be met by taxing the rich. However, we have yet to define "rich". I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) would not like me to remind the electorate that he thinks that anyone earning more than 17,000 a year is rich. The Labour party believes that by taxing the rich it can somehow pay for excessively expensive social and public services.
Income tax is now reaching down the income levels, and is continuing to do so, down to those who are on very humble incomes, which may be little more than the basic
604
state pension. Labour will tax the vast majority of people who earn humble incomes. It will take money from those people and redistribute it to those whom the Labour party in its arrogance believes should receive more. That is the problem that has faced Labour parties in this country, in eastern Europe, in the Soviet Union or in the Third world.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
Mr. Wells: The Labour party cannot carry out its very expensive programmes unless tax is raised. Only then can it carry out the demands of clause 4 of its constitution.
Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wells: In a moment.
Before the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) intervenes, I should like to remind him exactly what clause iv of the Labour party's constitution states, because it illustrates what the Labour party intends. The party has never been able to abolish clause Iv of its constitution, paragraph (iv) of which states:
"To secure for the workers, by hand or by brain, the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and the best attainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Labour party would have some difficulty financing its programme. I read the other day in a Tory newspaper that the Government are also in a serious predicament because they have to find £15 billion in this current year—not after an election—to finance their programmes. The problem for the Treasury is where to find that money. Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, I should like to know where he would get that £15 billion from to balance the books this year. He would give us a bit of direction if he could tell us whether he has any ideas about where to get that money from, so that he can tell his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. Remember the figure—it is £15 billion.
Mr. Wells: It is our very good fortune that, after 11 years of Conservative government, the Government are running a surplus on their current account. Although we cannot predict what that surplus may be in the coming year, the Treasury will have little difficulty in financing that extra £15 billion. The question is whether it would be wise to do so and whether my right hon. and hon. Friends should insist on a reduction in public spending.
Mr. Skinner: What is the hon. Gentleman's answer?
Mr. Wells: My answer is that the money is already there. We do not have to raise it from anywhere.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Given that the Labour party's programme involves nationalisation on a mammoth scale, which my hon. Friend has just mentioned, does he agree that not only would the Labour party be incapable of running a public sector debt repayment, but that it would be massively in debt on the public sector, which would hamper the social programmes that it wanted to put into practice? Indeed, it was because the Labour party was in such massive state debt last time it was in power that it had to cut social services and investment in public facilities in real terms.
Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, he has anticipated me, because, while discussing this point, I had wanted to highlight exactly the mess into which the Labour party got this country in 1976 when some of its friends began to realise what it was doing.
I should like to quote from the beginning of the "Public Expenditure—General Review" of 1976, the author of which was the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). The Labour Government were in serious difficulties at the time. The second paragraph of the introduction states:
"In the last three years, public expenditure has grown by nearly 20 per cent. in volume, while output has risen by less than 2 per cent. The ratio of public expenditure to gross domestic product has risen from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. Fifteen years ago, it was 42 per cent. The tax burden has also greatly increased. In 1975–76, a married man on average earnings was paying about a quarter of his earnings in income tax".
We are talking about low-paid people—about people on average or lower than average earnings who were paying about a quarter of their earnings in income tax, compared with one tenth in 1960–61.
The paragraph continues:
"On two thirds average earnings a man is paying more than one fifth, compared with less than one twentieth. Tax thresholds have fallen sharply in relation to average earnings. In other words, more poor people are paying tax and people are being drawn into tax on income levels which are below social security and benefit levels. The increase in the tax burden has fallen heavily on low wage earners, those earning less than the average contribute over a quarter of the income tax yield. This cannot be made good simply by increasing the burden at the top. If no taxpayer were left with more than £5,000 per annum after tax"—
swingeing taxes on the rich—
"this would increase the yield by only about 6 per cent."
There it is—the right hon. Member for Leeds, East spelled out from experience exactly what happens under Labour Governments. They have to tax their own people, poor people, at the lower end of the income tax levels, in order to achieve the objectives of clause Iv—to redistribute the income to those they want, engineer our country's social life and achieve their egalitarian aims, which have not altered.
Mr. Ian Gow: Why has not my hon. Friend brought with him copies of the letters sent by the then Chancellor, to whom he referred, to Dr. Johannes Witteveen? Those letters were the consequence of policies consistently followed by the Labour party, which borrowed where it dared not tax and printed what it could not borrow.
Mr. Wells: If my right hon. Friend had had time to communicate with me during the weekend and had known the line of argument that I was going to take in this debate, I have no doubt that he would have sent me copies of those excellent letters that illustrate so well the point that I was making.
Mr. David Winnick: Instead of dwelling 14 years in the past—perhaps he may want to go back 24 years—would it not be more advisable for the hon. Gentleman to spend part of his speech on the crippling mortgage interest rates being paid by so many of his constituents and the poll tax being levied on many people who are paying double or treble what they were previously paying? Would it not be appropriate to find time to dwell on some of the remarks by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury during the weekend, when he drew a pessimistic
606
picture of the economy? Will not people come to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman is devoting all his speech today to what happened 14 or 20 years ago because he is frightened of dealing with the problems caused by a Conservative Government?
Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman's intervention leads me nicely to my next point. It also allows me to say that, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that interest rates are too high under this Government, he should imagine what they would be under a Labour Government. They would be a great deal higher. A major problem, and one of the reasons for this debate, is to try to find out exactly what the Labour party's policies will be. The Labour party is inclined to be excessively coy with the public because it does not want the facts and its long-term aim to be known and understood, because once the electorate do so, they will not vote for the Labour party. The job of the House is to point out those facts.
The hon. Gentleman's intervention leads me to the fact that inflation is undoubtedly too high in this country; the Government, whom I support, have made a mistake. It is not, and has never been, the Government's objective to let inflation increase to this extent, but I am equally responsible, together with all Labour party members, for that dilemma. In 1987, when the stock exchange fell dramatically, many of us thought that we were in for a catastrophic slump. I was one of those who urged the then Chancellor to stoke up demand and——
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman caused it.
Mr. Wells: I was one of them. I never heard a dissenting voice from the Opposition, and the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer urged the then Chancellor to increase demand and lower interest rates. That is what happened and I have told the House what we did. We did that because we are just as anxious as Labour about the unemployment rate and Britain's productive ability, and we certainly did not wish to see a slump. We were in good company, because most of the world's central bankers, who were at that time conversing with each other on the telephone, were following that counter-cyclical policy. There is no doubt that that fed into the economy more demand than there should have been, and we are now seeing the result.
Labour's policy is to increase demand to even higher levels than those that we have at present, so that, as it continually said for eight years while unemployment was high, unemployment can be reduced. Labour certainly adopted those tactics when in office. The country should not believe that Labour's policies will be anything other than grossly inflationary, with the result that the same conditions will prevail as prevailed in 1976, when the Labour Government had to introduce a public expenditure paper.
After we have looked at what Labour proposes to spend, we shall look at what it says about how it will raise taxes to meet that expenditure. So that I am not seen to be negative or carping or over-critical of the Labour party, I shall suggest some ways in which the Conservative party can put forward constructive suggestions. After that, I hope that people who were tempted to vote Labour will never do so again.
I am deeply indebted to the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, for his recent interview in The Independent on Sunday, because

607
it is difficult to find out from what he says in the House exactly what he expects to spend money on. He ducks that question. The interview was helpful, because in it the shadow Chancellor explained that what he described as welfare expenditure should be funded from taxes. So far, Labour commitments in that area include £5 billion extra for the National Health Service; £5 billion more on child benefit and pensions; and £1·7 billion for overseas aid.
I would not decry an extra £1·7 billion for overseas aid, but we have to see how and when we could afford that money. We should look much more at the ways in which we can help people overseas to help themselves. We should not simply press large quantities of money on them which they are not able to use and which distract them from building up their own economy. More should be spent on overseas aid, but trade is more important than aid, and a prosperous Britain which can import goods from Third-world countries and export good-quality and low-priced goods to those countries is more beneficial than aid.
That is not the end of the Labour party's expenditure plans.
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is quoting the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Did he read the excellent recent speech by the shadow Chancellor in New York, when he said:
"We are also determined to maintain a responsible fiscal policy with prudent control over public finances, spending only as resources allow and as the economy can afford."
Is that not the sort of well-received speech that goes down well throughout the country and internationally? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend said on that occasion?
Mr. Wells: I have no difficulty in endorsing that statement. If we could believe that that policy will be pursued by the Labour party in its general election campaign and, if successful, in office, I am certain that that kind of bromide would result in many people wanting to vote Labour. It is such bromide and argument that needs exposition today. A Conservative or Labour Chancellor could make a similar statement to that of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: My hon. Friend should be careful, as he may be getting himself into a trap. He will have noticed that the words of the shadow Chancellor were spoken to bankers in New York and they are different from those that he speaks to representatives of the Health Service unions and those seeking more expenditure in this country. My hon. Friend could fall into a trap, because one could use a very unparliamentary word about someone who says different things in different places to try to con the voters.
Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing out the issue about which I want to talk.
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has just accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who happens to be my next-door neighbour, of saying different things to bankers in New York from what he has said to representatives of the Health Service unions. I have been to numerous meetings with my right hon. and
608
learned Friend and I know that he has said exactly the same thing as he said to those bankers. It is ignoble for the right hon. Member for Chingford to make such a statement, especially in the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend, and he should withdraw it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is not a point of order for me. I know that the hon. Gentleman hopes to catch the eye of the Chair and, if he does so, he can return to the matter.
Mr. Wells: Perhaps I can answer for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The plain fact is that the Labour party is trying to obscure, and in that it is led by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East.
Mr. Skinner: Led?
Mr. Wells: Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is leading the Labour party in obscuring what will happen under a Labour Government, but that is exactly what we must try to examine sensibly, carefully and logically, without rancour and without unnecessary political bickering.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is right to point out the difficulties we get into when we listen to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. He will not tell us the truth, because no one knows the pressure to which he will be subject should he become Chancellor. The pressure will be great, because the Labour party has not said no to anyone who wants to increase expenditure. In the past 11 years, I have never noticed the Labour party going against a strike—the ambulance workers' strike, the miners' strike or the steel workers' strike—for extra pay and remuneration.
I have never heard Labour Members applauding cuts in the Health Service, the education service or local government. They have always wanted more and more expenditure. The people believe that the Labour party stands for such expenditure and that it will spend money on them and all the desirable things upon which we also want to spend money, but we know that that money must be earned first. The Labour party has no idea how to earn it.
Mr. John Battle: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the Health Service and to the amount of expenditure needed for it. This morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph contains a report of all-out war between some Secretaries of State and the Treasury. It is reported that the Secretary of State for Health is demanding £3 billion so that he can introduce the new health reforms and cover wages within his Department. Whose side is the hon. Gentleman on in the war between the Secretary of State for Health and the Treasury?
Mr. Wells: I am in favour of additional expenditure on the Health Service, if it is wisely spent and properly distributed. We have to earn the necessary money before it can be spent. The Labour party's policy is to spend first and to find a way to meet the expenditure later.
After that series of interventions, I shall remind the House what the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East said. He wants to spend £5 billion extra on the National Health Service, £5 billion more on child benefits and £1·7 billion more on overseas aid. That would add up to 6p on the basic rate of income tax—but that is only for starters. Labour has made numerous spending

609
promises on education, employment and wages. All the trade unions have to be paid off with extra wages and extra remuneration—that is why they support the Labour party.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman referred to the £1·7 billion which needs to be spent on overseas aid. I think that he said earlier that he would support spending that sort of money. I remind him that there is a relatively easy way to get the money. He knows that, in the past three years, the Government, by using various taxation measures, have allowed the top four clearing banks—Lloyds, Barclays, National Westminster and Midland—a sum of £1·9 billion to offset against other taxation liabilities because of Third-world debts. If a Labour Government decide—I hope they will—to give money equivalent to that £1–9 billion to the Third world to write off its debts, and not to bail out the top clearing banks, they will be taking a sensible and socialist step.
Mr. Wells: We are talking about two different sums of money—one that has been spent and is therefore a debt, and one that might be spent if the Labour party came to office. I correct the hon. Member for Bolsover on his statement that I am in favour of spending another £1·7 billion. I am not. I believe that we should aim to spend that sort of money if and where necessary. I have no idea whether £1·7 billion is needed or whether it is a larger or a smaller sum.
There has to be a way to write off Third-world debts. One way, as the hon. Gentleman just described, is to permit the banks to write off such debts against tax. That is a sensible way to do it, provided that we write off only sums that cannot be repaid. If we permitted Third-world countries not to repay, no one would invest in those countries, and what they need most is additional private investment—that is the engine of development in the Third world.
I shall return to the subject of Labour's tax policies, as some Opposition Members want me to do. Labour is firmly committed to increases in taxes and spending; there can be no doubt about that. That is an unpopular combination, and Labour knows it.
Mr. Tony Banks: Squeeze the rich.
Mr. Wells: We have just dealt with squeezing the rich, but it would not produce the money that the hon. Gentleman wishes to spend. As increases in taxes and spending are an unpopular combination, Labour spokesmen no longer talk about high taxes. That is one of the other circumlocutions. They prefer the phrase "fair taxes". To describe the swingeing new taxes on savings —which we shall come to later—jobs and homes and the imposition of higher taxes on millions of people on middle and lower incomes as fair must count as one of the most breathtakingly cheeky fibs of the century.
At least the last Labour Chancellor had the gall to get up and tell us that he wanted to clobber us with high taxes, that he wanted to make the pips squeak and that it was jolly well going to hurt. Now, apparently, we can spend all that extra money without his help. The new model Labour party has a different tactic. It says nothing and it hopes that the voters will not ask about tax. That strategy received its baptism of fire when the Labour party gave a pledge to keep details of the roof tax under wraps until the
610
local elections were safely out of the way. I hope that the electorate will not expect the Labour party to keep its policy on taxation under wraps until after the next general election.
On a number of occasions, when trying to discover the detail of the Labour party's plans, the shadow Chief Secretary—the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—has urged those of us in search of a deeper understanding to spend £2·50 on her party's policy review document. I did, and I felt cheated. I want my £2·50 back. I felt entitled to read in that document something about the Labour party's new tax policy. I was astonished to find that its tax policy for the 1990s is much the same as that on which it fought and lost the last election. The review trumpets Labour's plans to abolish the ceiling on national insurance contributions, to do away with the married man's allowance, substantially to increase the burden of tax for higher earners—and to raise tax rates for many on basic rates of income tax.
That the review had merely dished up exactly the same tax policy as that which contributed so much to Labour's defeat prompts the question, what on earth did the policy group on tax do for two years? I was amazed to find that the Labour party still believes that the best way to make the poor rich is to make everyone poorer. It has learnt nothing from the 1970s, which is why we must concentrate on what it did when it was in office.
Despite the astonishingly penal tax rates, the great socialist nirvana failed to materialise in the 1970s. Living standards stagnated and, for many people, actually fell. That cannot be said about living standards under a Conservative Government. The recent report by the Select Committee on Social Services showed that, even with the recalculation of figures, the poorest of the poor had increased their income in real terms. Admittedly, it was not by as much as we had originally thought, but it was an increase. That is what is so important about Conservative policies—everybody, including the poorest in the land, benefits.
Under the previous Labour Government, an individual on just half average earnings—perhaps a shop assistant or cleaner—had a fall in real take-home pay of 0·5 per cent. Many people in the Labour party underestimate the importance of that. The person in ordinary employment paying PAYE thinks of his wage as what he takes home, not as the gross amount. He is not that interested in his tax; he is interested in his take-home pay. If the tax is so high that he takes home less money, the Labour party will find itself in trouble, and rightly so, with its trade union friends. What a disgrace—what a triumph for the Labour party—that a shop assistant should suffer a fall in his real take-home pay of 0·5 per cent.
Under the previous Labour Government, the average family man's take-home pay rose only a paltry 0·5 per cent. At the same time, the Labour Government managed to add about £170 billion, in today's terms, to the national debt. Under a Conservative Government, the national debt has been hugely reduced, so we are paying far less in interest rates. That has released money to spend on just the sort of services on which the Labour party says it wants to spend money—the NHS, education and social services. The previous Labour Government slashed capital investment in essential services such as schools, the NHS, the water industry and roads. I am sure that the electorate do not want that performance repeated.

611
Penal taxation erodes the wealth-creating capacity of an economy, and it is that factor that the Labour party simply does not understand. Nor does it acknowledge that wealth must be created if money is to be spent on social services.
Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wells: No, I think not. The hon. Gentleman may make his points in his own speech, if he is called.
High levels of taxation will do nothing to raise the living standards of people on low incomes. Over the past 40 years, real changes in income distribution have largely come about as a result of Conservative policies.
Mr. Battle: What?
Mr. Wells: Yes—through the increased ownership of homes, shares and pension rights. The driving force behind the spread of wealth in the 1980s was the extension of home ownership and the growth of financial assets among those who just 20 years ago would never have dreamed of owning their own homes or of buying shares. Conservative policies have given independence and personal wealth to individuals, rather than have the state take it from them.
The history of the past 20 years has proved that the only way to raise living standards for all is to spread opportunity and wealth. The ideology of helping the poor at the expense of those on middle or higher incomes has a long socialist pedigree, but it has never worked—and it never will. A free-market, low-tax economy provides the best guarantee of increasing prosperity and opportunity for all the people of this country. That is the policy of only one party—the Conservative party. It is an infinitely fairer system than the regulated, high-tax model that Labour wants to impose.
As we all know, economic forecasting is a notoriously difficult business. Labour and Conservative Chancellors alike have found it difficult. However, there is one economic prediction on which I would be prepared to put my money. It is that, between now and the next general election, Labour will go to any lengths to conceal the full impact of its tax policies from the electorate.
What a vote for Labour will cost very much depends on which Labour spokesman one believes. Interviewed on Sky Television, Labour's shadow Treasury team claimed that taxes will not rise under Labour. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) told Mr. Frank Bough:
"We don't want to put taxes up."
The following week, Sky Television viewers were relieved to hear it from the horse's mouth, when the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury said quite emphatically:
"No, we are not going to put taxes up."
Sadly, the leader of the Labour party is not quite so sure. He has said that some taxes will rise but that
"the great middle band, the huge majority, let's call them the 25p people … would be no worse off."
In a later interview, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) spelled it out in typically forthright fashion. He said that Labour is not "intending to belt" the great majority of people.
Enter the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, to help clear up the mystery of who precisely will be in for a belting under a Labour Government. About a year ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East let on that some people currently paying tax at the basic rate will pay more tax under Labour. That statement exactly
612
contradicts the Labour leader, who has promised that those to whom he referred as "the 25p people" would be no worse off.
Labour's latest position was set out by the shadow Chancellor last March, in the Sunday Mirror:
"There would be more gainers than losers"
under Labour's plans, and that in effect, anything up to 13 million taxpayers could end up with higher tax bills if Labour came to power. In just four months, the shadow Treasury team has gone from saying that taxes will not increase to saying that 13 million taxpayers could lose out. Ask a Labour spokesman whether he wants to increase taxes and one will get any of four answers—no, yes, just a little, quite a lot.
The confusion in which the Labour party finds itself is understandable when one examines what its tax plans will mean for ordinary earners. The most comprehensive and thorough analysis of them was undertaken by the City firm CSFB earlier this year. It concluded that, under a Labour Government:
"Many taxpayers earning between £10,000 and £30,000 would be a lot worse off."
By doing away with the married man's allowance and the ceiling for National Insurance contributions, the report notes that Labour would inevitably hit many low and middle-income earners hard. It would be a hard, not a soft belting. According to the CSFB report, a married man on just £6,000 a year would be over £4 a week worse off. A married man with two children on one and a half times average earnings would lose to the tune of £25 a week. The report concludes that, for those earning more than £17,000 a year, there will be "dramatic increases" in marginal rates.
Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later. I should prefer to press on with my speech.
This is a serious study, produced by respected and independent economists. When pressed about the findings all that the shadow Chancellor could do was bluster and carp. Curiously, he did not even challenge the report's broad conclusions on the scale of losses likely to be suffered by many taxpayers on modest incomes. Unfortunately, Labour's ambition is to spend more and more taxpayers' money.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I should like to challenge the report's conclusions. As he has laid his charges before the House, will the hon. Gentleman explain what assumptions underlie the calculations?
Mr. Wells: The assumptions, which can be read in the report which I commend to the hon. Gentleman, have to be based on what Labour party spokesmen have said. They have been very cautious and limited in what they have said and in what guidance they have given. However, we can read Fabian pamphlets; one was published in March. We have to take seriously what the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury have said. The figures are based on those assumptions.
Unfortunately, Labour's ambitions extend far further than merely raising existing taxes: they plan to introduce a new raft of taxes. It is curious that the Labour party affected such support for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent Budget measures to encourage saving. The Labour party does not intend to encourage saving.

613
Given half a chance, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East would introduce a Budget full of new taxes on savers.
Under Labour, a new tax on savings, probably set at 9 per cent., would be payable on top of the existing marginal income tax rates. For basic rate taxpayers, many of them pensioners who have built up an investment after a lifetime of saving, that would mean a tax on savings of about 34p in the pound. In addition, the existing allowance for capital gains tax would be abolished, or at least substantially reduced. There would be far heavier taxation of wealth, and personal equity plans would lose their favourable tax status.
Just as the Labour party does not trust the taxpayer with his own money, so it is deeply reluctant to let firms spend their profits. According to the so-called policy review, the fruits of cuts in corporation tax have been squandered on dividends and takeovers when they should have been invested. In reality, the 1980s witnessed an extraordinary investment boom, with firms expanding and improving capacity on a massive scale.
Investment rose faster throughout the 1980s in this country than in any other European country. In the eight years to 1989, total investment rose twice as fast as total consumption. That was an objective that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was desperately seeking when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was constantly urging more investment, but companies could not invest because there were no profits, and any profits that they made were taxed. We could expect that to happen again under a Labour Government.
Moreover, the share of gross domestic product spent on industry-funded research and development—a constant carp and a constant worry, and rightly so—rose from 0·9 per cent. before the reform of corporation tax to 1·1 per cent. in 1987. That, incidentally, is a higher proportion of the national income than in either Italy or France. So Conservative policies are working in this respect, too. Lower taxes have given firms the means and the opportunity to increase investment.
Labour's policy in these areas is consistent with its previous policies. Labour persists with the extraordinary idea that, if it were deciding how company profits were spent, the economy would be in far better shape. That is to say that politicians and civil servants will spend company's profits better than their directors and shareholders. Labour's shadow Cabinet is probably the last institution in the world, I am sure my hon. Friends would agree, that one would ask for investment advice, yet it plans to use the tax system to redirect company profits to what it regards as important areas.
Higher rates of tax would have to be introduced to pay for Labour's obsessive follies. Moreover, the tax system will be used to clobber firms that do not meet the criteria for research and development and training set by Labour. So much has been promised by the shadow spokesman on employment, who wants a compulsory levy for training on every company in the country. Labour will then spend the money as it sees fit.
To cap it all, the policy review contains heavy hints about the need to remove the £43-a-week threshold for
614
employers' national insurance contributions, and I have assumed when making these remarks that that is what the Labour party would do.
We can see from the Fabian Society's tax reform pamphlet issued in March 1990—it must be a gravel pit from which the Opposition mine many of their intellectual ideas—what the Labour party's tax policies might be. We see the introduction of either four rates of income tax or six. The first recommendation in the pamphlet reads as follows:
"The present 25 per cent./40 per cent. rate structure for income tax should be replaced by a sequence of rates, which would start below the basic rate inherited from the Conservatives and rise to 50 per cent. by a series of steps. The initial rate of tax in this graduated structure should cover a relatively wide band."
What that does not say is that on top of that rise would be included national insurance contributions, so to any of these figures we must add at least a further nine per cent. to produce the real rate of income tax— —
Mr. A. J. Beith: The same goes for yours.
Mr. Wells: Indeed. To our 25 per cent. rate, and to obtain the proper rate of tax on most incomes, one must add 9 per cent., producing a total of 34 per cent. as the current rate of income tax. I can see no difference between income tax and national insurance contributions at this level of income. Seen in this way, 34 per cent. is a high rate and it needs to be reduced, but the Labour party's plan will increase it, for the vast majority of people.
The second recommendation in the Fabian pamphlet is:
"The structure of employee National Insurance contribu-tions should be made fully progressive by abolishing the upper earnings limit, by charging a zero rate on earnings below the threshold. In the case of the self-employed, Class 2 contributions should be abolished and the lower thresholds for Class 4 aligned with that of Class 1."
So self-employed people had also better look out—they will have to pay a great deal more under Labour's plan.
This is as much as we can find out about what Labour's plans involve. They involve a very high level of tax and of spending. The Opposition cannot avoid taxing people on lower incomes—as well as those on higher incomes—to meet the demands that they have led their own people to believe they could meet if they were returned to office. But the Conservative party can meet these demands.
Among other things, the Labour party says that it would stop inflation—so far as I can see, this is its only policy to fight it—by joining the exchange rate mechanism. The mechanism has many merits, but it does not have the merit of being able to reduce Labour's profligate spending plans and prevent them from creating inflation. Under the ERM as it is now constructed, the Labour Government would hand over the country's policy on exchange and interest rates, in its entirety, to the president of the Bundesbank in the Federal Republic of Germany—which, by that time, would presumably be reunited with East Germany.
I believe that we should join the ERM, and, indeed, my party is committed to doing so; before that happens, however, we should renegotiate the arrangements with our European partners so that a policy-controlling body can be set up and Britain can be represented on it. That proposal would, I think, be popular with the Spanish, the French and the Italians: they too have said that they bitterly resent the setting of the exchange rate system and the policies involved in it by a single "central" banker

615
sitting in Frankfurt, with no legal responsibility to anyone other than the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic. I do not think that we should join the European monetary system until we have sorted out who controls it.
I also believe that we should do the opposite of what the Labour party proposes, and abolish capital gains tax altogether. It is inconsistent with the operation of an "enterprise culture", and with the aims of those who advocate investment in new industries and the taking of risks, to ask people to give the Treasury 40 per cent. of what they have earned over the years in which they have run a business when they sell that business.
Capital gains tax also impacts on many other forms of savings and earnings. It is a pernicious tax, but the Labour party intends to concentrate on—and, indeed, increase —such taxes of which most PAYE taxpayers know nothing. The Fabian Society pamphlet recommends a Labour Government to raise CGT and abolish inheritance tax. In effect, the Labour party intends to introduce a wealth tax, which will have an impact on anyone who owns anything—pictures, motor cars or shares.
There are many ways in which we should try to control inflation, and I am not sure that we should not begin to try some of Labour's proposals. I am appalled, for instance, by the way in which banks have pressed credit on everyone. They have a strange, lemming-like policy: they got themselves into a mess by lending huge sums to Third-world countries, for example, and they are doing the same kind of thing now.
Times of inflation are times of national difficulty, when it behoves the banks to cut down on credit as part of a national policy. It also behoves trade union leaders and members to hold back on wage claims. I think that a person taking out a mortgage should put down a 10 per cent. deposit from his savings, and that down payments should be made on nearly every hire-purchase transaction in the high street. This week's retail sales figures suggest that we cannot avoid considering such measures if we are to defeat the current inflation rates. Surely is it prudent and sensible Conservative policy to tell people, "First you must save, and then you must have the income against which to borrow." Otherwise, there will be inflation in the home as well as in the nation.
I believe that the next Conservative Government should again examine the possibility of merging the social security and tax systems. That, in my view, would bring about a fairer structure, which would be clear to everyone. It could be done without a vast increase in public expenditure, as was revealed by our late colleague, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, in pamphlets issued after his death. I also think that a new Conservative Government should abolish the distinction between earned and unearned income.
In times of inflation, we should consider the enforceable bank deposit. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East agrees with that, but my right hon. Friends in the Treasury reject it, on the grounds that it cannot be put into effect without a system of exchange controls. Let me point out that the Dutch Government are taking such action, and that it dries up the credit available in the high street very quickly.
I should like to see those programmes in the Conservative manifesto for the next election. Let us contrast them with Labour's promises of higher income tax, corporation tax, taxes on savings, taxes on wealth and
616
increased capital gains tax. Value added tax would probably reach huge proportions under Labour, which has never spoken of lowering the current rate of 15 per cent.
Mr. Battle: The Conservatives doubled it.
Mr. Wells: Yes, we doubled it, but Labour has not talked about lowering it.
Labour would undoubtedly be forced by its followers, and by its promises, to spend more on health, education and social services. Let me remind hon. Members, however, how much the present Government are spending on those items: because of the wealth that Conservative policies have produced, the amount represents well over half our total expenditure. That would not be possible under a Labour Government, who would be forced to spend more and more money that they did not have.
Unemployment will rise under Labour with the decline of productivity and our ability to compete. The trade gap will widen. It is, of course, much too wide now—that is one of our major problems—but under Labour matters would become far worse. If it narrowed at all—as it did under a past Labour Government—that would be because of a fall in production, which would lead to a reduction in imports because no one would have the money to buy them. That is the sort of equilibrium that Labour would introduce.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Labour Government would find themselves in the same position as the Walrus and the Carpenter: with no oysters—no taxpayers—left on the beach.
4.47 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I have often had the opportunity to listen to speeches by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) in debates on overseas development and aid. I must say that I enjoyed those speeches much more than I enjoyed today's. The hon. Gentleman sounds all the better for not being given a bit of encouragement by the Whips.
It is not surprising that we should debate this subject today, given the hammering that the Conservative party received in the local elections.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What about Wandsworth and Westminster?
Mr. Clarke: Despite what the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said, public expenditure there was used to subsidise the poll tax. That represents no victory for Thatcherism, so let us not pretend that it does.
The debate constitutes an attempt to deflect public attention from the poll tax and from inflation. Having seen the latest huge inflation figure, people are asking what on earth this 11-year experiment has been about, for we are worse off than when we started. High interest rates have also come as a great blow, not only to house owners—important though they are; we have seen the effect on their voting habits in mid-Staffordshire and elsewhere—but to those who run small and medium-sized businesses. They have derived no comfort from the hon. Gentleman's speech, or from the comments of some of his right hon. Friends when they visited Scotland recently.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford talked about the problem of debt but did not deal as long as I would have liked with the problem of multiple debt and poverty for many people in many parts of Great Britain. My aim in seeking to catch your eye in this debate, Mr.

617
Deputy Speaker, was to submit that any taxation policy that does not take on board the issue of poverty in society will not work and will not carry with it the moral conviction that the British people would expect of any fair taxation system. I do not believe that the Government's approach to taxation is fair, so I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford did not deal with it. It is not simply a matter of broken promises, although broken they were, or the fact that the average family pays more taxation.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way only once because many hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to dominate the debate.
Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He claims that people pay more income tax. Is he aware that, if income tax rates had remained at their level on 3 May 1979 under the last Labour Government, at 33p in the pound, a man on average earnings with two children would pay £1,000 a year more now?
Mr. Clarke: Such a man would be fully aware that to concentrate on income tax alone—as the hon. Gentleman suggests—ignoring indirect taxes, VAT, prescription charges and the poll tax would be to turn on its head the reality of the past 11 years.
I am happy to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) about comparing. What has happened since 3 May 1979? I shall add to the hon. Gentleman's examples. The average gain for a taxpayer earning less than £5,000 a year is £110 a year, whereas for a taxpayer on an income of more than £70,000 a year it is £36,060 a year, or £693 a week. Where is the fairness in that? Given the unfairness of the Government's policy, it is no wonder that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford and his hon. Friends have said hardly a word in defence of that policy. How could they? Where is the support for it? How can one defend a taxation policy that has meant that the nation's wealth has not been fairly shared?
Because incentives matter, investment in the manufac-turing sector has declined, and we are paying for it.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clarke: I said that I would give way once and I have done that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Because of the Government's unfair taxation policy and the lack of investment in essential industries, unemployment is growing. I shall talk mainly about the problems in my region of Strathclyde. I do not complain about the fact that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford did not refer to Strathclyde, although he might have chosen other examples that showed the poverty among the unemployed, pensioners and single-parent families. The comments the other day of the chairman of the Conservative party about single parents did not sound fair to me.
The disabled and those who earn low pay under the Government also have problems. Many of them, especially
618
young people, do not now receive the protection that they had under the wages council system. Because we do not have a fair taxation policy, because social services are not properly supported and because we are hitting at social security, great problems are created for carers, ethnic minorities and young homeless people in Strathclyde and elsewhere. Many young homeless people who leave care cannot find homes or jobs or are earning low wages. It is unacceptable that the Government's taxation policy does not address their problem.
I thought that it was right in our debate on taxation to draw the attention of the House to the poverty theory, which has been exposed as a fraud but nevertheless is still perpetrated by the Government. They tell us about the "trickle down" effect. We saw in the recent. devastating report by the Select Committee on Social Services—which the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford did not mention—that the poorest people are worse off since the 1988 social security reforms.
Far from a "trickle down" effect, we have heard of an important statistical error, which was acknowledged a day or two before the Easter recess in a written reply, as though it did not matter. It does matter, because that "statistical error" has had a considerable bearing on the Government's taxation policy and social security policy, in the absence of a strategy to deal with poverty in Strathclyde and elsewhere. In taxation, as elsewhere, the Government ignore the views of not only the Opposition parties but voluntary organisations, churches and others who are at the receiving end, who know what this hardship means, who see poverty as a reality day after day and who rightly object to a "statistical error" being treated in such a flimsy way.
The "statistical error" meant that the poorest 10 per cent., instead of enjoying an increase of 8·4 per cent. compared with an average increase of 4·8 per cent.—according to the Prime Minister and her Ministers—received a miserable 2·6 per cent. compared with 5·4 per cent. for the rest of us. We cannot sweep that under the carpet. Those figures and the Prime Minister's attitude to taxation influenced matters such as child benefit, which has been frozen year after year, and single payments, which have been abolished, the introduction of the notorious social fund and its loans instead of grants, and "cash limits" at local offices which have no regard for the poverty of applicants seeking succour.
Housing benefits were slashed. Hon. Members will know from their surgeries that elderly people and disabled people came to us in tears complaining not only about the Government's taxation policy, but the Government using the taxation system to subsidise the rich and ignore the poverty of the poor. On top of that, there was the poll tax, without reasonable rebates. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford is mistaken if he suggests that people did not pay attention to that in local and other elections. The "statistical error" was crucial in terms of poverty. I would have expected to hear about it in the hon. Gentleman's lengthy speech. Imagine what would have happened if a similar error had been made and there had been a miscalculation over mortgage tax relief. That would have been regarded as completely unacceptable.
Although it was perhaps not what Conservative Members intended, the House should take this opportun-ity to analyse what is happening in society and the reasons why poverty is being allowed to continue. In Strathclyde, 42 per cent. of unemployed people have been unemployed

619
for more than a year and 27 per cent. for more than two years. I regret to say that the anti-poverty strategy of my colleagues in Strathclyde regional council, to which Labour was re-elected with an overwhelming majority, is not reflected in any of the Government's priorities. The number of people defined as being in poverty in Strathclyde has doubled in the past 10 years. About 22 per cent.—nearly one quarter—of the Strathclyde population receive income support or are partners or dependants of income support claimants.
The problems of individuals, families and communities have not been addressed in the debate so far. Why are we not listening to organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group which, incidentally, pointed out the error in the statistics long before the Government got round to announcing it themselves? Why are we not crying out for a solution to the debt problem—not the debt problem of 14 or 16 years ago but the debt problem that families in Britain are experiencing today? Nothing in the Government's taxation or social policies is aimed at helping them.
At the weekend, the Prime Minister made a speech in Aberdeen.
Mr. Tony Banks: "We in Scotland".
Mr. Clarke: This time she did not say, "We in Scotland," nor did she move a vote of thanks to the Scottish electorate. She could not have been expected to do that, given the hammering that the Conservative party received when the people of Scotland exercised their right to vote. Mr. Ewen Macaskill, a distinguished commen-tator in The Scotsman, said this of the Prime Minister's speech in Aberdeen:
"There was one telling moment when she reflected once again the view held by an alarmingly large number of English Conservative MPs—namely, that England is subsidising Scotland."
Does not that tell us everything? Not only do we have a policy of unfair taxation under this Government; we have a Government led by a Prime Minister who is determined to create divisions in our society. I must tell her that such divisions are no more acceptable in Scotland than they are elsewhere. We take no solace in the fact that, so far from trickling down, the wealth of Great Britain is trickling up. The poor are suffering and there is poverty in every part of Britain. Poverty remains the blight on our society.
It is because I have every confidence in the policy of the next Labour Government on taxation, as on other matters, that I look forward to the British people having an opportunity to offer their indictment of the Government's policies. I am sure that they will do just that.
5.2 pm
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The previous speech was fascinating, in a debate in which Opposition Members have been invited to set out their taxation policies. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) did not mention Labour's policies at all. He gave us the history of the past 10 or 11 years in a speech that was half baked and inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman refused to allow interventions—perhaps because they might have drawn him on the subject of the debate.
I should like to refer to some research that has been carried out into Labour's taxation policies. The research has not been easy, because it is well known that the Labour
620
party is trying as hard as possible not to mention its policies in case they get shot down. In the case of those of their policies that do not deserve to be shot down, Opposition Members are trying hard not to let us know what they are in case we happen to pick them up and run with them over the next 18 months. Believe it or not, on issues such as environmental protection, energy conserva-tion and the promotion of better recycling, the Labour party has some sensible policies. But being fit to be wombles does not make Labour fit to govern.
Let us examine the policies that we have been able to discover. The first is the phasing out of what was the married man's allowance. I do not know whether Labour Members are up to date on that. It is no longer the married man's allowance; it is the married couple's allowance. Because the Government have been forthright enough in their taxation policies to introduce almost complete equality between men and women through separate taxation for women, the married couple's allowance can now be allocated between a man and a woman if the income of the two suggests that that would be the best thing for them. Perhaps the Labour party has missed that fact.
Mr. Alice Mahon: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the poll tax and the several and joint liability clause, which is most unfair, as many married women have no income whatever?
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Lady seeks to draw me into a debate whose subject does not appear on the Order Paper. The motion refers to the Labour party's taxation policies. I should willingly argue the case for a community charge that is more broadly based than the old rating system any day of the week, but today we must address ourselves to the Labour party's taxation policies.
As I was saying before I was gracefully interrupted, many married women with husbands on lower incomes than themselves will lose if the married couple's allowance is abolished. That surely cannot be right. If the Labour party looks at the matter again, it will realise how unpopular such a measure would be. But given the policies of some Labour-controlled authorities, I suppose that the Labour party could be accused of being anti-family. Perhaps Labour Members do not want people to be married. Perhaps they do not want to introduce legislation that encourages the family unit.
The second of the Labour party's taxation plans involves the abolition of the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions and the conversion of the lower earnings limit into one allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who so brilliantly introduced the debate and so thoroughly covered the subject, referred to that policy. Let us assume that Labour kept national insurance at 9 per cent. Although there is no basis whatever for such an assumption, because it would be consistent with Labour's announcement of what it intends to spend on the National Health Service for it to increase national insurance to 11 or even 15 per cent. The present upper limit of £16,900 is quite low, given the salaries that are common in industry today—especially with productivity bonuses added into pay. Many people would face a very large increase even if national insurance were kept at 9 per cent.
The third of the Labour party's personal taxation plans involves the introduction of a supplementary tax on

621
investment income. Greatly to their credit, the Conservative Government have stopped calling unearned income unearned income. It is now called investment income and it is considered perfectly honourable to receive income from saving money. There are differences of opinion on both sides of the House about speculation and hon. Members have differing attitudes to the making of capital gains through investment. No one would deny, however, that from the point of view of the national economy, it is better to save money than to spend it.
As far as we can tell, the Labour party would not distinguish between income from forms of speculation and income from deposits. Yet again we could have an investment income surcharge. It might be introduced for sums of more than £2,000 with a surcharge of 15 per cent. We might have figures similar to those which we had before—perhaps on a sliding scale, at 15, 20, 25 or perhaps even 40 per cent. I can well remember the giddy heights that investment income surcharge reached. On top of the 98 per cent.—the top rate of taxation on investment income under the Labour Government—a further surcharge of 5 per cent. was added, making taxation of 103 per cent. on those with high investment incomes.
Nevertheless, on the more modest level of investment income, such as that represented by pensioners, children with savings, inherited sums of money, or those receiving interest payments through banks or building societies, Labour would introduce an investment income surcharge and try to treat all investment as dirty money once again. Part of this Government's success has been in attracting investment to the United Kingdom from abroad. We have tried to attract people to invest during periods of high interest rates. There are now twice as many depositors as borrowers. The high interest rates do as much to encourage saving as to penalise debt.
The fourth aspect of the personal taxation plan that can be gleaned from the Labour party is to increase the top rate of tax from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent—and once national insurance is included, the top rate will be 59 per cent. I am told that that would raise £3 billion, so it seems most attractive. However, if that is meant to be an attempt to raise money to pay for Labour's highly inflated programmes, Labour must be mistaken.
The Labour party tries to claim that, under this Government's taxation policies, all the benefits have been given to the rich instead of to the poor. However, that is not right. For example, if we analyse the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers, under the last year of the previous Labour Government, that top 5 per cent. contributed 24 per cent. of income tax revenue. At the moment, the top 5 per cent. contributes 29 per cent. I believe that the figure will soon be 30 per cent. In other words, the wealthiest in our society are contributing more income tax.
Therefore, this Government's income tax policies are fairer and more sensible because they raise more money. The Labour Government taxed revenue away and removed the incentive to work and people's desire to invest in Great Britain plc. If a supermarket manager reduces his prices, he sells more goods. The same applies to tax. As tax rates have been reduced, the yield to taxation has been greater. This Government have been more sensible and fairer than the previous Labour Government. They have also managed to expand expenditure in every area of
622
government. By increasing taxes, the Labour Government had to reduce expenditure and the International Monetary Fund came to bale them out.
Mr. Beith: If that is the case, what is stopping the Government from achieving the 20p standard rate of income tax referred to in the motion?
Mr. Hanley: The 20p level remains the Government's stated policy. However, that level would be wrong in present circumstances. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) criticised the Government two years ago when a slump was threatened after black Monday. I believe that he criticised us at the time for not going far enough. Certainly the Labour part said that we had not put enough back into the economy. It was clear that what we put into the economy then, through reductions in interest rates and tax cuts, helped to fuel inflation.
Therefore, if tax rates were reduced to 20 per cent. now, that might encourage another spending spree just when we are trying to restrict retail sales. However, 20p remains a Government priority. Anyone outside the House, even someone with no economic brain, would understand that 20 per cent. income tax is more likely to be achieved by this Government than by a Labour Government.
The fifth part of Labour's personal taxation plan involves the introduction of a new series of income tax bands. As yet, they are unspecified, but it is probably true that they would start below 20 per cent.—perhaps at 19 per cent. It is unlikely that the bands would exceed 50 per cent. to start off with although of course we must add on national insurance to those figures. The Labour party claims that the tax burden would therefore increase only for the highest paid. However, that is most unlikely to be the case, particularly if indexation is stopped at the higher levels. If we add all the various figures together, more people would enter the higher rate bands, particularly with the restriction on mortgate interest tax relief that Labour would introduce.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the mid-£30,000 to £40,000 level would be the first to be hit. However, that is wrong. As I said, if the married couple's allowance is abolished, all married women, who can use that allowance for the first time, will be hit.
Mr. Battle: What about the poll tax?
Mr. Hanley: Rather like a parrot, the hon. Member for Leeds, West, (Mr. Battle) is trying to divert attention from the Labour party's income tax plans.
With regard to what the hon. Member for Leeds, West chooses to call the poll tax, the nearer we get to a general election, the closer men on average earnings might get to Labour's taxation policies. A consideration of next year's community charge in comparison to this year's charge—when for example the charge for boroughs throughout London will be so much lower, the nearer we get to a general election, the closer we will get to the increase in taxation that Labour is bound to introduce. That could mean £1,000 to £2,000 per person or per family. I believe that in comparison with Labour's income tax policies, the community charge is a welcome relief.
Mr. Battle: The poll tax is a form of taxation. However, many people cannot understand why women who do not work are charged the poll tax because of the regulation that states that husbands are responsible for their partners.

623
That applies to such an extent that disabled women receiving a disability pension must pay the full whack of the poll tax. How is that a fair tax system?
Mr. Hanley: I am sure that you would bring me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I tried to explain that. However, for the sake of good order, if all married women were exempt from the poll tax, the rates would have to rise commensurately higher for everyone else. Therefore, the benefit to a couple would be almost wiped out immediately. The hon. Member for Leeds, West is talking nonsense.
Mr. Chris Butler: Is not the community charge a very interesting indicator of how the Labour party would act in government? The local authority in my consituency of Warrington is Labour-controlled, and Cheshire county council is run on a Labour budget. We have experienced an increase in the community charge, which translates into an increase in the rates—if they still existed—of 52·3 per cent. this year. Is not it true that the Labour party is a high spender locally, just as it would be nationally?
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend has made a most effective point. I am sure that the people in west London who have learnt what living under Labour means, are now living under Conservative-controlled authorities for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler).
I have gleaned more information about Labour's personal taxation plan. For example, the personal allowance would be converted into a zero rate band so that, when it is uprated for inflation, all taxpayers would gain the same amount. That sounds like a pleasant policy that would benefit those at the bottom rather than those at the top. However, the cost would be about £1·4 billion and it seems that two thirds of the people who would be affected by the change are already on the basic rate of tax. While one third are on the higher rate, two thirds of people on average incomes would be hit.
It seems that Labour would continue mortgage interest relief at the single rate, probably equivalent to the basic rate of relief that it inherited, and that higher rate relief would end. That would probably gain Labour £0·5 billion. However, that would also throw more people into higher rates.
Labour also apparently intends to restrict tax avoidance by high income earners by setting a minimum proportion of income that would have to be paid as tax. That has some attractions, and I do not dispute that it would be an interesting way of continuing this Government's drive to reduce tax avoidance. This Government have been stronger than any Government in trying to catch people who avoid tax. Therefore, I have no argument with that policy.
Labour would apparently also reduce the threshold for capital gains tax. That is yet another savings disincentive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, Labour's policy is anti-savings. The Labour party seems to be trying to cane those whom, for some reason, it disapproves of for earning money through investments. Reducing the capital gains tax threshold would hit London as a financial market, to the benefit of markets in other countries. There is little doubt that investment into the United Kingdom would begin to dry up. In fact, the existence of a Labour Government would
624
probably encourage that in any event, and I have already mentioned that Labour would introduce investment income surcharges.
As the hon. Member for Leeds, West has mentioned the poll tax with unfailing regularity, let us look at exactly what Labour would put in its place. The Labour party would value properties and houses for its roof tax or would introduce a local income tax and a property tax combined. In either event, it would value properties. Would that be the forerunner of a full-blown wealth tax? I doubt whether a Labour Government could resist introducing a wealth tax, under which occupational pensions would be taxed. A whole range of so-called "wealth" would be taxed in addition to income tax. Gifts and inheritances would be taxed at the point of receipt. People would be hit for saving and then passing on their money. That would be another disincentive to saving.
I have managed to find some of Labour's corporate taxation plans. They include the abolition of the uniform business rate. Labour Members referred to that time and again during the local elections, saying that business rates should be set locally, not centrally. I remind them that the uniform business rate was introduced to try to redistribute wealth throughout the country.
All that I heard from representatives of both Opposition parties during the previous general election campaign was that there was some sort of north-south divide. However, when the Government introduced the uniform business rate, which, I am sure it is true to say, is a form of social engineering, which moves money from the south to the north and encourages employment in the north, they were criticised for doing so.
To an extent, the uniform business rate could be said to discourage employment in the south where unemployment rates are so low——
Mr. Allen McKay rose——
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman has not been here for most of my speech. He has just come in, but perhaps he would like to warm up with an intervention.
Mr. McKay: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about the uniform business rate and businesses as a whole, does he agree that it would be far better if industry in the north received the benefits now rather than having them phased in over the next 20 years?
Mr. Hanley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits that there are benefits to the north. Any benefits to the north must be paid for by businesses in the south, which is why it is only right that the scheme should be phased in gradually. Phasing in is not only sensible, but humane. It is wholly sensible to help the small businesses in the south in that way. The hon. Gentleman has let the cat out of the bag by agreeing that the uniform business rate brings benefits to the north.
Mr. McKay rose——
Mr. Hanley: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again. I have already given way about seven or eight times——
Mr. McKay rose——
Mr. Hanley: Well, this is the last time.
Mr. McKay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is not a case of letting the cat out of the bag,

625
because Labour Members have always accepted that some benefits will come to the north. However, although the north benefits in that way, it loses per person on the poll tax. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go into that, perhaps I shall catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The leaders of the chambers of commerce and industry in the north are saying that those benefits will not accrue purely and simply because of the time that it will take for the balance to take effect.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman has not added much to the argument. He has said merely that chambers of trade and various trade bodies would like the benefits to the north to flow more quickly. The fact remains that it is this Government's policy that has produced those benefits and that they are now coming through. The hon. Gentleman is simply saying that he is impatient to receive those benefits more quickly. That is fine, because I am sure that, if the Government are retained in power, they will bring the benefits forward more quickly than at the moment, but for now they must be cautious in their economic policy.
As part of its corporate taxation plans, the Labour party has stated that it would reinstate capital allowances, which were an absolute nightmare of a system. I concede that certain allowances for the film industry would be welcome and are deserved, but to reinstate capital allowances lock, stock and barrel would be a reversal of progress. The Labour party has also said that it would withdraw the tax breaks that are offered to private landlords through the business expansion scheme. That scheme was introduced to try to help the homeless, by providing an incentive to create the properties that would house the homeless. I am therefore surprised that the Labour party wants to ditch that policy.
The Labour party also states that it would stimulate research and development, education and training, and regional economic development through tax incentives or allowances. That sounds great, but I am afraid that we would also see a jobs tax. I know that the stated 0· per cent. payroll tax was conveniently removed from Labour's policy as soon as there was an uproar when it was announced. That statement has now been dropped from public display, but I am absolutely certain that it would be back as soon as the general election was over.
The Labour party seems to be full of ideas that will not be disclosed until Labour is elected. I wonder how much of its policy it can try to keep secret. The list that I have given has been gleaned from a copious amount of work by many people, but the bottom line is found in the one positive statement that we have heard from an Opposition Treasury spokesman, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). His summary of the major taxation changes that the Labour party would introduce included lower rates of VAT on recycled materials, energy-efficient goods and insulation materials and higher rates on packaging that cannot be recycled. That is great in itself, but it is not a taxation policy for the nation as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman also stated that there would be additional allowances against corporation tax to encourage the reduction of pollution. Great—we all agree with that. He stated that there would be a grading of car tax, with owners of small cars paying less than the present
626
£100 and owners of large cars paying considerably more. That idea has been mooted by Conservative Members as well. Although it would be a nightmare to administer, it is nevertheless part of the great taxation plan of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
The hon. Gentleman also stated that there would be an increase in the leaded-unleaded price differential. Who invented the differential between leaded and unleaded petrol? This party in government created that differential so successfully that the Labour party is now choosing to pick up one of the jewels in our crown——
Mr. Nicholas Brow indicated assent.
Mr. Hanley: I note that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, is nodding.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury also said that there would be zero VAT on catalytic converters and lower taxes on sales of new cars that are fitted with such converters. I am sure that that will be the case when converters are in general use. Indeed, the Government have agreed a policy for changing to catalytic converters. The hon. Gentleman also said that there would be higher duties on company cars to raise an additional £500 million. I remind him that this Government have increased taxation on company cars as a benefit in kind by 350 per cent. in the past four years. Surely the Labour party will give us some credit for trying to remove that perk.
I have set out some of Labour's policies, and as we have seen, the Labour party has three major plans. It plans heavier taxes, higher taxes and more taxes. If one adds up all the spending promises from Labour's Front-Bench team, one realises that there is no way in which they can achieve them other than by those three policies.
The Leader of the Opposition has said that the huge majority of taxpayers will not be any worse off, but that does not stand up to any form of scrutiny. Research by Credit Suisse/First Boston has shown that by the removal of the married man's allowance, which is now called the married couple's allowance and the removal of the national insurance contribution upper limit, a married man without children, earning £6,000 per year, would be £4 a week worse off. The report suggests that those earning more than £17,000 a year would suffer dramatic increases in marginal rates.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) said earlier, if the tax rates of the previous Labour Government had been indexed to today's prices, they would mean that a person on average income would be paying £1,000 more per year in taxation than under this Government.
The Government have been fair to all. By reducing the rates of tax at the top, they have provided an income so that people at the bottom end of the social scale, such those in need of improved health and pensioners, can be protected and have the money that they so desperately require. Under Labour Governments, higher taxes drive away investors and the means to be able to support the economy, to build hospitals, housing estates and prisons —a Labour party demand. Therefore, the Labour party's taxation policies are cynical and Labour's silence is shaming. The report, "Labour's new policies: the complete guide", describes the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East as a

627
"good House of Commons type with competent, aggressive style in debate. Up and coming."
Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will show the House that he is up and coming, that he will stand up, be honest and set out his party's income tax policies.
Mr. Gow: Read it again.
Mr. Hanley: I shall willingly give my hon. Friend the report, which sets out a potted history of some of the leading lights, and then happens to mention that none of them has said anything about taxation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will prove the truth of the report by coming clean on Labour's policy. If he does, he will remain an Opposition spokesman.
5.30 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: One would not think from the remarks of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) that the Government have increased the overall level of taxation above that which they inherited and shown themselves to be a Government of high taxation. The changes that they have made have been in the structure of the tax system, and a number have been seriously to the detriment of the least well-off in our society.
The hon. Gentleman also needs to talk to some of his hon. Friends about the impact of the uniform business rate. Not only are the potential benefits of the uniform business rate for the north delayed to such an extent that they show no likelihood of an early influence on the location of industry, but the system is hedged about in such a way that any firm that considers moving in or from the south will lose protections to such an extent that it is not likely to move. The uniform business rate system is not likely to achieve the claimed benefits of a shift from the south to the north. That message is coming quite clearly, not just from the Opposition, but from Government Members.
I hope that it is not unkind of me to intervene in this exchange between two other parties about taxation policy. Any such exchange is made that much more difficult in the light of President Bush's recent public disclaimer of his earlier, well-known and dramatised pledge that there would be no new taxation. He said:
"Read my lips—no new taxes".
Will anybody ever again believe a politician talking about a tax promise after President Bush so publicly disavowed his?
When talking about tax proposals and promises, as way of introduction we must look a little more closely at the basis of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on the Government's behalf. To argue about taxation policy without making any reference to the fundamental change involved in the poll tax, or community charge, is misleading. The poll tax has hugely shifted the burden of paying for local government services through a form of taxation that has an extremely severe impact on large numbers of people on modest incomes and some on low incomes. It redistributes money in the direction of the most well-off in our society.
There have been enormous gains under the poll tax system for those who previously paid high rates because they are wealthy and live in large and expensive houses. There are many people on low incomes who face enormous increases in personal taxation because of the impact of the poll tax. They are paying hundreds of
628
pounds a year more than they previously did per family or household in order to meet this frightening new tax. I can genuinely say that I have never seen such extensive distress in my constituency surgeries as that tax introduced—certainly not from any change in the taxation system that has occurred in the 16 or 17 years that I have been a Member. That is a part of the background that Conservative Members cannot deny or disavow.
Conservative Members must also take into account the difficult position in which the Government finds themselves over the pledge of 20p income tax referred to in the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. It was perhaps unfortunate that he tabled his motion last week before the Chief Secretary to the Treasury appeared on television at the weekend to say that, after all, the Government would not be able to manage it, and there was no prospect of the 20p pledge being implemented this side of a general election. He said that, not because the Government have suddenly found that they cannot meet the bill, but for a quite different reason. It may turn out that, if privatisation revenues fall, as they look likely to do in the shambles of electricity privatisation, that the Government cannot make the books balance. But that is not the present reason. It is one of general economic management and the fear of inflation.
At the time of the Budget, the Chancellor made much of the idea that fiscal policy could not involve fine tuning of the tax system and it was inappropriate to try to combat inflation by adjustments in the tax policy. However, that is precisely what the Government are doing. They have a declared objective of reaching 20p in the pound income tax, but they are currently engaged in an adjustment and saying, "Sorry, we cannot do it, because if we do, we think that, just as last time when we cut taxes there was a big increase in demand, so there will be if we do so again, and, as a result, inflation will get worse." I am glad that the Government have got the message at last, and I wish that the previous Chancellor had got the message.
I wonder what the Government would do if they ever attained their objective of 20p in the pound income tax. That is their policy goal and presumably, having reached that point, they do not make any further changes in income tax levels—up or down—so how do they cope with the circumstances in which they now find themselves when they are under threat of severe inflation? How do they make adjustments to cope with inflation when we are in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system if they cannot use the taxation level for that purpose?
In the European monetary system, the interest rate weapon will increasingly be used at the behest of the system as a whole to preserve the exchange rate parities in the system. Therefore, it will be necessary to use other instruments to deal with domestic inflation. The Financial Secretary shakes his head, but it will come to that. He will have to look for other instruments to deal with domestic inflation. The limitations of interest rates for that purpose are already apparent in the difficulties in which the Government find themselves. They cannot put up interest rates any more at present, because it would be so politically unpopular, but sooner or later they may find themselves obliged to do so. However, they are under much greater political restraint than ever before because of the huge burdens borne by many home buyers and small businesses.
Mr. John Butcher: I think that the House would welcome a comment from the hon. Gentleman about whether the Social and Liberal Democrats still believe in supply side economics. If recent evidence shows fairly conclusively that reduction of the top rates of income tax not only increases the total tax take to the Treasury, but the proportion paid by the better-off, surely that is a philosophy very much in line with the old-style Liberal economists of the last century. Bearing in mind the fact that the reduction in interest rates pumps in proportionately more purchasing power than does a reduction in taxation rates and the phenomenon that I described adds to the budget surplus, surely that is also non-inflationary. I am not trying to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I think this is a useful opportunity to let us know how the thinking of the Social and Liberal Democrats is going.
Mr. Beith: Part of the hon. Gentleman's thesis was wrong. Reductions in personal taxation at a time of much greater credit liberalisation generated demand and created the severe inflationary pressures that we are now experiencing. The Government, and Chancellors appear-ing before the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, have admitted that. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the high levels of personal taxation that existed under previous Governments and the absurd levels of 98 per cent. taxation on investment income were wholly inappropriate, and it was right to get away from that level. I have been talking about the economic judgments that Governments must make. It remains the case that, in deciding to make a cut in standard rate at the time that he did, the previous Chancellor took part in a series of miscalculations that have left us with our present inflationary problems.
I still do not understand why the Government disavow the use of the taxation system as a means of regulating inflation at a time when they are engaged in precisely that. Again and again Conservative Members have told me that it is their intention to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 20p in the pound. They are not doing so, because they believe that they will create more inflation if they do. Let us have a little more clarity on that.
The object of the debate is to try to tease out Labour's taxation policy. We must leave some time for that important task, because not much progress has been made on it so far. If the experience of the local elections is anything to go by, Labour will continue its policy of saying as little as possible. Its alternative to the poll tax was unstated, or at least confused, throughout the election campaign. It was to be some combination of a property tax and banding to take account of income. The combination never became clear.
It seemed to many people—including, I suspect, some Labour Members—to be an unnecessarily expensive as well as a confused tax because it involved two mechanisms —the valuation of property and the assessment of income. That leads me to wonder why Labour does not adopt our proposal for a local income tax, which seems an eminently more sensible procedure. Labour's habits of silence were well illustrated during the local election campaign, when it could not tell us its alternative to the poll tax.
Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman, in the hope that he will tell me something about this matter.
Mr. Battle: I am puzzled by hon. Members who say that there is some difficulty about two concepts being held together. Under the rating system, linked to the benefits system of rebates, two different systems worked and interacted.
Mr. Beith: Yes, but I do not see why, in seeking to assess revenue for local authorities, we should go to the trouble of valuing property all over the country, which is not a particularly good guide to income, while at the same time assessing income and then trying to combine the two assessments. The old system was not particularly good, but the poll tax is infinitely worse. It is possible to have a system that is better than either, and I do not understand why Labour does not want to do so. I suspect that it is part of the policy of not saying what it proposes to do.
The Budget discussions also revealed ample evidence of that. In the immediate prelude to the Budget, the shadow Chancellor produced a two-page typed statement containing the Labour party's alternative to the Budget. On reading that, one would suppose that it might be possible to have lower inflation, a lower trade deficit and no significant increases in taxation for most people. The statement was noted more for its brevity than for anything else, and I suspect that it too was part of a policy of not really saying anything very much.
I have known the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) for many years, and I think that that is his line. He may well have ideas about what he wants to do, but he does not propose to tell anybody just now, because people will only disagree with him and make trouble, and it is far easier to take office with no commitments at all. After all, parties have done that before.
Labour's attempt to claim economic credibility rests on the belief that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be as strict and successful in containing public spending and inflation as he has been in containing his weight since the illness from which we were all so pleased to see him make such a good recovery. How he manages to do it while attending all the City lunches and dinners that he is supposed to attend I do not know. He has been extremely successful in self-discipline. The belief that he can somehow extend that discipline over the entire breadth of the Labour party seems wholly misguided. It is leading to a situation in which Labour would be unprepared for government even if there were some real prospect of it reaching government.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has led many of his hon. Friends to believe that all sorts of laudable objects can be achieved without significant pain or difficulty, except to a few rich people whom Labour assumes will not vote for it anyway. Some of the richest houses at which I call during by-election campaigns are the ones in which I have located the Labour votes. The problem of a party that has not prepared itself for the most difficult decisions of government seems especially well illustrated by a letter that appeared in The Independent this morning. It is signed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and 11 of his hon. Friends. It states:
"In your leading article last Monday (7 May) you refer to an interview published in the Independent on Sunday with

631
Labour's Shadow Chancellor, John Smith, explaining various proposals of the Shadow Cabinet. This interview detailed a number of policies which have not been adopted by the Labour Party, including Exchange Rate Mechanism entry in order to pursue a deflationary policy, and the dumping of our commitment to full employment."
Later, the letter states:
"Such policies would place a Labour government on a collision course with both the trade union movement and the electorate."
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield and his 11 hon. Friends who happened to be around when the letter was signed are clearly unprepared for some of the measures that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East hopes to implement in the name of a Labour Government. Those 12 hon. Members say that they are not Labour policies, but there may be more than 12. If there is any possibility at all of a Labour Government after the next general election, there is not much chance of a Government with a majority of more than 12, and I suspect that that group of hon. Members or others will display their unpreparedness for such policies in no uncertain terms and will make it impossible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to go on with a series of policies that are being kept under wraps until Labour comes to office. Even if it were a potentially useful electoral device, the policy of silence on taxation cannot prepare a party for any kind of effective government. It will certainly not assist in the taking of some difficult decisions.
Until the recent local govern-ment elections, government for my party seemed a rather remote prospect, but my party has been prepared to say what it believes. It has set out in detail its policy on local income tax and on tax reform. It will cost the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford £1 more to buy our document on the subject, because there is a great deal more in it. I am sure that, when he looks at our policies, in more detail, he will not ask for his money back.
They include things that he says he favours, such as the integration of the tax and benefits systems and an attempt to introduce a citizen's income system as part of a more effective attack on poverty than can be achieved merely by tax allowances and benefits which depend on take-up, let alone by a level of child benefit, which is being deliberately eroded by the Government.
During discussions on the last Budget, we said that we were prepared to bring forward a number of those measures in order to tighten the fiscal stance this year because of the inflationary pressures that are so apparent in the current year. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford is right to put this matter on the Parliamentary agenda and to try to open up a more public discussion on tax policy for the future. I hope that, before the end of the debate, we will learn just a little of what Labour has in mind.
5.46 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who, I suppose, could be described as the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Liberal party. I noted with keen interest his observation that an income tax rate of 98 per cent. was unsustainable and indefensible. During the notorious Lib-Lab pact, the hon. Gentleman and his party supported a Government who imposed upon the British people precisely that level of taxation.
632
That comes as no surprise to any hon. Member, because the previous leader of the Liberal party instructed the delegates to the Liberal party conference before the last general election to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government. His predecessor at the 1979 general election promised to lead the Liberal candidates towards the sound of gunfire. From the Liberal party, we have a never-ending series of myths, and hon. Members who want further examples of mythology should commit to memory from tomorrow's Official Report the speech by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for initiating this most important debate. Its importance is underlined by the presence on the Back Benches of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who I hope will shortly catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West is very perspicacious. He is in his place on this important occasion, but the importance that he attaches to the debate is not, alas, shared by all his right hon. and hon. Friends.
The subject of taxation cannot be divorced from the subject of spending. What should be the level of spending by Governments and how that spending is financed is at the heart of this debate. It is perfectly true that, from 1974 to 1979, there was a dramatic increase in public spending, but there was also a dramatic increase in taxation. Even the increase in taxation, however, was insufficient to meet the vaulting spending plans of the then Government. Even that Government did not dare to impose sufficient taxes to meet spending. They tried to borrow to bridge the gap between spending and revenue, and when they were unable to borrow enough to bridge the gap, they resorted to the printing presses. Those vaulting spending plans and the subsequent inability to raise the money to finance them would be reproduced if ever there were another Labour Government.
Mr. Tony Banks rose——
Mr. Gow: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He knows that there is no speech that I shall make in this House when I will not give way to him.
Should a Labour Government be elected, the same gap between spending and revenue will emerge and it will be met in the only way possible, by the printing presses. I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I almost call my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Banks: That is probably the most complete demolition job that has so far been done on me in this House.
I cannot blame the hon. Gentleman for concentrating on what he would consider to be the downside of the Labour Government's economic record. Will he also accept, however, that, during that period, the unemploy-ment rate was conspicuously lower that it is now, that the balance of payments in trade in manufactured goods was healthy and not in deficit as it is now——
Mr. Tom Clarke: And that was without oil.
Mr. Banks: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Interest rates were considerably lower than they are now and inflation on a downward turn. In the interest of fairness, I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will be prepared to put that side of the argument.
Mr. Gow: I shall make my speech in my own way, subject to my earlier undertaking that I shall, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman if he seeks to intervene again.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Newham North-West referred to inflation and I am glad to have the opportunity to comment on it in the presence of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who I hope will shortly be my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. I shall give way to my hon. Friend if he wants to intervene on my analysis about inflation—I give him the same undertaking as I gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-West.
Only Governments can cause inflation, and only Governments can cure it. It follows 11 years and more after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister became First Lord of the Treasury that those who sit presently upon the Treasury Bench, and only those—I suppose that the Financial Secretary might say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who no longer sits on that Bench, bears some responsibility in the matter, so perhaps I should say, only those who have been or are on the Treasury Bench—are responsible for the present level of inflation.
Inflation is a disease of money and it can be ended only by a monetary cure. It is a matter of deep regret to me that, 11 years and more after a Conservative Government came into office, we have inflation at 9·4 per cent. and probably rising. I hope that the Financial Secretary and his colleagues in the Treasury will re-learn the lesson that some of us thought that they had learnt—that only a strict monetary policy will control the evil of inflation. When I say "control", it is a misuse of language. I have noticed that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends now refer to the control of inflation, but that was not the undertaking given in the manifestos of 1983 and 1987. Those manifestos referred to the goal of the Government as stable prices, which is zero inflation.
It is possible through the proper use of monetary policies to abate and eliminate the evil of inflation. During the lifetime of this Government, we have had inflation down to 2·5 per cent., but that was still 2·5 per cent. too high. If one can bring inflation down from 26·9 per cent. —the highest level under the Labour Administration—to 2·5 per cent., one can certainly get it down from 2·5 per cent. to zero. That should be the policy of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and it should be the policy of the Labour party when it comes to submit its policies to the electorate.
The Labour party, however, will not make that commitment to the elimination of inflation, which was a commitment made by the Conservative party in 1983 and 1987. The Labour party will not do so because it does not believe in honest money and sound finance. If Labour party policies are ever implemented, I fear that there will be a dramatic increase in taxation, a dramatic increase in spending, a massive fall in confidence in sterling—even the Labour party will then be obliged to put up interest rates —and a diminution of confidence in this country. Many of the ablest people will leave the United Kingdom to seek freer countries.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend is making one mistake by constantly referring to "when" the Labour party produces its policies, as if he
634
really believes that it will produce those policies in time for them to be costed, so that the electorate can see the folly into which they are being led.
Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend may well be correct. Hitherto, the Labour party has sought to conceal, and will continue to seek to conceal, the reality of what will happen. I have predicted what would happen if a Labour Government were ever to be elected. It is the duty of Conservative Members, which is why I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, to fill some of the gaps that are clearly and deliberately left by the Labour party.
A policy of high taxation and high spending brings with it dangers for the British people. I have been in this place for the twinkling of an eye, but nothing has happened in the past 16 years to lead me to believe that Governments are able to spend money more wisely and effectively than other people. The policies of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, however, have had a significant effect, because, when the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) comes to give the view of the official Opposition, even he will not say that the Labour party will go back to 98 per cent. levels of taxation on income.
When the hon. Member's party left office, that was the level of taxation, but he will not say that his party will go back to that level. Why? Because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has moved the centre of British politics to the right and has occupied the middle ground, dragging with her—with considerable reluctance, it is true—even some Labour Members. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, but if he had his way, and if he were ever to be a Treasury Minister, he would not be satisfied with a 98 per cent. tax on income —he would want to go above 100 per cent. Some Labour Members feel a deep sense of envy and think that the purpose of taxation is not to raise revenue—although they frequently raise revenue with higher rate taxes—but to pursue the politics of envy.
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman must realise that, for people with certain levels of income, in particular those caught in the poverty trap, marginal rates of tax can be 100 per cent. We have to get people out of that trap. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the percentage of gross domestic product that is paid in taxes, adding indirect and direct taxes together, is more under the present so-called low-tax Government than under the Labour Government in 1978–79?
Mr. Gow: Mercifully, the economy is more buoyant now. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because the average taxpayer is paying considerably less tax now. If the Opposition's policies were introduced, the burden of taxation would massively increase.
The House of Commons is the right place to discuss the central issues of how much Government should spend and how the money should be raised to cover that expenditure. The danger to Britain would be if we returned to a Government with precisely those vaulting spending ambitions that the Labour Government had in the past and to a similar increase in the burden of taxation. If we were massively to increase spending and taxation the prospects for this country, for fuller employment and for higher living standards would all be put at risk.

635
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire and Stortford, and I commend his opening speech.
6.1 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: What I find most galling about the setpiece of pure Tory party propaganda that we have today heard is that it appears to take most of its evidence from Fabian Society pamphlets—Conservative Members have the advantage over most Opposition Members who do not read them—or from the fantasising of two obscure Americans, Keating and Franklin, who produced what is probably an expensive report, the Credit Suisse/First Boston report, which made a number of assumptions about Labour policy that are wrong and deliberately misleading. They assume that they know what would be in Labour's first Budget and also what would be in the next four or five. I would be interested to know if they considered Tory plans for 1997, should we be so unlucky as to have the Conservatives elected to government again. The report also omitted the fact that Labour would be applying the Rooker-Wise indexation formula to higher rate thresholds and hands of tax. To pretend that we would not is absolute nonsense.
Let us consider the Government's tax record. I am not surprised that Conservative Members do not want to examine that, because, despite all their claims to be the party of low tax, they are not. The truth is that the overall burden of taxation has increased considerably under the Conservative Administration for those in the lower income groups.
In 1979, a married man with two children on average earnings paid 35 per cent. to the state in income tax, national insurance, rates, value added tax and other indirect taxes. By 1989, a worker on average earnings paid 37·3 per cent. to the state. At the lower end of the income scale, for a married man with two children earning half the average wage, the tax bill has risen from 2·5 per cent. to 7·1 per cent. since 1979. I admit that it is not all doom and gloom under the Tories. If a married man with two children earns 20 times as much as the national average —roughly £5,000 a week—his total tax bill has been reduced from 74·3 per cent. to 38·5 per cent.
Thanks to the excellent work of the Select Committee on Social Services, which exposed the bogus definition of poverty, we know that the Prime Minister was not correct in her much-publicised comments that helping the wealthy gradually trickles down to the poor—she was trying to justify helping the wealthy. I recommend that Conservative Members read that report if they doubt what I am saying.
Opposition Members have never been in any doubt about the results of the Government's tax policies. Of course the rich have got richer and the poor poorer. Hon. Members only have to use their eyes to study the position in the regions. How can we make sense of policies that allow the highest paid director in 1989—William Brown of Walsham Brothers—to pay himself more than £2 million in salary a year, or policies that mean that a 19-year-old student on a Business and Technician Education Council course, studying for more than 21 hours a week, and living with her unemployed parents, should lose her only income once she reaches the age of 19? Her income was only £27 a week. I know of such a case. Her parents were receiving income support and child benefit until she reached the age
636
of 19, then every penny was withdrawn. Yet the same policies mean that she is expected to pay 20 per cent. of her poll tax.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned credit controls, he made quite a good case for them. If we are discussing the Government's record during the past decade, we should consider their record on debt. The National Consumer Council recently published a report that showed that on average consumers now owe twice as much as they did 10 years ago, and that the number of households that have difficulty in paying their debts has risen sharply. A staggering 2 million households have difficulty paying some sort of debt, and some half a million have multiple debts including mortgages and rents. That speaks volumes about a party that claims that home ownership is such a success story. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) can mirage that issue away.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford based his assumptions about Labour policies on that doubtful document by two Americans, yet there has not been a success story in America for the vast majority of the people. Under Reagan, the tax burden was shifted from the rich to the poor. A study by the Urban Institute, whose members include prominent Republicans as well as Democrats, showed that, between 1980 and 1984, the poorest 20 per cent. of the population suffered a 7·6 per cent. decrease in disposable income, the next 20 per cent. up the scale suffered a decrease of 1·7 per cent. and the 20 per cent. at the top of the scale increased their income by 8·7 per cent. It is worth mentioning what has happened in America because much of what the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said was based on the Credit Suisse /First Boston report.
Mr. Hanley: If the hon. Lady is denying what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford and I said, which we believe to be the fruits of research into what the Labour party has told us about its policies so far, will she tell us what Labour's income tax policies are? We are waiting to hear if our research has been proved wrong.
Mrs. Mahon: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he might hear something that will do him some good.
In America, similar policies of reducing taxes to reward the rich led to problems similar to those in the United Kingdom. Nobody denies that the Americans invested the millions that they received from tax cuts, as did the wealthy in Britain, but in neither case did they invest in wealth-producing assets. They went for short, speculative gains, which have not done either country any good.
The trickle-down approach in America failed just as spectacularly as it did in this country. We all remember President Bush's election pledge:
"Watch my lips—no new taxes."
He is now faced with a projected federal deficit of more than $150 billion. He has recently signalled that he intends to preside over a budget reduction package that will include taxes, despite all that we heard during the run-up to the election—unless he again gets away with watering down the Gramm-Rudman Act, which would enable him legally to introduce an even larger budget.
The hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) should concentrate on the Government's taxation record before taking to task those trying to put forward a fair programme of taxation. We believe in taxation because we believe in the

637
redistribution of wealth. We certainly would not have introduced the poll tax. Hon. Members should deal with that issue, but they do not want to talk about it. They should think about the high interest rates that the Government are using as a one-club weapon to avoid tax increases. That has harmed economic activity. Manufacturing in my constituency is suffering because firms cannot afford to borrow with the cost of money being so high.
Conservative Members should concentrate on the skills shortage and the crisis in education. They should concentrate their minds also on the explosion of poverty. They may be proud of their tax policies, but the poor and those on low incomes are not happy with Tory tax policies. The Labour party is proud of its policy review and its aims. I am sure that we will have magnificent achievements. My right hon. and hon. Friends will propose policies that will be properly costed, and the electorate will believe them.
6.12 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on securing this debate, on his excellent motion, and on the superb speech with which he introduced it and with which he demolished the Labour party's tax programme. The debate has been embellished by contributions from my hon. Friends the Members, for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). Their speeches, together with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, will merit reading and re-reading throughout the country.
It was a generous idea to give the Opposition the opportunity to explain their policies. They have had that opportunity, but so far they have refused to take it. Labour Members have not once explained their party's tax policies. It is manifest that they are ashamed of them. They have exercised their right of silence for fear of incriminating themselves, and we well understand why. We shall have to wait to hear whether the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) will continue that policy. It is noteworthy that he is saving his speech until the end of the debate so that there will be no opportunity to comment on it.
The Government have always made clear the principles on which our tax policy is based. Our record of implementation demonstrates them in action and we have set clear targets for the future. Our principles are to reform taxes so that they are simpler; to remove unwarranted reliefs; to plug loopholes; to broaden the tax base; and ultimately to reduce marginal rates because they affect economic activity. Our record demonstrates a successful reform of the taxation of companies, of personal income, of capital, of inheritance, of husbands and wives and of savings. We have abolished seven major taxes and several minor ones. Our targets are progressively to reduce the burden of public spending and thereby tax as a share of national income, and to reduce the all-important basic rate of income tax to 20p as and when it is prudent to do so.
The Labour party is under an even greater obligation than we are to spell out its tax policies because they will impose an increased burden. People have the right to know how much extra tax they will have to pay, who will pay it,
638
which taxes will be raised and what new taxes will be introduced. That obligation is recognised by many Opposition Members who have been distinctly unhappy with the evasiveness of their Front-Bench spokesmen during recent months. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made it an issue in the deputy leadership election little more than a year ago. He said:
"We must learn the lesson from the last election when our tax policy was a mess. It is not credible for Labour to suggest our policies can be financed on a programme of low taxation. It can't and the electorate know it can't. We need to argue our case not duck the issues."
We shall learn later whether the Front-Bench spokesman argues the case or ducks the issue. I fear that the Opposition will continue to take as their motto, "Mum's the word." Indeed, they became quite angry on Second Reading of the Finance Bill when I suggested that those in the press who criticise Treasury Ministers for going into pre-Budget purdah might direct their fire at the Labour party for going into post-Budget purdah. However, they seem determined to remain there, at least until the next election.
Because the Opposition are not very forthcoming, we have the right to reconstruct, from the evidence available, the tax policies that it appears they will introduce. We can draw on three sources of evidence—first, their policy statements made before they went into pre-election purdah; secondly, their voting records on tax changes over the last decade; and, thirdly, their record when in government. Those sources combine to paint a clear picture of a party committed to high spending, requiring high taxation that will mean most people on average incomes and above paying more, and that will impose significantly higher marginal tax rates on a substantial minority.
Let us consider some of the Opposition's specific proposals and we must make no bones about this—for tax changes. They include the upper earnings limit, investment income surcharge, the higher rate of income tax and the basic rate of income tax. The first proposal is to abolish the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions and impose a 9 per cent. tax surcharge on 3 million people on all incomes above £18,000 a year. In his article in the Independent on Sunday,—which I commend to my hon. Friends—the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was frank about that. He said:
"They say 'you are going to hit people earning about £18,000 by making them pay this extra amount'. I say 'Yes I am'."
There is no reason to doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman's word. A party that has as a central revenue-raising item a surcharge on employers' national insurance contributions—the notorious tax on jobs that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) had the privilege of abolishing—would have no compunction about abolishing the upper earnings limit.
The second proposal is the restoration of a special supplementary tax on savings—the investment income surcharge that was also abolished by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East. There is some doubt whether the plan is to restore a 15 per cent. surcharge, as previously existed, or to impose a 9 per cent. charge on all savings income—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East is nodding—mirroring

639
national insurance contributions. The Opposition voted against the abolition of the 15 per cent. surcharge, but it appears that a 9 per cent. tax on all 20 million savers who pay tax is now in vogue. Either way, it will be a tax on savings when we need more savings, not less.
It would bear most heavily on the elderly, retired, and those who would suffer most from the effect of Labour's inflationary policies in wiping out their lifetime savings.
As to the top rate of income tax, on a number of occasions, Labour's spokesmen have affirmed that it would be raised to a maximum of 50p in the pound—or 59p in the pound including the national insurance surcharge. In his revealing interview in the Independent on Sunday, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East described that rather menacingly as
"an exercise in moderation."
It is not clear why anyone should rely on Labour's promise not to raise tax rates if it came to power. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who called for redistribution, believes that a top tax rate of 50p in the pound is high enough.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lilley: Of course I will give way—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) set an example.
Mr. Banks: It was a fine example to follow. I may say to the young Minister that it is all very well Conservative Members complaining about the Labour party not spelling out what it intends to do, but when my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor does exactly that, Conservative Members will respond, "We do not believe what you say." We cannot win in that situation, can we?
Mr. Lilley: There is some suspicion, because Labour's voting record in Parliament indicates otherwise. Labour Members voted not only against the reduction of the top rate of income tax from 60p to 40p, but from 83p to 60p. Labour's record in government, too, belies the "exercise in moderation" to which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East referred. When in government, Labour raised the top rate of tax from 75p to 83p, and the overall top rate was increased to 98p in the pound, on income from savings. Labour deliberately took that action, to "squeeze the rich until the pips squeak"—to use the inelegant words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is it the Financial Secretary's view that the entire process of Labour's policy review was just some kind of charade, for the purpose of presenting a pleasant face to the electorate, and that we do not mean a word of it? If that is the Minister's view, he should say so, rather than just imply that it is.
Mr. Lilley: There is an element of charade in Labour's policy review, and there is an important reason for some doubts lingering in the minds of not only my right hon. and hon. Friends but of people in the country at large, as to whether the conversion of the Labour party is sincere. The reason for those doubts is that Labour has never admitted that it was wrong. There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than at 99 just men who need no repentance. Never has a Labour Member stood up and said, "We were wrong. We are sorry. We have changed, and we now have a different policy." Until Labour
640
disowns both its voting record and its record in government, doubts must remain about the policies that it presents.
I would expect any changed policy to be accompanied by a recognition that the previous policy was wrong. However, if Labour maintains a dual allegiance to its previous record and to its new, temporary policies concocted before a general election, it must expect the man in the street to hold some suspicions.
When Labour was in power, it deliberately raised top rates of tax, but not, it would seem, to acquire a great deal of extra revenue. The consequence of that action was that the top 5 per cent. of this country's richest people, who at the beginning of Labour's period of office paid 29 per cent. of our income tax revenues, paid only 24 per cent. of them by the end of Labour's term of office. That is scarcely in tune with the redistributive aims of at least the hon. Member for Halifax.
Mr. Frank Haynes: I do not know where the Minister got his brief, but he is wandering about all over the place. I wonder whether he holds constituency surgeries, as do I and my right hon. and hon. Friends. I held a surgery on Saturday, and people came in to complain about the taxes that they have to pay, even when they are in a very low income group. I could cry at some of the problems that they have as a consequence of the present Administration. The Minister keeps harping on about what Labour's policy will be if it gets into power. Don't worry, lad. Labour will get in next time. When it does, taxes will be based on people's ability to pay. That is what it is all about—so let the Minister put that in his pipe and smoke it.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for that constructive contribution from the hon. Gentleman, who has just wandered in.
The main issue affecting both the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine is not the top rate of income tax, which falls directly upon no more than 1·7 million people, but the basic rate. Neither Labour's policy review nor the statements of Opposition figures give clear guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford made clear, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, the conflicting statements made by Opposition Members. If today's debate serves any purpose, it is to achieve clarification from Opposition Members as to whether it is Labour's intention to raise the basic rate of income tax.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East acknowledged in his recent interview that the tax reforms he proposes will not be "revenue-neutral." He was clear about that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that the yield from implementing just one of them would be absorbed by just one of Labour's pledges. We have yet to see the Opposition spell out and cost all their pledges. They promised to do so in the foreword to the very document that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East suggested as a reliable guide. But the shadow Chief Secretary has said that she disowns the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition in his foreword to cost Labour's policies before the general election. Labour has now gone back on that promise and said that it will not cost them until afterwards. That is another reason why we have doubts about the reliability of Labour's spokesmen.

641
In the absence of clear statements by members of the Opposition Front Bench, and as they have not taken the opportunity today to stand up and say whether they will raise the basic rate, we must refer again to Labour's voting record and its record in government. The voting record of Labour Members is clear. They voted against every cut in the basic rate that we have introduced in this and previous Parliaments. They voted against a reduction from 33 per cent. to 30 per cent. in 1979; 30 per cent. to 29 per cent. in 1986; 29 per cent. to 27 per cent. in 1987; and 27 per cent. to 25 per cent. in 1988. On each occasion, the Opposition said that they would prefer to use potential revenues from income tax to increase public spending.
One can believe that, because one knows that that is where Opposition hearts lie. When in government, and after some ups and downs, Labour ended up with a basic tax rate 3p higher than that which applied when they were first elected. If we were simply to uprate in line with inflation the tax allowances that Labour left behind for a Conservative Government, and if we had maintained the same tax rates, the average man would be paying over £1,000 a year more income tax.
That underestimates the true burden of public expenditure under Labour. A large part of its programme was financed not by tax but by borrowing. Borrowing is nothing more than deferred taxation. The equivalent value today of the deferred tax burden that Labour was incurring, year in and year out, was equivalent to about £2,000 per household in the last year of that Labour Government.
Mr. Tony Banks: That is what one borrows money for.
Mr. Lilley: I am afraid that it is not as simple as the hon. Member for Newham, North-East suggests— [Interruption.] I meant to say Newham, North-West.
Mr. Banks: I hope that the Minister's economics are better than his geography.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, such was the Labour Government's inability to control public expenditure, that in 1976, although they raised personal and corporate taxes significantly that year, they had begun the year by assuming that the public sector borrowing requirement would be £2·7 billion? As it turned out, by the end of the year the PSBR had reached £9 billion.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is difficult to forecast the public sector borrowing requirement, but happily we often make the mistake of underestimating our surpluses.
The overall impact of the Labour party's policies is clear: a higher burden of taxation, higher taxation of the average man in the street and, most of all, a substantial increase in marginal tax rates for large numbers of people. At last we know what supply side socialism means. It is the exact opposite of what the rest of the world did during the supply side revolution of the 1980s. During that period, countries from India to America, from Japan to the Ivory Coast, reduced their top rates of tax and their rates of tax generally because they believed that marginal rates of tax were important for efficiency, growth and the prosperity of the economy.
Mr. Battle: If the result of this week's meeting is that Congress and the President of the United States decide to do a U-turn and raise taxes to fund the trade and budget deficit, will the Government here do likewise?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point; it reinforces what I said earlier. We had to raise the tax burden to deal with the deficit that we inherited from Labour. I do not intend to comment on the United States Government's predicament. If, however, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that deficits cannot be sustained and have to be financed, there is a great deal of force in what he says.
The hon. Gentleman's colleagues do not seem to recognise the damage that can be done by high rates of tax, not just to individuals but to the health of the economy as a whole. The Labour party specifically denies that they cause damage. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said:
"I find that there is no respectable evidence … There is nothing at home or abroad that can justify the ideology of incentives"—[Official Report, 26 April 1988; Vol. 132, 231.]
That was said in the context of cutting the basic and the top rates of tax. The hon. Gentleman is happy to ignore the evidence of common sense and experience that has convinced the rest of the world that taxes must be reduced.
We are in competition with countries throughout the world that are endeavouring to reduce taxes. I do not believe that the electorate, both because of family budgets and their recognition of this country's needs, will vote for a party that is as committed as the Labour party clearly is to raising marginal tax rates and clobbering the British people, and therefore the British economy.
6.32 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for tabling his motion. I am sorry that he feels that he has been cheated twice. He feels that he has been cheated by the Labour party's headquarters in Walworth road, which seems to have provided him with a different copy of the policy review from the one that the rest of us have. If that is the reason why he has been misled, I am sorry. I am also sorry that he may have been cheated by his own party's Whips Office.
We respect the hon. Gentleman's views on the Third world and overseas aid. Given his special interests and his luck in the ballot, I should have thought that he would choose a subject for debate that related to the Third world and overseas aid. This is a partisan motion. Nevertheless, it has provided me with an opportunity to respond to the matter of substance. I did not expect to have such an opportunity until after the next general election.
The motion has no ground in fact. It is the sort of contemptible motion that one associates with Liberal party councillors. It suggests that the Labour party is committed to
"massive increases in public expenditure".
I do not know why the hon. Gentleman believes that public expenditure increases would be massive. Many Opposition Members believe that there ought to be substantial increases in public expenditure, but we are not committed to them, because we know that they cannot be achieved.
The motion states that the Labour party would impose
"new taxes on savings, jobs and property".

643
We do not intend to invent new taxes to cover any of those matters. We shall no doubt adjust the present tax rates, but we do not intend to introduce new taxes.
The motion goes on to say that the Labour party would increase the rates of income tax. That is a fair point; I shall have more to say about it later. However, the Labour party's policies will be directed at those who pay the top rates of income tax. Those who pay income tax at the standard rate have nothing to fear from our policies.
The motion goes on to state that the Labour party would increase national insurance. That is a bit rich, coming from the party that in 1979 suggested that it would do exactly the opposite and then increased the rate from 6·5 to 9 per cent. If we increased national insurance, it would be only a question of removing the ceiling. We do not suggest any further increase in national insurance charges. the policy review document suggests nothing of the sort.
The motion also says that the Labour party is refusing to reveal its plans for the basic rate of income tax and contrasts that with the Government's goal of basic rate of just 20p. When we set goals we are told that they are vague promises, that we should be unable to achieve them and that we are not to be believed. When the Government set goals and do not achieve them—some Conservative Back Benchers have said that they ought not to be achieved at the moment—that is laudable. Why are our goals derided as dishonest while the Government's goals are praised? It is unusual for the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford to be so partisan.
The motion goes on to say that Labour
"will be forced substantially to increase the burden of tax on many lower and middle income earners."
We shall do nothing of the sort. Our taxation policies are designed to increase the wealth of the low-paid, not to diminish it. It is a bit rich for the Conservative party to say that, when only last Thursday it was condemned by the Social Services Committee, an all-party Committee, for having produced misleading statistics relating to those on low incomes. In its report the Select Committee said:
"It is now clear that those on lowest incomes gained least in the period 1981–85. We await with interest the publication of the new tables on Households Below Average Income to see whether this trend continued to 1987."
The blame lies with the Conservative Government. It is wrong for them to try to palm that off on us.
The motion
"notes that Labour plans run counter to the growing international consensus on the case for low taxes."
That is wrong. Our taxation policy is more in harmony with what is happening in Europe and among the developed countries of the world than the narrow and restrictive tax policies, with only two bands, that are being pursued by the Government. Only one person in 25 pays the top rate of income tax. For everyone else, regardless of their earnings up to the top rate threshold, there is only one rate of tax. That is not what happens in the rest of Europe and that is not what we propose. If criticism is to be directed at anyone, it ought to be directed at the hon. Gentleman's own party, not at the Labour party.
The motion also states that
"new taxes would stifle enterprise, drive firms and individuals abroad"—
although we are trying to do exactly the opposite—
"and gravely weaken the wealth-creating capacity of the United Kingdom".
When one examines the recently published investment and growth figures, one realises that the Government ought
644
not to direct such a charge at us. The motion also states that the Labour party would create unemployment. Our goal is exactly the opposite.
I intend to set out the Labour party's taxation policies and to deal with the matters of substance that have been referred to in the debate. Our taxation policies are set within the context of our overall economic and social programme. It would be bizarre if they were not. In the overall management of the economy, our objective is to achieve steady and balanced growth, to control inflation, to restore a reasonable equilibrium in the balance of payments and at the same time to sustain the highest possible levels of employment. Our taxation policies are designed to serve those ends. As well as being compatible with those overall economic objectives, our taxation policy is also compatible with the Labour party's social objectives. Our overriding social objective is fairness; by that we mean the redistribution of the tax burden from those least able to bear it to those most able to.
So it was fair of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford to say that some taxes will go up: so they will. For others, they will go down. The Labour party does not intend to divorce its taxation policy from its public spending programme, nor do we intend to undermine the role that taxation, direct and indirect, plays in the overall management of the British economy. Taxation will play its part in the achievement of the Labour party's overall economic objectives.
Before going on to give Conservative Back Benchers the details that they claim to crave, it would be helpful if I reiterated the statement on public spending made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in the debate on public expenditure on 13 February:
"First, the Opposition reject the simplistic view that there is always, and in every circumstance, merit in reducing public spending as a percentage of national income … We are determined to make only the most limited of firm spending commitments—those that we must and can afford. Beyond that, we shall set out the direction of public investment and the priorities and choices of a Labour Government, emphasising throughout that we will not spend more than the country is earning or can prudently afford … Our priorities are clear: immediate relief for those who have suffered most —the pensioners and families with children—and the fostering of much-needed investment in our future".— [Official Report, 13 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 178.]
Conservative Back Benchers ask what this is going to cost. In a special focus on meeting the challenge— Labour's economic policy—Goldman Sachs produced an analysis as follows:
"Thus the Labour Party has already committed itself to spending at least an additional £3·3 billion on improved pensions and child benefit in its first year of office."
I would not quarrel with those figures, which show the commitment implied in the two spending priorities.
Mr. Gow: I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that a future Labour Government would not spend more than the country was earning. May we take it from that that it would not be the policy of a future Labour Government to have a public sector borrowing requirement?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman implies that we should not borrow to pay for revenue expenditure. If, on the other hand, he suggests that we should not borrow for much-needed investment in the economy, with a clear return over time, I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks. If he is saying that we should not borrow to meet

645
revenue commitments, he is following what I am saying most realistically. I hope that that is a good enough answer for him.
What I have said does not mean that the Labour party has no other spending priorities; Conservative Members have pointed out some of them. Of course we have—they are set out in our policy review documents and in statements by the relevant Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen for the shadow spending Ministries; but, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) pointed out, the real issue is how far an Opposition can go when making detailed public spending decisions and detailed decisions on taxation rates given that the economic circumstances that we shall have to face are not those that prevail now but will be those that prevail at the time of the next election.
The Labour party has set out its public spending priorities, beyond the two firm and clear commitments that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South has given. Those priorities will take their place in the public spending round after the next Labour Government come to power. As long as our commitments are carefully costed and tightly controlled, there does not seem much point in conducting a hypothetical shadow public spending round at this stage. Our objectives are clearly stated and our timetable depends on the overall strength of the economy that we shall inherit from this Government after the next election.
If Conservative Members are reluctant to acquiesce in this approach, I have searched the archives to find information that will help me to convince them. I looked for an authority whom Conservative Back Benchers might respect, and failed, but I found some quotations from speeches made by the shadow Chancellor in 1979, before the last election. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), now deputy Prime Minister, made a number of specific commitments on behalf of the Conservative Opposition at that time, and I am sure that it would interest the whole House if I reviewed them. After all, this debate is about the taxation policies of the Opposition, and it seems unnaturally restrictive to concentrate on the policies of the present Opposition—we ought to have a look at what the Conservatives were saying when they were in our position. They have no right to complain about that, because they are always harking back to the era of the previous Labour Government when they attack us. So we should review what the then shadow Chancellor said, if only as an awful warning to us all.
In his speech at Oxford on 7 April 1979, the then shadow Chancellor said:
"Every Labour Government puts taxes up … every Conservative Government gets taxes down. The next Conservative Government will be equally true to our record."
Of course, that was not true. Taxation as a share of gross domestic product has risen substantially under this Government. They inherited a rate of about 34 per cent.; since 1981 the gross tax take from the economy has been between 38 and 39 per cent.
Again in April of 1979, refuting charges made by the then Labour Government, the shadow Chancellor condemned what he called Labour's dishonesty. He said that there were
"a number of inexcusable errors in Labour's televised party election broadcast on Friday, which I would like to correct."
646
He went on to say that the Conservatives had
"absolutely no intention of doubling VAT."
Granted, he held out for just over a year, but that was not quite the same as disclaiming any intention. I suppose that the lawyers might have got him out of that, but I doubt whether the electorate would have.
The shadow Chancellor also said:
"We do not claim to be able to work a miracle cure to solve all the problems of the economy … We want to raise living standards without stoking inflation."
That brings to mind the later objective of zero inflation, to which the Government of course said that they were committed. They did not add that they were going to put a 1 in front of the zero for the foreseeable future.
At his press conference on 18 April 1979 the shadow Chancellor said:
"The next Conservative Government will cut, and cut substantially, the basic and higher rates of income tax. We shall raise, and raise substantially, the level at which people start paying income tax."
It took nine years for him to honour that pledge to higher rate taxpayers; for lower rate taxpayers no mention was made of the 2·5 per cent. national insurance increase, which came much earlier than the tax cuts.
By 1982–83, the total tax burden had risen, not fallen. In Pentlands, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"Creating secure jobs: the Conservative way … it's high time for a fresh approach, in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. The next Conservative Government will give Scotland that new approach. We must make sure the next five years are not as bad as the last."
The electorate in Scotland have delivered their own verdict on that.
Dealing with the pace of change and the pace at which commitments would be honoured, in an article in The Times of 13 August 1978, the shadow Chancellor said:
"I am very anxious to avoid the impression of the instant arrival with the instant decision and the instant solution. I know where I want to go and I am determined that we should go there at a steady pace."
The House will recognise that as authentic stuff. He continued:
"Of course we should want to alter the whole climate as soon as possible, not least because the benefits will be some time a-coming. That is why we are talking about three to four years."
When Labour hon. Members talk about the pace, Conservative hon. Members say that that is not allowable; however, they made precisely the same points when they were in opposition.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will no doubt ask, "Where did that policy all end? Where did the former shadow Chancellor's pledges get him?" By December 1980, Ian Aitken was writing under the headline
"Sir Geoffrey complains of being hampered by election pledges."
That report—in The Guardian in December 1980—said:
"The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed last night that his mini-Budget was the direct result of pledges and commitments made by the Conservative party before and after the general election. He told sceptical Tory backben-chers that he now found himself, surrounded by road blocks created by these undertakings … he is understood to have told the private meeting that the Government was now `pushed out against the frontiers of our pledges'."
It all ended in tears. By 1983, the financial section in The Guardian was saying in a leader article:
"how the Tories failed to keep their tax promises".
The article pointed out that wealth had not been redistributed in the way in which the Conservatives had said that they intended. That is an awful warning to those

647
who make promises before general elections and cannot keep them afterwards. The Labour party has been careful about its detailed pledges—careful to ensure that it does not make any more promises than it can sustain. It is setting out a broader programme, which we hope to achieve if circumstances allow. It is right for us to do that.
The article in The Independent on Labour tax policies, to which reference has been made, sets out a number of charges under the headline
"Labour's half-baked conversion on tax".
The headline bears no relationship to the content of the article. One charge is that
"The threshold for high-rate tax will no longer be raised in line with inflation, so that in real terms the starting point for higher tax will be lowered."
That is what the Government did in the previous Budget, and it is precisely what we have not said that we will do. In fact, we have not said where the tax bands will be placed.
We have set out our parameters carefully. We have said that the top rate of tax will be 50 per cent. It is right for Conservative Members to say that we have pledged to eliminate the national insurance threshold for people earning more than £30,000—or whatever the national insurance ceiling is. That will mean that some people are paying more. That change will take some people up to 59 per cent. That is the top rate of taxation that endured for the entirety of the chancellorship of the deputy leader of the Conservative party, and for most of the chancellorship of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). If is is such an iniquity to return to a rate that is only slightly less than that which endured for all that time, why did the Conservative party not rise up and insist that for most of the 1980s such a rate was reduced rather than sustained?
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford had a chance to move a motion on economic affairs. It is a poor and desperate attack that does not tell us anything, except about the people who launched it. Why do Conservative Members find it necessary to attack the Labour party for something that it is not going to do? After 10 years of Conservative government, why do they not try to show the party's economic achievements? Why do they not table a motion about the inflation rate, at 10 per cent.; about the growth rate forecast by the Government, at 1 per cent., which will put us bottom of the growth league; about the Government's forecast for negative growth in investment in the 1990s; about interest rates, praising the Government for the highest interest rates in Europe; about another Government record—the record trade deficit, which was £21 billion last year and last month the second highest ever, at £2·2 billion; about unemployment, which is now signposted for an upturn; about social justice, which is something not to be found in the Conservative party's tax policies; and, to top it all, why do we not have a motion about the electoral success of the poll tax and its widespread popularity?
Those are the real issues that are involved in the management of the economy. The Conservatives dare not have a debate in their own time about any of them, so they must attack us. They cannot even attack us fairly; they must do so unfairly, and on spurious grounds.
6.55 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for giving us this opportunity to examine the vague
648
and vacuous taxation policies of Her Majesty's Opposition. My hon. Friend quoted Lewis Carroll, and I shall quote Edmund Burke, who said:
"It is a general popular error to imagine the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare."
It is interesting to note that members of the Labour party dress up their taxation policy in terms of social justice and fairness. High-tax high-spending policies have had precisely the opposite effect. Most people would agree that high-tax, high-spending policies reduce incentives, enterprise and growth, and therefore reduce the chance of jobs in many constituencies. They prevent growth, and therefore the additional finance that the Government have made available for public services. Most important of all, those policies damage the interests of the people in the lower-paid groups whom the Labour party purports to represent.
Not only did the previous Labour Government increase tax rates to 83 per cent.—and 98 per cent. for investment income—for the wealthiest in society, but, because they did not uprate tax allowances in line with the inflation that they had created, 1·8 million more lower-paid people were paying tax when they left office than when they came into office. If we compare that with the Conservative Government's record, we find that 1·2 million lower-paid people are now not paying tax who were paying it under the previous Labour Government.
When we examine the Labour party's proposed tax policies, we must bear two things in mind. First, in the three years between 1974 and 1977, the Labour Government increased the amount of tax payable by an average household with an average income from £389 a year to £876 a year. Secondly, if we compare the share of income tax paid by the top 5 per cent. of earners in 1976 —when the Labour Government were in power, with their high-tax and high-spending policies—with 1989, with the Conservative party's low-taxation policies, we find that that top 5 per cent. have increased their proportion of total tax from 25 to 29 per cent. The top 10 per cent. of earners now pay 40 per cent. as opposed to 35 per cent. of the total tax take, whereas the lowest 50 per cent. of wage earners pay only 16 per cent. of the total tax take. That is hardly unfair.
Let us extend that argument to the amount of wealth held by various proportions of the population. In 1971, again under a high-tax regime—just after the Labour government of 1966–70 has left office—the top 1 per cent. of wealth owners, including pensioners, had 21 per cent. of the total wealth. By 1987, the figure had dropped to only 11 per cent. The top 5 per cent. earned 37 per cent. in 1971 and now earn only 24 per cent. The top 10 per cent. earned 49 per cent. in 1971 and now earn 35 per cent.
Because a low-taxation, high-incentive society gives more people more opportunities to climb the ladder and create wealth, it creates a more even distribution of wealth. That is why a high-incentive——
It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).
7 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order, notice of which I gave to the Chair earlier this evening and to the Home Office an hour or more ago. I

649
understand that immigration officers and police officers are at this moment searching for 33 young Chinese people, including a girl who is eight and a half months pregnant, who arrived in the United Kingdom 10 days ago. I understand that they were in possession of visas to enter Canada and, for reasons which are not known, the airline refused to take them to Canada, and they were left in Britain.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Madden: My point of order is that the British Government professed their outrage at the massacre in Tiananmen square last June. These young people fled China because of that massacre and are now being——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order?
Mr. Madden: They are now threatened with deportation from Britain to Panama, which I do not think is well known as a place of haven and stability. My point of order is that I would urge that no action be taken to arrest, detain or deport these young people until we have——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Member's concern, but, that has nothing to do with my responsibilities to the House and the Chair.
Mr. Madden: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like a statement from the Home Secretary to the House later tonight——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It has taken the hon. Member a long time to get to that matter. I have not received a request for a statement to be made. No doubt the hon. Member's comments will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.
Mr. Madden: When I contacted the Home Office earlier tonight, I asked for a Home Office Minister to be present when I raised my point of order at 7 o'clock. I was assured that efforts would be made to have such a Minister present——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must recognise that these are not matters for me. I have no responsibility for them.

Clyde Port Authority Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
7.2 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a serious matter concerning the Bill. In respect of my constituency, clause 4(3) and (4) of the Bill are, at best, incompetent and, as worst, ultra vires.
The Clyde port authority, despite its claims, does not own any property on the Greenock waterfront. On 6 July 1772, in Edinburgh, Sir John Shaw Stewart gave the people of Greenock by way of a feu contract the whole of the waterfront between the Kirk burn, Westburn street and the Royal close, Bogle street. The port and harbours were given in trust in perpetuity to the magistrates, treasurer, town council of Greenock and their successors. That generous decision was incorporated in section 26 of the Greenock Port and Harbours Act 1867 and further codified in section 212 of the Greenock Port and Harbours Consolidated Act 1913, which states:
"Nothing herein contained shall hurt or prejudice the charter granted to the town of Greenock in the year one thousand seven hundred and fifty-one by the deceased Sir John Shaw of Greenock Baronet nor the feu contract betwixt John Shaw Stewart Esquire and the magistrates and council of Greenock dated in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy-two or any rights privileges or dues thereby conferred or thence arising so far as consistent with the provisions of this Act."
Given the CPA's commercial banditry in this matter, I urgently request that the Bill be refused a Second Reading, for the reasons that I have outlined.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me notice of his intention to raise these matters. I have had them looked into carefully, and there is nothing out of order about the Bill being down for Second Reading. Any aspects of the Bill that call into question its competence or details in the clause are matters for the Committee to discuss and decide in its examination of the Bill, should it be given a Second Reading by the House. Of course, there is nothing to stop the hon. Member, should he be fortunate in catching my eye, to refer to these matters again during the debate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a growing custom, which is very unsatisfactory in terms of parliamentary procedure, whereby Ministers make important statements by references in written answers.
The hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) received a reply from the Ministry of Defence referring to a report in the Library about the case of Colin Wallace and misinformation. If Governments put substantial, far-reaching statements in the Library, they should offer to give the information, if not in answer to a private notice question arranged through the usual channels, at least by a parliamentary statement. May I ask whether you have had any request Mr. Deputy Speaker, from any Defence Ministers to make an oral report to Parliament on an extremely significant report about Government misdeeds?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of any request from any Minister to make a statement to the House on this or any other matter.

651
On the hon. Member's general point, Mr. Speaker has found it necessary in the past to make some critical comments, and no doubt he will read the hon. Member's points with interest.
Mr. Tony Worthington: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point concerns the way in which the procedures of the House are used. The Bill is clearly a Government measure. The device of private Bill time has been used to consider a Government measure. If this were a Government measure, we would have been able to get much better information and much better explanations about the Bill's purpose than is possible with a private Bill. I wonder whether it is causing you some torment to have the procedures of the House and your stewardship of private Bills abused by the Government.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same point?
Mr. Haynes: I said, further to that point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Frank Haynes, then.
Mr. Haynes: Okay, now we are right.
I watched your face, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the point of order was made about the Bill: If you had been on the Back Benches, as you were in the past, you would have been playing hell.
Mr. Richard Holt: Withdraw.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Haynes: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is not in the Chair; you are. I am saying that, had you been on the Back Benches, you would have been making some representations somewhere. A representation has been made, no progress has been made, so the matter has rightly and properly been raised here. Now you find yourself in the Chair, so I suggest that you have some responsibility, bearing in mind what you would have done on the Back Benches, as you did many years ago.
Mr. Holt: That is out of order.
Mr. Haynes: You twit.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr Haynes) must not use such language when I am on my feet—or even when I am sitting down. The hon. Member cannot remember when I was a Back Bencher —I can hardly remember it. I hope, given what recollection I have, that no right hon. or hon. Member would take my behaviour as a Back Bencher as a role model for him to follow.
The hon. Member will know, as does the House, that private Bills are carefully examined by the examiners before they are put before the House. The examiners must be satisfied that the Bills are correct in all respects for presentation in the House. That has been done in this case, as in every other.
A similar point was raised fairly recently when we had before us a similar Bill—the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill—and it was dealt with by the occupant of the Chair. I doubt whether I can add anything useful to what was said on that occasion.
Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me ask you a technical question. Given that no petitions of objection have been laid against the Bill, am I right in supposing, that if it is successful, it will go from this place to the Committee on Unopposed Bills? Am I also right in thinking that that Committee cannot consider amendments to the Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right that, in the absence of petitions, the Bill will go to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, but I think that in that Committee, appropriate amendments that satisfy the rules of order can be tabled, discussed and made. These matters may fall within the scope of what the Chairman of the Committee will permit, and the Committee could, if necessary, refer to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made this evening.
Mr. Haynes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened to what you said a little earlier. You did not really listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said.
Mr. Holt: Oh!
Mr. Haynes: I wish you would do something about him, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Bill should be Government business. That is what we are saying. You know that yourself, Sir, without our having to tell you. Government business follows our consideration of this private Bill. That is how the Government are keeping the payroll vote here. That is what is going on.
Can I pick you up on a point that you made earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I remember you coming to this place. I followed your election in Doncaster and I know exactly who you kicked out. You can laugh, but I remember it well and I shall not forget it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that I can usefully add to what I have already said.
7.11 pm
Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Clyde has played a key role in the economic and social history of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It is celebrated in legend and song—although it may be doubted whether Sir Harry Lauder, when he sang:
"Roamin' in the gloamin'
By the bonnie banks o' Clyde
Roamin' in the gloamin'
Wi' my lassie by my side",
had in mind those parts of the bonnie banks owned by the Clyde port authority.
The Bill is about the future, and it will allow the authority to play a full and constructive role in that future. Before I discuss the merits of the case, I shall explain the background——
Mr. George Foulkes: Before the hon. Gentleman turns to the merits of the case, I have a question to ask him. He may be interested to know that I travelled through Eastwood this morning, and I looked carefully to see where his constituency touched the Clyde. I could not find any part of Eastwood that touched the Clyde. Now or at some point, will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House his interest in the Bill—indeed, all his interest in the Bill? The

653
House will be interested to know what they are, as the hon. Gentleman certainly cannot be said to have a constituency interest.
Mr. Stewart: As I understand it, the Clyde port authority area does not touch the hon. Gentleman's constituency either.
Mr. Foulkes: Oh, yes it does.
Mr. Stewart: In any case, I assure the hon. Gentleman that a substantial number of my constituents work for the Clyde port authority.
I was about to start by explaining the general background to the Bill. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) pointed out in his learned point of order, no petitions have been lodged against the Bill. The existence of the Bill has been well known for some time and no riparian authority has petitioned against it. The Bill has been fully considered by the local authorities concerned.
Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the local authorities petitioned against the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, and the fact that the Labour-controlled authorities in Scotland have not petitioned against the present Bill means that they support it?
Mr. Stewart: I hesitate to go quite as far as my hon. Friend, but no authority has petitioned against the Bill —nor has any other body.
Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially given the compliments that he has just paid me. Can he confirm, on the basis of his wide procedural knowledge, that although no petitions of objection have been laid in this place, there will be an opportunity for petitions of objection to be laid in another place within the 10 days after the Bill receives its Third Reading?
Mr. Stewart: I hesitate to give procedural guidance to the hon. Gentleman, as I can claim no expertise in the matter. My own—perhaps erroneous—understanding is that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct.
I emphasise the fact that the decision to pursue the private Bill route was made unanimously by the board of the Clyde port authority. That distinguished board includes a Labour politician who is extremely well known in the west of Scotland—the chairman of Strathclyde regional council's economic and industrial development committee, Mr. McGarry—and Mr. Tom O'Connor of the Transport and General Workers Union. Moreover, the Transport and General Workers Union has adopted different positions in respect of the Scottish and the English ports. The union has decided to take no action on moves by the Scottish ports towards public limited company status.
The Clyde Port Authority Order 1965 prevents the authority from competing on equal terms with continental ports or with ports in the United Kingdom. The general shift in traffic from west to east coast in recent years has made it necessary for ports on the west coast of Britain to consider means of diversification to reduce the vulnerability of the existing port businesses. The existing powers of the authority, contained in the 1965 order, are restrictive
654
and may be changed only by legislation. The authority has long been mindful of the restrictions imposed on its powers and has sought to operate within those limits.
Mr. Worthington: Can the hon. Gentleman give examples from recent years to show how the powers have been restrictive? When has the authority wanted to do things that it has not been permitted to do?
Mr. Stewart: I was just about to expand on that point, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured when I reach the end of my explanation.
The view taken by the board of the authority—I suggest correctly—has meant that the authority has not been able to take up investment opportunities that have come its way, given that its powers to invest are limited by paragraph 64 of the 1965 order to port-related businesses. Similarly, the authority is prohibited from acquiring property other than for port purposes and from developing its property, except with a view to its ultimate disposal. As Opposition Members know, the authority is a substantial riparian landowner. As such, and consistent with its role as the port of Clyde authority it is naturally anxious to participate fully and assist in the regeneration of the river and the river bank. Its limited powers of investment and property development mean that it has considerable difficulty entering into joint venture agreements or investing in joint venture companies to handle development of riverside sites.
Mr. Worthington: I want to modify my earlier question. How would this Bill alter the authority's ability to develop the land that the authority owns at present?
Mr. Stewart: I was about to reach that point.
The need for ultimate disposal means that the authority has no effective means of securing control, or even influence, over any development. An inability to purchase land other than for——
Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stewart: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman several times.
Mr. Worthington: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.
Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a minute, I will endeavour to answer his question.
An inability to purchase land other than for purposes directly related to the port business, makes site assembly and efficient use of the authority's existing land resources in relation to the regeneration of the river well-nigh impossible.
Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stewart: I have already given way several times to the hon. Gentleman. However, I will give way to him once more because I am aware of his interest in these matters.
Mr. Worthington: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
With regard to whether the Clyde port authority must eventually dispose of land, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could draw my attention to the part of the legislation which sets that out. I know that the port authority can enter into, and I believe has entered into, substantial leasing arrangements with private companies;

655
they do not involve the disposal of land. I am at a loss to understand from what part of the legislation the hon. Gentleman has derived his information.
Mr. Stewart: I have referred to the advice provided to the authority by its lawyers. The legal advice is that, because of the existing provisions, the authority is inhibited in the ways that I have described.
Mr. Brian Wilson: My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has raised an important point. As I understand it, the case being made by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) rests on the proposition that the powers of the Clyde port authority, in its present form, are so severely restricted that it is necessary for it to be metamorphosed into something else. The hon. Member for Eastwood is presenting the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie asked him very reasonably what the authority cannot do now that it could do if the Bill was approved. The hon. Member for Eastwood could tell us only that the lawyers have advised the authority. The authority presumably advised the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman is now advising the House. Fourth-hand rumour rather than statement of fact in this House is unacceptable.
Mr. Stewart: If that is the case, it is extremely surprising that the Clyde port authority board which included Mr. Lawrence McGarry felt it necessary to introduce this Bill. It has been the board's view for a considerable time that its advice is that the present powers are restrictive and are particularly restrictive in relation to its desire to enter into joint ventures and take a full part in the urban regeneration of the Clyde.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that I am not the only person who is becoming perturbed at what the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is saying. Even if the lawyers are mistaken and the restrictions are not as they have been described to the hon. Member for Eastwood, the House will waste a great deal of time unnecessarily. Surely it is not good enough to discover whether the lawyers' advice was correct in the Committee. The House is entitled to know now what specific parts of the legislation are——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. I made it clear in response to earlier points of order that the Bill has been scrutinised by the examiners, who are satisfied about its format.
Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. The other point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is a matter for debate and an issue that may be taken into account by the House when it reaches its decision at the conclusion of this debate.
Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) relates to a point of order raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). A private Member is introducing this Bill.
656
If the Bill had been introduced by a Government Department, the Minister would be properly briefed and able to give legal opinion. He could then explain the matter to the House. We do not have the answer to that problem because the Bill is being introduced by a private Member who has been inadequately briefed and who cannot deal with the particular problem. Does that not show that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should have at least considered the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did consider the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and I hope that I responded to it fully. I cannot usefully add to what I said then. The Bill is in order. Some of the reservations that have been expressed under the cover of points of order are matters that could be made in debate and taken into account when the House reaches a conclusion. The Minister is in his place and will doubtless try to catch my eye during the debate. It is not for me to anticipate what he might say, but no doubt he is listening and may feel able to respond as appropriate. In the meantime, we should allow the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to make his speech.
Mr. Stewart: It may be helpful if I refer hon. Members to the statement on behalf of the promoters of the Bill in support of this Second Reading, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. In particular, I refer hon. Members to paragraph 6, which will be helpful.
Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Eastwood to refer to a paragraph which bears no relevance to the points that he was making? Paragraph 6 states:
"The Port Authority would wish their business to have a commercial freedom beyond the severely restricted scope of the present powers of the Port Authority. The aim of the Bill is therefore to free the conduct of the Port Authority's business from the restrictions arising from their present limited powers. The mechanism which the Bill provides to achieve this is the establishing of a two tier company structure;—that is—(a) a successor company; and (b) a holding company."
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those are not matters for me. Whether the hon. Gentleman is correctly reading or misreading a document that is not an integral part of the Bill is a matter for the House to take into account in reaching a conclusion at the end of the debate. It is not a matter for me to rule on.
Mr. Stewart: The Clyde Port Authority Bill retains the existing powers, duties and responsibilities of the authority regarding the maintenance and improvement of the port undertaking. The core port business——
Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stewart: No. I have already given way about six times to the hon. Gentleman.
The core port business will be operated by the successor company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the new holding company to be created by the Bill. To sum up——
Mr. Worthington: What?
Mr. Stewart: I have not finished. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can contain himself.

657
The holding company will have wider commercial powers than the authority has at present. The holding company will be a normal public limited company and it will be able to use its resources flexibly as it wishes. The successor company will inherit and preserve the statutory duties of the authority.
Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that very important point?
Mr. Stewart: No, I have already given way about six times to the hon. Gentleman.
I want to refer briefly to the potential effects on employment of the structural changes. It would be fair to say that the restructuring programme will increase job security for the present employees and in due course will lead to increased employment throughout the west of Scotland. The existing employees do not oppose the proposals.
It is expected that four separate elements will be involved in the capital structure of the new body. The authority will put forward an employee share ownership plan—an ESOP. Current employees will be invited to subscribe for shares, for which interest-free loans may be made available.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to clarify a point?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, because the hon. Gentleman has not previously sought to intervene.
Mr. Wray: Who will be responsible for dredging? Will the successor company be responsible for dredging the river?
Mr. Stewart: That is a fair question, and the answer is yes. The successor company will be responsible for dredging the river. It will operate under precisely the same duties and responsibilities as does the Clyde port authority at present.
Mr. Worthington: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From a lack of knowledge, the hon. Member who is introducing the Bill may be misleading the House. As I understand the previous legislation, the Clyde Port Authority Order 1965, the Clyde port authority has been given powers to dredge the river; the duty is not there. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the successor company will dredge the river, but I believe that he is giving an undertaking that cannot be given because there have been occasions when the Clyde port authority has sought to withdraw from dredging.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters for the Chair: they are matters for debate.
Mr. Stewart: In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), I was making the point that the successor company would be under precisely the same duties and obligations as those applying to the Clyde port authority at the moment.
I was talking about the capital structure of the new body. In addition to current employees, past employees, pensioners and their spouses and children will also be
658
invited to subscribe to shares. The authority will also allow subscription by institutional investors, with preference given to institutional support in the west of Scotland.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on his point about employee share ownership?
Mr. Stewart: I shall give way, but for the last time, because I may be straining the patience of the House.
Mr. Foulkes: I hope that this is a helpful question, so the hon. Gentleman may be grateful to me. The hon. Gentleman said that there would be an employee share ownership plan—an ESOP. What percentage of the total shares will be available for that employee share ownership plan? How is it intended that the shares will be distributed between employees? Will it be on an equal or hierarchical basis, based on salary or other considerations?
Mr. Stewart: As I understand it, the intention is to have the proportion of employee shares as high as possible, as far as is reasonable. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific percentage in response to his question, but I repeat that the availability will be as high as possible. It is hoped that shares will be made available to residents in the Clyde port region, and that is actively being considered.
I have not spoken about the general problems of trust ports. They are familiar to the House, which has debated them previously. I emphasise that these proposals are the result of the unanimous view of the board of the Clyde port authority and that there is no significant body of opinion against the Bill among the local authorities in the west of Scotland. No local authority has stated its opposition to the Bill. The Scottish Development Agency, Strathclyde regional council and the unions have all been consulted. Against that background of the absence of opposition from such organisations in the west of Scotland, and in view of the clear merits of the provisions, I hope that the House will give the Bill its Second Reading.
7.34 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I wish first to assess the Bill's implications for my constituents and constituency and then to outline my reservations on a couple of broader issues.
As the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has said, the Bill has implications for the whole of the Clyde, both for the river and for the firth. In the past few days, I have discussed the Bill with Inverclyde district councillors, with employees at the Tate and Lyle cane sugar refinery and with those employed at the Greenock container terminal—all of whom may well be affected if the Bill becomes law. In addition, I have met John Mearns, the secretary of the Greenock Waterfront Heritage Society, and Derek Ferguson and other members of that society on several occasions. They too have expressed their serious concern about the Bill.
Incidentally, and in respect of a question that I asked the hon. Member for Eastwood earlier, perhaps he or his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that I am right in saying that, although petitions of objections cannot now be lodged against the Bill in this House, such petitions can be lodged in another place withing 10 days of the date on which the Bill receives its Third Reading. I believe that that is the case, but I should welcome guidance on that matter because I must

659
advise the hon. Member for Eastwood that certain interested parties intend to table such petitions if the Bill goes to another place.
My reservations about the ownership claims of the Clyde port authority to, say, James Watt dock in Greenock and to the Greenock container terminal are shared by many of my constituents.
Mr. Foulkes: Is my hon. Friend aware that, at 1 o'clock this afternoon, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland vessel, the Clupa, set sail from the James Watt dock to examine the explosives that had been dumped in the Clyde by ICI? Does my hon. Friend join me in welcoming that move but hope that it will result in some of his and my fishermen constituents receiving adequate and proper compensation for their loss?
Dr. Godman: In that interesting intervention, my hon. Friend has emphasised the importance of the facilities. He is absolutely right. All credit to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland for initiating that exercise. The James Watt dock and other facilities are used by vessels of the fisheries protection service. I agree with my hon. Friend that the dumping of explosive materials causes great concern to me, my constituents and many members of the Clyde Fishermen's Association.
If my challenge to the legality of the CPA's ownership of the waterfront facilities in Greenock is dismissed by the scrutiny of the Committee on Unopposed Bills—if the Bill gets that far—I believe that the Clyde port authority should offer the Inverclyde district council, which is in a real sense the successor body to the Greenock town council, a sum of, say, £2 million by way of compensation for its commercial banditry in my constituency.
When I raised a point of order about the competence of the Bill, I mentioned some contracts that had been signed in Edinburgh in July 1772. I obtained a copy of the document from the Public Records Office in Edinburgh a few days ago. Among other things, it states:
"It shall not be lawful nor in the power of the said magistrates, treasurer, town council of Greenock nor their successors in office, to sell,"—
this may well interest the hon. and learned Member for Perth, and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)—
"alienate, dispose either irredeemably or under reversion nor wadsett, or burden with infefments of annualment or any other servitudes or burden the said harbour with anchorages, shore, bay, or ring dues, whereby the same may be evicted or adjudged and that all such dispositions, conveyances, wadsetts or other deeds so to be granted by them or their foresaids conveying or burdening the said subjects with any real diligence following thereon shall ipso jure be void null and shall only be effectual against the granter."
Mr. Foulkes: That had to be said.
Dr. Godman: One can see that I have done a little bit of research.
As I said earlier, that feu contract was incorporated in the Greenock Port and Harbours Act 1867 and was further codified in Section 212 of the Greenock Port and Harbours Consolidation Act 1913. It is my view, and as hon. Members well know I am not a lawyer——
Mr. Foulkes: A barrack room lawyer.
Dr. Godman: I may be a barrack room lawyer, as my hon. Friend says.
660
I should like to hear the Minister's opinion of the validity of section 212 of the 1913 Act. The Act questions the competence of the Bill.
The feu contract has been watched over by members of the Stewart family over the years. In May 1865, an attempt to abrogate the feu contract of 1772 was successfully repelled by miss Jane Stewart of Liberton Manse, near Edinburgh, in a court action. In 1965, the picture changed. The Greenock harbour trust was succeeded by the Clyde port authority. Therefore, Sir John Shaw Stewart's remarkably generous gift to the people of Greenock was eagerly, some would say greedily, swallowed by the Clyde ports authority.
Since that inauspicious day, the Clyde port authority has sold to the Scottish Development Agency the whole of the custom house quay with its fine custom house, which I am pleased to say was recently renovated——
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: At what price?
Dr. Godman: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman is awake. It was sold, together with all the buildings and land to the west, towards the container terminal. Therefore, eight hectares of land and some fine buildings were sold by the CPA, in an act of banditry, to the Scottish Development Agency for £1·75 million.
The Scottish Development Agency is just as cavalier as the CPA in its attitude towards traditional maritime users of the harbour facilities on the Greenock water front. A couple of years ago I had to speak to the chairman of the SDA about the high-handed behaviour of his officials towards fishermen who were mooring their boats in East India harbour, Greenock. In a letter dated 5 December 1988, I said to Sir Robin Duthie that the Fish Act 1705, colloquially known as Queen Anne's Act, still gave certain rights to fishermen.
I shall quote from that Act, because it is directly relevant to today's proceedings:
"the Estates of Parliament authorises and impowers all … subjects to take buy and cure herring and white fish in all sundry and sea channels bays firths lochs rivers etc. … wheresoever herring or white fish are or may be taken. And for their greater conveniency to have the free use of all ports harbours shoars forelands and others for bringing in pickeling drying unloading and loading the same upon payment of the ordinary dues where harbours are built. That is, such as are payed for Ships, Boats and other Goods."
I look forward to the hon. Member for Eastwood assuring me, on behalf of the CPA, that, if the Bill were to be successful, the new company would behave more responsibly with regard to the Queen Anne Act than did the SDA. That Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh in September 1705.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: We have been entertained with a lot of nonsense during the past 20 minutes. The hon. Gentleman's constituency probably contains more wonderful buildings than any of ours are privileged to have. The local authority has been appallingly neglectful. The great customs house has been restored with money given by the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland— alas, to be a value added tax office. The great building beside it is falling down, and the ropeworks is no nearer salvation. I find it strange that anyone should claim in aid the concept of heritage as a reason why the Bill should not be passed, when it would give the new authority powers to redeem and restore that great part of the Clyde.
Dr. Godman: We have just been entertained by a characteristic mixture of buffoonery and exuberant malice. I have sought the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman to conserve some of those buildings. I regret that he did not show his usual courtesy in acknowledging my request for his expert help in the conservation of those buildings.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman must give way. I replied immediately, and the case is before us. It is his local authority which is stalling, and he should withdraw that malicious remark.
Dr. Godman: I have no intention of withdrawing that malicious remark, because it was not at all malicious. I am not responsible for decisions taken by the Inverclyde district council. I am the Member of Parliament for Greenock and Port Glasgow, not a district councillor.
While the Bill cannot be amended in this place unless it is amended when it is scrutinised by the Committee on Unopposed Bills, I hope that amendments will be introduced when, as appears likely, it goes before an Opposed Bill Committee in another place. I hope that, if the Bill becomes law, no harm will come to the Greenock container terminal. I seek an assurance from the hon. Member for Eastwood on that.
On Friday, I spoke to Mr. Phil Cannie and some of his colleagues who load and unload cargo at the terminal. They also expressed their legitimate concern that the terminal should continue to function as a terminal. Business is undoubtedly picking up at the terminal, which has an important role to play in the local economy. It would be a great shame if the Clyde port authority were to dispose of it. It has an important role to play as a terminal, not as a site for executive-style housing. Trade is picking up, as I am sure the CPA will confirm. Timber cargoes are coming in, and the CPA has talked about investing in facilities for the transportation of wood pulp. It is absolutely essential that the hon. Gentleman gives an assurance tonight.
The same holds good for the James Watt dock, where, among other things, raw cane sugar is unloaded for refining at the Tate and Lyle sugar refinery. There are just two cane sugar refineries left in the United Kingdom. There used to be many more in Greenock, Liverpool and London. One of the remaining two, the Westland refinery, is in my constituency, and the other is in the constituency that is ably and honourably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
The refinery in Greenock employs about 300 people, most of whom are my constituents. The hon. Member for Eastwood spoke about security of employment in the Clyde port authority. I welcome that, but we also have to think about security of employment for those who are employed in the ancillary industries that are served by the Clyde port authority's maintenance of dock side and other port facilities. The 300 people who work in the refinery have an interest in the Bill.
I remind the hon. Member for Eastwood, Mr. John Mather and Mr. Bob Easton of the Clyde port authority that the House has twice passed without Division two resolutions, both of which acknowledged the need to protect the interests of the east African, Caribbean and Pacific cane sugar producers and those British citizens who are employed in our port and in the sugar refining industry. The second of the resolutions was passed on 2
662
December 1985 and is reported in columns 107 to 127 of the Official Report. I hope that the House will forgive my lack of modesty when I say that I was able to persuade the then Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to accept my amendment to his resolution. He accepted it with his usual grace.
The first resolution was passed under a Labour Administration and the second under a Tory Administration, and both stressed the need to protect our cane sugar refineries. Last week I spoke to Mr. Stevie Kane and other shop stewards in Tate and Lyle, who also expressed their serious concern about the Bill and its implications for their refinery. I hope that assurances and guarantees about the continuation of sugar cargoes into Greenock can be given by the hon. Member for Eastwood. Nothing less will do for my constituents who are employed by Tate and Lyle.
These are important matters, because unemployment in my constituency is still scandalously high—much higher than the level in the Strathclyde region and at least two and a half times as high as the United Kingdom level. The people that I have mentioned have a legitimate interest in the Bill, even though they do not work for the Clyde port authority.
I should now like to deal with the dredging of the Clyde. I know that the Minister for Aviation and Shipping will respond to this. Despite my considerable respect for Bob Easton, the chairman of the Clyde port authority, and for John Mather, the chief executive of the authority, I cannot believe that a private company would continue to dredge that channel on any basis other than a commercial contract. The dredging of the Clyde is an essential operation because, if it were not carried out for two years, the channel would silt up and no vessel would be able to enter the docks at Glasgow, except for the King George V dock. Mr. John Mather and Mr. Bob Easton would not deny that.
Some of my constituents work for Kvaerner of Govan and others work for Yarrow's. Both those shipyards employ several thousand men and women whose livelihood utterly depends on the efficient dredging of that channel. I am not entirely certain of my figures, but I think that I am right in saying that the Clyde port authority pays more than £600,000 towards the total cost, Yarrow's pays at least £100,000 per annum, Glasgow district council pays a similar sum and Strathclyde regional council pays an amount not dissimilar to that.
Kvaerner also pays for the dredging of that navigable channel. When Kvaerner negotiated the acquisition of the yard from British Shipbuilders, it swithered over the deal because of the responsibility that it would have for the cost of the dredging operation.
I seek an assurance from the Minister for Aviation and Shipping and from the hon. Member for Eastwood that that essential work will continue. If it does not, the shipyards at Port Glasgow will be irrevocably ruined within two years by the amount of silt that is carried up the Clyde on each tide. As I have said, I do not think that a private company would carry out dredging other than on the basis of a commercial contract, and I would not blame its shareholders for that.
Mrs. Fyfe: Would my hon. Friend comment on the possibility that dredging might continue but at an unreasonable cost? What are the implications of that?
Dr. Godman: That is a worry for my hon. Friend and for other hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies. My hon. Friend must have constituents who work in Kvaerner in Govan and in Yarrows. I listened diligently to the speech by the hon. Member for Eastwood, but I did not hear the kind of guarantee that I am seeking about dredging. Perhaps he knows the Clyde better than I do, and my constituency is not directly affected. If the Clyde silts up, the shipyards may move down to Greenock. That would not break my heart, although my hon. Friends might throw me into the Clyde for even daring to suggest such a move.
Dredging is an essential commitment that must be honoured by those who manage the ports, whether that is the Clyde port authority or its successor body. Perhaps the Minister would tell us who will pay for that essential operation. Will it be the local council, the shipyards or the Scottish Office? I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is in the Chamber and listening with his characteristic courtesy and attentiveness. He may be able to tell the Minister for Aviation and Shipping that the Scottish Office will pick up the Bill. I would welcome that. Ministers may laugh, but this is no laughing matter on the Clyde.
I fear that, in time, the new company may be considered fair game by a distant predator in far-off London, Paris, Tokyo or somewhere else. I respect Messrs. Easton and Mather, and I know that both are committed to the Clyde and its well-being. However, they may well be thrown overboard by a London or New York-based predator—although, I hope, not literally.
I hope that the Bill will be chucked overboard. If it avoids that fate because of the skill of Ministers and the Whips Office, I certainly hope that it will be amended in another place in ways that are satisfactory to my constituents, given their legitimate interest in the Bill and their concern for the development of the Greenock waterfront from its container terminal down to James Watt dock and beyond. I do not believe that the Clyde port authority owns those properties, but if I am proved wrong because of past legislation, I believe that that authority should act generously and give a fair amount of compensation to the Inverclyde district council. As it stands, the Bill offers little comfort to the maritime communities on the River Clyde and the firth of Clyde.
8 pm
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It may be for the convenience of the House if, at this stage, I make a brief statement of the Government's views on the Bill. On 15 March, the House gave a Second Reading to the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. The Clyde Port Authority Bill is an almost identical measure, and the Government's position on both Bills is the same.
Trust ports are slightly odd bodies. They are independent and not accountable to anyone. Their powers and sources of finance are limited, but they must compete with ports run by companies, such as Associated British Ports and Felixstowe, which have the flexibility and accountability that the trust ports lack. It has long been in the Government's mind that it would be desirable if at
664
least the main commercial trust ports could be converted into companies. Changing the status of a trust port in that way needs primary legislation.
The Government have not been able to find room in their programme for appropriate legislation. It was for that reason that, about a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), when he was the Secretary of State for Transport, encouraged trust ports, which saw benefits in turning themselves into companies, to bring forward their own private Bills. It is still our intention to bring forward Government legislation on trust ports at the earliest convenient opportunity, but given the pressure on our legislative programme, private legislation is the only way in which any of those ports can quickly be converted into fully fledged private sector enterprises.
The present Bill will not alter the statutory responsibilities and powers that the Clyde port authority has under its existing private legislation.
Mr. Worthington: That is an extremely important assurance and we need to know what it means. I am particularly interested in the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—the responsibility for dredging. As the Government back the Bill, does that mean that they are making a clear-cut commitment that dredging will continue at its present rate for ever? As I understand it, however, it is quite possible for the successor company to give up dredging when it wants to.
Mr. McLoughlin: I cannot add to what I have just said. The statutory responsibilities and powers of the Clyde port authority, as set out in existing private legislation, will remain the same. Obviously the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is one to be discussed in Committee as the Bill makes progress.
The existing legislation will be carried forward lock, stock and barrel to the proposed new successor company. successor company will still be a harbour authority. It will be subject also, just as the port authority is today, to those provisions of public legislation that apply to harbour authorities generally. I emphasise that there will be no loss or reduction in existing powers or obligations. That is a very important point, and the House should not be under any misunderstanding. The position is exactly the same as when Associated British Ports was privatised on the Government's initiative.
Mrs. Fyfe: Although the dredging may continue, can the Minister give us any assurances about the cost and who will pay?
Mr. McLoughlin: I am sure that if I started to give such answers, one might easily conclude that this was not a private Bill. I am merely stating the Government's position in relation to the private Bill. Other inquiries must be made through the proper channels when the Bill is in Committee.
The Government support the principle underlying the Bill. It is, however, necessary for Parliament to give careful consideration to the public interest in the conversion of trust port authorities into companies.
We agree with the promoters of the Bill that trust ports have no explicit owners, so it is for Parliament to decide, taking into account any views expressed by the Government, not only whether a trust port should be allowed to turn itself into a company, but who should get

665
the proceeds from the sale of the shares of that company. The Government's view is that a proportion of the proceeds of sale should go to the Exchequer. We are considering the best way of securing that, but the intention, which Parliament would be asked to approve, would be that 50 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale of shares should be paid to the Secretary of State and paid into the Consolidated Fund whenever a trust port is converted into a company by means of private Act.
The Government regard that as an equitable share of the proceeds between the Exchequer and the new shareholders. In making that decision, we took into account the initiative shown by the Tees and Hartlepool and the Clyde port authorities in introducing their private Bills, the benefits of early privatisation, and the ports' intention to invest in new developments.
Mr. Wilson: What are the Government getting the money for?
Mr. McLoughlin: In the past, we have given certain grants, so it is required that there should be a return to the taxpayer, through the Exchequer, for some of those grants. The percentage was agreed as a broad figure for all trust ports that may introduce private Bills in the future.
We must bear in mind the interests of the taxpayer, who has contributed to the development of the trust ports, and the need to ensure a level playing field between the newly privatised trust ports and those ports already in the private sector. Therefore, on that basis, the present Bill has my full support.
8.6 pm
Mr. David Lambie:I was glad to hear the Minister's assurance that the Government will bring in legislation on the trust ports, but that makes me even more suspicious of the Bill.
According to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), if the Bill is passed it will have little influence on the present activities of the Clyde port authority. If that is so and given the Government's intention to introduce legislation, why has this Bill been brought in now? Why not wait until the Government bring in the legislation that will deal with all trust ports? We could then have a full debate on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee and deal with all the issues that have been raised, either in points of order or in the specific questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I am curious about the interest that the hon. Member for Eastwood has in the Clyde port authority. He told us that he was interested because certain of his constituents worked in that authority. That is a legitimate interest for any Member of Parliament, but surely it is not strong enough to sponsor a private Bill. Why was not my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked to bring in the Bill? Why were not the hon. Members representing Glasgow or Cunninghame asked to bring in the Bill?
After the next election, when the hon. Member for Eastwood loses his seat, as most of the Scottish Tory Members will, I ask him to guarantee that he will not
666
accept a directorship on the board of the new company. I should like the hon. Gentleman to answer that question and to give us an assurance that his future financial interests do not make him enthusiastic about the Bill being given a Second Reading tonight.
I am serious about the matter and hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer that question. Some of his hon. Friends took part in previous debates on privatisation. I do not want to name names, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) can do that, as he is harder than I am. If he is willing to mention the name of the new director of the bus company, Stagecoach, I am sure that he will mention other names if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the interest of the hon. Member for Eastwood in the Bill?
I was suspicious about the Bill when it was drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. When I came down from Scotland because of the one-line Whip, I was sure that, after listening to the hon. Member for Eastwood, I would understand why the Bill is necessary. I did not get that information. He said that the only difference would be that the authority could enter into joint ventures to sell property and land.
The hon. Member for Eastwood put us under tremendous pressure by saying that some of my trade union friends were supporters of the Bill—Tom O'Connor from the Transport and General Workers and Lawrence McGarry, the former chairman of the economic and industrial development committee of Strathclyde regional council, who are members of the board. They should have contacted Strathclyde Labour Members of Parliament before they decided to support the Bill given us their reasons. I am worried that they have the same interest in the Bill as I hope the hon. Member for Eastwood will not have after the next general election, when he is no longer a Member of Parliament.
In the statement on the behalf of the promoters, in support of Second Reading, paragraph 2 states that the port authority
"is profitable; and it does not rely on government subsidies."
You do not know much about the Clyde, Mr. Deputy Speaker so I must explain that this is a Bill about the Clyde port authority——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was unloading cargo and cargo handling during almost the whole of 1947 and 1948, on King George V dock.
Mr. Lambie: I withdraw my accusation, as I understand that it has no foundation. I can cut short my speech as I was about to give you the background to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that you could deal with the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
The Clyde port authority is a profitable company, but the accounts for a period of years show that it has been profitable not because of its port or harbour activities but because it has sold assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow gave us an example. It sold the heritage of Greenock and Port Glasgow to the Scottish Development Agency. Not that I criticise what the agency has done, but the people of Clydeside would have been happier with industry, harbour and port activities, which we had in the past, and not grass, trees and green fields.
The Clyde port authority has been successful because it has sold its assets, but it has reached the stage where it

667
needs additional help to become more profitable. That is why it needs permission to establish joint ventures. The authority wants to bring in other vultures—not the ones on the roof, but the ones in the private sector—to rip off the heritage of the Clyde, which has been built up by the people of Clydeside for centuries when it was the foremost port in the United Kingdom.
With the development of Europe and the decrease in trade across the Atlantic to the Americas, the Clyde port authority has found itself in difficulty. However, it took the easy road out, and instead of trying to develop port facilities, it balanced the books by selling property and assets. That is my criticism and I have often made it to the authority and on the Floor of the Chamber.
I represent Cunninghame together with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North and within our constituencies we have two important ports that are integral parts of the Clyde—the deep-water port of Hunterston and the port of Ardrossan.
I am speaking tonight because I am interested in the development of the port of Hunterston, which is unique in the west coast of Scotland and unique in Europe because it is one of the few deep water ports. However, it has not been developed and the blame lies with the board of the Clyde port authority.
Before I entered Parliament I took part in a trade union and labour movement campaign to persuade the Government to designate the Hunterston peninsula as an industrial area for steel, oil-refining and chemical activities. Those industries could have been developed there because large bulk carriers can come into the port and discharge their cargoes cheaply. The Clyde port authority has not developed the unique facilities of Hunterston; it has allowed it to die.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said, the port is now experiencing a slight upsurge in business, but if there is an adverse decision about the future of Ravenscraig steelworks, the port of Hunterston will be finished because its other activities will not be sufficient to sustain it.
Perhaps I am criticising the Clyde port authority unfairly for not developing Hunterston. I realise that it was placed under servere restraint due to the operation of the dock labour scheme and that a major disaster occurred when the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the steelworkers' union, was not allowed to organise workers loading and unloading ships at Hunterston. I realise that after a six-month strike, when Transport and General Workers Union reinforced the position of the dockers, it tied the hands of the Clyde port authority a little. Again, the authority should have fought more than it did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North and I are also interested in the port of Ardrossan, which has been in decline while it has been under the Clyde port authority's control. When I represented central Ayrshire, which contains the port of Troon, I was interested in Associated British Ports. In Ayr, we were interested in comparing the port of Ayr with activities and development at the port of Ardrossan—there was no comparison. In fact, I often put the case to Ministers for the port of Ardrossan to be taken away from the Clyde port authority and handed over to Associated British Ports, even after it had been privatised.
I hope that the Bill will be thrown out tonight and that the Government will bring forward their proposed legislation for all the trust ports. If it is not thrown out, I
668
hope that we shall secure amendments to it that will break up the Clyde port authority and withdraw from it the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan. The future of the two ports does not lie with the Clyde Port Authority plc; it lies with an independent company developing both ports for the benefit of the people of Cunninghame, rather than subsidising a defunct Clyde port authority.
Dr. Godman: Can my hon. Friend advise me about the responsibility of the Clyde port authority as a pilotage authority? Would not the Clyde Port Authority plc still have responsibility as a pilotage authority?
Mr. Lambie: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastwood or the Minister will answer it.
I appreciate that I may be arguing against some of my hon. Friends who represent the upper Clyde and the River Clyde, but I want the Hunterston and Ardrossan ports to be split from the Clyde river authority. If the Bill is enacted and the Clyde port authority ceases to be a trust port and becomes a plc, it will get all the money and will concentrate all its development on the buying and selling of property and land.
Therefore, the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan should become independent, even if that means them being taken over by a privatised Associated British Ports. At least they have shown an initiative that has not been shown by the Clyde port authority. If that authority and my friends who are directors on its board want to become property and land developers, let them. Of course, I appreciate that that would cause a problem for some of my hon. Friends.
I hope that we will not be defeated tonight by the votes of Scottish Members. I am a little disappointed that there is not one representative of the Scottish National party present. Perhaps they are at a wake for the resignation of the chairman of their party, Mr. Gordon Wilson, who today announced his intention to resign at the next conference.
Mr. Holt: It was kind of the hon. Gentleman to point out that no Scottish Nationalist Member is present. He forgot to mention that there are no Liberal Democrat Members present either. Of course, about 20 Scottish Labour Members have an interest in the port, but fewer than half of them have been present tonight.
Mr. Lambie: I was about to refer to the absence of Liberal Democrat Members. Strathclyde has had a fair parliamentary representation tonight. Those Scottish Members who are not here are feeding, and they will soon come in in droves.
I ask the hon. Member for Eastwood to declare any interest, or any possible future interest, in the Clyde Port Authority plc. In view of his arguments and the poor content of his speech, I ask him to withdraw the Bill.
8.26 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I speak in this debate because no one from Scotland can doubt the importance of the Clyde to Scotland's well-being. Ever since the industrial revolution, it has contributed substantially to the well-being, the benefit and the massive enhancement in values for those who live in the area and throughout Scotland generally.

669
I especially remember the Clyde during the difficult years of the second world war, when troop ships came in from north America and the Clyde was regularly a target for the Luftwaffe. Anyone who saw the Clyde operating as a port in those days could never forget the extremely difficult circumstances with troop ships coming in from north America or going out to the middle and far east.
Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Clyde port authority came into being in 1965?
Mr. Walker: I do not wish to become involved in pedantic arguments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I am commending the Clyde's contribution to the well-being of the nation.
Dr. Godman: In view of the hon. Gentleman's stout defence of all those employed in the whisky industry, does he agree that it is a great shame that the overwhelming majority of whisky products are exported not from Greenock or Grangemouth, but from English ports? Is not that a matter for deep regret?
Mr. Walker: I make no apology for saying that the whisky industry carries out its business in the most efficient way possible, however that is done. The whisky industry has a future in its present form and it will continue to have one, provided that it exports its products in the most cost-effective and efficient way. It is not my job to second-guess the whisky companies in determining the routes through which they send their products abroad. My concern is to ensure that the £1,000 million-plus of whisky products that are exported continue to be exported. It has never been my desire, in public or in private life, to impose upon private sector companies restrictions that would in any way limit their performance in the world marketplace.
Dr. Godman: I repeat, the hon. Gentleman looks after the interests of those of his constituents working in the whisky industry with remarkable vigour. However, if the major ports on the Clyde and the Forth were to disappear, the subsidies offered to the whisky distillers and blenders to take their products out through English ports would surely disappear.
Mr. Walker: The responsibility for determining the place from which exports leave the country or imports arrive is largely that of the companies which ship products and the shippers. If they decide to use a particular port because it is more cost-effective than another, I hope that the port that has not been chosen will look carefully at whatever are the cost advantages, real or imagined, as seen by the shippers and shipping companies. We hope that all areas of Scottish activity, including ports, will adapt to meet the changing demands and conditions of the modern world, so that Scotland can compete not only with overseas ports but those elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
One cannot ignore recent trade history. Since its inception, the port authority has been obliged to face a number of dramatic changes in trade patterns. Like its predecessors, it has been compelled to adapt. The first of those changes was the implementation of full-scale containerisation on the world general cargo and liner trade routes. Those of us who witnessed that change occurring throughout the United Kingdom know that the ports that adapted quickly to containerisation thrived and grew,
670
whereas ports that failed to adapt did not do so. Incidentally, I do not make any political, narrow, partisan points, because it is not that kind of Bill. It has the support of the Transport and General Workers Union, and of elected councillors, which I am delighted about.
Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is rather impetuous. He does not allow anyone to complete a sentence.
I hope that Opposition Members accept that there is nothing narrow or partisan about the view that I take. Instead, I am concerned to see the Clyde develop in the best way possible. I was emphasising that unless one adapts quickly, and if restrictions are placed on the way in which a company or a trade union can operate, it serves as an impediment to change. Any impediment to change must present a disadvantage by comparison with ports that are able to change.
Dr. Godman: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that no impediments are being presented by the management or workers at the Kvaerner yard at Govan or at Yarrow. At both yards, management and workers are keen to win new orders. In the near future, Kvaerner may secure an order for three large vessels. That would be most useful to my constituents, because I fervently hope that Kincaid will build the engines for those vessels.
Mr. Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I stated that there are any impediments. I was only expressing the hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House want to see the Clyde flourish—that we want it to adapt to meet the changing demands of today and tomorrow. We may differ on the route taken to achieve that. All the evidence from eastern Europe is that the capitalist, private-sector methods are far more efficient, create more jobs, and produce far more wealth than the narrow attitude that is the alternative, if I may put it that way.
Mr. Worthington: So the hon. Gentleman is being non-political.
Mr. Walker: I repeat, socialism does not work, and all the countries of eastern Europe are rejecting it. I was trying not to be partisan, but was responding to the narrow partisan points of Opposition Members. If they cannot take it, they should not make their points in the first place.
The Clyde port container terminal was constructed on the site of the Princes pier at Greenock and received its first ship on 15 March 1969. The terminal, with its depth of water of 42 ft at low tide, with a back-up area of 42 acres, and with rail connections to the major industrial centres of the United Kingdom, had by 1973 attracted 13 shipping lines. I hope that Opposition Members view those remarks as promoting the Clyde.
Events gradually overtook the north Atlantic trade. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), in his interesting speech, quite properly defended the interests of his constituents—even if it was at the cost of the constituents of some of his hon. Friends. There is nothing odd about that, because the hon. Gentleman has a track record for it. No one could ever accuse the hon. Gentleman of neglecting his constituency.
Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Clyde port container terminal, which is in my constituency. Everyone acknowledges that that terminal has seen bad

671
times—largely brought about by fluctuations in maritime trade patterns. However, the vastly reduced number of men working at that terminal today are striving hard to increase its efficiency, and they are beginning to win.
Mr. Walker: I am delighted to hear that. I am not in any way being critical——
Dr. Godman: Yes, you are.
Mr. Walker: I am not. If the hon. Gentleman will read my speech tomorrow, he will see that I acknowledge, as does the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South, that the development of European trade in both directions is a substitute for what used to be the United Kingdom's major trade area in the north Atlantic. Anyone who doubts that trend need only study the changes in the trade patterns. One cannot blame the people working in the ports or the port employers for changing trade patterns. Whether one is trading in a port or in a high street, if one does not change to meet new patterns, one goes out of business. No right hon. or hon. Member wants to see Clyde port do that.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South referred in particular to the importance of Hunterston to the west and the whole of Scotland. There is no question but that Hunterston and Ravenscraig depend on each other. In Hunterston, Scotland has a facility of which it can be proud. I look upon it much as I view Prestwick. Both are great Scottish assets. It is up to us as Scots to identify how we can best influence those facilities being maximised, to the benefit of Scotland. That is why I am distressed that so many foolish and sad things are said about Hunterston, Ravenscraig and Prestwick.
Mr. Foulkes: In the past, I have had cause to be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for all the positive things that he has said about Prestwick, for which he has been a doughty campaigner. Was it the Secretary of State for Scotland's U-turn on Prestwick that really turned the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) against him and led the hon. Gentleman to campaign for the present Secretary of State's replacement by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? If so, that important milestone should be recorded. People should know about it. The primary responsibility belongs to the Secretary of State for Transport. He should be warned to look after his back.
Mr. Walker: I am fond of the hon. Gentleman in many ways. I hope that that does him no political harm. He has rightly drawn the attention of the House to the fact that we have joined together in campaigns in which we both believed. I should like to know what his views are on two-minute roof tax Donald. The Labour party has problems in Scotland. On which side of the fence does the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) fall? I shall go no further down that road. I have merely responded in kind to the hon. Gentleman's jibes.
The fact is that 50 per cent. of the Clyde port authority's traffic goes through Hunterston which represents 43 per cent. of its revenue. The Clyde port authority has a duty and a responsibility to ensure that the port is used to its fullest extent to benefit Scotland. Furthermore, Ravenscraig must continue to be the most cost-effective and productive plant that the British Steel Corporation owns. We must compliment the workers at Ravenscraig on their remarkable production performances.
Mr. Lambie: To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about Hunterston, my criticism of the Clyde port authority is that it has spent too much time on property development too little time on developing the harbour and port facilities, especially at Hunterston. If it had spent more time developing Hunterston instead of selling land in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), we might not have had to come here today to deal with this stupid Bill.
Mr. Walker: I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman's question on the basis of principle rather than detail. I do not know what the Clyde port authority has been doing. In principle, however, it is up to any corporate body that owns land or property to maximise its assets for the benefit of the whole undertaking. That could mean selling off land for development so that the core part of the business can be successful. The core business may require substantial funds if it is to grow. It would be better to use asset funds, on which no interest has to be paid, for those developments rather than borrowed funds. I hope that the Clyde port authority has been using its assets to create the maximum advantage for the core part of the business. I believe that it probably has, since it appears to be profitable. That must be welcomed by us all.
The Clyde port authority board unanimously support-ed the use of the private Bill procedure. It must have considered a variety of options—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is laughing. He sits on a board. I hope that the board on which he sits takes responsible decisions. If it does not, he and the other board members are failing in their statutory duty. Perhaps he is not unaware of a director's statutory duties.
I believe that in this case the board considered the options and decided unanimously to support the private Bill procedure. As it drew on the experience of so many interests, I have no hesitation in saying that I hope that the House will ensure that the Bill is given a Second Reading and is considered in Committee. If it does, Scotland's interests will have been well served.
The Clyde will continue to be an important port. The developments within Europe mean that trading patterns have changed, but during the next 30 years I believe that north Atlantic trade will be far more important that it has been during the past 20 years. Changes to the world's political power blocs will result in changes to trading patterns. It would be most unwise of us to run down this great national asset. I take the same view of the Clyde as I do of Prestwick—that we should look after and nurture it. If we do, it will still be there when trading patterns alter, as I believe they will. Too often in the past we have said, "If we had only known then what we know now." By then, however, it is too late.
Dr. Godman: With regard to the nurturing of the Clyde, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the assurances that have been given about continuing the dredging of the channel?
Mr. Walker: I am satisfied that the successor company will assume all the responsibilities of the present authority. On that basis, I assume that it will continue to do what has been done in the past. The Bill does not change the responsibilities; it merely gives them to the successor company. The statement says:

673
"The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the transfer of the Port Authority's undertaking to a Companies Act company, ('the successor company'), with the consequential dissolution of the Port Authority. The successor company would at all times be a wholly owned subsidiary of another Companies Act company ('the holding company')".
The successor company will assume all the responsibili-ties of the Clyde port authority. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may not be satisfied that the authority would honour its responsibilities. However, the successor company would have to do so.
It is important to set up a holding company. That is the big difference. The holding company will be in the market place in a way that the Clyde port authority is not. It will have the opportunity to obtain funds, which the Clyde port authority cannot do. I should have thought that that would be of advantage to the Clyde.
If we are all interested in doing what is best for the Clyde—I hope that we are—I should have thought that experience has taught us that, if we do not change, we may end up with another albatross round our necks, and we do not want that.
8.39 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) who, in the past two or three minutes, gave us more explanation of the structure of the Bill than we were given by the presenter, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). His explanation was off the top of his head, however, which is a remarkable sign of the contempt with which the House has been treated.
The Bill is of considerable importance, and the House should treat it with the seriousness it deserves. It concerns an authority that is responsible for 450 square miles—not only the port of Glasgow but the ports of Ardrossan and Hunterston, not to mention all the sea lochs around the Firth of Clyde. It seems that we are to approve on the nod a change in the way in which the port area is administered.
The hon. Member for Eastwood is usually the most affable of Members, but on this occasion he has treated the House with some contempt by failing to brief himself on the implications of the Bill. Tonight, he is in the position of a Minister; usually, Ministers presenting a Bill go through it and explain the implications of each clause. That the hon. Gentleman failed to do. All he gave us was a recitation from what I can only assume was a public relations brief of about two pages from the Clyde port authority. The hon. Gentleman completely failed to answer the questions that were put to him.
I object to the Bill not because I regard the Clyde port authority as a satisfactory body—I do not. I regard it as highly unsatisfactory, and I think that it should be restructured so as to reflect the interests of all the people of Scotland, not just those of the people who run the authority now.
Is the Clyde port authority a public or a private body? We do not know whether it is fish or fowl, whether it is operating in the commercial market or in the public sector.
It is also most unsatisfactory that the authority should be the responsibility of the Department of Transport—a fact that is not widely known. I suspect that most people in Scotland think that it is linked with the Scottish Office. I notice that sitting on the Government Front Bench is the
674
third of a rapidly changing sequence of Ministers that we have seen during the passage of this Bill—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). In theory, he is the Scottish Minister with responsibility for transport, but in practice his relationship with the Bill is peripheral. He has no brief for or interest in the matter. The Minister for Aviation and Shipping has apparently disappeared to an event that he considers of greater importance—
Mrs. Fyfe: Why?
Mr. Worthington: I do not know.
I have tabled parliamentary questions and written to the Minister at the Department of Transport about this matter. I asked:
"What means of redress or appeal exist in the case of maladministration or inefficiency by a body such as a port authority."
In other words, I asked what people can do if they think that a port authority is not doing its job. The Minister replied:
"Harbour authorities that are companies or statutory trusts are autonomous bodies running commercial undertakings. Any complaint should be made to the chief executive or chairman, and if satisfaction is not obtained the complaint can ultimately be pursued through the courts."—[Official Report, 2 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 272–3.]
So one can do nothing about these bodies save appeal to the people running them.
We are talking about a collection of individuals who emerge through the strange processes of the selection of the great and the good to sit on these bodies. They are not appraised, and as far as I know the Department of Transport issues no reports on their past credibility. These bodies seem to go on and on, pursuing a course that may be good or that may be distinctly mediocre.
In November 1989 I wrote to the Minister about accountability, and he replied as follows:
"Once the Board members are appointed, however, they are entirely responsible for the day-to-day running of the Authority using their collective judgment of what is in the best interest of the port and operating within the terms of the governing parliamentary legislation".
So it appears that the board members, appointed by the Department, are not accountable. The Minister goes on to speak of the authorities' powers:
"In particular the 1965 Act provides that it is for the authority to decide whether to dispose of land, what price to seek and what conditions to impose on its release".
That power does not sound limited in the way that we heard it described earlier.
If Parliament had had any sense, we should first have considered whether the Clyde port authority had been operating efficiently and effectively. If we discovered that it had not been, we should then have considered what reforms to introduce. Instead, we have given the port authority—if it has done a bad job, this would seem wrong —the power to initiate its own legislation. At no point did the hon. Member for Eastwood provide us with an appraisal of the sort of job that the authority has done. Has it effectively developed the work of the area, or has it been ineffective? All we heard was a statement of what it wants to do. That is not an effective way of running a great port on an important estuary. We needed to hear an analysis of what the authority has been doing for the past 40 years and of what changes are necessary.
That seems to me to be going about things back to front. We have only the assertion by the Clyde port authority about what has gone wrong, rather than an

675
independent analysis. I would have welcomed it if the National Audit Office—or some such organisation—had examined the way that the port authorities operate, and concluded that changes were necessary. We need a clear statement of what is being sought and of the responsibilities.
In his brief and perfunctory introduction to the Bill, the hon. Member for Eastwood—who is now about to be even more perfunctory, and leave the Chamber—stated that the powers of the Clyde port authority were restricted. However, he was unable to say in what way. The original legislation—the Clyde Port Authority Order Confirmation Act 1965—says what the duties and powers of the port authority will be. I shall read out those powers, because it is necessary for hon. Members to judge whether they are restrictive.
The Act says:
"It shall be the duty of the Port Authority, subject to the provisions of this Order, to take such steps from time to time as they may consider necessary for the maintenance or improvement of the port and the accommodation and facilities (including navigational facilities) afforded therein or in connection therewith".
The Act goes on to give what seem to be all-embracing powers. On page 8, section 15 says:
"The Port Authority … may … manage, use or develop land belonging to them as they think fit".
That does not seem to be restrictive.
The Act continues:
"in addition may with a view of selling or otherwise disposing of any right or interest in the land after the development is carried out … retain any part of land belonging to them … develop it or procure its development for use wholly or partly by other persons."
I am open to persuasion that the powers are too restrictive, but that does not seem to be the message from the Act.
Mr. Foulkes: It is not the message from me, either.
I appreciate the diligence with which my hon. Friend has gone into the matter to show the wide powers of the Clyde port authority. Earlier in his speech, he referred to navigation lights; if he thinks that the Clyde port authority has wide powers, he should put his tremendous energy into examining the Commissioners for Northern Lights. I have never come across a more powerful feudal organisation —I was going to say, on this side of the iron curtain; however, these days even on the other side of the iron curtain there are not such powerful organisations. When he has finished dealing with the Clyde port authority, will my hon. Friend have a wee go at the Commissioners for Northern Lights?
Mr. Worthington: I am graterful for that suggestion for my future work programme. I shall bear it in mind, and add it to the long list of fascinating subjects on to which my hon. Friend wishes to divert me.
I am not aware that the Clyde port authority has been unable to be involved in property development. It has been able to diversify from explicit port-related work on the Clyde. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) said that it had done that excessively, but there was no evidence that it was unable to develop the areas that were surplus to port requirements. Within Glasgow, I believe that there are areas that are the subject of development now: I may have missed a declaration on it, but I gather that in the Braehead area of Renfrew there is a proposed major shopping development awaiting the
676
decision of the Secretary of State. The Clyde port authority has been involved with the Tarmac Group of Companies to develop it.
Let us take the Glasgow garden festival and the construction of the exhibition centre: the port authority has correctly realised that those developments should take place. I am not conscious of any restriction in its powers to stop it doing that effectively.
Dredging is another matter of concern. We have the right to ask the Minister and the hon. Member for Eastwood to clarify the power to dredge. Section 16 of the Clyde Port Authority Order Confirmation Act states:
"The Port Authority may from time to time"—
there is the controversial "may" with which we always have difficulty—
"deepen, dredge, scour and improve the bed and foreshore of the river and firth of Clyde within the port or in or near any approach to the port".
There is a power whereby the port authority can use its resources to dredge, which is very different from saying that it "shall" always do what is necessary to enable the area to operate as a port. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eastwood is still wandering around. He is using the old Scottish Tory device of moving around to make himself seem more numerous.
I am not reassured when the hon. Gentleman or the Clyde port authority says that nothing in the legislation changes the authority's powers. During the past 10 years, the authority has said to other bodies, such as the regional and district councils and the shipyards, "We may need to withdraw from this activity unless we are supported in the dredging." The hon. Member for Eastwood may by now in his travels have received advice on whether my reading of the Act is correct—that there is no duty on the port authority to dredge the Clyde and to maintain Glasgow as a port. I believe from my reading of the legislation that it could withdraw from that activity.
The Opposition realise the importance of not allowing the Clyde to silt up. I would assume that, because the port authority is in the public domain, public money would always be made available to maintain the Clyde. What will happen under a privatised company? The hon. Member for Eastwood may assure us that that the successor company—although he did not dignify his speech with technical terms such as "successor company"—inherits the same obligations as the Clyde port authority.
From my reading of the Act, I believe that it "may" dredge, not that it "shall" dredge and that it is open to a privatised company to up sticks at some stage and say that it is not in its commercial interests to dredge the Clyde. I am willing to give way to the hon. Member for Eastwood —he was generous to me earlier—if he wishes to assure me that the Bill maintains in perpetuity the duty on the Clyde port authority or the successor company to dredge the Clyde.
Dr. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the dredging problem is exacerbated by the need for the Clyde port authority to purchase a new dredging vessel in the near future? Will not such a vessel cost several million pounds?
Mr. Worthington: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It is realised that, if the Clyde is to be effectively dredged in the future, outdated equipment needs to be replaced. But that decision has been made by a public authority which realises the importance of its

677
public duty to dredge the Clyde. Whether the successor company would make a commercial decision along those lines, I do not know.
Mr. Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredible, and deeply worrying, that the invitation that he offered so freely to the sponsor of the Bill was not taken up? Does he agree that Opposition Members' meeting with Clyde port authority representatives confirmed what he has said? There is no absolute obligation to dredge. Does my hon. Friend find it as incredible as I do that the sponsor of the Bill is not prepared to answer his question one way or the other?
Mr. Worthington: I am stunned by the failure of the hon. Member for Eastwood to know his Bill sufficiently well to give even that most basic reassurance. I am sure that, on being told that the Clyde port authority was to be privatised, the first question that Opposition Members would ask would be, do the arrangements safeguard the ability of the port of Glasgow to continue to operate as a port? It is difficult to continue as a port without one basic ingredient, which I have always thought to be water. If there is no water in a port, it is difficult to see how it can operate effectively. Yet the hon. Member for Eastwood seems quite unable to assure us that there will continue to be water in the port of Glasgow.
Mr. Lambie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the behaviour tonight of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) justifies the Prime Minister's sacking him as a Scottish Minister?
Mr. Allan Stewart: Answer.
Mr. Worthington: I would always defer to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on these matters, as he seems to be the adviser on them.
We are told that the successor company will have the same powers. We need to know just what provisions have restricted the development of the company. We need that spelt out in much greater detail.
Page 9 of the Bill deals with the functions of the Clyde Port Holding Trust that is to be established. I regret that I have had to take so long on this subject, which could have been dealt with earlier by the hon. Member for Eastwood. Clause 13(2) says:
"(2) The Trust shall consist of a chairman, a deputy chairman, and not less than eight nor more than eleven other members.
(3) The persons who immediately before the first transfer day are the chairman, the deputy chairman and other members of the Port Authority shall become respectively the chairman, the deputy chairman and other members of the Trust".
In other words, the members of the port authority will succeed themselves. That is not usually what happens when someone dies.
Clause 14 says:
"The Trust shall … give to the holding company such directions as the Trust consider appropriate in respect of the matters in respect of which the Trust may give directions as mentioned in section 8".
That refers to the securities of the new company. Earlier, the Minister made a somewhat perfunctory statement, which we could not examine because he had departed, to the effect that half the proceeds of sale of the company
678
were to go to the Treasury. However, we do not know why it should be half the proceeds, or the basis on which that was determined.
The trust is the key factor in setting up the holding company and the successor company. According to clause 14:
"The Trust may, in carrying out their functions in relation to the disposal of securities of the holding company, provide for one or more employees' share schemes to be established in respect of the holding company; and any such scheme may provide for the transfer of shares without consideration."
There is agreement on both sides of the House that employee share schemes are good. We want them to develop, but within egalitarian principles. We would want to ensure that there was a genuine co-operative venture, instead of half a dozen shares for someone on the ground floor of the company and several hundred thousand shares for the people at the top of the company.
I understand the phrase "without consideration" in clause 14 to mean free. Some of the shares in an employee share scheme should be transferred for free. I have no objection to that if that is done fairly, and that could be a good idea for the employees. However, clause 14(5) states:
"The Trust may transfer securities of the holding company without consideration"—
that is, for free—
"to bona fide employees of that company or of a subsidiary of that company (including any such employees who are members of the Trust)."
The Clyde port authority board was established by statute and the members appointed by the Secretary of State. It is promoting legislation which transfers the affairs of the port authority to the Clyde Port Holding Trust which will set up the arrangements for the successor company and the holding company. It will also have the power to award itself shares.
It is clear that some present members of the Clyde port authority will become members of the trust. No one other than CPA members can become members of the trust. Those people are promoting legislation which will inevitably give them powers to allocate free shares to themselves in the new company.
Mr. Foulkes: That is better than winning the pools.
Mr. Worthington: I would not make that assertion, because it may not be a very important inheritance. It depends how moderate the trust is in its willingness to allocate to itself what was a public asset. We must also consider the lack of clarity about other members of the CPA and whether they are employees or whether the Clyde Port Holding Trust could designate those people as employees. Those people could receive a benefit in future.
It is unacceptable that a rambling Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Eastwood, should present this private Bill in such a perfunctory way. The Bill does not make clear the provisions for the members of the promoting body. We have a right to know whether the CPA members will benefit financially from the proposal. If I have misread the Bill, I apologise for any mistaken inferences.
According to my reading of the Bill, the members of the Clyde port authority as presently constituted can, will and indeed must become the Clyde port trust, because no one else can do so. They can then decide the terms upon which employee share ownership will be distributed and they can then allocate shares to themselves "without consideration"

679
—that is, without paying money for them. We have a right to an explanation of that, and I wish that there was a Minister on the Treasury Bench who could explain it.
I turn now to the importance of the meaning of "the Clyde" in the west of Scotland. We are not talking simply about a commercial undertaking. The Clyde is a most powerful symbol of the wholeness of life in the west of Scotland. It is a symbol of all the issues relating to the environment, tourism, commerce, leisure and sport. Therefore, in addition to the narrow commercial interests of the holding and successor companies, all those aspects need to be taken into account.
I referred earlier to dredging but that issue needs further consideration because of its general importance and the responsibility attaching to other bodies. At present, other contributing bodies include the regional council, which has been obliged or induced to contribute largely because of the importance of the Clyde to the sludge boats, which are the major daily users of the Clyde. They go up and down the river and out into the firth——
Mr. Lambie: And pollute the beaches of Ayrshire.
Mr. Worthington: Yes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South has said, they pollute the beaches of Ayrshire.
That antiquated way of disposing of sewage has been questioned both by the European Community and by sane environmentalists. The regional council will be obliged to stop being involved in that activity. Eventually, therefore, the regional council will no longer need to use the Clyde for that activity. In addition, I understand that, under the provisions of another EC directive, dredging the Clyde and dumping the waste elsewhere is no longer regarded as acceptable, and that land-bound disposal methods must be used as well. Therefore, the regional council may lose its obligation and feel that it no longer has a duty to support dredging.
If I might correct my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I understand that Glasgow district council has contributed £100,000 on a one-off basis. We all hope that Govan Shipbuilders and Yarrow Shipbuilders will continue into perpetuity, but nothing is absolutely certain in this world and those companies contribute substantially at present.
The main issue here is that a cost that used to be met entirely by the port authority is at present met only partially by that port authority, so I want to know who will carry out the dredging in the future in view of the cost of that activity. If I have to second-guess what will happen in 10 years—if the Bill becomes law—I imagine that the successor company will have walked away from those responsibilities, and I guess that some public authority will have to march in to pick up the cost of the dredging. It may be the regional council or the district council. A private Bill has been used as a mechanism for dumping a public obligation. It seems to be going through without being adequately examined.
A recent Strathclyde joint working party report, imaginatively called the "River Clyde Project" and, more poetically, "A corridor of growth", in which the region and associated districts—not just Glasgow, but Clydebank and Dumbarton on the north of the Clyde and, I assume, Renfrew and Inverclyde—took part. The Scottish Development Agency and the private industry group Scottish Action also took part, as well as the Clyde port
680
authority. It was possible for those public organisations to come together to consider the Clyde as a whole and a strategic affair. They recognised that it was not the sort of project that was best dealt with piecemeal.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Tayside, North failed in his synopsis of world history to explain how Glasgow had been regenerated in recent years. One fact is absolutely certain—not a person in Britain could say that Glasgow had been regenerated by the workings of the market. There is not the slightest doubt that, where regeneration has occurred, it has been because of the actions of local authorities, where relevant, the Government—I pay tribute where that has happened—the Scottish Development Agency and other public organisations that have created the leverage that has led to private investment. Without that public investment in the first place, there would never have been any private investment.
I am worried that, with the Bill, we shall once again lose the ability to act strategically and consider the Clyde, all that river valley and estuary, in an overall context. That is an important power. We are talking about a 20 sq km area that can be developed for industry, housing or retail. The area will also be progressively more important in terms of water sports and leisure. We must ensure that the public interest is represented there, rather than the narrow commercial interest. If the port authority is given the freedom to develop on a purely commercial basis, that will be inadequate.
When considering the Bill—I hope that it will not receive a smooth passage through the House and the other place—we must ask whether it is genuinely geared to the interests of the people of the west of Scotland, because——
Mr. Harry Ewing: I know that my hon. Friend is coming to his conclusion. I have listened to quite a bit of the debate, and no one has told the House where the demand is coming from. It is all right to say that there has been no opposition to the proposals from the Scottish Development Agency, the regional council or a number of organisations named by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who wants to keep Eastwood out of Glasgow, but not out of the port of Glasgow. But where is the demand coming from? Is it coming from the present board members of the Clyde port authority? If that is the only source, is that not a cause for the deepest of deep concern?
Mr. Worthington: I share that concern. As I said earlier, I am not rising in objection to the Bill, because I am satisfied with the present state of affairs in the Clyde port authority. I became interested in the affairs of the Clyde port authority because of its lack of action in the area covered by my constituency. Over many years, the Clyde port authority has simply allowed the Rothesay port area to become a tip. We did not really need any legislation to get an improvement. What we needed was a bit more activity by the port authority. In 1981, part of Clydebank was designated an enterprise zone. It was hoped that the special status of that zone would lead to a regeneration of Clydebank. I know that many hon. Members who go there will see that it has been transformed in many ways.
I give credit to the Government, the Scottish Development Agency, the regional council and the district council who have worked together to achieve enormous success in every part of Clydebank except the Rothesay

681
dock area. In that area, the port authority failed to take action not because of any restrictions in the relevant Acts but because of lethargy. It simply failed to realise the potential of the area and hoped that something would come around the corner to cause change to occur in future.
Last year, the Rothesay dock area was to be regenerated by the import of coal. Hon. Members may remember the dispute last year between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal. Suddenly, the Rothesay dock was to be the means by which huge amounts of coal would be imported. That was not to be, and a simple letter such as the one that I sent to the SSEB established that there would not be such an amount of imported coal. The area could have been regenerated without any change in the legislation. That regeneration did not occur—not because of difficulties with the legislation but because of difficulties with the Clyde port authority.
9.31 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: I have an interest in the Bill not only because of my Front-Bench role but because both Ardrossan and Hunterston are in my constituency. My main concern in the debate and in the weeks ahead is to ensure that the Bill, whether or not it becomes law, should be the subject of public debate. That has not happened in past months and that is why there is such strong opposition in the House to the Bill's simple passage.
Important points of principle are at stake and substantial public assets are to become private assets by means of this device. The House was entitled to more explanation and justification than we heard from the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). His explanation for the Bill bordered on the insulting. It was completely inadequate and did not begin to deal in detail with the Bill or its clauses.
Mrs. Fyfe: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) are in the Chamber and that both of them were involved in similar Bills for other ports? Neither represents a Scottish constituency. Is there some strange community of interests on the other side of this debate?
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend takes me easily to the next part of my speech. It is vital to consider where this whole idea has come from. It has not come from the board of the Clyde port authority, year after year sitting in frustration, fretting over the lack of powers at its disposal.
I understand that the Minister for Aviation and Shipping had to leave the Chamber. He explained to me his reasons for that. In his brief contribution he rightly gave credit to the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). The chairman's statement in the annual report of the Clyde port authority gives us the background to all this. It states:
"Back in 1988 the then Minister of Transport, Paul Channon, informed the trust ports that any request for increased powers would only be granted if the ports were prepared to accept a greater measure of accountability as in the case of a limited company to its shareholders. The preparation work in this has been very complex and time
682
consuming for the authority's senior executive and we now look to the Government for their full support as the legislation progresses through Parliament."
The Bill is not a private initiative from the Clyde port authority, but a Government one. The work is being done for the Government by people such as the hon. Members for Eastwood, for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and others who are involved with similar Bills. The demand does not come from the people who work on the Clyde or the communities located there which depend on that river for commerce, industry, leisure and other purposes.
The undoubted consequences of the legislation will be a further downgrading in the importance of the river Clyde and a greater emphasis being placed on the property development potential of its river banks. That is bad news for marine users and shipyard workers. It is a setback to the revival of the Clyde as a centre of marine trade. This is an enabling Bill that will enable a privatised company to turn public assets into private ones and to turn public sectors into centres of private speculators.
If the aims of the Bill are as stated I find it slightly odd that the Clyde port authority found it necessary to trawl entire west central Scotland to come up with the one Conservative Member to be found in that territory—and at that an hon. Member who has no direct interest in the river Clyde. The way in which the hon. Gentleman presented the Bill and the way he pranced round the Chamber, like the sugar plum fairy, in search of little bits of information to elaborate the bare bones of his opening speech, reflect no great credit on the Bill that he is seeking to promote.
We are dealing with substantial public assets. According to the balance sheet of the Clyde port authority for the year ended 31 December 1989, the total assets of the authority, less current liabilities, are £52,069,000. Conservative Members have given a slipshod performance and much of their debate has been light-hearted. A few of them have read from briefs and have had little of substance to say in defence of the case. In such a perfunctory manner is the House expected to hand over £52 million of public assets to a newly created private company? That is what Conservative Members are trying to push through.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is right to point our that the people who will take over the running of that private company have been placed in their present positions of responsibility and trust to perform a public function rather than to run that private company. We believe that that must be exposed to far more rigid scrutiny than has so far been applied.
The only justification that the hon. Member for Eastwood gave for the Bill was that the existing remit and powers of the authority are so restrictive that it must cast them off to acquire great new liberating powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and other hon. Friends have already called that concept into serious question. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie told us what the authority can do for better or worse and my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) and other colleagues told us what the authority had not done when it was within its powers to act, had it had the will.
As a general rule, it is reasonable to say that a body which has not satisfactorily used, extended or lived up to its present powers should not come to the House lightly and demand a new set of powers which have the interesting

683
side effect of turning it into a private company. It is worth quoting from clause 13(3) of the Bill, which states who will run the private company:
"The persons who immediately before the first transfer day are the chairman, the deputy chairman and other members of the Port Authority shall become respectively the chairman, the deputy chairman and other members of the Trust and shall, subject to the provision of this Act, continue in office until the Trust is dissolved by virtue of section 15 … of this Act."
Some people might think, "Nice work if you can get it." One day it is a public body with people appointed either by the Secretary of State or local authorities and others, and the next day they are the office bearers of a substantial private company which owns the assets that go with the River Clyde.
Opposition Members are not satisfied that the justification for the Bill lies in the restrictive powers that are alleged to exist under the present Act. If that is the case and if the powers of the Clyde port authority are so restricted that it cannot carry out work that it thinks is necessary, let it demonstrate that in the court of public opinion in succeeding months. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said at the outset, we are going to have another go at the Bill, in the Lords. The authority has plenty of time to make that case and we will base our subsequent actions upon the manner in which it does so.
Mrs. Fyfe: It is surprising that when the hon. Member for Eastwood presented the Bill tonight and referred to the fact that a substantial amount of riparian land is involved and that there was considerable difficulty in developing joint ventures on riverside sites, at no time did he—or any of his hon. Friends—attempt to describe the benefits that could result. We are being asked to write a blank cheque tonight.
Mr. Wilson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was astonished that the case was made so thinly. Practical examples probably could have been quoted to demon-strate how the extended powers could be used. The manner in which the hon. Member for Eastwood and the people who briefed him approached the debate shows that they did not feel that they had been called upon to give the House examples of how such extended powers could be used to their advantage. The hon. Member for Eastwood did not offer one example.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie tried generously, to encourage the hon. Member for Eastwood into an intervention. Perhaps he could give me a practical example now of something that has not been done if the authority had new powers. I would be pleased to hear a specific example.
Frankly, if the hon. Member for Eastwood sits there and cannot offer the House one example of what the Bill will achieve in practical terms, the House will make its own judgment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow spoke ably about the local considerations in his constituency. He reminded us that we are not talking about an abstract or turning one sort of company into another, but about the life-blood of the community—the docks and the waterfront in Greenock. He also properly reminded us that it is Sir John Shaw Stewart's gift to the people of Greenock that is to be passed merrily on from one hand to the next without any regard to original intent. I find it rather odd that a party that is pleased to harp back
684
to philanthropy by public-spirited citizens in bygone ages casts it all aside when it suits its commercial purpose in the present age. Sir John Shaw Stewart's gift is of no interest or relevance because the Conservative party has an immediate commercial purpose to fulfil.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow and other hon. Members dealt fully with dredging, which is one of the most important aspects of the Bill. We are not passing comment on the people to whom the Clyde port authority will pass in the short term. I have no doubt that the people who have been running the Clyde port authority for the past two or three decades and whose life's work has been tied up with the Clyde will not, on the day that the authority becomes a private company, abandon responsibility for dredging the river.
We are not talking about that. We are talking about what might happen in one, two or three decades when they and we will have passed on. There is nothing in the Bill to stop the Clyde Port Authority plc being handed on to other concerns. With the way that riverside development is progressing not only in Britain but throughout the world, dealing more with property and less with waterways, what will a future company that owns the interests think about the responsibility to spend large sums of money every year dredging a river which, because of these policies, may by then be used even less than it is now?
A legal obligation to maintain dredging should be written into the Bill. As has been shown during the debate, those hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Bill are under a misapprehension. There is no such obligation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, the word "may" is crucial. If a company's first commitment is to keeping the waterway alive and flourishing, it will do it. However, if its first commitment is to property development, with the traffic on the Clyde and the shipbuilding industry being only a secondary concern, it will have no obligation under the Bill to maintain the dredging of the Clyde. Without that obligation, what will be the consequences for the Clyde?
There is no constituency in Scotland more affected by the matters that we have been discussing than that of Govan in Glasgow. The people of Govan will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow for having spoken so eloquently on their behalf. He spoke also for the Kvaerner shipyard and about the crucial issues relating to the Govan constituency.
Mr. Foulkes: Why did my hon. Friend have to do that?
Mr. Wilson: I am astonished that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is not here. We can only speculate on where he may be——
Mr. Foulkes: Shopping?
Mr. Wilson: I think that Marks and Spencer closes early on a Monday night. Of course, the hon. Gentleman could be sharpening the knives for the Scottish National party leadership contest. For all I know, he could be polishing his cromag in anticipation of Bannockburn day.
Mr. Worthington: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is not here, especially as his constituency and other constituencies have already been affected by the withdrawal of dredging operations between the Victoria and Glasgow bridges, which ceased about a quarter of a century ago. We can now see the extensive

685
mudbanks in those locations. That that will be repeated lower down the river in the hon. Gentleman's constituency unless dredging continues was established in a report, commissioned by the regional council and others into the consequences of abandoning dredging, carried out by Babtie Shaw and Morton.
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes his point well. My hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), who referred to the implications for shipyards, were not talking for narrow constituency interests. If anything, their constituency interests would be served by the upper Clyde becoming silted up.
Dr. Godman: There is a direct Greenock and Port Glasgow constituency interest in the Kvaerner shipyard at Govan. At this very moment, the men and women at Clark Kincaid in Greenock are building two engines for liquid petroleum gas carriers being built at Govan. If Kvaerner, with the support of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), obtains the order for three new vessels, it is extremely likely that Kincaid will build the engines.
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend provides an additional item of interesting information, emphasising the point that we in the Labour party speak together for all parts of the Clyde and do not seek to distinguish between one part and another.
Clearly, the dredging issue is of prime importance, and the least that we are entitled to ask for is that it should be a matter for public debate. I am disappointed that we have not heard more from some of the bodies that should have been briefing Opposition Members.
Mrs. Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that when the cost of dredging has been raised in the debate, there has been no response from the Government Benches? My hon. Friends and I have expressed concern that although the new body may continue dredging, it is not known at what price to Govan shipyard in particular and to the local authorities.
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend's point is well made. We are not discussing a hypothetical matter that might arise at some future date. We know from our own discussions with the Clyde port authority that, even under the present arrangement, the sharing of dredging costs is a live issue. The shipyards must be persuaded that they have to meet the present level of cost.
I am pleased to acknowledge that Clyde port authority in its present form is fully committed to maintaining dredging and the marine use of the river. The hon. Member for Eastwood failed to address the question of what the situation will be when that authority no longer exists and its place taken by a plc whose prime interest is property development rather than the marine uses of the Clyde.
Mr. Lambie: If Clyde Port Authority plc becomes a land and property development speculator, would it not be in the interests of my hon. Friend and myself, as Members of Parliament representing Cunninghame, to see the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan separated from the new company?
Mr. Wilson: I intended to refer to that matter later, but I shall do so now. My hon. Friend makes an interesting proposition. Long before I entered the House, I had a high regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South, and for his knowledge of and views on Hunterston. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the economic problems confronting north Ayrshire arise from the fact that the opportunity was never taken to develop Hunterston as it might be. It is ironic that the preface to the port authority's annual report makes reference to Hunterston as
"deep-water port facilities which are among the finest of their kind in Western Europe."
I cannot help wondering where else in western Europe one would go to find other fine deep water facilities and at the same time discover such economic underdevelopment of their potential.
The same is true of Ardrossan. I am grateful for the £800,000 of development that has recently taken place there, and congratulate Clyde port authority on it. However, neither my hon. Friend for Cunninghame, South nor myself can ignore the years of neglect at Ardrossan and the steady rundown not only of cargo traffic but the various ferry services that used to run out of that port. I am conscious of the fact that, when new services are contemplated today, it seems to be Troon and Ayr that receive prominent mention as possible future ports for development. I hope that the new development at Ardrossan signals a more positive attitude towards it by the Clyde port authority, in whatever form. Cunninghame district council is examining the Bill and it would be interested in the possibility of Hunterston or Ardrossan opting out. It should be allowed to put forward its views. I want to encourage that kind of public debate.
We are all in favour of employee share ownership plans. However, the hon. Member for Eastwood knows as well as I do that there are ESOPs and ESOPs. In fact, there are ESOPs and fables. We see that in the bus context of Clydeside Wester, where there are two rival buy-outs. In the one case there would be genuine worker ownership; in the other, there would arguably be much less worker ownership.
This is an enabling Bill. It enables shares to be distributed unevenly. After the Bill is passed we shall probably find that a small number of people own a substantial proportion of the shares in the new Clyde Port Authority plc. We are entitled to a public debate. If it serves no other purpose, I hope that this debate, by means of the publicity that it attracts, will lead to public attention being focused on the Bill. That is long overdue. I do not doubt that, if the Bill had been introduced as a Government measure, it would have attracted far more public attention than it has received in its present guise. As it is a private Bill, it has so far crept through by stealth.
Most of those who will be directly affected by its provisions are worried about the Bill. The troops have probably been pulled in so that the hon. Member for Eastwood will obtain his 100 votes. Hon. Members have just come into the Chamber who were not here earlier. They would have a hard job trying to pinpoint the Clyde on a map of Britain, but they will vote for the Bill. Therefore, the hon. Member for Eastwood will gain a pyrrhic victory. The debate has served to highlight the questions of ownership and dredging. The hon. Member

687
for Eastwood has been unable to answer them, but they will not go away. They will be asked increasingly in public as well as in private.
Mr. Worthington: Another issue that has not been fully explored is that of flooding and what will happen if dredging ceases. Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to the survey, the minimum level by which the height of the Clyde will rise if dredging ceases is 1 m?
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend has referred to another important issue. It may not seem important to hon. Members in 1990. However, it may be very important to those who live on the banks of the Clyde in the year 2020. That issue will also receive a public airing. Before the measure goes to another place I am sure that public interest in the Bill will have greatly increased.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been in the Chair for a considerable time. I have listened to the debate throughout the entire time that you have occupied the Chair and I listened to it for a considerable period when your predecessor was in the Chair. As I have listened to the debate, I have become more and more concerned——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. What is the point of order?
Mr. Ewing: The point of order is that we have in our possession a House of Commons document. If certain hon. Members do not have it, it is available in the Vote Office. I make no complaint about that. However, the House of Commons document refers to——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate.
Mr. Allan Stewart rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division——
Mr. Ewing (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I see that they have now put the Tellers in.
The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 38.

Division No. 205]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Brazier, Julian

Amess, David

Bright, Graham

Arbuthnot, James

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

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Aspinwall, Jack

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Atkinson, David

Buck, Sir Antony

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Budgen, Nicholas

Beith, A. J.

Burt, Alistair

Benyon, W.

Butcher, John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Butterfill, John

Boswell, Tim

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Carrington, Matthew

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Chapman, Sydney

Bowis, John

Chope, Christopher

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

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

688

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Maclean, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (FSushcliffe)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Colvin, Michael

Mans, Keith

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Cormack, Patrick

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Maude, Hon Francis

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Day, Stephen

Miller, Sir Hal

Dorrell, Stephen

Moate, Roger

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Monro, Sir Hector

Dunn, Bob

Morrison, Sir Charles

Durant, Tony

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Dykes, Hugh

Moss, Malcolm

Eggar, Tim

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Neale, Gerrard

Fallon, Michael

Neubert, Michael

Favell, Tony

Nicholls, Patrick

Fearn, Ronald

Norris, Steve

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Page, Richard

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Paice, James

Fishburn, John Dudley

Patnick, Irvine

Forman, Nigel

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Forth, Eric

Rathbone, Tim

Fox, Sir Marcus

Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

Franks, Cecil

Rhodes James, Robert

Freeman, Roger

Riddick, Graham

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Gill, Christopher

Sackville, Hon Tom

Goodlad, Alastair

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Gregory, Conal

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Ground, Patrick

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Grylls, Michael

Shersby, Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Speed, Keith

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Harris, David

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Hawkins, Christopher

Steen, Anthony

Hayward, Robert

Stern, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Stevens, Lewis

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

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Summerson, Hugo

Irvine, Michael

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Jack, Michael

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Janman, Tim

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Jessel, Toby

Thorne, Neil

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Thurnham, Peter

Kirkwood, Archy

Twinn, Dr Ian

Knapman, Roger

Walden, George

Knowles, Michael

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Lang, Ian

Waller, Gary

Lawrence, Ivan

Ward, John

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Wells, Bowen

Lightbown, David

Widdecombe, Ann

Lilley, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Mr. Richard Holt and

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Mr. William Hague.

NOES

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Foster, Derek

Bermingham, Gerald

Foulkes, George

Boateng, Paul

Fraser, John

Callaghan, Jim

Fyfe, Maria

Cox, Tom

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Dalyell, Tarn

Golding, Mrs Llin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Haynes, Frank

Dixon, Don

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Eastham, Ken

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

689

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Skinner, Dennis

Lambie, David

Spearing, Nigel

McFall, John

Turner, Dennis

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Wilson, Brian

Maxton, John

Worthington, Tony

Michael, Alun

Wray, Jimmy

Mullin, Chris

Pike, Peter L.

Tellers for the Noes:

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Mr. Max Madden and

Prescott, John

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
Mr. Ewing:On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 37.

Division No. 206]

[10.11 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Amess, David

Gregory, Conal

Arbuthnot, James

Ground, Patrick

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Grylls, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Beith, A. J.

Harris, David

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Hawkins, Christopher

Boswell, Tim

Hayward, Robert

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

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

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Bowis, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Brazier, Julian

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Bright, Graham

Irvine, Michael

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

Jack, Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Janman, Tim

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Jessel, Toby

Buck, Sir Antony

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Budgen, Nicholas

Kirkwood, Archy

Burt, Alistair

Knapman, Roger

Butcher, John

Knowles, Michael

Butterfill, John

Lang, Ian

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Lawrence, Ivan

Carrington, Matthew

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Chope, Christopher

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

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

Lilley, Peter

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Colvin, Michael

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Cormack, Patrick

Maclean, David

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Maclennan, Robert

Davis, David (Boothferry)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Day, Stephen

Mans, Keith

Dorrell, Stephen

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Maude, Hon Francis

Dunn, Bob

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Durant, Tony

Miller, Sir Hal

Dykes, Hugh

Moate, Roger

Eggar, Tim

Monro, Sir Hector

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Morrison, Sir Charles

Favell, Tony

Moss, Malcolm

Fearn, Ronald

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Neubert, Michael

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Nicholls, Patrick

Fishburn, John Dudley

Norris, Steve

Forman, Nigel

Page, Richard

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Paice, James

Forth, Eric

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Fox, Sir Marcus

Porter, David (Waveney)

Franks, Cecil

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Freeman, Roger

Rhodes James, Robert

Gill, Christopher

Riddick, Graham

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

690

Shaw, David (Dover)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Thorne, Neil

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Thurnham, Peter

Shersby, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Waller, Gary

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Ward, John

Steen, Anthony

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stern, Michael

Wells, Bowen

Stevens, Lewis

Widdecombe, Ann

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Mr. William Hague and

Summerson, Hugo

Mr. Richard Holt.

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

NOES

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Boateng, Paul

Madden, Max

Callaghan, Jim

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dalyell, Tarn

Maxton, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Michael, Alun

Dixon, Don

Mullin, Chris

Eastham, Ken

Pike, Peter L.

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Foster, Derek

Prescott, John

Foulkes, George

Skinner, Dennis

Fraser, John

Spearing, Nigel

Fyfe, Maria

Turner, Dennis

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Wilson, Brian

Haynes, Frank

Worthington, Tony

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Wray, Jimmy

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Tellers for the Noes:

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Mr. Tom Cox and

Lambie, David

Mr. Harry Barnes.

McFall, John

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Pakistan Bill [Lords], the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords], the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [Lords], the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords] and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, unitl any hour.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
10.22 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have had plenty of time to think about my point of order because it is perfectly obvious. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as an occupant of the Chair, give me one example during all your time in Parliament and all your time as Mr. Deputy Speaker when you accepted a point of order in the middle of another point of order? When you have answered that, I shall raise another point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I remind him and the House that a point of order relating to a closure invariably takes precedence over anything else.
Mr. Ewing: You seem to make up the rules as you go along, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That has never happened before and it is totally unacceptable. I want to put ocord my anger and

691
disgust at the conduct of the Chair during the debate. I am very serious about this. Normally it is the occupant of the Chair who asks an hon. Member to retire from the House because of his or her conduct. I am leaving the House now in protest about the conduct of the Chair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matter that I have explained to the House is clear and it is of very long standing: a point of order relating to a closure invariably takes precedence.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be fair to say that when an hon. Member moves a closure, that is a motion for a closure? If the hon. Member concerned raises a point of order, he places the Chair in the position of trying to take one point of order over another. Am I right in saying that all that the hon. Member had to do—which probably was not done in this case—was to move,
"That the Question be now put."?
Is not it wrong in principle, according to Standing Orders, for an hon. Member to rise on a point of order during another point of order? Would not it be better if the hon. Member concerned moved the closure as such, rather than on a point of order, so that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could resolve the matter?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is no need for an hon. Member to say, "On a point of order," before the closure is moved. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the procedure of which he has reminded the House.
Mr. Don Dixon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Had you any indication from the sponsor of the Bill that he intended to move the closure, bearing in mind the fact that many of my hon. Friends still wanted to participate in the debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not disputing the judgment of the Chair. If a closure motion is moved, the Chair has to decide whether to accept it. It is then for the House to decide on the matter. All that the Chair has to decide is whether to accept the motion.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just heard a press report that the IRA has accepted responsibility for the bombing of an Army recruitment office in Halifax some weeks ago. As there has been silence from all quarters about who is responsible for that outrage, which could have resulted in civilian deaths, but fortunately did not, I am wondering whether you have been notified by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he intends to make a statement in the near future about the bombing and responsibility for it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady has raised a serious point. It is not possible for a statement to be made now, but I am sure that what she has said has been heard by the Government Front Bench.

Orders of the Day

  Pakistan Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secondary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill's purpose is, I hope, welcome. It is to modify existing domestic legislation in order to place Pakistan on the same footing as other Commonwealth countries, following its return to the Commonwealth on 1 October of last year, after a decision by consensus of the other member countries, of the Commonwealth.
  As became clear during discussion of the Bill in the other place last year, it also provides a reminder of the close relations between our two countries, and of the very considerable amount of good will towards Pakistan that exists in Britain. The relations between us are, of course, of long standing, but they are by no means purely historical. Pakistan is an important trading partner for Britain, and we are the largest overseas investor there. We have a major aid programme, with projects in irrigation and the social sector, among other areas. We consult and co-operate with Pakistan on a wide range of issues. The Pakistan Interior Minister was one of those who visited London for the world ministerial drugs summit held here at the beginning of April.
  Pakistan is a major Islamic country. We particularly welcome Pakistan's return to the Commonwealth at this important time in the organisation's history. As we proceed with the high level review of the role of the Commonwealth in the 1990s, there will be much discussion between the secretariat and other members of the Commonwealth. We look forward to Pakistan's contribution to these discussions. Its renewed membership of the Commonwealth provides it with an additional and important forum in which to set out and exchange views at a time when developments in the world are taking place at a particularly rapid pace.
  The return to democracy in many parts of the world has been one of the most encouraging developments of the last few months. Pakistan was some way ahead of recent events, returning to full democracy with elections in November 1988. We were particularly pleased to be able to welcome Prime Minister Bhutto to London a few months later, in July last year. That very successful visit included talks on many key issues. Mr. Speaker had the opportunity to see the Pakistan parliamentary system when he visited last autumn. since then, we received in January a senior delegation from the Pakistan Senate, headed by its leader, Mr. Sajjad.
  One worrying note is the tension which has developed between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. As we have repeatedly made clear to both sides, we very much hope that that tension can be reduced, and that discussions between the two countries can provide some resolution of the situation. Neither country's interests can be served by continuing the dispute which has developed. We welcomed the meeting between the two Foreign Ministers in New

  693
  York on 25 April, and their stated intention to keep contacts open at all levels. We shall continue to follow the situation there closely.
  Mr. Max Madden: The Minister has been referring to the serious dispute that exists between Pakistan and India over the future of Kashmir. Will he take this opportunity to declare on behalf of the British Government that they recognise that the struggle under way in Kashmir is a genuine struggle for self-determination by the people of Kashmir to determine the destiny of Kashmir? Will he, on behalf of the Government, recognise the status of that independence struggle?
  Mr. Sainsbury: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Her Majesty's Government have made their position clear: they remain entirely neutral, seek a peaceful resolution and urge on both countries the avoidance of any force, and maximum restraint. We hope that they will follow the declaration made at Simla in 1972.
  To return to the contents of the Bill, it is intended to amend a number of Acts in order to extend to Pakistan the provisions applying to other Commonwealth countries. It deals with Pakistan's relationship with the Commonwealth Institute. It reinstates the right of the Government of Pakistan to appoint a trustee to the board of the imperial war museum. It makes amendments to our legislation relating to the armed forces in order to define the legal status of Pakistan forces when, for example, training in this country. It provides for the exercise of command and discipline when British forces and Commonwealth forces are serving together, and for attachment of members of one force to another. It ensures that arrangements for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments with Pakistan remain in force.
  The immigration and electoral implications of Pakistan's renewed membership of the Commonwealth were dealt with separately by an Order in Council made on 2 August last year. That added Pakistan to the list of Commonwealth countries given in schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981. It is a technical Bill. I hope it is a welcome Bill, and I commend it to the House.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On behalf of the Labour party I welcome the Bill and offer our support for its passage through the House.
  It is almost exactly 17 years since I spoke in the House on the Second Reading of another Pakistan Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is present; he took part in that debate on 22 May, 1973, which dealt with the consequences of Pakistan's decision to withdraw from the Commonwealth. I said then that it was a melancholy day, because we were having to pass legislation to provide for the withdrawal of Pakistan from the Commonwealth. I spoke of bidding farewell to Pakistan as a member of the Commonwealth, temporary though we hoped its departure would be. Having taken part in the debate on Pakistan's withdrawal from the Commonwealth, it gives me great personal satisfaction now to be able to take part in the debate on a Bill dealing with its return.
  As the Under-Secretary of State has said, the provisions of the Bill are minor, but their implications are significant
  694
  because, during the 17 years since we debated the previous Bill on Pakistan, that country has seen great changes. Democracy was swept aside in a way that caused great regret to those of us who have a great regard for Pakistan. The military rule is now over, and Pakistan has returned to full democracy in an election that gave great hope to all its friends. In electing a Government headed by Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan has dispelled the unfair and inaccurate stereotypes about Muslim attitudes towards woman by placing in office the first woman Head of Government in an Islamic country.
  Benazir Bhutto has demonstrated courage, political sophistication and balanced judgment in carrying out her duties as Prime Minister. I hope to see progress in Pakistan for myself when I visit that country in a little over three months. Of course the country has problems. It has had the problem of coping with the influx of refugees from Afghanistan, and the way that it has coped was a remarkable achievement for a country which itself suffers from poverty. It faces a vexed situation in Kashmir. I hope to visit Kashmir when I get to Pakistan later this year. I trust that the Kashmir issue will be dealt with in a peaceful manner and that the solution will be acceptable to all the parties that are involved.
  Conflict between two countries such as Pakistan and India would be viewed with horror in the House, especially in the Labour party, which was able to bring about independence for both Pakistan and India. We were particularly happy that both India and Bangladesh sponsored Pakistan's return to the Commonwealth.
  Pakistan has problems of development. I was pleased to hear what the Under-Secretary of State had to say about British overseas aid for Pakistan. I hope that it will be possible to increase it, and that the framework of the Bill will make that possible. From a previous visit there, I know of the vigour and drive with which Pakistan and its citizens can take advantage of opportunities for progress. I know that from contacts with my constituents of Pakistani origin. In my constituency, I have the privilege of representing people who originated from many lands in addition to those whose origins as Mancunians and I had better add as Gortonians—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know the significance of not including Gortonians necessarily among Mancunians—go back through the centuries.
  This country has been blessed by successive waves of immigration that go back to the Celts and Saxons. My constituency still has physical evidence of invasion by the Danes. Over the centuries, Manchester has readily received the Huguenots, the Jews—including in my constituency Chaim Weizman, first President of the state of Israel who lived at No. 57 Birchfields road—the Poles, who in Manchester as elsewhere, have just solemnley commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Katyn massacre, Afro-Caribbeans and, among numerous others, immigrants from the Indian sub-continent.
  I am proud to represent them all, and I am happy to have built up close links with my constituents of Pakistani origin. I first knew some of them as babies, and they are now adults with babies of their own. Their parents and grandparents are my friends. I attend their weddings and other celebrations. I see the minaret of the mosque, the laying of the foundation stone of which I attended, from my bedroom window. I eat at their restaurants. On Wilmslow road in my constituency, we have more restaurants providing food from Pakistan, India and

  695
  Bangladesh than can be found in any area of similar size, not only in Britain but, I am willing to bet, anywhere in Pakistan.
  Pakistanis in Manchester reflect the fine traditions of the country from which they come. They work hard, they seek to give their children an excellent education and a good start in life, they respect their elders and they believe in a sound family life. They observe their religion and they celebrate Pakistan day and the birth of the prophet Mohammed. They watch Imran Khan play cricket at Old Trafford, and they are good Britains, loyal to this country while cherishing their land of origin.
  I know that Pakistan's departure from the Commonwealth caused those people pain, and I know that its return causes them to rejoice. Many of them took British nationality and many took advantage of the right to possess dual nationality. Those who did not acquire United Kingdom nationality will now have the vote in Britain as Commonwealth citizens. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has said, that has already been provided for by Order in Council.
  The Minister also spoke of the immigration implications of the Bill. I hope that the Government will think again about the way in which they administer the immigration rules. All of us who have constituents originating from Pakistan with relatives, spouses or
  696
  would-be spouses there, know that they are often put through heart-rending ordeals because of the operation of the primary purpose rule, which separates families.
  Pakistan is already playing an active part in the Commonwealth. Benazir Bhutto attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur in October, and she provided a valuable reinforcement to those at Kuala Lumpur and elsewhere who have argued in favour of sanctions against South Africa and demanded the dismantling of apartheid in that country. I am sure that Benazir Bhutto and the rest of her Government will play a continuing and constructive role in the work of the Commonwealth.
  In October, at our party conference, I had great pleasure in welcoming a new addition to the diplomatic corps represented there, the excellent high commissioner for Pakistan. Until 1 October, he had previously been known to us all as the ambassador of Pakistan. The transformation was not simply in a title but in a whole relationship.
  The United Kingdom and Pakistan have always been good friends. Now, once again, we are colleagues in a unique international partnership. That transformation is good news. The Bill is good news and I welcome it whole-heartedly.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I have great pleasure in welcoming the Bill. It was a sad day in 1972 when Pakistan decided to leave the Commonwealth. I am sure that both sides of the House will agree about that and I am certain in retrospect that most Pakistanis will agree that it was the wrong thing to do at that time.
  It was a great pleasure to find democracy restored to Pakistan in 1988. Those of us who know and love that part of the world thoroughly welcomed that change. It was therefore a memorable and special occasion when, in 1989, Pakistan was invited to return to the Commonwealth.
  The visit of Miss Bhutto to this country in July of last year was a great success. It was heartening to find so many people in this country, not only those of Pakistani extraction, who welcomed her as a symbol of the new democracy now in that country. The expansion of free speech through the media, the trade unions and other channels must be welcomed by any true democrat, and all hon. Members now have the opportunity to express their pleasure at this development.
  We have had a special relationship and an interest in that part of the world for a long time, which is why we are the major overseas investor in Pakistan, and the fourth largest trader. That is of special significance.
  As has been said, we have a £25 million a year aid programme and we can expect that to be reviewed and improved now that democracy has been restored and so many other aspects of life are moving in the right direction.
  A great deal of help and encouragement could be given, for example with literacy. The population of Pakistan has more than doubled since British rule of the sub-continent ceased, but the percentage of the population that is literate has declined. That is why it is so important for us to help encourage literacy.
  Pakistan has a role to play within the Islamic community. As a key to stability among Islamic countries it is important, because it will help us to bridge many gaps. We can take advantage of our close relationship with Pakistan to make the introductions that are so important in the Islamic world. The fact that we can do so and that we hope to be able to enhance those relationships is encouraging.
  We must all admire the fantastic job that Pakistan has done in looking after 3 million Afghan refugees. Hon. Members who have had the opportunity to visit the Afghan refugee camps will appreciate exactly how much has been done. They have assistance from the United Nations, but that covered only about half of the cost; the other half has been borne by the Pakistani people. Their hospitality to the neighbouring Afghans has been extraordinary and an example to the rest of the world of how to help others at a time of need.
  We have all been exceptionally lucky in the high commissioner who was chosen to come to this country, Shaharyar Khan. He arrived here as an ambassador and has now become the high commissioner. It is a sign of Pakistan's maturity that a change was not made when democracy was introduced. The present Government accepted the ambassador who had previously been appointed because he is a highly competent and professional career diplomat and not a politician. In that capacity he has helped enormously to cement and enhance
  698
  our relationship with Pakistan. I hope that he will remain with us for a long time and that eventually he is replaced by someone of equally high calibre. He is a great example of the sort of high commissioner whom we like to have in London, and he has made many positive contributions to the Pakistani community in this country and to alleviating its problems.
  To my knowledge the high commissioner has conducted several advice bureaux in different parts of the country. He has been to my constituency, among others, to give the local Pakistani population an opportunity to make representations directly through him. That is unusual, and I do not know of any other high commissioner or ambassador who has provided such a service for people originating from overseas.
  I wish finally to say a word about the major problem on the horizon—Kashmir. I am sure that Pakistan is determined that war will not be a consequence of this disagreement. However, it has a right to expect the matter to be resolved, and sooner rather than later. It is now more than 40 years since a United Nations resolution was passed, that there should be a plebiscite or referendum as a means of consulting the people of Kashmir on their future. The longer that this question is left, the more difficult it becomes because there will then be demands for independence, rather than a decision to join one country or the other.
  Independence for Kashmir could cause weakness, whereas expressing a sincere and genuine choice to join one or the other of those countries must be a stronger answer. The people of Kashmir have as much right as others in the world to self-determination. That right has now spread to areas of Europe where, a year ago, we would not have thought it possible. Last year was especially momentous for people in eastern Europe as they achieved the right to self-determination——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have allowed a wide debate, but I must be cautious about allowing it to turn into one about the right of independence for Kashmir.
  Mr. Thorne: We wish Pakistan every success in overcoming its problems. She deserves not only our support but that of other countries and of the United Nations. I hope that the legislation is allowed to proceed to the statute book as quickly as possible.
  10.51 pm
  Sir David Steel: In rising briefly to help to give all-party support to this measure, my brevity should not be taken as lacking in any way in sincerity or full support. I simply do not wish to go down the highways and byways of the excellent Pakistani restaurants in my constituency, although in the south of Scotland they are exceeded in number by the excellent Pakistani corner shops, which are much appreciated in the border towns.
  It is welcome in all quarters of the House that Pakistan has returned to the Commonwealth. I agree with hon. Members that it would be a positive sign of good will by the British Government, which would be widely supported in the House, if our overseas aid programme to Pakistan were to be increased as a positive mark of recognition of

  699
  that return to democracy. I am thinking especially of the crying need for additional help in the areas of health and welfare.
  It was a delight to welcome Benazir Bhutto as the elected Head of Government, whom many of us knew in her days as a student politician in exile in this country. She is a serene leader—indeed, she has a degree of serenity that she might convey to other women Prime Ministers. I was pleased to meet her, together with the leader of my party, during her visit to London. I echo what other hon. Members have said about the splendid high commissioner for Pakistan.
  Without wishing to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the subject of Kashmir, I shall say only that I very much wish that the fact that Pakistan has returned to the Commonwealth will, of itself, provide a forum in which the difficult tensions in Kashmir can be mitigated. It would surely be unthinkable that two Commonwealth partners should go to war again over that issue. In welcoming Pakistan's return to membership of the Commonwealth, with all the technical adjustments that the Bail makes, let us hope that we are doing something purposeful in averting what could be another tragedy.
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the Bill, representing as it does the return of Pakistan to the Commonwealth—a development that many of us awaited with keen anticipation for a long time, and one that we greet with pleasure.
  We welcome the return of democracy to Pakistan, recognising that it is not yet firmly established in the soil of that country but is a flower that we want to grow and flourish in the future.
  Those right hon. and hon. Members who had the pleasure of meeting Prime Minister Bhutto when she visited Britain last year will recall the great impression that she made when she gave a speech in this building and at other locations. We recognised her great commitment to a democratic Pakistan.
  Pakistan has enormous problems of law and order and with its economy. Many would like a return to military rule there, but those who saw in Benazir Bhutto qualities that we certainly recognise in this House hope that she will go on to fulfil the hopes of so many for the reforms to which she is committed. Progress has been slow during the past 18 months—as was bound to be the case—and there is a long way to go. However, all those who recognise the gradual improvement in relations between Britain and Pakistan will wish Benazir Bhutto well in her efforts to proceed with the support of her people.
  One must acknowledge the significant part played by many people of Pakistani origin in the life of this country. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke of the excellent activities of Pakistanis in Manchester. As one who was born in Yorkshire, and bearing in mind the great importance of cricket in the life of that county, I only hope that in future it will be possible for Yorkshire to win one or two battles of the roses with the help of players of Pakistan origin who were born in Yorkshire. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will concur with that sentiment.
  I echo the remarks of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House on the extent of our good fortune in
  700
  respect of the high commissioner for Pakistan at the Court of St. James. In the time that we have known Mr. Shaharyar Khan, we have come to realise not only the high esteem in which he is held by Pakistani communities throughout the country but that his work with the British-Pakistan parliamentary group has made it one of the strongest in the House. We look forward to Mr. Khan's continued residence in London for some considerable time to come.
  The problems of Kashmir certainly present a challenge for Pakistan, and one that we should not underestimate. The commitment that any people have to their nation and to their belief in the right to self-determination should never be underestimated. I firmly believe that the people of Kashmir should be allowed to determine their own future through the plebiscite to which they believed themselves entitled by virtue of the 1948 United Nations resolution. I hope that, sooner or later, it will be implemented—and may that date be sooner, because the sooner it comes the greater the chance of a lasting peace in that region.
  This is a great day for Pakistan. It may be a technical development, following the return of Pakistan to the Commonwealth last October. I understand that, when the Bill becomes law, it will be known as the Pakistan Act 1989, and the Bill will be deemed to have come into force on 1 October 1989. Today, therefore, we are giving effect to a development that has already taken place. We extend to the people of Pakistan the hand of friendship and co-operation. Pakistan, a country of 100 million people, has the potential to play its part in leading the world of Islam and the Indian sub-continent and to be a great force for good.
  11 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: I had the honour of first being elected Member of Parliament for Bradford, West in 1983. A third of my constituents are from the Indian sub-continent, and the vast majority are of Pakistani origin. I pay tribute to the contribution that my constituents of Pakistani origin have made to the economic, social and political life of this country. When Pakistan rejoined the Commonwealth last year, it was a source of great pleasure to my constituents of Pakistani origin.
  I should declare an interest. Together with several other hon. Members, I am to receive an award from the President of Pakistan, the Hilal-i-Quaidi-i-Azam award, in recognition of the small contribution that we have made to restoration of democracy and human rights in Pakistan, fulfilled by the election of Prime Minister Bhutto and a democratically elected Government.
  As a number of hon. Members have already said, our constituents of Pakistani origin are in many case British citizens. Whether the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) likes it or not, they maintain close links with their own country. They will read the report of the debate with care. I regret that this important debate is taking place at such a late hour. It should have taken place much earlier. I regret the inadequate opportunities that are afforded to hon. Members to debate the affairs of the Indian sub-continent in general. This is the first opportunity that we have had for many years to discuss the concerns of our constituents of Pakistani origin and the affairs of Pakistan.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am allowing a wide debate to be held on the subject, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the limited nature of the Bill.
  Mr. Madden: Indeed not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, as other hon. Members were allowed to stray widely, I hope that in an open-ended debate you will not seek to limit the amount of time that is allocated to those who speak later in the debate. That is yet another argument for the debate having been held earlier in the day.
  My constituents of Pakistani origin resent the fact that many of their relatives and friends find it very difficult even to visit this country. They are also bitterly angry about the great difficulties they face in being reunited with their families in this country, due largely to delays in the immigration procedures, which are governed by Government rules which we shall debate tomorrow evening.
  The latest changes bring further restrictions, delays and difficulties for constituents from overseas who seek to be reunited with their families. Serious administrative problems are still encountered at the British embassy in Islamabad. I am pleased that the Minister who has direct responsibility for that post is with us tonight. I hope that he will make further efforts to improve the administration of the visa section, which is the cause of much anxiety, inconvenience and distress for many hon. Members.
  Many of our constituents of Pakistani origin have a great interest in the education of their children. They are ambitious for them and want them to learn, progress and prosper. I am delighted to see the academic achievements of many of our young constituents of Pakistani origin in the state-maintained sector. But I must say, on behalf of my many Muslim constituents, that equity demands that if the Government subsidise voluntary aided schools for Anglicans, Catholics and Jews, they should also subsidise voluntary aided schools for the children of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see how these matters can conceivably arise under the Bill before the House.
  Mr. Madden: Britain, like the Commonwealth, is a multiracial, multicultural, multi-faith society——
  Mr. Deputy speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing a particular Bill; I very much hope that he will address his remarks more closely to it.
  Mr. Madden: We are discussing a Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about Pakistan. On behalf of my constituents of Pakistani origin I want to report to the House, on this rare opportunity to do so, the interests and anxieties of——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not share his view about this being the appropriate opportunity to do that. This is not that opportunity.
  Mr. Madden: As several hon. Members, not to mention the Minister, have noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when Pakistan rejoined the Commonwealth family of nations, a major Islamic country re-entered it. All Muslims are worried about the publication of "The Satanic Verses". As a result of the Bill, Muslims will undoubtedly give voice to their concerns about that book. The Minister rightly said
  702
  that the anxieties of Muslims must be recognised, so we must acknowledge that great offence has been caused by the publication of this book. I urge the Minister to acknowledge the difficult situation that has resulted.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: From that book or this Bill?
  Mr. Madden: The Government Whip is muttering from a sedentary position. If I were not interrupted so often, I would be able to conclude my remarks much sooner.
  I have suggested on many occasions that, if Salman Rushdie wants reconciliation and mutual understanding —here, and internationally—he should be encouraged to instruct his publishers not to print more editions——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make a speech along those lines, I should have no option but to allow other hon. Members to put an alternative point of view about the same matter. We should then find ourselves debating issues that have nothing whatever to do with the Bill.
  Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the explanatory memorandum states:
  "The purpose of the Bill is to modify certain United Kingdom enactments to take account of the re-admission of Pakistan as a member of the Commonwealth on 1st October 1989."
  I cannot see that has any connection with the publication, in this country or elsewhere, of a particular book.
  Mr. Madden: This is my last word on the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that, if what I have suggested was done, it would bring about the end of the odious death threats against Mr. Rushdie, which I have continually condemned.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is ignoring what I have just told him. I very much hope that he will have regard to it; if not, I must ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. Madden: Let me conclude my remarks by referring to a matter that every hon. Member has mentioned so far —the great anxiety about the future of Kashmir, and the consequent tension between India and Pakistan. That tension could result in war. This evening, in a Committee Room of the House—at a meeting attended by a number of hon. Members, some of whom are in the Chamber tonight—the high commissioner for Pakistan confirmed that Pakistan does not want and will not seek, now or at any time in the future, war with India over Kashmir. He said that Pakistan wanted the principle of self-determination to be upheld, and that Pakistan wanted to live in peace with all her neighbours.
  I believe that that is an accurate version of Pakistan's position, which Pakistan will take with it into the Commonwealth. I hope very much—a number of hon. Members have said the same—that the Commonwealth and the Government will play a much more active role in seeking a resolution of the dispute over Kashmir than they seem to have done hitherto.
  As I have told the Minister in other debates on the issue, I feel that the British Government can no longer maintain a position of neutrality over Kashmir. What is happening there can be seen in Lithuania and other parts of eastern Europe—and, indeed, in a number of other countries. It is a genuine struggle by the people for the right to determine their own destiny and that of their own

  703
  country—a struggle for independence. It is wrong to see that struggle, as some hon. Members do, as a choice between remaining part of India and joining Pakistan.
  There is a third option: the option of independence——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard me reproach the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on this very point. We are not debating whether Kashmir has a right to self-determination. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that line.
  Mr. Madden: It is extraordinary if an issue which directly affects two Commonwealth countries—Pakistan and India—and which may plunge them and the region into war cannot be raised by me or any other Member in a debate of this sort. I find it——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will recognise that it is my duty to ensure that the Standing Orders and procedures of the House are observed. We are debating a Bill that is clearly defined. We have had a wide debate, but there are certain limits. I must ask the hon. Member to recognise them and not challenge my ruling.
  Mr. Madden: Several hundred people in Kashmir have been killed and hundreds more injured. They are suffering from virtually round-the-clock curfews which have gone on for months. There are shortages of food and water. People are sheltering in mosques for fear of death, injury and rape. There are shortages of medical supplies. Soldiers turn away people who wish to get medical treatment in hospitals. If that is not a matter that should be reported to the House, I do not know what should be. I do not——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not question the gravity of the matters to which the hon. Member refers, but I must question the propriety of raising them in this debate. It is my duty to confine the debate to the Bill before the House. The hon. Member must seek some other opportunity to raise the serious matters that he is bringing to the attention of the House.
  Mr. Madden: This matter will not go away. Frankly, it is much more important than the parliamentary rules and procedures of the House. I shall seek every opportunity to report to the House what is happening in Kashmir, because historically the House and this country have great responsibility for the boundaries that were drawn and for the partition of India and Pakistan. We cannot abdicate. That is why a position of neutrality is wholly irresponsible and why it will be quickly swept away. The people whom we represent are worried about these matters, even if the House of Commons is not.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Patrick Ground: Like other hon. Members, I join in welcoming the return of Pakistan to democratic government. I share the admiration that has been expressed for the way in which Pakistan has welcomed so many refugees from Afghanistan. I admire the role that Pakistan families are playing in the life of this country.
  The Bill reflects the return of Pakistan to normality within the Commonwealth, but one matter concerns me and many of my constituents—the treatment that is accorded to Ahmadi families in Pakistan. As our relationships with Pakistan become more normal and as the law enforcement provisions in the Bill become
  704
  effective, that matter will become even more worrying to many people, including my constituents, whose relations had their homes in Pakistan burned in April 1989. The Pakistan constitution guarantees equal treatment in law, protection of life and property and the liberty of each citizen. It recognises that Governments are under a duty to protect every citizen, especially those who are victimised because of their beliefs.
  There are signs that the police knew in advance of the incidents that took place in April 1989. They gave an assurance that the police forces had been adequately reinforced. Nevertheless, about 25 houses were burnt down or grossly damaged, with no sign of any effort being made by the police to offer protection to the Ahmadi families. The same pattern was repeated in adjoining villages.
  The story has been documented by the human rights commission of Pakistan, and no doubt the document describing the events in Nankana Sahib on 12 April 1989 will be available in the Library for hon. Members to see. My constituents whose families have been affected by the incidents tell me that there have been no prosecutions of the people concerned, that no compensation has been paid and that there is no sign of the Pakistani Government doing anything to alleviate the persecution of the Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan.
  I understand from correspondence with Foreign Office Ministers that they have made it clear that the British Government regard such persecutions as repugnant. The Minister of State told me that the Government have made their views clear to the Pakistan Government on a number of occasions.
  At a time when we are welcoming Pakistan into the Commonwealth and acknowledging the good things that the country has done, it is important that we should place on record our concerns about such persecutions and make it clear that we shall continue to express our concern until that blemish in Pakistan's conduct is removed as we hope that it will be removed. A country that has shown such generosity of spirit in its behaviour towards the Afghan refugees and a religion with an old and well-established tradition of toleration and respect for other beliefs can surely improve its conduct towards a small sect——
  Mr. Tom Cox: I am following with interest the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and I do not dispute what he says. A great many members of the Ahmadiyya community live in my constituency. But does not agree that, under the premiership of Benazir Bhutto, a much more progressive attitude is being adopted to those people and their religion than was ever adopted when the military controlled Pakistan?
  Mr. Ground: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but my constituents who discuss the matter with me say that they do not see any great sign of improvement. The incident to which I referred took place in 1989, after the accession of the present Prime Minister of Pakistan, and there were further ugly incidents in July 1989 during which a number of Ahmadis were killed in another part of Pakistan. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. Certainly Benazir Bhutto has inherited many problems and is grappling heroically with many of them. But this is one problem that must be grappled with and I hope that the House will join me in expressing the hope that the blemish to which I have referred will be removed from the

  705
  conduct of Pakistan and that the concerns felt by so many of our constituents belonging to the sect will be alleviated as time goes on.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: Like all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I warmly welcome the Bill. Those of us who have followed events in Pakistan for many years—certainly while, for too long, it was under the control of the military—will have despaired of that country's ever returning to democracy.
  Those of us who applauded and supported Benazir Bhutto when she campaigned against the military have followed her role with great interest and admiration since she became Prime Minister. As the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) said, she inherited many problems and, sadly, she still has many problems. However, the stability that is returning to that great country of Pakistan is without doubt due in great part to Benazir Bhutto's heroic leadership.
  Hon. Members have already referred to the problems facing Pakistan. In common with many hon. Members, I have a large Pakistani community in my constituency. Many of them are second or third-generation Pakistanis. Although their parents were born in Pakistan, their sons, their daughters and their grandchildren have been born in this country. The role that they have played for many years, and the role that they seek to play now, has been a great asset for this country. I have close contacts with the Pakistani community in my constituency and hon. Members will be aware, as I am aware, of the valuable role that they play in many aspects of day-to-day life. I know from recent events, including Pakistani socials and weddings, how much they have welcomed the re-entry of their country into the Commonwealth.
  I believe that, if someone deserves credit, it does not matter how often that is referred to. Pakistan and this country have been fortunate to have a high commissioner of the quality and diplomatic skills displayed by the Pakistani high commissioner to the United Kingdom. He is an honourable, fine, outgoing diplomat. Those of us who have come into regular contact with him in our capacity as active members of the Anglo-Pakistani group in the House are aware of the role that he has played and will no doubt continue to play. Like other hon. Members, I pay the warmest tribute to him.
  I note the comments that you made earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the width of debate that we are allowed. However, now that Pakistan is once again a member of the Commonwealth, our constituents expect certain things to happen. They look to the British Government to be more sympathetic to the kind of problems that Pakistan faces as a member of the British Commonwealth. Reference has already been made to the courageous attitude of the Pakistani Government to the people of Afghanistan. Pakistan is not wealthy, and it faces many problems of its own. However, it did not once question whether it was able to take in refugees from Afghanistan. It opened its doors and brought in many people, at great suffering and cost to Pakistan.
  706
  I ask the Minister to take note of those problems. I hope that he will convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development the need for outgoing help, especially financial outgoing help, for Pakistan.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to the difficulty of entry to this country facing people from Pakistan. Again we must remember that Pakistan is a member of the British Commonwealth. Irrespective of party, I am sure that many other hon. Members will find, as I have, that our constituents feel that, if their country belongs to the Commonwealth, and they follow the laws, they are entitled to expect what they regard as certain rights.
  I believe that the next point is for the Minister to answer. As letters about people living in Pakistan, which I send to the Home Office, are invariably sent to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I assume that this matter is his responsibility.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has said, often people cannot win under the existing system. If they are young and seek to come here for a holiday, they are told, "We are not allowing you entry because we do not believe that you will leave at the end of the required period of your visit." If, on the other hand, they are elderly people who want to come here to visit their sons and daughters, they are told, "You are so elderly that you would not want to go back to Pakistan." This causes bitterness in our constituencies.
  Like all hon. Members, I have no objection to rules if they are fairly followed, but we often get the opposite impression. In fact, I heard about a case over the telephone today, which will land on the desk of the appropriate Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office either tomorrow or the day after—I believe that it is the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). My constituent outlined the case of his niece who wanted to come here for a three-month holiday, but has been refused on the grounds, "We are sure that, at the end of the three-month holiday, she will not return."
  We all welcome Pakistan back into the Commonwealth. It has a great deal to offer the Commonwealth, but we in the United Kingdom—and especially the Government—must show our commitment to countries such as Pakistan. It is now time that the Minister seriously looked at the attitudes of entry certificate officers in the various high commission offices in Pakistan.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree with me about another example of the bad policy operated by the Government on such matters? Does he agree that, where DNA testing proves that a wrong decision was taken in the past on an entry application, that decision should now be put right regardless of the age of the applicant?
  Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point, but I shall not pursue it, because I might encounter your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I ask the Minister to discuss that point with his officials, not only here, but especially in Pakistan. If, when he replies, he can give us the assurance that he will look seriously at the points that many hon. Members have made—irrespective of party—it would show our constituents and the Government of Pakistan not only that we welcome Pakistan back into the Commonwealth, but that we shall

  707
  now start to put right any wrongs that we have committed as a country, possibly under successive Governments. If we do that, although this debate may have been restricted in a way that many of us have not liked, it will nevertheless have been of great benefit.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: I join hon. Members of all parties in welcoming Pakistan's return to the Commonwealth, and especially to democracy.
  I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and must take issue with him on one point. He spoke about "the stability" in Pakistan. I am afraid that the position in Pakistan is not stable and has not been stable for sometime, and that Pakistan does not show any particular signs of returning to stability in the near future, although that is something for which we must all hope.
  I shall be brief and when I say that I shall conclude, I shall, indeed, conclude. Having heard your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not say much about Kashmir, although I had intended to quote at length from an article in The Times of 8 May, which was headed:
  "Indian crackdown turns Kashmir into fortress."
  I shall merely say that if you happened, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to fly from India to Pakistan, you would travel from one democracy to another. The chances are, however, that you would fly over a territory whose people do not enjoy a democracy and do not have the right to self-determination. Those people should have the right of self-determination, which they were first told that they should have at the United Nations in 1948. They still do not have it, and too much time has passed.
  I conclude as I began, by saying that I welcome Pakistan's return to the Commonwealth and rejoice in its return to democracy.
  11.36 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I join other hon. Members in welcoming Pakistan back into the Commonwealth of nations and its return to democracy. The whole House should support Benazir Bhutto as she faces the difficult task of holding together democracy in Pakistan.
  I welcome the end of the suffering of many women in Pakistan. Under General Zia, women suffered especially with the passing of the Hadood ordinances. Those severe laws had a significant effect on women's rights. When we talk about democracy in Pakistan we should bear in mind the fact that the ordinances have not been fully revoked; but at least their implementation has been suspended under the new Government.
  I support the pleas for more humane treatment of Pakistanis who visit the United Kingdom. I have in mind especially the women of Pakistani families living in this country who are seeking to bring their husbands or fiancés here to live with them and to share a life together. They face a great problem. Trick questions in interviews aften work against people who have a language difficulty and are extremely anxious. If they are unable satisfactorily to meet the terms of the interview they may be unable to share a life with their loved one in this country. Pain and suffering is caused when families are kept apart by what I consider to be inhumane immigration laws.
  Can the House debate the Bill in peace and tranquillity while the people of Kashmir suffer indiscriminate killings, arbitrary arrests, unlawful searches, unprovoked assaults as a result of peaceful demonstrations and a complete
  708
  disruption of their normal lives? Many Kashmiris have suffered the imposition of an indefinite curfew for months. The are denied basic human rights. Surely it is time to debate the position in Kashmir. I know that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I attempted to introduce that issue in this debate. None the less, I feel that such a debate is long overdue. The Minister quoted the Simla agreement of 1972, but no Kashmiri representatives were consulted on or involved in that agreement between India and Pakistan.
  Of course the Kashmir people want independence and the right of self-determination. Kashmir is not part of India or of Pakistan. The right of self-determination for 10 million people is something that the House should take extremely seriously.
  I welcome the fragile democracy that exists in Pakistan. I also welcome the fact that Pakistan is back within the Commonwealth. I urge the Minister, and the Government as a whole, to take seriously what is happening in Kashmir, which is resulting in great suffering. I beg for an urgent debate on Kashmir on an occasion when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not rule me out of order.
  11 39 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: It is a great pleasure, even at this hour, to say a few words in reply to what has been an excellent debate. A measure of the importance of the subject, and of our concern about improving relations between our two countries, is the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have participated in the debate even at this—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) described it—ungodly hour. It is notable that those who have participated have included the principal official Opposition spokesman and the foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. I am afraid that I do not have the knowledge and experience to go down the gastronomical and matrimonial byways of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), so I shall concentrate on the five themes that seem to have emerged from the debate.
  First, there has been a universal welcome for the Bill and, above all, for the return of Pakistan to the Commonwealth after a gap of 17 years. The Opposition are still positive about the Commonwealth, and none of the cynicism that seems to be beginning to creep in among Conservative Members exists among the Opposition.
  Secondly, during the debate we have heard widespread respect and affection, which I share, for Benazir Bhutto, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. I had the privilege of meeting her when she visited in July, as did many other hon. Members. As one or two hon. Members said, she does not have to seek out the problems in Pakistan, and we wish her well in overcoming them.
  The third theme is the need for the United Kingdom Government to increase our aid and assistance to Pakistan, in recognition not only of its membership of the Commonwealth and return to democracy, but of its needs. That was said eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and also the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). It is truly an all-party request to the Minister. On behalf of the official Opposition, I hope that the Minister will pass on to

  709
  his right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development that strong view, which has emerged from both sides of the House.
  The fourth theme is the high regard in which all hon. Members, including myself, hold the high commissioner of Pakistan.
  The fifth theme is concern about the position in Kashmir. Sometimes, when considering our problems in this not so United Kingdom, I recall the parable of the motes and beams. It is always easier to deal with other people's problems than one's own. The Opposition believe strongly that the problem of Kashmir should be resolved by discussion, not conflict. We hope that that difficult problem will not result once again in conflict between two countries, now two members of the Commonwealth. We hope that the Government will do all in their power to ensure that that does not happen.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, South spoke eloquently. He is an active member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting. Pakistan will now rejoin the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I want to emphasise the importance of parliamentary contacts in re-establishing and further developing relations between our two countries.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West, for Tooting and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) all raised the issue of the difficulties experienced by people in Pakistan, particularly relatives of their constituents and relatives of others in the United Kingdom, in visiting this country. That was raised at Foreign Office Question Time, when several of my colleagues and I pressed the Minister strongly on that matter. The Minister's reply, although courteous, was not satisfactory. I urge him again to consider a sysematic review of the procedures and staffing at visa section not just in Pakistan, although that is important and relevant in this context, but in other parts of the Commonwealth.
  The debate has been positive. As I said, a number of themes have come through strongly and we have all welcomed Pakistan back to the Commonwealth. The other place had a debate on this matter at midday, approaching Christmas, and perhaps our debate has not been as ebullient as that debate. However, it has certainly been serious and positive. I hope that the Minister will take from it some of the positive themes and translate them into policy. If he does that, he will certainly have the whole-hearted support of the Opposition.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Sainsbury: The debate has been excellent and a rare degree of unanimity has been displayed by hon. Members in all parts of the House in welcoming not only the Bill but the return of Pakistan to the Commonwealth and democracy.
  I am happy to echo the words of praise for the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, for her contribution to her country. I am also happy fully to endorse the tributes paid by many hon. Members to the Pakistan high commissioner for his excellent contribution to United Kingdom-Pakistan relations. That was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Throne) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller), the right hon. Member for
  710
  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and others.
  Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke about aid. The aid programme to Pakistan has increased since the country's re-entry to the Commonwealth. It is planned to increase aid to £29 million this year and the bilateral aid programme has doubled in the past five years. It has increased from £18 million two years ago to £23 million last year and is our third largest programme in Asia.
  We are increasing our contribution to the Commonwealth scholarship fellowship plan which we hope will enable the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the United Kingdom to provide a number of awards for Pakistan.
  All 11 right hon. and hon. Members who spoke in the debate referred to Kashmir. I shall not incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by speaking at length on that matter, but I should like to emphasise that Britain's position of neutrality on the issue in no way implies indifference. Our long-standing position on Kashmir remains unchanged. We think that the dispute over the status of Kashmir can be settled only between the Governments of India and Pakistan, but we have made it clear that we would be prepared to play a role in settling the dispute if both sides wanted us to do that.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) spoke about the treatment of the Ahmadi community. We have long been concerned about that and have made our views clear. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we shall continue to do that as and when appropriate.
  Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), spoke about immigration. As I think most of them know, immigration policy is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. It is a Home Department responsibility, and administration of that policy overseas is a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, I shall certainly look at the points made by hon. Members on immigration matters. I emphasise that about 90 per cent. of applications for visit visas are dealt with within 24 hours and we continually examine our procedures. We have been streamlining procedures in Islamabad to reduce queues.
  Many hon. Members referred to the contribution made to the life of our country by citizens of Pakistani origin —corner shops were mentioned, as well as restaurants up and down the Wilmslow road. I thought for a moment that the right hon. Member for Gorton was rehearsing for a maiden speech when he waxed so eloquent about everything in Gortonia.
  There is one issue of contention in the debate. I was rather concerned when Manchester and Lancashire tried to claim Imran Khan. I should remind the right hon. Member for Gorton that Imran Khan was a distinguished captain and player for Sussex, whose home ground I can see from my sitting room, if not from my bedroom, which faces the other way.
  This has been an excellent debate and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed. The quality of the debate is a testimony to the value in which we hold Pakistan, the good wishes we have for her and the welcome we extend on her return to the Commonwealth and democracy.

  711
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords]
  11.50 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  There are four Bills relating to town and country planning matters before the House and, with permission, I shall speak to all four, as they should be considered as a unity.
  The four Bills, taken together, amount to a consolidating measure. The Town and Country Planning Act 1971 was the last major consolidation of the Town and Country Planning Acts. The 1971 Act has been considerably amended by primary legislation, including the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972, the Local Government Acts of 1972 and 1985, the Land Compensation Act 1973, and the Town and Country Planning Act 1984.
  The result of the constant addition of material into the text of the 1971 Act and the repeal of extensive parts of it has been a loss of coherent structure. That is especially apparent in part IV of the 1971 Act dealing with special controls. The system of controls relating to listed buildings and conservation areas and to hazardous substances are so voluminous as to justify whole Bills relating to those topics alone. They have therefore been consolidated separately in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill.
  In other respects, there is a broad correspondence between the Town and Country Planning Bill and the 1971 Act. The only difference is the creation of a new part which relates to Crown land and includes material from the Town and Country Planning Act 1984 and the Building Restrictions (War-time Contraventions) Act 1946. Finally, the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill, which is ancillary to the other three, deals with a number of technical and transitional matters, including repeals and consequential amendments.
  In preparing the consolidation, the Law Commission issued a report in which it made a number of recommendations for amendments to and minor clarifications of the existing legislation, and those amendments appear in the Bills. All four Bills were referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee and on Consolidation Bills &c. during their passage in another place. The Committee reported that the recommendations of the Law Commission were necessary to produce a satisfactory consolidation of the law and that the four Bills, taken together, amounted to a single consolidation.
  I should tell the House that a small number of further amendments will be brought forward.
  As always, our thanks are due to the Law Commission and to the draftsmen for their excellent work in the process of keeping the statute book in modern and accessible form.
  I commend the Bills to the House.
  11.53 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: As usual, one welcomes consolidation legislation as it makes life easier for practitioners. This set of four Bills is a remarkable achievement.
  Is the progress of consolidation now being speeded up by putting statutes and amendments to them on the equivalent of a word processor, albeit an extremely large one? Are statutes being computerised to any degree to

  713
  make that process easier and quicker in relation to the Bills before us and other heavy, voluminous, much-amended legislation that will come before us from time to time?
  11.54 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I did not know whether you were going to call me, Mr. Deputy Speaker
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The Standing Order says that the hon. Gentleman must rise in his place. His place is not in the middle of the Chamber. Does the hon. Member wish to speak?
  Mr. Haynes: Are you having a go at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I am sorry. I get carried away from time to time when you are in the Chair. I wanted to contribute. I am not pulling your leg. I want to have a go at the Solicitor-General, because he is talking about hazardous substances. From time to time, I have had a go at the Secretary of State for the Environment because we have problems in my area——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to check the hon. Member, but I am bound to tell him that we are discussing a consolidation measure and we cannot discuss the merits of the contents of Bills which are the subject of consolidation. We can only discuss whether it is appropriate to consolidate at this time. The hon. Member cannot discuss hazardous substances now. He has to look for another opportunity.
  Mr. Haynes: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I fully understand, but the consolidation measure is hiding a problem back home in my constituency, and I want to express myself here tonight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. Member will not be allowed to express himself on that subject tonight. If he seeks an early opportunity, I am sure that Mr. Speaker will look favourably on an Adjournment debate application. I wish that the hon. Member would not keep smiling at me in that way. I doubt whether the
  714
  matter which he wishes to raise would be in order if he persisted in seeking to raise it. I hope that we will now allow me to put the question.
  Mr. Haynes: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that you will put in a good word for me upstairs.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee tomorrow.

  PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee tomorrow.

  PLANNING (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee tomorrow.

  PLANNING (HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee tomorrow.

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

  COMMUNITY FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4963/90 plus COR I relating to revision and adjustment of the Community's financial perspective and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 30th March 1990.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Question agreed to.

  Community Charge
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  11.57 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: My purpose in calling for this debate is twofold. First, I wish to raise some of the concerns and problems which many of my constituents have about the community charge. Secondly, now that the Government are committed to carrying out a review of the operation of the community charge, I wish to explore some of the changes which could be and need to be made. Before I do so, I welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) as Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, and I welcome his comments on his appointment that he is there to listen to other hon. Members and to councils for the various suggestions that they may have on how to improve the workings of the charge.
  I do not think that I would be being particularly controversial or disloyal if I were to say that the way in which the community charge has been introduced this year has left something to be desired. Introducing a new charge or tax will always throw up problems—as, for example, some of the anomalies which have arisen over second homes, but some of the more serious problems should have been foreseen.
  The Department of the Environment's experience of how local authorities operate, and the experience in Scotland last year, when the community charge was introduced there for the first time, should have alerted us to the likelihood that councils, and Labour councils in particular, would jack up budgets and with them community charge bills in the hope of blaming high bills on the Government who introduced the new system. Indeed, a number of councils, including my local Labour-controlled Kirklees council, went for creative accounting last year by using more of their reserves than was prudent, which inevitably meant that there was less in reserve to keep down community charge bills this year.
  If rates were still in existence, this year Kirklees council would have needed to raise them by 35 per cent. to bring in the same amount of money as it is raising through the community charge. The fact that it has set such a high community charge is somewhat immoral; it is certainly highly cynical. It did so because it could then blame the Government for introducing the system, rather than placing the blame where it truly lies—with the council because of its profligacy and inefficiency.
  We should have written it into the legislation that no council could increase its budget by more than the rate of inflation in the first year of the changeover to the new system of local government finance. It appears likely that more central Government grant will be provided for local authorities next year. It would make sense for the Government, and it would be acceptable to the public, to legislate so that no council can increase either its budget or its community charge next year by more than the rate of inflation. Obviously, there would be scope for prudent councils to reduce spending, but my proposal would ensure that additional money provided to reduce community charge bills would be used for that purpose.
  I feel that the Treasury was unwise to refuse to pick up the cost of the safety net in the first year. Many of the councils that have had to fund that safety net are
  716
  Conservative. The cost of that led to them having to levy a community charge higher than that warranted by the actual cost of local services. That diminished the accountability element. However, the greatest cause of concern has undoubtedly been the large increases in the amounts payable in community charges this year as against rates last year.
  In my constituency where there are thousands of terraced houses with low rateable values, many patriotic Englishmen and women, especially pensioner couples and young married couples, have had their bills increased from between £200 and £250 last year to between £500 and £600 this year. That is a great deal of additional money for such people to find. Many pensioners do not qualify for rebate because they have been prudent during their lives and have savings which, while not providing a great deal of additional income, prohibit them from claiming rebates. That is especially so in Yorkshire, where folk tend to be rather canny and like to save for a rainy day.
  I have to report to my hon. Friend the Minister that the transitional relief scheme, intended to soften the blow for such people, has not worked as intended. Whatever else the Government decide to do, they must provide proper, long-term help for them. I hope that my hon. Friend will examine closely the interplay between transitional relief and the safety net in Kirklees and ensure that decisions related to them help to keep down community charge hills.
  I have always supported the principle of the community charge—that is, that everyone should contribute to local government services. It is interesting to note that a recent Gallup poll showed that the majority of the general public also accept that principle. However, there are concerns —and two in particular—about the community charge. The first is that the levels set by local authorities are too high. Secondly, there is a perception that the community charge is not fair because it is a flat rate tax. Of course, the irony is that that wholly ignores the fact that some 25 per cent. of charge payers are in receipt of rebates and that the majority of local government finance comes from central Government, who raise most of their finance through progressive taxes such as income tax.
  If community charge levels had been set at between £100 and £200, the public would have accepted its flat rate nature—but because they are so much higher, there is a feeling that the system is unfair. To secure the public acceptance that will ensure that the charge works properly, the Government must either substantially reduce charge levels or make it relate to people's ability to pay—or provide a combination of the two.
  I should be happy to see police and fire expenditure taken from local financing, and the community charge reduced accordingly. However, to do that as well as provide extra grant to reduce charge levels across the board would be extremely costly for the Treasury. That is why I believe that it would be sensible to make the charge relate more to people's ability to pay. If the Government do that, they will negate overnight the political flak to which they are being subjected.
  Two years ago, I supported the banding of the community charge when I supported the so-called Mates amendment to the Local Government Finance Bill. I still believe that banding would be the most appropriate change to make. It is always easy to argue for a general, uncosted principle, so I shall present a concrete idea. I advocate a three-band system. It would comprise a standard band of community charge payable by

  717
  individuals having an income above £8,500 and up to the threshold at which the top rate of income tax is payable. I use the figure of £8,500 because it is already a threshold figure used in tax law and in relation to benefits in kind.
  The second band would be the standard community charge plus 25 per cent., payable by those paying the top rate of income tax. The third would be the standard charge, less 25 per cent., payable by those having incomes below £8,500. The rebate scheme would still be there to help those at the very bottom of the income scale.
  Crucially, local authorities would not need to know the intimate details of people's incomes. Everyone would be liable to the highest rate, with the onus on the individual, in making an application to the local authority, to obtain an Inland Revenue certificate based on his previous year's income to prove eligibility for a lower charge rate.
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: How would a housewife, or some other person who stays at home, be treated under my hon. Friend's system? I refer to the individual who has neither income nor earnings of their own.
  Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend draws attention to one of the anomalies that is frequently raised at my own surgeries. The system that I propose would ensure that non-working mothers looking after their families at home, for example, would pay the lower band of community charge—which would be not only fair but widely welcomed.
  The administration of the system I describe would not be too complex for local authorities or the Inland Revenue to undertake—contrary to the argument that might be made by some of my hon. Friends. If such a scheme were to be introduced, the current average community charge throughout England of £363, plus the average rate of inflation—which next year is likely to be in the region of 6 per cent.—could be used as the starting point for the top rate. In that way, no one would pay more in real terms next year than this year. The average top band level, indexed for inflation, would be £385, the middle band £307, and the lower band £231. In my own area of Kirklees, the figures would be £308, £246 and £185 respectively.
  With the top band next year similar to this year's community charge, we would not produce the same yield as this year's community charge income of £13 billion. I am indebted to the House of Commons Library for its help with my figures. It estimates that there would be a shortfall of £3·2 billion, based on the figures I have quoted and taking into account the savings that would be made on rebates and transitional relief. The Library suggests that an average middle band of £350 per person could be achieved with an additional Government grant of only £2 million.
  All sorts of figures have been bandied about in the press as to how much extra money the Secretary of State for the Environment is trying to get out of the Treasury. Quite a bit of flexibility is built into my system. I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that, contrary to what I have read in certain newspapers, the Government have not ruled out banding, and that the current review will consider my proposals.
  A few other problems and anomalies must be sorted out. The Government are committed to introducing
  718
  legislation to clear up the anomalies relating to caravans. I welcome that commitment. A constituent came to my surgery as recently as last Friday and told me that, having moved house a short while ago, she now has to pay the standard community charge on her previous home, despite the fact that she is trying to sell it—so far without success. That kind of problem must be addressed.
  Service men are faced with a real problem. Recently, I have been lucky enough to spend some time with the Army in connection with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and the problem was put to me on many occasions. Service men have to pay the full community charge, wherever they are based in barracks. Many of them have bought houses to provide them with a home base while leading such a nomadic life. In most cases, they have to pay the standard community charge times two on their homes. A number of bitter complaints have been made to me about that. The Minister must look into the problem, together with his Ministry of Defence colleagues.
  I hope that the House and the Minister will accept that I have made constructive suggestions, in marked contrast to the normal style of our debates on the community charge. Opposition Members are interested only in scoring cheap party political points. They never submit alternative proposals. The public would accept the community charge if we made appropriate changes. We could then turn the spotlight on Labour's draconian alternative. Anyone in my constituency who owns his or her own home would pay substantially more under Labour's proposals for a roof tax than they now pay through the community charge. Only last week, I received a parliamentary answer which showed that a man on average earnings in Kirklees would pay well over £1,000 if a local income tax were to be levied.
  There is no easy alternative to the community charge. I hope that my hon. Friend, the Cabinet and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will bear in mind and implement some of my proposals so that the community charge no longer looms large on the political agenda. There are two far more important and fundamental battles that the Prime Minister has to fight: first, to ensure that the regeneration of Britain's enterprise economy and industrial base continues and, secondly, to fight off the Euro-fanatics on the Continent who, in their quest for political union, wish to take power from the British people and Parliament. Let us get the community charge right so that these vital tasks are not blurred.
  12.15 am
  Mr. Tim Janman rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman have the consent of both the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and of the Minister?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. Janman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) for giving me 30 seconds or so in which to make one or two comments on what he said.
  The most important part of his speech related to the fairness of the community charge and to the ability to pay. As one who voted for the legislation on Second Reading but did not vote for the Mates amendment, I must say that my hon. Friend's basic philosophy—of dealing with this point through the creation of three bands, not based on

  719
  arbitrary income levels but on those who pay no tax, those who pay at the standard rate, and those who pay at the higher rate—is to be commended. My hon. Friend the Minister should look closely at the practicalities of moving in that direction.
  I still believe, as I did on Second Reading, that the community charge is a much fairer system than were the rates, and with a slight touch on the tiller, I believe that we can show the British public that we are prepared to listen to their views on the charge, and to make it fairer. In that context, my hon. Friend's proposals are worthy of further scrutiny in detail. If the Government make the charge fairer, it will be to their great credit.
  12.16 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) for giving us this chance to discuss the community charge, and for the kind remarks that he made about my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo). I know that the latter has spent a great deal of time since taking up his post listening to views expressed by our right hon. and hon. Friends and by people outside the House —and taking their views seriously.
  I sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern that household bills in Kirklees may in the long run be relatively higher than they were under the system of domestic rates. There is no good reason why they should in future be any higher than community charges elsewhere in the country, however. The aggregate external finance that we give to authorities each year should allow all authorities to levy the same community charge—before the safety net—for a standard level of service.
  Historically, rateable values in Kirklees have been low, which, under the old rating system, would have meant that ratepayers in other authorities would have provided extra help through the grant equalisation scheme. The grant equalisation scheme was not universally popular, since it ignored the ability to pay of people in highly rated properties. More than 40 per cent. of homes which had above-average rateable values are occupied by households with below-average incomes.
  The effect of the safety net, low rateable value grant and transitional relief is to ease the change in finance systems for authorities such as Kirklees. On the other hand, businesses in Kirklees stand to be significant gainers from the change in local government finance systems and the introduction of the uniform business rate. My hon. Friend did not mention this, but the general rate poundage for Kirklees in 1989–90 was 346·1p, compared with the average for all authorities of 258·3p. With the introduction of the uniform business rate, businesses in Kirklees will be able to look forward to a real reduction of some 25 per cent. in their rate bills.
  My hon. Friend said that there would have been a 35 per cent. increase in domestic rates in Kirklees under the old system because of the council's spending policies as applied this year. I whole-heartedly endorse his condemnation of the spending policies of the council. He will know that Kirklees very narrowly missed being included on the charge-capped list of shame. Kirklees benefited considerably from support through the safety
  720
  net. However, its response was to spend about £117 a head over its standard spending assessment. It escaped capping only by falling within the de minimis provision.
  My hon. Friend will recall the meeting which he, my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and a delegation from Kirklees council held in February with my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities. The meeting discussed in detail the application of the standard spending assessments to Kirklees, and as we have said before, we are prepared to listen to the evidence and arguments for any changes to the methodology of our spending assessments.
  There has been substantial comment on either alternative methods of local taxation or variations on the theme of the community charge: indeed, even the Opposition have made a half-hearted attempt. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the contribution he has made to the debate, and I agree with him and the vast majority of people in this country that the fairest method of raising money to pay for local government is a charge on individuals. That has the double attraction of spreading the burden on paying for local services and increasing accountability—something which has been sadly lacking in the past, but which I am sure in the longer run will greatly influence the local democratic process.
  My hon. Friend spoke of the need for the Government to re-examine their policies. Of course, we are looking closely at how the community charge is working in its first year in England and Wales. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, we are reviewing a wide range of issues, and it is important that, by the time that we make the rate support grant settlement for next year—that is, in a few months' time—we shall have resolved all those matters and announced our conclusions. The basic principle remains the same, however: almost everyone should make some contribution to the cost of local services from which all people benefit.
  A system of capital value rates—which the Opposition have courted—would bear many of the less virtuous traits of the old rating system. It would reduce accountability, place a tax on home improvement and relate only poorly to the ability to pay. By no means does it follow that an increase in the capital value of a property is matched by a correlating increase in the income of the individual.
  A local income tax would do little better. It would be exorbitantly expensive to administer, and even if a local income taxation system were to be integrated with the existing national taxation system, between 12,000 and 13,000 extra staff would be needed in the Inland Revenue alone. The number of those contributing to the cost of local government would be substantially reduced, and thoe who did have to pay could find themselves paying more than the lion's share. For example, we have calculated—and my hon. Friend has confirmed—that in Kirklees a local income tax bill for a person on a taxable income of £12,000 could have amounted to over £1,000 in 1990–91.
  My hon. Friend has spoken about the attractions of banding the community charge. Those who promote the idea of banding will, however, have to address a formidable series of objections. Any scheme that involved basing the level of charge on the income tax status of the individual would be difficult and lengthy to implement. The vast bulk of income tax is collected through PAYE. The Inland Revenue does not have complete or up-to-date records of all taxpayers, as for most people it does not need

  721
  them—and it hardly needs to be said that it has no records of people who do not pay income tax. My hon. Friend addressed those problems in his speech.
  All the models for banding that we have seen so far have suggested a fairly restricted number of bands, generally based on those who do not pay income tax, those who pay at the lower rate and those who pay at the higher rate. That, indeed, is what my hon. Friend has proposed this evening. In the first place, those who pay no income tax will generally be entitled to community charge benefit, which can reduce a person's bill by up to 80 per cent. As my hon. Friend will know, one in four people will receive benefit: some £2·5 billion will be distributed, around £1 billion more than was the case through rate rebates and community charge benefit in Scotland last year. That will mean that, for the least well-off in the community—to whom it matters most—the community charge will be related to the ability to pay.
  In the second place, a banding system would have a cruelly punitive effect on those who cross the bands. Those who move from below the income tax level, or from the middle band to the higher band, would at worst risk a net drop in their disposable income—or, at least, a discouragingly high marginal tax rate until they had moved well above the threshold.
  Those on high incomes already pay significantly more through income tax. In fact, the top 10 per cent. of households pay about 15 times more than the bottom 10 per cent. towards the cost of local services. If we were to ask all those who are on the higher-rate tax band to pay an additional 50 per cent. of their community charge, that would only raise revenue sufficient to reduce the bills of those on the standard rate tax band by some £10 a year. My hon. Friend recognised the fact that, notwithstanding his banding proposals, there would still be a significant shortfall in income from the community charge, which would have to be made up by the national Exchequer or, in effect, the national taxpayer.
  Mr. Riddick: I should like to push my hon. Friend gently and ask him to confirm that the Government have not ruled out the possibility of banding the community charge, and that that is one option being considered under the review. Will he confrm that he will be happy to talk to me? Perhaps I can take him through some of my proposals in more detail.
  Mr. Chope: The Government are listening to the points that are made, and I should be happy to discuss my hon. Friend's points in more detail.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chope: If I may, I should like to continue, as this debate was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) did not participate in it.
  The measures which we have taken to ease the effects of the transition have been an important factor in respect of the uniform business rate and the community charge. The safety net provides assistance to people in those areas where rates have traditionally been very low. In Kirklees, people have benefited to the tune of £107 per head. Low rateable value grant provides an additional layer of protection, providing an extra £25 per head in Kirkless.
  Transitional relief targets assistance on people in low-rated value properties, regardless of whether they are living in an area benefiting from the safety net. Because in Kirklees there is already substantial help through the safety net, the Government's assumed community charge for Kirklees is £220. This means that, where there were two or more charge payers in a household on 31 March, relief will have been awarded where the rates bill was less than about £280. More than 30,000 people in Kirklees will benefit from that relief.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chope: I shall deal with a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley. He believes that extra protection over and above what has been given so far should be provided for people in low-rated properties. One option would be, of course, to base transitional relief on the actual charge that an authority sets. We have already made it clear, however, that the purpose of transitional relief is not to underwrite spending levels above those that we have assumed. The assumed charge for each authority, which was the basis of the transitional relief scheme, represents broadly what the charge would have been if authorities has sought to raise from their residents an amount consistent with their behaviour in 1989–90 and with the total standard spending figure of £32·8 billion.
  The main problem in Kirklees is not that the SSAs have been incorrectly assessed; nor is it that the——
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that on each future occasion when he publicises the retail prices index he will also publicise the annual increase in the cost of living excluding mortgage rate and such taxes as the community charge.

  Mr. Lilley
  A series is already published in the monthly press notice for "all items excluding housing" which is very close to the index requested, since two thirds of the weight for housing is accounted for by mortgage payments and domestic rates/community charges.

  Inland Revenue Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of Inland Revenue executive officers who resigned from the service in the years 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  One hundred and eighteen and 92 respectively.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Inland Revenue executive officers applied for the internal trawl for the AT-HEO`D' scheme in the months of May and June 1989; and how many were successful.

  Gas £000

  Electricity £000

  Solid/Liquid Fuel £000

  Government Offices, Great George Street, London, SW1

  38·6

  189·6

  4·4

  Chessington Computer Centre, Surrey

  0·3

  39·7

  10·3

  Alencon Link, Basingstoke, Hampshire

  0·2

  5·8

  2·6

  Grosvenor House, Basingstoke, Hampshire

  1·8

  3·1

  —

  Riverwalk House, London, SW1

  13·7

  73·3

  —

  Note: All figures reflect consumption in calendar year 1989.

  I regret that a figure given to the hon. Member in response to his previous question was incorrect. The figure for gas consumption for Chessington should be 1,000 therms not 71,000 as quoted.

THE ARTS

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether the Royal Opera house has applied for additional funds.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 May 1990]: The Royal Opera house has consistently argued for additional Government funding. At the end of last year it alerted the chairman of the Arts Council and me to the prospect of a £2 million deficit in the coming year. This was despite an 11 per cent. increase in its grant from the Arts Council and
  274
  Mr. Lilley
  Ten executive officers from the Inland Revenue applied for this scheme, of whom one was successful.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the annual cost to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise of administering the value added tax on the sale of gold coins and bars in the latest available year;

  (2) what was the annual value added tax revenue accruing from the sales of gold (a) coins and (b) bars in the latest available year;

  (3) what was the annual value added tax revenue accruing from the sale of Britannia gold coins in the latest available year.

  Mr. Ryder
  I regret that the information requested by my hon. Friend is not available.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a reply to his letter dated 6 March referring to Mr. Allan Gear of the Henry Doubleday Research Association.

  Mr. Lilley
  I replied to my hon. Friend's letter on 11 May.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 444, if he will give the expenditure on energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, for the latest year available.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: The information, which covers major offices only, is as follows:

  a severe pruning of projected expenditure plans. I recognise the excellent record of the Royal Opera house in increasing its self-generated income but, in reply, I made it clear that all arts organisations must, like any other business, demonstrate a commitment to good housekeeping and to controlling costs. It is also an important part of Arts Council policy that all arts organisations receiving grant-in-aid should balance their books over a three year period. I expect the Royal Opera house to discuss with the Arts Council how that policy can be complied with.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iraq (Arms Component Exports)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when his Department first knew that Dr. Gerald Bull had a connection with SRC;
  275
  (2) to which Iraqi Government agency the order seized by Customs and Excise was being sent;

  (3) what action was taken in respect of the Iraqi armaments order after it was known that the Space Research Corporation was involved in the order;

  (4) what is now known of the destination of the Iraqi pipe order now in Iraq;

  (5) what information he has on the intended use of the armament being produced for the Iraqis;

  (6) what action was taken to investigate the Iraqi export order after the death was reported of Gerald Bull of the Space Research Corporation;

  (7) what information he has as to (a) the military purpose of the armaments order of Iraq and (b) the possible uses of the completed order.

  Mr. Ridley
  In the light of the criminal charges laid against individuals and in the light of the continuing investigations by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate to give any further information on these matters.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when his Department was first made aware of a meeting in Brussels between Sheffield Forgemasters and the Space Research Corporation in June 1988, and of additional meetings that took place in Brussels in July 1988 between those parties;

  (2) if he has any information on the fire-testing in Iraq of any equipment provided for Iraq by Sheffield Forgemasters and Walter Somers.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 26 April 1990]: In the light of the criminal charges laid against individuals and in the light of the continuing investigations by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate to give any further information on these matters.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when he first received information about the activities of SRC Composites;

  (2) when he became aware of the project of SRC Composites to develop in Northern Ireland;

  (3) when he was first aware of SRC Composites' involvement with Iraq;

  (4) what investigations took place into Space Research Corporation after its involvement in the Iraqi export order became known.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: In the light of the criminal charges laid against individuals and in the light of the continuing investigations by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate to give any further information on these matters.

  Export Finance Scheme
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further steps he will take to raise funds from the capital markets to reduce the costs of the fixed rate export finance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  As part of a programme of measures to reduce the cost of ECGD's fixed rate export finance scheme, the Guaranteed Export Finance Corporation plc (GEFCO) issued a second £250 million bond issue on 8 May which again carried the guarantee of the Secretary of State. The previous issue was launched last July and further periodic issues are envisaged.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on the working of(a) the Securities and Investments Board, (b) FIMBRA, (c) the Financial Services Act 1986 and (d) recognised professional bodies in the financial services industry; and from whom.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly receive a variety of representations on these matters from a wide range of sources.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will visit the state of California to study its regulatory system in the financial services industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any plans at present to visit California.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the nature and level of capital adequacy for firms involved in the small independent intermediary sector of the financial services industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received a number of representations from organisations and firms in the independent financial intermediaries sector about capital adequacy requirements. Their views will be taken into account during the forthcoming negotiations on the proposed capital adequacy directive.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out in the Official Report an outline of the nature of the stance he will be adopting with regard to any European Commission proposals in respect of the harmonisation of the financial services industry prior to 1992 with particular regard to the small independent intermediary sector.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government welcome proposals from the European Commission which are designed to create a single market in financial services and which are based upon mutual recognition of member states' competent authorities and agreement on key standards. Our response to such proposals will be based upon two principles: first, that such measures should not undermine the Community's international competitiveness and, secondly, that they should not erect unnecessary barriers to market entry.

  British American Tobacco
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on the Hoylake bid for British American Tobacco; and from whom.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received many representations from hon. Members and others about various aspects of Hoylake Investments' bid for BAT Industries, but none since Hoylake announced on 23 April that it would not renew its offer for BAT.

  South Africa
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the number and value of grants made by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to South Africa for each year since 1985.
  277
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: The ECGD has not made any grants to South Africa in the period in question.

  Since ECGD's normal fixed-rate export finance arrangements apply to medium and long-term export credits to South Africa, some grants to banks in Britain supporting such export credits will have been made as part of the overall arrangements.

  National Measurement Accreditation Service
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin),Official Report, 30 April, column 386, what steps he is taking to increase the number of laboratories accredited by the NAMAS scheme, in the north-east, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: The national measurement accreditation service, NAMAS, actively encourages laboratories to become accredited for calibration and testing measurements. In conjunction with the Department's regional offices, promotional seminars have already been held in the north-east, Wales and Scotland. A seminar in Northern Ireland is currently being planned.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken or has suggested that the National Physical Laboratory takes to increase the number of laboratories accredited with the national measurement accreditation service for radiological calibration; and if he will name the accredited laboratory.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: Discussions are taking place between the national measurement accreditation service (NAMAS), involved in the radiological field of measurements both for calibration and testing with the view of increasing the number of accreditations in this area. The laboratory currently accredited for radiological calibration is Amersham International plc. Three further laboratories are currently being assessed prior to accreditation.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what staff committment is devoted through the National Physical Laboratory to ensuring as wide as possible membership to the national measurement accreditation service; and how this staff commitment is broken down between accreditations awards to calibration laboratories and testing facilities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: The total number of staff currently employed in the national measurement accreditation service is 52. Of these, eight are directly involved in the accreditation of calibration laboratories and 25 in the accreditation of testing laboratories. In addition, three further staff are directly involved in accreditation of both calibration and testing laboratories.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 387, if he will give the expenditure on energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department for the latest year available.
  278
  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: Expenditure on energy consumption in buildings occupied by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1988–89, the latest full year for which figures are available, was as follows:

  £ million

  Electricity

  2·3

  Gas

  0·7

  Oil

  0·3

  May I also apologise for an error in my answer to the hon. Gentleman on 30 April at column 387. The figure for gas consumption in the Department of Trade and Industry in 1988–89 should have read 2·3 million therms.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Perjury
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has on the number of prosecutions which have been initiated under the provisions of the Perjury Act of 1911 relating to persons wilfully making statements false in a material particular to judges or persons with the legal status of judges.

  The Attorney-General
  The only information available to me relates to convictions rather than proceedings instituted. Eighty-four persons were convicted for offences contrary to section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911 during 1988. All such convictions related to false statements made in judicial proceedings.

  Courts
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received recently about the operations of the courts.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor frequently receives correspondence from Members of this House, legal practitioners and members of the public about the operations of the courts. All these are responded to by the Lord Chancellor or his officials.

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss prosecution policy.

  Mr. Greville Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  Covenants
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he plans to have any discussions with the Law Reform Committee on the length of time for which covenants should be in force; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  There are no plans to refer any aspect of the law relating to covenants to the Law Reform Committee.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the operation of the Crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  The operation of the Crown prosecution service has been the subject of very recent scrutiny and report by the Home Affairs Select Committee of this House. The Committee recognised the impressive progress made by the Crown prosecution service despite its initial difficulties and confirmed our confidence that by proper assertion of its independence the CPS has contributed to a fairer and more just prosecution system. The Government will be responding to its recommendations in the normal manner.

  Professor Wilhelm Feldberg
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will prosecute Professor Wilhelm Feldberg for a contravention of section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

  The Attorney-General
  A decision about the commencement of a prosecution could be properly taken only on the basis of evidence assembled through a criminal investigation. The investigation of an alleged criminal offence is a matter for the police service. The proper course for any person having evidence suggesting the commission of an offence is to make the evidence available to the police.

  It is to be noted that by virtue of section 1(3) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and section 27(2) and schedule 3 to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 the provision to which hon. Member refers does not apply to anything lawfully done in accordance with the 1986 Act.

  Criminal Law Jurisdiction
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions have been mounted in(a) the Republic of Ireland, (b) Northern Ireland and (c) Great Britain

  Offence

  Sentence

  John William Gilmour

  Counselling and Procuring and causing an explosion

  Convicted—16 years imprisonment

  Possession of Explosives with intent (1)

  Convicted—16 years imprisonment

  Possession of Explosives (2)

  Left on file

  Possession of firearm with intent (1)

  Convicted—10 years imprisonment

  Possession of Firearms (2)

  Left on file

  Carrying of Firearm with intent

  Convicted—10 years imprisonment

  The trials in the Republic of Ireland listed in my previous answer took place in the following years:

  1980

  Lynagh

  McGurk

  McNally

  1981

  Campbell

  Ryan

  280
  under the terms of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Acts; and what is the outcome of each prosecution for each year since the passing of the legislation for 1990 until the earliest convenient date.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on 19 December 1988, at column 92. All the prosecutions listed in that answer as having taken place in the United Kingdom took place in Northern Ireland. Those trials took place in the following years:

  1978

  Fearon

  Morgan

  O'Rourke

  1981

  Gormley

  1982

  Smyth

  Hannigan

  Callaghan

  Ward

  Patterson

  1986

  McCormack

  1987

  Collins

  1988

  Ellis

  Orr

  Clements

  Verner

  McKenna

  Since my previous answer another person has been tried in Northern Ireland, in 1990, for offences allegedly committed in the Republic of Ireland:

  1982

  McKee

  Sloan

  Magee

  Fusco

  Tuite

  1983

  Flynn

  Soraghan

  One trial which took place in the Republic of Ireland in 1978 and was omitted from my previous answer was:
  281

  Offence

  Sentence

  John Brendan Brady

  Control of firearms and ammunition

  Convicted—2 years imprisonment

  Possession of explosive substances

  Convicted—6 years imprisonment

  Unlawful seizure of a vehicle

  Convicted—4 years imprisonment

  Since my previous answer four further persion have been tried in the Republic of Ireland for offences allegedly commited in the united Kingdom:

  Offence

  Sentence

  198922

  Gerard Michael Sloan

  Escape Lawful Custody

  Convicted—5 years imprisonment

  Gerald Bernard Hamilton

  Possession of Explosives

  Convicted—7 years imprisonment

  1990

  Damien Martin Harkin

  Possession of Explosives

  Acquitted

  Brian McQuade

  Causing an Explosion

  Convicted—3 years imprisonment

  Possession of Explosives

  Convicted—3 years imprisonment

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to allow the spreading on land of human sewage sludge for fertilisation purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Sewage sludge is used as a fertiliser in Northern Ireland in accordance with the advice contained in the "Code of Practice for Agricultural Use of Sewage Sludge", published by the Department of the Environment in 1989.

  Police Liaison Committees
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the local councils which have police liaison committees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The following councils have police liaison committees:

  Ards

  Antrim

  Ballymena

  Ballymoney

  Banbridge

  Belfast

  Carrickfergus

  Castlereagh

  Coleraine

  Craigavon

  Derry

  Down

  Dungannon

  Fermanagh

  Larne

  Limavady

  Lisburn

  Magherafelt

  Moyle

  282

  Newtownabbey

  North Down

  Strabane

  I understand that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland is hopeful that further committees will be established. But if this is not possible alternative arrangements will be considered to ensure that there is effective consultation between the RUC and the community.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will supply figures for the costs and earnings of United Kingdom fishing vessels in the Province for the period 1983 to 1989, broken down by vessel size(a) under 40 ft., (b) 40 to 79·9 ft., (c) 80 to 109·9 ft., (d) 110 to 139·9 ft., and (e) 10 ft. and over.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Meat and Livestock
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what percentage of the meat and livestock produce of Northern Ireland is required for Northern Ireland consumption;

  (2) what percentage of the meat and livestock produce of Northern Ireland is exported to (a) Great Britain, (b) other European Community countries and (c) countries outside the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: The table sets out the estimated utilisation of cattle, sheep and pig slaughterings in Northern Ireland in 1989.

  283

  Percentage

  Northern Ireland consumption

  Great Britain

  Exports Eropean Community

  Countries outside European Community

  Cattle

  25

  54

  19

  2

  Sheep

  4

  1

  95

  Nil

  Pigs

  45

  35

  20

  1

  1Negligible.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the Livestock Marketing Commission budget for advertising is used to promote the consumption of Northern Ireland meat and livestock produce in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: Approximately 30 per cent. of the commission's development budget is used for such promotion.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lithuania
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her discussions with the Prime Minister of Lithuania.

  The Prime Minister
  I had talks with Mrs. Prunskiene on 9 May. We stressed that the Lithuanian people have the right to self-determination. We also shared the view that the gains that have been made in east-west relations must be preserved and strengthened. The present situation should and can be resolved through discussion.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will identify the community charge regulation she referred to on 3 May,Official Report, column 1204, relating to the sending out and writing-off of small accounts.

  The Prime Minister
  The regulation I referred to on 3 May at column 1204 is regulation 61 of the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989, Statutory Instrument No. 438.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Learning Difficulties
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received on the subject of specific learning difficulties in reading, writing, and spelling, dyslexia, since 23 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has received a number of such representations since the British Dyslexia Association began its dyslexia awareness campaign on 23 January. I shall be meeting representatives of the BDA shortly to discuss this important area of special educational needs.

  Under the Education Act 1981, it is the responsibility of LEAs to make appropriate provision for all pupils with special educational needs in their area. It is therefore for LEAs and schools to ensure that suitable provision is
  284
  made for children with specific learning difficulties, including the teaching of reading and writing by methods appropriate to their needs.

  Nuclear Engineering
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas),Official Report, 10 January, columns 621–22, what is the relationship between the nuclear engineering course which commenced at Queen Mary college in autumn 1989 and courses which closed in nuclear engineering in 1988.

  Mr. Jackson
  My reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 10 January reflected the position stated in the handbook for 1989 entry produced by the Universities Central Council on Admissions. I regret that this was incorrect. Further investigations have shown that Queen Mary and Westfield college, London university decided not to proceed with the indicated first-degree course in mechanical and nuclear engineering.

  Higher Education Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his Department's decision no longer to collect advanced courses early statistics, with the reasons for this decision; and what assessment he has made of the impact of this decision on planning for higher education provision on a regional basis.

  Mr. Jackson
  Some 80 per cent. of enrolments in higher education in England outside the universities are in institutions funded by the Polytechnic and College Funding Council. That body is planning its own early statistics survey for next October, which should enable trends in enrolments to be estimated within broad subject-groups.

  Displaced Persons
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local education authorities made applications for funding under section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988 for displaced persons and refugees but were refused grants which(a) had reception centres-hostels for refugees and displaced people and (b) had a significant number of refugees in other accommodation; and on what grounds these applications were rejected.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The bids for funding in 1990–91 under section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988 exceeded the total resources available. In accordance with the advice contained in the draft circular issued in July 1989 priority was given, as far as possible, to the maintenance of existing special provision. It was consequently not possible to allocate any grant in response to the applications from the London boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth in respect of new provision for displaced persons and refugees in reception centres-hostels and in other accommodation.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of funding
  285
  granted under section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988 for displaced people and refugees was for (a) adults and (b) children; and what proportion was for (i) English language provision and (ii) advice and careers counselling.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  About half the funding in 1990–91 is for adults and about half for children. Some 90 per cent. of the funding is for teaching provision including English language provision. Advice and careers counselling account for the remainder.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of funding under section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988 was made available for refugees as opposed to travellers for the year 1990–91.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The proportion of funding to be made available for refugees in 1990–91 is some 4 per cent. of the total.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funding has been made available under section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988 for newly arrived refugees and asylum seekers from all nationalities who are living in reception centres or other accommodation in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The London borough of Richmond-upon-Thames has been allocated grant to support expenditure of £54,100 in 1990–91.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what adjustments and flexibility he has approved in respect of the implementation of LMS; and if he will list those local education authorities where such adjustment or flexibility has been agreed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 8 May,Official Report, column 11.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities implementing LMS in(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A total of 87 local authorities' schemes for LMS were approved to start from 1 April 1990. The 87 authorities are:

  Avon

  Devon

  Barking and Dagenham

  Doncaster

  Barnet

  Dorset

  Barnsley

  Dudley

  Bedfordshire

  Durham

  Berkshire

  Ealing

  Bexley

  East Sussex

  Birmingham

  Enfield

  Bolton

  Essex

  Bradford

  Gateshead

  Brent

  Gloucestershire

  Bromley

  Hampshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Haringey

  Bury

  Harrow

  Calderdale

  Havering

  Cambridgeshire

  Hounslow

  Cheshire

  Humberside

  Cleveland

  Isle of Wight

  Cornwall

  Kent

  Coventry

  Kingston

  Cumbria

  Kirklees

  Derbyshire

  Knowsley

  286

  Lancashire

  Shropshire

  Leeds

  Solihull

  Lincolnshire

  Somerset

  Liverpool

  South Tyneside

  Merton

  Staffordshire

  Newcastle

  St. Helens

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  North Tyneside

  Sunderland

  North Yorkshire

  Surrey

  Northamptonshire

  Sutton

  Northumberland

  Tameside

  Nottinghamshire

  Trafford

  Oldham

  Wakefield

  Oxfordshire

  Walsall

  Redbridge

  Waltham Forest

  Richmond

  Warwickshire

  Rochdale

  West Sussex

  Rotherham

  Westminster

  Sandwell

  Wigan

  Salford

  Wiltshire

  Sefton

  Wolverhampton

  Sheffield

  We shall continue to work with the 10 authorities, outside of inner London, that we were not able to approve this year, with the aim of getting approved schemes in place by April 1991. We want to keep delays to a minimum and will expect those authorities to phase in LMS according to the original timetable. Those 10 authorities are

  Croydon, Hereford and Worcester, Hertfordshire, Hillingdon, Isles of Scilly, Leicestershire, Manchester, Newham, Stockport, and Wirral.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities which have submitted requests to defer the implementation of LMS by(a) six months; (b) a year, and (c) for any other period.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Of the 87 LEAs that have approved LMS schemes in force from 1 April 1990, we have received a representation from one seeking to defer implementation of the scheme.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements there are in cases where a school, under LMS, requires a teacher to accept redundancy to determine who is liable to pay the appropriate redundancy payments.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Section 46(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988 specifies that the costs incurred by a local education authority in respect of the dismissal or premature retirement, or for the purpose of securing the resignation, of any member of the staff of a school within the scope of an LMS scheme shall not be met from the school's budget except in so far as the authority. has good reason for deducting those costs, or any part of those costs, from that share.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the statutory provisions that relate to his duties in respect of implementation of a local management scheme by a local education authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The statutory provisions that relate to the duties of my right hon. Friend in respect of implementation of a local management scheme by a local education authority are:

  (i) to consider the approval of a scheme prepared by a local education authority under section 33 of the Education Reform Act which—

  287

  (a) replaces a previous scheme; or

  (b) makes a significant variation to a previous scheme;

  (ii) to determine within 2 months of notification, whether a variation proposed by a local education authority as a minor variation, falls within the description of a minor variation;

  (iii) to consult the local education authority in question before varying a scheme by direction;

  (iv) to consider any appeal made by a governing body against—

  (a) the imposition of any suspension of delegation;

  (b) the refusal of a local education authority to revoke any such suspension of delegation or any review required;

  (v) in the event of an appeal made by a governing body as described in (iv) above; a duty to;

  (a) allow or reject the appeal;

  (b) have regard to the gravity of the default on the part of the governing body and the likelihood of its continuance or recurrence;

  (vi) to make Regulations under section 42 of the Education Reform Act.

  British Airstrip, Antarctic
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the new British airstrip in the Antarctic will be used for purposes other than scientific research, except in cases of emergencies.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 11 May.

  Emphysema and Bronchitis
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much has been spent by the Medical Research Council on research into emphysema and bronchitis since 1988.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: The expenditure on research into respiratory diseases which is in whole or part relevant to bronchitis and emphysema was as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  1,845,301

  1988–89

  1,832,953

  Figures for the financial year 1989–90 will be available in July from the Medical Research Council.

WALES

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the financial control exercised by Gwynedd health authority in each of the two most recent financial years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Subject to submission of the authority's accounts for 1989–90, it would appear that the authority has continued to keep its cash spending within the sums allotted by my right hon. Friend. However, it would also appear from reports received from the authority that its underlying financial position, as measured in terms of the balance between its income and expenditure in accruals terms, is once again deteriorating, following the limited progress which was made towards restoring financial balance during 1987–88 and 1988–89. This is, of course,288
  disappointing; but my right hon. Friend will not be in a position to comment more substantially on the authority's performance in exercising financial control until (i) the authority has had an opportunity to consider the results of the study which its general manager is currently undertaking with the assistance of management consultants, (ii) the authority's response to that study has been discussed with Welsh Office officials as part of the next round of annual performance reviews and (iii) the statutory auditor's audit of the authority's 1989–90 accounts has been completed.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions his Department has had with Gwynedd health authority concerning the effects of the recent secretarial strike on the delivery of services in the county; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The effect of the secretarial strike on the delivery of health services in Gwynedd is a matter for the district health authority and Welsh Office officials have not been in discussion on this aspect.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the amount of capital expenditure on new facilities by Gwynedd health authority in 1988–89, 1989–90 and the projected level for such spending in 1990–91.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is not centrally available in the form requested since neither the annual accounts nor the 10-year capital programmes prepared by health authorities provide expenditure figures under the heading of "new facilities".

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of the repayable loans made by the Welsh Office to Gwynedd health authority over the past five years indicating for each such loan the sum involved, the period for repayment and the interest charged.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date of loan

  Amount of loan £ million

  Date repaid

  1985–86

  0·200

  1986–87

  1986–87

  —

  —

  1987–88

  1·450

  1988–89

  1988–89

  0·738

  1989–90

  1989–90

  —

  —

  No interest was charged on any of these loans.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the terms of reference given to the current team of consultants appointed by the Welsh Office to study the problem facing Gwynedd health authority; and by what date they are required to present their report.

  Mr. Grist
  In common with other district health authorities in Wales, Gwynedd has been asked to submit a pathfinder procurement plan in June and has commissioned management consultants to help it prepare this plan. Together with other health authorities, Gwynedd has secured a measure of Welsh Office funding for this exercise.

  In addition to the procurement plan project, Gwynedd health authority has asked the management consultants to

  289
  assist in its review of its finances and services. I understand that the authority's report on the outcome of the review is likely to be considered by its members in June.

  As the study is being carried out by Gwynedd health authority, details of its management consultants' terms of reference should be obtained from the DHA.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what date Gwynedd health authority was due to attain a financial balance following the Welsh Office consultant's investigation undertaken in 1987; and if he will make a statement on progress to date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The action plan which was drawn up by the general manager of the authority early in 1988 with the help of the management consultants, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells was aimed at bringing the authority back into financial balance by 1991–92. This action plan remains the basic strategy for the financial restructuring of the authority. However, in view of the length of time taken to realise some of the planned savings associated with service rationalisation measures within the action plan, some slippage on this target would seem inevitable. The question of a revised target date will be considered in due course in the light of the review of the authority's financial position which is currently being undertaken by the authority with the assistance of management consultants.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the(a) revenue budget and (b) capital budget allocated by the Welsh Office to Gwynedd health authority for each of the years 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90; and for each year what was the actual revenue and capital expenditure of the authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Revenue cash limit £ million

  Revenue charge against cash limit £ million

  Capital cash limit £ million

  Capital charge against cash limit1 £ million

  1986–87

  49·905

  49·903

  1·388

  1·389

  1987–88

  55·855

  55·841

  3·433

  3·434

  1988–89

  62·614

  62·637

  1·860

  1·859

  1989–90

  65·436

  262·397

  2·829

  22·829

  1Source: Health Authority Annual Accounts

  2Source: Form FIS(HA)2 Cumulative Cash Flow Statement for period ending March 1990.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions during the past 12 months a minister of his Department has(a) visited Gwynedd for purposes related to Gwynedd health authority or (b) met the chairman or members of Gwynedd health authority at a location other than in Gwynedd.

  Mr. Grist
  Ministers have met the chairman of the authority on four occasions during the last 12 months in London and south Wales. In addition, senior officials of the Welsh Office have visited and met the authority's chairman and officers frequently, and briefed me comprehensively on the key issues involved.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department approved the discontinuation by Gwynedd health authority of the nursing surveillance service.
  290
  Mr. Grist
  No approval was needed or sought.

  Sewage Discharges
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether the announcement made on 5 March that the discharge of new sewage into the sea would be stopped will apply with equal force to discharges from Wales;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy to ban the discharge of new sewage from Wales into the estuaries and seas round Wales and to set a timetable for completing the implementation of such a policy.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether he will make it his policy to ban the discharge of new sewage from Wales into the estuaries and seas around Wales and to set a timetable for completing the implementation of such a policy;

  (2) whether the announcement made on 5 March that the discharge of new sewage into the sea would be stopped will apply with equal force to discharges from Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The policies set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 5 March will apply to discharges from Wales. Discussions will be held with the National Rivers Authority, the Office of Water Services and the sewerage undertaker to work out the detailed arrangements for implementing this policy as soon as is practicable.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy that the new sewage outfall into the Severn estuary at Lavernock will include full secondary treatment works, and to require that design work takes into account this policy to avoid delay in the implementation of the scheme.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy that the new sewage outfall into the Severn estuary at Lavernock will include full secondary treatment works, and require that design work takes into account this policy to avoid delay in the implementation of the scheme.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  This is a matter for Dwr Cymru and the National Rivers Authority which are fully aware of and will take into account relevant Government policies.

  Red Slime, Blackpill
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek urgent advice on the occurrence of a red slime on the beach at Blackpill, Swansea, on 7 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I am advised by the National Rivers Authority that it has analysed a sample of the slime which was found to comprise diatoms and flocs of iron particles. The iron flocs, which gave the slime an orange-brown colour, emanated from the River Clyne which receives a significant proportion of drainage from abandoned coal mines in the Dunvant and Killay areas and enters the sea at Blackpill. The ferruginous inputs from these mines are of relatively constant flow and thus have a much greater impact on the appearance of the river when river levels are low, as has been the case during the recent dry spell. The slime, though aesthetically unpleasant, does not in the opinion of environmental health officials threaten human or animal health.

  Optical Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will commission research into the identification of cases of glaucoma in Wales in the past five years, the effectiveness of measures taken by opticians, general practitioners and hospitals in preventing deterioration of eyesight in patients during the same period, and the effect of Government policy on these matters with particular reference to the period from 1 April 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new out-patient attendances at ophthalmic clinics were recorded in each quarter of(a) 1986, (b) 1987 and (c) 1988 in Wales as a whole.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The following table shows the number of new ophthalmology out-patients recorded in NHS hospitals in Wales:

  Quarter Ended

  Number

  March 1986

  9,247

  June 1986

  9,905

  September 1986

  9,678

  December 1986

  10,383

  March 1987

  9,616

  June 1987

  9,825

  September 1987

  9,531

  December 1987

  10,263

  March 1988

  11,545

  June 1988

  10,280

  September 1988

  10,242

  December 1988

  10,771

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new out-patient attendances at ophthalmic clinics were recorded(a) in South Glamorgan and (b) in Wales in the last quarter of 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is not yet available.

  Mrs. Noreen Edwards
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date Mrs. Noreen Edwards was first appointed to the chair of Gwynedd health authority and for what period; on what subsequent dates and for what periods of time she was reappointed; and on what date her present appointment terminates.

  Mr. Grist
  Mrs. Edwards was first appointed to chair the authority on 1 August 1982 for four years. She was reappointed on 1 August 1986 for a further four years to 31 July 1990.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the acreage of land and the price realised for such land, arising from the sale of the land by each of the district health authorities in Wales since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not immediately available in the form requested. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible and will place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
  292
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the actual cost of wage and salary increases for each of the district health authorities in Wales in the financial year 1989–90; and what was the financial provision made by the Welsh Office in his revenue funding of each authority to meet wage and salary inflation in that year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is for each authority to decide how much of its annual increase in discretionary cash provision should be set aside for pay settlements in the light of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Industry Act forecast of general inflation in the economy for the year in question and in the light of the particular composition of its work force. For 1989–90 the forecast of general inflation was 5 per cent. and the initial percentage increase in cash provision of district health authorities in Wales (by comparison with their 1988–89 final allocations) were as follows:

  per cent. in-crease

  Clwyd

  6·5

  East Dyfed

  8·8

  Gwent

  5·8

  Gwynedd

  5·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  6·1

  Pembrokeshire

  6·8

  Powys

  8·6

  South Glamorgan

  5·8

  West Glamorgan

  5·8

  However, it should be noted that these initial discretionary cash increases were subsequently enhanced to take account of the contribution which the Government made towards the cost of meeting the recommendations of the pay review bodies covering doctors and dentists, nurses and professions allied to medicine. This supplementary funding was distributed by reference to paybill data for those categories of staff in authorities 1988–89 accounts and resulted in revised discretionary cash increases for Welsh district health authorities, prior to further enhancement in respect of White Paper requirements, as follows:

  Increase Per cent.

  Clwyd

  7·4

  East Dyfed

  9·6

  Gwent

  6·6

  Gwynedd

  6·6

  Mid Glamorgan

  7·0

  Pembrokeshire

  7·6

  Powys

  9·5

  South Glamorgan

  6·6

  West Glamorgan

  6·6

  It is not possible to estimate the actual cost of pay settlements in 1989–90 without details of the number, grades, and so on of staff employed by each of the district health authorities in Wales during that year. Acccounts data will be submitted to the Welsh Office in June but these will give only the increase in total expenditure on the various categories of staff and will not distinguish the increase in pay levels from changes in the number or composition of staff.
  293
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many established posts are currently frozen in each of the nine district health authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not held centrally. Staffing levels are operational issues for health authorities.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to improve the reporting procedures which enable him to monitor the financial performance and delivery of services of district health authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The main mechanism for monitoring the performance of individual district health authorities is the annual review undertaken each autumn by the executive committee of the Health Policy Board. This provides the opportunity for a rigorous central assessment of local management action and performance, and constitutes a key channel of accountability to the Secretary of State in relation to each health authority's stewardship of health care services and the public moneys which fund them.

  The annual review process is being developed to reflect the distinction between the purchaser and provider roles of district health authorities proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  In addition to the annual review, health authorities are required to submit a wide range of financial and service specific returns within the year. These are analysed carefully, and kept under continuous review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose.

  Discretionary capital allocations 1990–91 £ million

  Discretionary capital allocations 1982–83 expressed at 1990–91 prices £ million

  Percentage change in allocation in period 1982–83 to 1990–91 percentage

  Clwyd

  6·277

  1·520

  313

  East Dyfed

  3·205

  0·956

  235

  Gwent

  6·184

  1·924

  221

  Gwynedd

  1·710

  0·870

  97

  Mid Glamorgan

  8·054

  2·170

  271

  Pembrokeshire

  1·968

  0·306

  543

  Powys

  1·113

  0·454

  145

  South Glamorgan

  7·938

  2·574

  208

  West Glamorgan

  8·072

  1·483

  444

  Note:

  The methodology used since 1984–85 in the distribution of capital resources for the discretionary use of district health authorities (which is reflected in the table above) is not comparable to that used previously. Prior to 1984–85, the distribution of discretionary capital resources between authorities was pro rata to the distribution of their recurrent revenue allocations. Since 1984–85, authorities; discretionary capital allocations have been determined by reference to a formula which was specifically devised for this purpose. The formula, which is population based, also takes into account the distribution of NHS capital stock throughout Wales. The distribution of the resources available for 1990–91 reflects the implementation of the second update of this capital formula.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to meet jointly the chairman of a district health authority in Wales together with hon. Members whose constituencies are served by that health authority when circumstances justify; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend will continue to consider each request for a meeting on its individual merits.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the most recent figures
  294
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the salary or fee paid to each of the chair persons of district health authorities in Wales during 1989–90; and what were the expenses paid to each of these persons.

  Mr. Grist
  In 1989–90, the chairmen of district health authorities in Wales received a flat-rate taxable honorarium of £12,462. Information about other expenses which may have been drawn from their own authorities is not held centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the total sums paid by way of performance-related pay to senior managers in each of the new Welsh district health authorities in 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 15 March at column 346. Particulars of actual performance-related pay additions to salary made by employing authorities are confidential and information thereon is not held centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his answer of 18 April to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris),Official Report, columns 932–33, he will publish a table showing for each of the district health authorities in Wales the level of capital allocation in 1990–91 and the corresponding figure in real terms for 1982–83; and what has been the percentage change in each instance.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is given in the table:

  available on the death rate for each district health authority in Wales with corresponding figures for five and 10 years previously.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Crude death rate1

  Welsh district health authorities

  1988

  1983

  1978

  Clwyd

  12·6

  12·9

  13·6

  East Dyfed

  12·4

  14·2

  214·3

  Pembrokeshire

  11·8

  11·6

  Gwent

  11·7

  11·9

  11·9

  295

  Crude death rate1

  Welsh district health authorities

  1988

  1983

  1978

  Gwynedd

  12·5

  14·0

  14·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  11·6

  12·4

  12·8

  Powys

  12·2

  13·2

  13·4

  South Glamorgan

  10·7

  11·5

  11·6

  West Glamorgan

  12·2

  12·5

  13·4

  Wales

  11·9

  12·6

  13·0

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  1 Registered deaths of residents (excluding still-births) per 1,000 population.

  2Heatlh Authorities were reorganised into nine District Health Authorities in 1982. For 1978 Pembrokeshire figures are shown with East Dyfed.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each health authority area in Wales the number of cancer cases newly diagnosed in each of the last five years; and if he will show these figures as a proportion of the base population in each health authority district.

  Mr. Grist
  The most recently available information on cancer incidence rates in Wales is presented in "Cancer Registration in Wales, 1974–84" published in 1988. It is intended that full data in respect of the period 1984 to 1986 together with a commentary will be published during 1990.

  Felinheli Bypass
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales why the engineer from his Department who had agreed to attend a public meeting at Felinheli on Friday 4 May failed to arrive at that meeting; why the person who did attend was not authorised to inform the meeting of the Welsh Office's latest information on the Felinheli bypass; and if he will review the workings of his Department to avoid the public being let down in this manner in future.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The terms of reference for the attendance of an official at the meeting were explained to those who made the request.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of his Department of the date of commencement of work on the Felinheli bypass; by what date it is expected that land purchase will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Felinheli bypass is programmed to start in the period April 1991 to March 1994 as shown in "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s". Land purchase is programmed to meet this timetable.

  Caernarfon Cottage Hospital
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost of complying with each of the three conditions for closure of the Caernarfon cottage hospital laid down by the Welsh Office in its letter of 20 April, concerning alternative dental provision for the area; and by what date he expects each of these conditions to be met.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Madog Memorial Hospital
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest estimated annual savings of closing the Madog memorial hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Following the issue of the Welsh Office's letters of 3 and 22 March 1989 which conveyed approval of Gwynedd health authority's proposals to close Madog memorial hospital, detailed issues relating to the closure are a matter for the health authority, subject to compliance with the relevant conditions set out in the letter of 3 March. The hon. Gentleman should therefore contact the health authority for further information.

  Charities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will commission research into the effect of Government funding in the Health Service on(a) the approach of NHS managers to charitable contributions, (b) the degree to which fund-raising is attracted to different areas of need within the Health Service and (c) the attitudes of fund-raising and charitable groups.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will take steps to ensure that in circumstances in which former trust hospitals are to be closed notwithstanding the provisions of section 88(2) of the National Health Service Act 1977, those hospital buildings will first be offered back to trustees, or acting trustees in the area, and that if such trustees wish to take over the hospital building, they shall not be required to pay more for them than was paid, if at all, by the National Health Service for them when they were taken over from the trustees.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospitals and other units in Wales which have expressed an interest in seeking National Health Service trust status once the current legislation has reached the statute book.

  Mr. Grist
  No firm expressions of interest have been received to date.

  Hospital Travel Costs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been his expenditure in each of the last five years on the National Health Service hospital travel costs scheme in each of the district health authority areas in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested was not identified separately in health authorities' accounts until 1985–86. The figures for the years since then are shown in the table:

  £000

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  26·7

  29·0

  28·7

  38·4

  East Dyfed

  13·4

  12·2

  12·0

  18·0

  Gwent

  31·4

  28·1

  28·3

  39·6

  297

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Gwynedd

  15·2

  17·0

  16·2

  20·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  40·3

  45·7

  35·8

  38·3

  Pembrokeshire

  6·5

  7·6

  7·9

  9·1

  Powys

  0·3

  0·3

  0·0

  0·9

  South Glamorgan

  61·6

  54·9

  60·2

  77·7

  West Glamorgan

  23·9

  31·1

  28·0

  34·9

  Wales

  219·3

  225·9

  217·1

  277·3

  Source: Health Authorities Annual Accounts.

  However, it should be noted that prior to 1 April 1988 when responsibility for administering the scheme transferred wholly to district health authorities in Wales, some of the claims made under this scheme were met by local offices of the DHSS. The figures for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 are therefore not directly comparable with those for 1988–89.

  Hospital Services, Llangefni
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average cost per in-patient day at(a) the Cefni hospital, Llangefni and (b) the Druid hospital, Llangefni, on the basis of the most recently available information.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on average costs per in-patient day is not centrally available. However, the average treatment costs per day per patient using a bed (both in-patients and day cases) are given on page 208 of "Welsh Health Costing Returns 1988–89" a copy of which is in the Library of the House. These costs exclude general services—catering, laundry, cleaning, administration, and so on—it being not possible to distribute these costs between patients using a bed and out-patients.

  Sports Council for Wales
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who appoints the members of the Sports Council for Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The members are appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Flooding, Towyn
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what help will be available to Towyn and the flood-affected areas to renovate their homes to a proper standard.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Owners of homes damaged by the floods will be eligible for up to 100 per cent. grants for approved expenditure subject to the test of resources under the new grant scheme to be introduced in seven weeks' time.

  The test of resources for owner-occupiers will be similar to that for housing benefit.

  Savings of £5,000 or less will be completely disregarded. Over £5,000 every £250 of savings will be treated as if it were £1 income. There will be no upper limit on capital or savings.

  Below a certain income an owner will qualify for 100 per cent. grant on eligible works. The threshold will depend on individual family circumstances—for example a couple with two children would have a different threshold from a single person. In every case this income threshold will be £20 per week higher than housing benefit levels.
  298
  Where income exceeds the threshold, 20p in the pound of that excess will be regarded as available to help finance the works through a notional loan. The amount of grant will be the excess of the cost of works over the notional loan.

  My Department has been holding discussions with Colwyn borough council to assist it in ensuring that the preparatory work is done now to enable applications to be processed and work to be undertaken immediately the scheme takes effect after 1 July 1990.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incomes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the average income for each county in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Provisional estimates for 1987 were published by the Central Statistical Office in the July edition of "Economic Trends" (pages 116 and 117). Revised estimates for the same year will be published later this month in the April 1990 "Economic Trends".

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average interval, in each region, between a social security appeal tribunal's oral hearing at which a decision is made and the notification of the decision to the claimant; and how much of this is attributable to administrative delay.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The administration of social security appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the president of the Social Security Appeal Tribunals, His Honour Judge Holden, and the hon. Member may care to contact him direct.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each of the(a) inquiries and (b) research products initiated by his Department into the housing benefit scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: When the reformed housing benefit scheme was introduced in April 1988, the Department established, in conjunction with local authorities, the housing benefit management information system (HBMIS). This system enables the Department to collect information about housing benefit caseload on a regular basis. Caseload counts are carried out at quarterly intervals, and a survey of 1 per cent. of the housing benefit caseload is conducted on an annual basis.

  In addition, the Department's officials make regular visits to local authorities to obtain feedback about the operation of the housing benefit scheme, and meet representatives of the local authority associations quarterly at the housing benefit standing committee.

  In the period following the implementation of the reforms a number of research projects have been commissioned as follows:

  (i) the reform of housing benefit—a project commissioned in 1986 which resulted in the publication by the Housing Centre Trust entitled `Housing Benefit: A Discussion About Reform';
  299
  (ii) a special survey of amenity charges conducted by the social policy research unit at the university of York in 1986, the results of which formed part of the above mentioned publication and produced a working paper;

  (iii) research into the housing benefit review system, commissioned from the social policy research unit, university of York in 1988, and due to report in the autumn of 1990;
  300
  (iv) research recently commissioned from the Institute of Public Finance, in relation to the formula used for distributing housing benefit administration costs subsidy, and due to be completed in the summer.

HEALTH

  Hospital Catering
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of catering provisions per patient per day in each regional health authority in each year since 1979, expressed in cash and constant prices.

  Hospital costs—average cost of catering provisions per patient day

  £ cash

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Northern

  1·01

  1·10

  1·22

  1·27

  1·30

  1·36

  1·38

  1·43

  1·56

  Yorkshire

  1·00

  1·09

  1·18

  1·26

  1·26

  1·32

  1·33

  1·42

  1·53

  Trent

  1·03

  1·08

  1·16

  1·28

  1·31

  1·35

  1·41

  1·50

  1·59

  East Anglia

  1·02

  1·09

  1·17

  1·23

  1·27

  1·33

  1·32

  1·35

  1·46

  North West Thames

  1·05

  1·11

  1·21

  1·22

  1·29

  1·37

  1·44

  1·38

  1·51

  North East Thames

  1·01

  1·07

  1·17

  1·24

  1·28

  1·33

  1·41

  1·49

  1·58

  South East Thames

  10·3

  1·12

  1·21

  1·21

  1·25

  1·36

  1·41

  1·44

  1·62

  South West Thames

  1·02

  1·09

  1·16

  1·19

  1·24

  1·30

  1·37

  1·43

  1·55

  Wessex

  1·02

  1·07

  1·17

  1·23

  1·22

  1·36

  1·43

  1·49

  1·52

  Oxford

  1·10

  1·20

  1·29

  1·25

  1·30

  1·34

  1·36

  1·53

  1·68

  South Western

  1·00

  1·05

  1·14

  1·21

  1·22

  1·30

  1·31

  1·31

  1·50

  West Midlands

  1·00

  1·06

  1·15

  1·22

  1·20

  1·26

  1·28

  1·31

  1·42

  Mersey

  1·01

  1·07

  1·17

  1·23

  1·20

  1·26

  1·31

  1·33

  1·39

  North Western

  1·01

  1·11

  1·19

  1·26

  1·24

  1·27

  1·29

  1·35

  1·40

  SHAs

  1·29

  1·34

  15·3

  1·57

  1·64

  1·74

  1·68

  1·89

  1·96

  England

  1·02

  1·09

  1·18

  1·24

  1·26

  1·32

  1·36

  1·41

  1·52

  Hospital costs—average cost of catering provisions per patient day

  £ at 1989–90 prices

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Northern

  2·02

  1·86

  1·88

  1·83

  1·79

  1·78

  1·72

  1·72

  1·78

  Yorkshire

  2·00

  1·85

  1·82

  1·81

  1·73

  1·73

  1·65

  1·71

  1·75

  Trent

  2·06

  1·83

  1·79

  1·84

  1·80

  1·77

  1·75

  1·80

  1·81

  East Anglia

  2·04

  1·85

  1·80

  1·77

  1·75

  1·74

  1·64

  1·62

  1·67

  North West Thames

  2·10

  1·88

  1·87

  1·76

  1·77

  1·79

  1·79

  1·66

  1·72

  North East Thames

  2·02

  1·81

  1·80

  1·78

  1·76

  1·74

  1·75

  1·79

  1·80

  South East Thames

  2·06

  1·90

  1·87

  1·74

  1·72

  1·78

  1·75

  1·73

  1·85

  South West Thames

  2·04

  1·85

  1·79

  1·71

  1·70

  1·70

  1·70

  1·72

  1·77

  Wessex

  2·04

  1·81

  1·80

  1·77

  1·68

  1·78

  1·78

  1·79

  1·73

  Oxford

  2·20

  2·03

  1·99

  1·80

  1·79

  1·75

  1·69

  1·84

  1·92

  South Western

  2·00

  1·78

  1·76

  1·74

  1·68

  1·70

  1·63

  1·57

  1·71

  West Midlands

  2·00

  1·80

  1·77

  1·76

  1·65

  1·65

  1·59

  1·57

  1·62

  Mersey

  2·02

  1·81

  1·80

  1·77

  1·65

  1·65

  1·63

  1·60

  1·59

  North Western

  2·02

  1·88

  1·84

  1·81

  1·70

  1·66

  1·60

  1·62

  1·60

  SHAs

  2·59

  2·27

  2·36

  2·26

  2·25

  2·28

  2·09

  2·27

  2·24

  England

  2·04

  1·85

  1·82

  1·78

  1·73

  1·73

  1·69

  1·69

  1·73

  Source: The annual costing returns (financial returns for 1987–88) of the district health authorities in England and those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. (Predecessor authorities prior to 1982–83).

  Hospital Beds (Statistics)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total available medical patient beds, not including beds for those with mental illness or mental handicap, for each year since 1979 for each Yorkshire and Humberside health authority.

  Average daily acute2 beds, NHS hospitals, Yorkshire and Humberside standard region, 1979 to 1988–89

  District code and health authority

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  B12 Hull

  1,058

  1,061

  1,061

  1,020

  1,045

  1,053

  1,039

  983

  1,012

  1,020

  B13 East Yorkshire

  657

  654

  627

  623

  649

  633

  630

  497

  481

  487

  B14 Grimsby

  471

  468

  473

  471

  483

  469

  477

  478

  450

  420

  B15 Scunthorpe

  450

  447

  430

  433

  443

  441

  446

  442

  399

  371

  B22 Northallerton

  276

  287

  287

  281

  247

  237

  239

  241

  259

  242

  B23 York

  763

  767

  771

  750

  743

  726

  725

  716

  691

  689

  B24 Scarborough

  391

  389

  368

  382

  387

  380

  371

  362

  351

  349

  B25 Harrogate

  679

  637

  656

  646

  633

  606

  577

  546

  501

  471

  B32 Bradford

  1,248

  1,238

  1,230

  1,226

  1,219

  1,201

  1,188

  1,183

  1,129

  1,105

  B33 Airedale

  513

  512

  512

  502

  489

  479

  451

  424

  425

  411

  302
  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested for the financial years 1979–80 to 1987–88 is shown in the table.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The tables set out the available information on bed availiability and in-patients treated.
  303

  District code and health authority

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  B42 Calderdale

  580

  591

  588

  581

  557

  539

  510

  501

  472

  458

  B52 Huddersfield

  592

  587

  593

  594

  586

  574

  525

  524

  445

  432

  B53 Dewsbury

  408

  406

  415

  387

  402

  406

  412

  411

  394

  358

  B62 Leeds Western

  1

  1

  1

  1,494

  1,425

  1,407

  1,388

  1,378

  1,337

  1,327

  B63 Leeds Eastern

  1

  1

  1

  1,301

  1,301

  1,273

  1,261

  1,231

  1,235

  1,203

  B72 Wakefield

  726

  680

  695

  661

  688

  659

  626

  593

  584

  540

  B73 Pontefract

  439

  452

  432

  433

  449

  469

  449

  413

  373

  358

  C09 Barnsley

  513

  532

  530

  480

  542

  535

  534

  525

  524

  521

  C10 Doncaster

  1

  1

  1

  739

  737

  745

  740

  763

  738

  743

  C11 Rotherham

  1

  1

  1

  556

  558

  558

  571

  569

  567

  575

  C12 Sheffield

  1

  1

  1

  2,144

  2,135

  2,143

  2,170

  2,206

  2,278

  2,020

  1 Comparable figures not available due to National Health Service restructuring in 1982.

  2 Units for the younger physically disabled included.

  Source: SH3 return, 1979–1986.

  KH03 return, 1987–88 onwards.

  In-patient cases treated, acute2 sector, Yorkshire and Humberside standard region, 1979 to 1988–89

  District health authority

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Hull

  31,919

  31,883

  32,954

  31,080

  35,794

  36,575

  37,012

  36,693

  40,966

  40,968

  East Yorkshire

  13,970

  15,181

  15,209

  14,427

  16,158

  15,932

  16,157

  15,982

  16,128

  17,811

  Grimsby

  13,878

  14,395

  15,735

  15,736

  16,744

  17,327

  18,859

  19,963

  19,585

  18,832

  Scunthorpe

  16,224

  17,057

  17,359

  15,864

  17,194

  17,627

  18,187

  18,508

  20,510

  20,878

  Northallerton

  6,242

  6,391

  6,456

  6,445

  6,382

  6,474

  6,844

  7,191

  8,028

  7,883

  York

  21,024

  21,752

  22,125

  20,879

  22,950

  23,034

  24,246

  25,033

  25,595

  27,221

  Scarborough

  15,117

  15,652

  15,856

  15,747

  16,318

  16,004

  16,983

  16,763

  17,034

  16,985

  Harrogate

  14,440

  15,571

  15,966

  16,076

  16,380

  15,538

  15,733

  15,661

  16,162

  15,621

  Bradford

  39,102

  42,582

  43,379

  40,815

  44,856

  45,506

  45,078

  45,688

  48,551

  48,374

  Airedale

  13,149

  13,342

  13,607

  14,163

  14,241

  14,895

  15,140

  15,700

  15,403

  16,844

  Calderdale

  15,982

  15,996

  16,293

  16,162

  17,152

  17,066

  16,781

  17,205

  17,867

  17,950

  Huddersfield

  14,817

  16,079

  16,614

  15,564

  17,328

  17,800

  18,703

  19,373

  21,434

  19,407

  Dewsbury

  11,810

  12,016

  12,133

  11,555

  12,856

  13,066

  13,853

  14,185

  13,764

  12,907

  Leeds Western

  1

  1

  1

  43,873

  43,992

  45,924

  47,182

  47,031

  47,440

  48,980

  Leeds Eastern

  1

  1

  1

  39,123

  45,131

  45,246

  46,515

  48,187

  48,452

  50,158

  Wakefield

  17,867

  17,930

  19,564

  17,465

  19,635

  19,970

  19,811

  20,135

  20,832

  20,621

  Pontefract

  14,554

  16,417

  15,702

  14,069

  15,935

  16,534

  16,856

  16,382

  16,512

  16,172

  Barnsley

  16,637

  17,972

  19,202

  16,852

  19,437

  19,463

  20,913

  20,766

  21,648

  22,383

  Doncaster

  1

  1

  1

  25,621

  29,332

  29,553

  29,973

  30,824

  32,554

  32,530

  Rotherham

  1

  1

  1

  17,268

  20,108

  20,581

  21,596

  21,946

  22,966

  24,177

  Sheffield

  1

  1

  1

  68,779

  75,181

  75,610

  77,820

  77,939

  87,878

  90,952

  Source: SH3 return, 1979–1986.

  SH3a return, 1987–88 onwards.

  1 Comparable figures not available due to National Health Service restructuring in 1982.

  2 GP maternity and younger physically disabled.

  Salmonella
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding the ending of the practice of publishing weekly the salmonella food poisoning figures, by the communicable disease surveillance centre in the PHLS communicable disease reports.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The change to monthly reporting of gastro-intestinal illness in the communicable disease report is part of a programme of general operational changes designed to produce more detailed and comprehensive reports.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the figures for salmonella infections published in the PHLS-SVS update on salmonella infections are calculated; and whether the basis for calculation is different from that used for the communicable disease reports.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To obtain the most complete picture possible, the public health laboratory service monitors the frequency of food poisoning in this country via a number of different surveillance systems. The figures published in the PHLS-SVS update on salmonella infection and those in the communicable disease report are both elements of PHLS surveillance. The two sets of 304
  figures are obtained in different ways. It is clearly noted in the "Update" that they cannot be directly compared. Moreover, trends cannot be deduced from any single set of figures but only by comparison of data over a prolonged period of time.

  The "Update" figures relate to human isolates of salmonella sent to the PHLS Division of enteric pathogens for detailed identification and phage typing. The data in the CDR are derived from reports sent to the PH LS communicable disease surveillance centre.

  Low Vision Clinics
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by region, those hospitals which have special low vision clinics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Funding (South West Thames)
  Mr. Nelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he has received representations or discussed with the chairman of the South West Thames regional health
  305
  authority the redistribution of funds within the region to assist underfunded district health authorities such as Chichester;

  (2) whether he will list the financial allocations for current expenditure from the South West Thames regional health authority to each district health authority in the region for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have not received any representations or held discussions with the chairman of South West Thames regional health authority about these matters, although the chairman has kept the Department informed about Chichester health authority's financial position. The distribution of funds within the region is a matter for the regional health authority and information on the revenue allocations to individual districts is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may like to write to South West Thames regional health authority for this information.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to transfering responsibillity for emergency ambulance services to the fire service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has recently considered this suggestion but concluded that the emergency service is and must remain an integral part of the National Health Service.

  Maternity Care
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list in the Official Report the unit cost per birth for in-patient maternity care in (a) Bexley health district and (b) the South East Thames health region for the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report the unit cost per birth for maternity services in (a) Bexley and (b) Dartford and Gravesham health districts for the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report the revenue expenditure on maternity services in (a) Bexley and (b) Dartford and Gravesham health districts for the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Revenue expenditure on maternity services (excluding general services overheads) for the financial year 1988–89 totalled £3·16 million for Bexley health authority and £3·74 million for Dartford and Gravesham health authority.

  I understand that, because of the pattern of hospital provision in this part of Kent, and resultant attendance patterns, the expenditure of these districts do not relate solely to their resident populations.

  Computer Costs
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether general practices which submit applications for the reimbursement of computer costs which meet Government criteria will automatically be paid in the current financial year if they submit their application in the next few months;
  306
  (2) how much money is in his 1990–91 budget for the reimbursement of computer costs for general practice; and what happens to applications for reimbursement if the budget is exhausted.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There has been made available £24 million in 1990–91 for direct reimbursement of general practice computing costs in England, the balance of expenditure being reimbursed indirectly through fees and allowances. Claims which meet the criteria will be paid in this financial year. Should funds become fully committed valid claims which are not paid in 1990–91 may be resubmitted in the next financial year. The resources available in Wales and Scotland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Health how many general practice budgets qualify for the fund for the reimbursement of computer costs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All GP practices are entitled to claim up to 50 per cent. reimbursement of the costs of purchasing, upgrading or leasing computers. In addition, those practices which formally commit themselves to participation in the practice funding scheme will be eligible for a further 25 per cent. reimbursement of these costs.

  Child Abase
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of children in England and Wales on the at risk register for each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The regular collection of information about children on all child protection registers in England and Wales commenced in 1989. The provisional number on the registers at 31 March 1989 was 42,800. Final figures for 1989 will be published in the summer. An initial survey of all registers was carried out in March 1988. The estimated number on the registers was 41,100 but there is some evidence of under-reporting in this total.

  Cancer Patients, Yorkshire
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department has on the number of people in the Yorkshire region who are registered on the Yorkshire regional cancer register for each of the health districts in the Yorkshire region.

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

  Sugar
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to publicise the findings of the Health Education Authority and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food report on sugar consumption; and what steps he is taking to promote the reduction of dental caries by restraining the promotion of sweet substances through television advertisements aimed at children.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food report "Dietary Sugars and Human Disease" published on 12 December 1989 was accompanied by a
  307
  press briefing and press release. Written answers to questions were given in both Houses and copies of the report were placed in the Library. Action on the report's recommendations is being taken forward by this and other Departments. The Health Education Authority has produced a detailed briefing paper for health professionals based on the report. The Health Education Authority is taking account of the recommendations in all its nutrition and dental education activities.

  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food report did not make any recommendations regarding the advertising of sweet substances. Responsibility for television advertising lies with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Children (Employment)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to implement the Employment of Children Act 1973; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have no plans to implement the Employment of Children Act 1973. All local authorities (except Isles of Scilly) have byelaws which regulate the hours and conditions of children's employment. The majority of byelaws follow departmental guidance of 1976 which is based on the proposed content of regulations under the 1973 Act.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a reply to his letter dated 26 March referring to Mr. H. S. Richards of Harborough Magna near Rugby.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ferrers replied to this letter on 4 May.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a reply to his letter dated 28 March referring to PC 241 C. R. Hall of Rugby police station.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ferrers replied to this letter on 10 May.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 401, when he intends to write to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton about Mrs. R. Sarwar, 209 Northmear road.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have written to the right hon. Member today.

  Mounted Police Officers
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mounted officers were involved in the charge during the recent community charge riots in London; and how many of these were female officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 49 mounted officers were deployed during the disturbances in central London on 31 March; nine of these officers were women.

  Police (Capital Allocations)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will clarify the definition of equipment needed by police authorities and provided by their capital allocations;

  (2) when he will publish a definition of the difference between revenue and capital in police authority spending on items costing less than £6,000.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Expenditure for capital purposes is defined by section 40(2) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Neither the Act nor the regulations made under it contain any 'de minimis' provision under which items below a certain value can be excluded from the definition of expenditure for capital purposes.

  Consideration is being given to the need for further guidance to police authorities on police capital expenditure.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide police authorities with longer prior notice of their capital allocations than the period given to Gwent police authority in February in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Every effort will be made to provide this information as early as possible.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when funds for site acquisition for Monmouth police station will be received by the Gwent police authority;

  (2) when the capital approval for fees for the Abertillery police station will be made.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No application has been received from the Gwent police authority for approval to the acquisition of a site for Monmouth police station or for approval of the planning fees in respect of Abertillery police station.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the Home Office minor works cost limits for police authorities' budgets.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to review these limits.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to assist police authorities in their planned purchase of capital items in the current year, based on 1989 capital spending.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The provision made in the Government's expenditure plans for grant and credit approvals for police capital expenditure in the current financial year has been allocated to police authorities in proportion to their planned spending with full allowance made for expenditure which has been contractually committed.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to whom the inquiry by the Devon and Cornwall police into aspects of the Birmingham pub bombings inquiry will report in the first instance.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Devon and Cornwall constabulary will report the outcome of its inquiries into this case to
  309
  the chief constable of the West Midlands police, on whose behalf the inquiries are being undertaken. The chief constable of the West Midlands police will, in turn, report to me.

  Football Licensing Authority
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Football Licensing Authority to be functioning; and what is the reason for the delay in setting it up.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend made a commencement order under the Football Spectators Act 1989 on 21 March providing for the Football Licensing Authority to be set up from 1 June 1990. Appointments to the authority in the light of its role following the final report by Lord Justice Taylor will be made as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he expects the proposed Football Licensing Authority to have with regard to the prevention of hooliganism.

  Mr. John Patten
  When considering the issue, renewal, suspension or revocation of a licence to admit spectators to a football ground the Football Licensing Authority will have regard to whether the equipment provided, procedures used and other arrangements in force on the premises are such as are reasonably required to prevent the commission or minimise the effects of offences at designated football matches held there.

  Sugar
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to restrict the promotion of sugary substances through advertising on television aimed at children.

  Mr. Mellor
  Responsibility for what is advertised on independent television is a matter for the Independent Broadcasting Authority, principally through its code of advertising standards and practice. It was drawn up in consultation with the IBA's medical advisory panel, and contains guidance on the advertising of confectionery and snack foods.

  Forensic Pathology
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now received the working party report on forensic pathology to which he referred on 16 February 1989,Official Report, column 310.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have received the report and expect to announce my response to it shortly.

  Obscene and Threatening Phone Calls
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will give immediate consideration to the value to crime prevention and nuisance prevention of the system operated in New Jersey which enables a customer to order the number of the last call to be recorded;

  (2) whether he has been able to consider American evidence on the reduction of crime as a result of the
  310
  operation of calling line identity systems particularly in relation to obscene and threatening phone calls; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will sponsor immediate research into the likely benefits to criminal investigation and crime prevention of calling line identity systems, particularly in respect to obscene and threatening phone calls in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are watching closely the latest technological advances aimed at curbing obscene or threatening telephone calls, and are aware of the recently published American research into caller-ID or call trace systems. The research has emphasised the importance of carefully monitoring the effects of the new technology on reducing obscene and threatening phone calls. The Home Office is planning appropriate action along precisely these lines, as part of the Hull safer cities project, where funding of over 19,000 has been approved for an assessment of the effects of a modest call-tracing system to be operated in Hull by Kingston Communications, the local telephone company. The work will start next year.

  Demonstrations
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the criteria that determine which organisations' marches and demonstrations are normally photographed by the police;

  (2) what is the policy of police forces on photographs being taken of those involved in peaceful marches and demonstrations; and if he will ensure that such practices cease unless there is overwhelming need on grounds of public security for such photographs being taken.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Guidelines issued by the Home Office on the use of equipment in police surveillance operations which are available in the Library make it clear that photographs and video surveillance equipment should he used by the police only when it is necessary for the efficient conduct of police operations and with due regard for the invasion of privacy which may result in particular circumstances.

  Subject to the advice given in the guidelines, the use of surveillance devices is an operational matter for the police.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 10 May, on how many occasions in each of the last five years his Department has requested a report from a police force about a public procession or assembly held in the force area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department has contracts at various levels within police forces which may be asked to provide information about public processions and assemblies where there is a risk of public disorder or where disorder has occurred. Reports may be obtained by phone or by correspondence depending on the circumstances. No central record is kept of the number of occasions when information about processions and assemblies has been requested from the police.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the numbers of people immigrating into and emigrating out of Hong Kong in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Maude
  According to Hong Kong Government statistics, the figures for immigration into Hong Kong in each of the last 10 years were as follows:

  For Settlement

  For other purposes1

  1980

  55,313

  42,440

  1981

  54,267

  31,035

  1982

  53,847

  36,121

  1983

  26,701

  23,361

  1984

  27,755

  23,454

  1985

  27,285

  28,475

  1986

  27,111

  30,559

  1987

  27,268

  34,394

  1988

  28,137

  44,009

  1989

  27,263

  54,055

  1 Employment, study, training, etc.

  The estimated figures for emigration from Hong Kong were as follows:

  Numbers

  1980

  22,400

  1981

  18,300

  1982

  20,300

  1983

  19,800

  1984

  22,400

  1985

  22,300

  1986

  19,000

  1987

  30,000

  1988

  45,800

  1989

  42,000

  Most of those who immigrated for settlement were family reunification cases from the mainland. Those who immigrated for employment were mainly unskilled and semi-skilled labour.

  By contrast, 50 per cent. of those who emigrated in the last five years were managerial, professional, administrative and technical staff and their families. There is, therefore, a net outflow of key staff.

  EC Voting
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which matters within the European Community Council of Ministers are decided by qualified majority vote and which by unanimity.

  Mr. Maude
  Certain articles of the treaty of Rome require unanimity—for example, article 99 on tax—others qualified majority—for example, article 100A on the single market or article 43 on agriculture. The Commission proposal should be based on whichever article is appropriate for the subject matter in question. The treaty base proposed by the Commission can be altered by the unanimous decision of member states.

  Soviet Union
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral answer of the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr.312
  Waldegrave) of 4 April, Official Report, column 1187, which section of the Helsinki Accord recognises, de facto, the existing borders in the Soviet Union; and which section of the Accord states that any boundary changes should be conducted by negotiation.

  Mr. Maude
  The first of the principles guiding relations between participating states, the first substantive section of the Helsinki Final Act, states that the frontiers of participating states"can be changed, in accordance with international law, by peaceful means and by agreement".

  Principle III covers the inviolability of frontiers.

  Mark Kotlyar
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russians about their repeated refusal to grant an exit visa to Mark Kotlyar of Kiev who first applied for an exit visa in 1978.

  Mr. Maude
  None. However, we shall in future include this case among those on which we press the Soviet authorities. We shall not let up until the case is resolved satisfactorily.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received from(a) hon. Members and (b) others with regard to conservation policies for Antarctica; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Her Majesty's Government have received 485 letters from right hon. and hon. Members on behalf of constituents and a further 280 direct from members of the public. The Government share the widespread concern to ensure protection of the Antarctic environment and believe that the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities will make an important contribution to this objective.

  Global and Technical Management Services
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there was any contact between Her Majesty's embassy, Baghdad and Global and Technical Management Services (International) Ltd., registered in Edinburgh, regarding possible contracts.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the light of the continuing investigations by Customs and Excise into certain exports to Iraq, it would be wrong for me to comment further.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Television Experiment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the progress of the television experiment.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The televising experiment has now been under way for some five months and has so far proceeded with very few technical problems. The Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House,
  313
  which I chair, is currently reviewing the experiment and has sought the views of the broadcasters, the political parties represented in the House, Chairmen of Select and Standing Committees, and individual Members. The Committee will consider carefully all the evidence before coming to its conclusions. It is expected that the Committee's Report will be published in time to enable the House to reach a decision on the question of permanent televising before the start of the summer Adjournment.

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, how many hon. Members currently take advantage of the payroll giving scheme by deduction from their parliamentary salaries.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  There are currently 51 Members who have authorised deductions from their parliamentary salaries under the payroll giving scheme.

  Stationery
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what urgent measures are being introduced to increase the recycled component of stationery in the House.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  A number of steps have already been taken to increase the use of recycled paper in stationery used by the House. Further measures are at present being considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

ENERGY

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding price increases for electricity in England and Wales in 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have received a number of representations about prices.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the average increase in electricity prices since 1979; what was the increase between 1974 and 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  For domestic customers the average increase since 1979 has been 8 per cent. a year and for industrial customers it was 6 per cent. a year. Between 1974 and 1979 the increases were 20 per cent. a year for domestic customers and 17 per cent. a year for industrial customers.

  The last five years of this Government have seen industrial prices decrease by some 7 per cent. in real terms. Under the last five years of Labour they increased by 1 per cent.

  Under the last five years of Labour domestic prices increased by 22 per cent. in real terms. Under the last five years of this Government—even after the April increase they will have fallen by approximately 4 per cent. in real terms.

  Home Energy Conservation
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what policies he has to encourage further progress in home energy conservation.
  314
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Energy Efficiency Office is pursuing a number of initiatives to encourage the more efficient use of energy in the home.

  Rathbone
  40. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State forEnergy what representations he has received recently about Government plans to encourage energy conservation in existing housing in Britain.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have received a number of representations, including responses to my Department's consultation paper on the proposals for the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the stock of fixed capital investment in offshore oil and gas fields.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the stock of fixed capital investment on offshore oil and gas fields.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Some £65,000 million, at today's prices, has been invested in offshore oil and gas fields.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much gas prices for industrial customers have increased during the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that in the last five years gas prices to industrial consumers are estimated to have fallen by 41 per cent. in real terms.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what contribution increases in energy efficency are expected to make to reducing the greenhouse effect and reducing the rate of depletion of fossil fuels.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Improvements in energy efficiency make a substantial contribution to the containment of the world's emissions of greenhouse gases and to limiting the rate of depletion of fossil fuels.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps have been taken to maximise energy efficiency measures within his Department.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department's new headquarters, to which it moved in September 1989, has an up-to-date electronic building energy management system designed to optimise the operation of all the electrical and mechanical services. Staff in my Department, PSA building maintenance and their contractors have been trained to enable them to get the best out of the system and optimise energy efficiency within the building. In other buildings in which the Department is an occupant, energy managers have been appointed to identify cost-effective measures for improving energy efficiency.

  Colliery Employment
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of United Kingdom colliery employment in the year 2003; and if he will make a statement.
  315
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of United Kingdom colliery employment in the year 1998; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government do not make estimates of future manpower levels in the coal industry.

  Energy Sources
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Council of Ministers about alternative sources of energy.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend expects to attend the Council of Energy Ministers on 21 May. That Council will consider the Commission's communication on energy and the environment and the proposed Thermie scheme for promoting energy technology which is substantially concerned with alternative energy sources.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will obtain for his Department's library copies of the books, "The Greenhouse Trap" by John L. Daly and "Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem", produced by the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington DC.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Primary United Kingdom responsibility for assessing the scientific basis of the greenhouse effect rests with the Department of the Environment, the Meteorological Office, and the Department of Education and Science. The main world forum for considering the implications of the enhanced greenhouse effect is the UN-based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose science working group report is the most up-to-date assessment of the problem and is due to be finalised at the end of this month. The Department of the Environment and the Meteorological Office are aware of the Marshall Institute report, and have ensured that it was taken into account by the IPCC science working group. My right hon. Friend does not intend to obtain the books mentioned for his own Department's library.

  British Gas
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the principal regular subjects of discussion at meetings between himself and the chairman of British Gas on which he answers to Parliament.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Gas regularly to discuss a range of issues in relation to the gas industry.

  Pollutant Gases
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to limit emissions of pollutant gases.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Emissions of acid gases by the electricity generators are governed by the requirement to comply with the European Community large combustion plant directive.

  Renewable Energy Sources
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the projections contained within Energy Paper 55.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  As I told the Hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 19 February,Official Report, column 527, the projections for the long-term contributions to energy supply from different renewables contained in Energy Paper 55 are kept under review. As results from the Department's R and D programme become available and circumstances change estimates are revised.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of power generation he expects to come from renewable sources in 1995 and 1998.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Renewable energy technologies are at an early stage of development. No estimates are available for the 1990s. Estimates of the longer-term contribution that could be made by each renewable energy source in the year 2025 have been published in Energy Paper 55, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what resources are being provided by his Department for 1990–91 for research into developing alternative and renewable sources of energy.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) earlier today.

  Margam New Mine
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to see progress on developing the Margam new mine.

  Mr. Baldry
  The timing and priority of major coal industry projects such as the Margam new mine is a matter for British Coal in the light of the overall capital allocation available to it and the commercial objectives agreed with the Government.

  Sizewell B
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the cost of completing Sizewell B nuclear power station and the cost of electricity from it per kilowatt hour.

  Mr. Baldry
  The most recent estimate for the capital cost of Sizewell B, derived from evidence given to the Hinkley Point C inquiry in September 1989 by the CEGB, is £1,870 million at 1987 prices. The cost of electricity from the station is a matter for Nuclear Electric plc, which operates the station.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much public money to date has been spent on the Sizewell B project.

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of £841 million has been spent on the construction of Sizewell B to date and £1,496 million has been committed. Both figures are at April 1987 prices.

  Cornwall Hot Rocks Project
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made with the Cornwall hot rocks project.
  317
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The research on geothermal hot dry rocks being carried out by the Camborne school of mines in Cornwall is progressing to schedule. The current programme is conducting experimental work on the existing reservoir at 2·5km depth and undertaking a conceptual design study for a 6km deep system which will be required to give the necessary temperatures for electricity generation.

  A review of progress of the programme and future possibilities is currently in train.

  National Power
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the name of the new chairman of National Power; and what remuneration he will have.

  Mr. Baldry
  I hope to make an announcement shortly. Remuneration will need to be appropriate for the post.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the appointment of a chairman of National Power; and what are his criteria for making the appointment.

  Mr. Baldry
  I hope to make an announcement shortly. Appropriate experience, leadership qualities and management skills are the main criteria for appointment.

  Homes Insulation
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many houses have been insulated since 1982 as a result of Government grants.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Some 3·5 million homes have benefited from grants to loft, tank and pipe insulation under the homes insulation scheme since 1982. Over the same period, community insulation projects, which provide a low-cost insulation—mainly draughtproofing —service for low-income households, have insulated over three quarters of a million homes.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the conclusion of his review into the accounts of Nuclear Electric plc.

  Mr. Baldry
  This review is the responsibility of the company and its auditors, although the Department is, of course, involved in the discussions. The company's accounting policies will be explained in the annual report and accounts, which will be published in the summer.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what figures he has for sales of lead-free petrol(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European countries.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The latest figures available for the United Kingdom are for March 1990 and these show that about 31 per cent. of petrol sold was unleaded. The Department does not collect information on sales of unleaded petrol in other European countries. However, the July 1990 issue of Petroleum Review is expected to publish figures on the market share of unleaded petrol in member states of the European Communities in 1989.

  Sulphur Emissions
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received on his proposals to meet the EEC regulations for the reduction of sulphur emissions from large combustion plants.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have received a number of representations on the manner in which the electricity industry should meet its share of the reductions required by the directive.

  Oil Yard Platform Construction, Kishorn
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will assess the potential for the oil yard platform construction site at Kishorn, Wester Ross; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It is not possible for me to assess the potential for individual yards as contracts will be won by those who meet the technical and commercial criteria of the operators. However, the prospects for the United Kingdom supplies industry, including the fabrication yards, look very good for the foreseeable future with new investment for 1990 alone estimated at £3·7 billion.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date assessment of the gross Exchequer cost of privatising the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) on 26 March 1990 at column 85.

  British Coal
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss the coal industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the members of the board of British Coal, giving in each case the date of their appointment and its duration.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The original dates of appointment of each of the members of the British Coal Corporation and the duration of their appointments are as follows:

  Sir Robert Haslam Chairman, 1 November 1985 to 31 December 1990 (five years).

  Mr. J. H. Northard CBE Deputy Chairman, 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1991 (five years).

  Mr. D. Kendall Deputy Chairman, 1 April 1989 to 31 December 1990 (one year, nine months).

  Mr. M. J. Edwards (full-time), 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1991 (five years).

  Mr. M. H. Butler (full-time), 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1991 (five years).

  Mr. K. Moses (full-time), 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1991 (five years).

  Mr. C. Barker (part-time), 13 February 1984 to 12 February 1991 (seven years).

  Sir Ronald Dearing (part-time), 1 June 1988 to 31 May 1991 (three years).
  319
  Dr. T. J. Parker (part-time), 1 September 1986 to 31 August 1992 (six years).

  Dr. D. Atterton (part-time), 1 September 1986 to 31 August 1992 (six years).

  Mr. D. Walker (part-time), 1 July 1988 to 30 June 1991 (three years).

  Mr. J. P. Erbe (part-time), 1 June 1989 to 31 May 1992 (three years).

  United Kingdom Continental Shelf
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the forecast level of drilling activity on the United Kingdom continental shelf during the coming year.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) on 26 March 1990, at columns 89–90.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of how much gas has been produced on the United Kingdom continental shelf since the first significant discoveries.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The cumulative total production of gas from the United Kingdom continental shelf up to the end of 1989 was 735,724 million cu m, of which 170 million cu m have been produced onshore.

  Electrical Appliances
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has carried out of the progress being made towards more efficient home electrical appliances.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Energy Efficiency Office recently received the report of the study of the electrical appliances which it commissioned last year. The report is now being considered.

  Landfill Gas
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how large a United Kingdom market he now envisages for the use of landfill gas.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  At the present time, 35 landfill gas schemes are operational and a further 30 are at the planning stage. Of the existing schemes, 13 are generating electricity with a capacity of 16 MW. The additional schemes planned will increase such capacity to about 60 MW.

  Leukaemia, Sellafield
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has carried out on the Gardner report on the cause and effect of leukaemia at and around Sellafield and its implications for the electricity generation industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have discussed the results of the case control study by Professor Gardner with a number of representatives from the nuclear industry including British Nuclear Fuels plc and associated trade unions.

  In view of the importance of this complex matter the Government referred Professor Gardner's study to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). Its preliminary advice was
  320
  given on 2 April and I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health on that day to the question from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), at columns 430–34.

  Further studies following on from the Black report and from recommendations made by COMARE and accepted by Government are, I understand, currently under way or are being planned. The Health and Safety Executive and the nuclear industries, British Nuclear Fuels in particular, have also commissioned a series of other complementary studies.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he intends to introduce measures to amend the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 to extend the 30-year statute of limitation on claims for compensation for injury and for death caused by breach of duty by any site licensee under that Act, in the light of the Gardner report's indication that there may be a causal relationship between radiation doses received by workers at Sellafield and the excess of leukaemias among their children.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have no plans to do so.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in reducing the level of those emissions from power stations which are regarded as being damaging to the environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Latest available published information shows that for the period 1980 to 1988 SO2, emissions from coal-fired power stations in the United Kingdom fell from 3,007,000 tonnes to 2,618,000 tonnes. Similarly, NO2 emissions fell from 880,000 tonnes to 792,000 tonnes. In compliance with the European Community large combustion plants directive, further reductions in SO2, and NO2,levels can be expected.

  [Source: Digest of Environmental Statistics.]

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has yet appointed the advertising agency for the electricity supply industry flotation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In conjunction with the regional electricity companies, I jointly appointed WCRS Mathews Marcantonio on 10 May 1990 to handle the advertising campaign to publicise the forthcoming flotations of the regional electricity companies, planned for November 1990.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those electricity supply industry companies which have current Treasury guarantees, giving the amount guaranteed and the dates the guarantee was given in each case.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Guarantees, given under section 79(1) of the Electricity Act 1989, are as follows:

  Company

  Amount £ million

  Date

  PowerGen

  25

  30 March 1990

  50

  4 April 1990

  321

  Company

  Amount £ million

  Date

  Southern Electric plc

  5

  30 March 1990

  10

  30 March 1990

  South Western Electricity plc

  5

  18 April 1990

  5

  18 April 1990

  Eastern Electricity plc

  5

  18 April 1990

  South Wales Electricity plc

  10

  18 April 1990

  15

  18 April 1990

  3

  18 April 1990

  Manweb plc

  40

  30 March 1990

  10

  30 March 1990

  Norweb plc

  25

  25 April 1990

  25

  25 April 1990

  Nuclear Electric plc

  10

  4 April 1990

  Similar arrangements applied prior to vesting day and continue to apply to nationalised industries. The provision of a Government guarantee enables the borrower to negotiate finer terms and reduces the cost to the public sector as a whole. A list of public sector bodies whose borrowings are guaranteed by the Treasury is published each year in the supplementary statement to the Consolidated Fund and National Loan Fund accounts.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the appointment of the advertising agency for the electricity supply industry flotation is the subject of competitive tender.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Yes.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limit or running cost limit for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class V, vote 3 and the running costs limit for the Department of Energy will be reduced by £200,000 from £39,517,000 to £39,317,000 and from £42,170,000 to £41,970,000 respectively. The reduction follows recent agreement that the Department of Energy should no longer take financial provision for that part of the United Kingdom mission in Vienna which deals with the affairs of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Responsibility for these costs will in future rest with the FCO.

SCOTLAND

  Supply Index
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his Department's decision not to participate in the Government supply index.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has monitored the development of this commercially produced information system, which is based on the exchange of information on prices paid by Government Departments and others for a range of specified products. Having regard to the range of items covered and the particular nature of 322
  Scottish Office purchasing, it concluded that subscription to the index was not a priority. The Scottish Office is however currently exploring the introduction of improved management information and operating systems for purchasing. As part of this, consideration will be given to the use of price indices, of which the Government supply index is one option.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications of the establishment of LECs for the opportunities for hon. and right hon. Members to refer matters relating to training provision to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Mr. Lang
  As private companies under the Companies Acts, local enterprise companies are outwith the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Complaints about matters relating to training provision made by local enterprise companies should therefore be referred to the companies themselves, which will be obliged by the terms of their contracts to operate a complaints procedure, under which an individual with a complaint can be assured that his or her case will be duly considered by the chief executive of the local enterprise company, and if necessary by the chairman.

  Social Work Departments
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reports he has received about the adverse performance of any regional social work departments; and whether they are publicly available.

  Mr. Lang
  The only reports received on the performance of regional social work departments are those of investigations carried out by staff and requested by authorities themselves. They are confidential to the local authority concerned.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources he has to monitor performance levels and standards of care in regional social work departments.

  Mr. Lang
  I have the services of 21 professional staff in the Scottish Office's social work services group for such advice on aspects of regional social work departments' performance as is required.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers he has to intervene in the operations of a regional social work department.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has powers in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to make regulations governing the performance of local authorities' functions under that Act and for certain other purposes. In terms of section 5 of that Act local authorities are required to operate under his general guidance, and, finally, he has default powers under section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 where a local authority fails to carry out its statutory functions.

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of Tuesday 8 May, what considerations lead him to regard information about the number of placements with particular placement providers as commercially confidential.

  Mr. Lang
  Details of YTS and employment training placements are the subject of commercial contracts between the firms or organisations offering placements and managing agents or training managers. My right hon. and learned Friend is not a party to such contracts and he is therefore not at liberty to divulge the contents of these contracts without the consent of the contracting parties.

  Social Work Services Group
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Social Work Services Group's inspection role; how it fulfils that role; and what publicly available reports it has produced.

  Mr. Lang
  Regular inspections of social work services are confined to those services directly registered with the Secretary of State (adoption agencies and secure accommodation for children). Reports on these services are confidential to the Secretary of State.

  Explosives (Clyde)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his statement on the dumping of explosives in the Clyde,Official Report, 8 May, columns 28–32, when and how the cleaning up of the dumped explosives will take place; whom he expects to pay for the clear-up; what consideration he has given to arrangements for compensation to fishermen for loss of income due to abandoned catches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  A DAFS research vessel has begun a survey of the Birch Point site, and its surrounding area. Any further action required will be determined in the light of the results of that survey.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the discovery of quantities of explosive devices and materials in areas of the Firth of Clyde not designated for dumping.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made on 8 May in response to a private notice question from the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).

  A DAFS research vessel will begin a survey of the Birch Point dump site, and the surrounding area, on 14 May. Any further action required will be determined in the light of the results of that survey.

  Dumping of explosive material at Birch Point, under licence issued by my right hon. and learned Friend, ceased in 1989. No further licences will be issued.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate will institute inquiries into the disposal of explosive devices and materials in areas of the Firth of Clyde not designated for dumping.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: Evidence of dumping of explosive or other material in contravention of
  324
  the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 should be referred to the appropriate procurator fiscal, but I am not aware of any such evidence.

  A DAFS research vessel will begin a survey of the Birch Point dump site and its surrounding area on 14 May. Any further action required will be determined once that survey and other investigations are completed.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the location and containment of explosive material dumped by ICI in the Firth of Clyde; if he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the dumping; if he will ensure that action is taken to remove the danger and that those responsible bear the cost of the clearing up; if he will now reconsider the arrangements for dumping of explosive material in the Clyde estuary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made in response to his private notice question on 8 May.

  A DAFS research vessel will begin a survey of the Birch Point dump site, and the surrounding area, on 14 May. Any further action required will be determined in the light of the results of that survey.

  Dumping of explosive material at Birch Point, under licence issued by my right hon. and learned Friend, ceased in 1989. No further licences will be issued.

  Scottish Council of Crafts
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider the creation of a Scottish Council of Crafts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My officials are currently reviewing the question of future support for the crafts industry in Scotland in consultation with the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The possibility of creating a Scottish Council of Crafts is one of a number of options under consideration.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what value for money savings have been achieved by his Department in the last year; and how much of this was as a result of advice from the Central Unit on Purchasing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 May 1990]: The Scottish Office pursues value for money in all its activities. So far as the costs of the Scottish Office itself are concerned, these were calculated on the basis that 1·5 per cent. efficiency gains would be delivered in 1989–90. These gains represent initiatives at every level to improve output and reduce costs.

  The Central Unit on Purchasing provides general advice and guidance and monitors progress. It also co-ordinates the Government purchasing initiative. While, in general, it is not possible to attribute particular value for money savings to specific advice from the unit, value for money improvements in purchasing are published each year in a report from the Central Unit on Purchasing to the Prime Minister. In the 1989 report, the Scottish Office showed improvements in value for money in 1988–89 (the latest year for which figures are available) amounting to £12·96 million or 6·6 per cent. of its total expenditure on procurement of £196·3 million.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the additional funding for poll tax staff made in Lothian region; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: The Government have taken full account in successive revenue support grant settlements of the costs incurred by local authorities in administering the community charge. Thereafter, it is the responsibility of local authorities to determine how the overall resources available to them should be deployed to carry out their statutory functions.

  Fish Farms (Disease)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the incidence of infectious haematopoietic necrosis within the salmon fish farming industry.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 May 1990]:Infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) has never been identified in the United Kingdom in either our farmed or wild salmonid fish stocks, despite extensive testing over many years. Moreover, IHN is a notifiable disease in the United Kingdom and its presence or any suspected outbreak would have to be reported to the appropriate fisheries department.

DEFENCE

  Explosives (Dumping)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek a meeting with the chairman of ICI Ltd. to discuss the dumping of surplus high explosives off the Isle of Arran in the Firth of Clyde and the migration of explosives and detonators from this site.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will evaluate the current safety of surplus conventional explosives disposed of near Alderney in the Hurd deep channel.

  Mr. Neubert
  All military explosives material disposed of at sea is deposited in a manner which ensures that it sinks to the bottom and stays there. The depth of water and the fact that the dumping site is shown on published navigational charts ensure that the material constitutes no hazard to vessels.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation he has made of the accident potential posed by the migration of surplus high explosives dumped off the Isle of Arran in the Firth of Clyde into sub-surface access channels for United Kingdom and United States nuclear submarines using the Coulport and Holy Loch facilities on the Clyde.

  Mr. Neubert
  The location of this and other commercial dumping grounds is well known, as is the possibility of occasional migration of small quantities of explosives. Instructions given to submarines which transit these areas are such that the risk of an accident is extremely low.
  326
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to investigate the disposal programme for surplus high explosives from his Department's stocks.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence's policy on the disposal of high explosives is kept under constant review. The Department disposes of surplus high explosives by destruction in prescribed areas, dumping in carefully selected deep sea locations or through the use of contractors specialising in the non-explosive breakdown of these substances. There is no reason to believe that any of these methods poses a risk to the general public.

  Defence Research
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to set up a defence research organisation along the lines of the United States Defence Research Projects Agency.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Devonshire Dock, Barrow
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what screening arrangements exist for the security clearance of persons employed at the Devonshire dock, Barrow in Furness;

  (2) how many persons subject to security clearance are employed at the Devonshire dock, Barrow in Furness.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the policy of this or previous Administrations to release information on security clearance procedures.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if work relating to the Trident project is carried out at the Devonshire dock, in Barrow in Furness.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about security at the Devonshire dock, Barrow in Furness.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Security at Devonshire dock is the responsibility of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited and is maintained at a level appropriate to the nature of the work undertaken and the perceived threat.

  Dumping (Firth of Clyde)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will identify by category of materials the areas of the Firth of Clyde which are, or have been, used by his Department for dumping; and if he will identify the most recent dates in each instance on which dumping has occurred.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are no sites in the Firth of Clyde used by the Ministry of Defence for dumping.

  Military Bands
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish a table listing all military bands in Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 May 1990]: The information requested is as follows:
  327
  Royal Marine Bands

  The Royal Marines School of Music Band

  The Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command Band

  Her Majesty's Royal Marine Commandos Band

  The Flag Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland Band

  The Commander-in-Chief Fleet Band

  The Britannia Royal Naval College Band

  The Flag Officer Plymouth Band

  Army Bands

  Major Staff Bands

  Grenadier Guards

  Coldstream Guards

  Scots Guards

  Irish Guards

  Welsh Guards

  Life Guards

  Blues and Royals

  Royal Artillery

  Royal Engineers

  Royal Signals

  Gurkhas

  Minor Staff Bands

  Royal Artillery (Alanbrooke)

  Royal Corp of Transport

  Royal Army Ordnance Corp

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  Women's Royal Army Corp

  Large Infantry Bands

  Albuhera (Queens Regiment)

  Quebec (Queens Regiment)

  St. George's (Royal Regiment of Fusiliers)

  Duke of Kent's (Royal Regiment of Fusiliers)

  Corunna (Light Infantry)

  Salamanca (Light Infantry)

  Normandy (Royal Green Jackets)

  Peninsula (Royal Green Jackets)

  Pegasus (Parachute Regiment)

  Falklands (Parachute Regiment)

  Small Royal Armoured Car/Infantry Bands

  Queens Dragoon Guards

  Scots Dragoon Guards

  4/7 Dragoon Guards

  5 Inniskilling Dragoon Guards

  Queens Own Hussars

  Queens Royal Irish Hussars

  9/12 Lancers

  Royal Hussars

  13/18 Hussars

  14/20 Hussars

  15/19 Hussars

  16/5 Lancers

  17/21 Lancers

  1 Royal Tank Regiment

  2 Royal Tank Regiment

  3 Royal Tank Regiment

  Royal Scots

  Royal Highland Fusiliers

  King's Own Scottish Borderers

  Black Watch

  Queens Own Highlanders

  Gordon Highlanders

  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  1 Royal Anglian

  2 Royal Anglian

  3 Royal Anglian

  Kings Own Royal Border Regiment

  Kings Regiment

  Prince of Wales Own

  Green Howards

  1 Royal Irish

  2 Royal Irish

  Queens Lancashire Regiment

  Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  Devon and Dorset Regiment

  Cheshire Regiment

  Royal Welch Fusiliers

  Royal Regiment of Wales

  Gloucestershire Regiment

  Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  328

  Royal Hampshire Regiment

  Staffordshire Regiment

  Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment

  Royal Air Force Bands

  The Central Band of the Royal Air Force

  The Band of the RAF College

  The Band of RAF Germany

  The Band of the RAF Regiment

  The Western Band of the Royal Air Force

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the report of the internal inquiry which he set in hand into how papers were overlooked in the case of Mr. Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The report, by a senior official in the Department, analyses how inaccurate statements came to be made, and action on its recommendations is in hand. A copy of the conclusions and recommendations has today been placed in the Library of the House and one has also been sent to the Select Committee on Defence.

TRANSPORT

  EC Railways
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether subsidies to state railway companies in EEC countries contravene EEC competition policy.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are special rules under EC directives and regulations governing the payment of subsidies to railways. It is for the Governments of the countries concerned to comply with the relevant Community legislation and respect the competition rules of the EEC treaty and it is for the Commission to ensure that member states respect these obligations. I am satisfied that the grant paid to British Rail in respect of services carried out under the public service obligation fully complies with the relevant EC directive.

  Mirror Windows
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he has any information on incidents caused by pedestrians, cyclists or motorists being temporarily dazzled as a result of a bright reflection from mirror windows fitted to road vehicles;

  (2) whether he intends to introduce any regulations to govern the fitment or specification of any mirror windows fitted to motor vehicles, particularly to reduce danger from reflections causing other road users to be dazzled.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has no evidence of incidents of this kind. Regulations already specify the type of glass to be used in vehicle windows and the minimum visual transmission for light allowed through it. Mirror windows have to comply with this. I have no plans for the introduction of specific regulations relating to mirror windows, which would in any case require agreement within the European Community.

  Northampton Bypass
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to bring the Northampton north-west bypass within the categories of road for which his Department has responsibility.
  329
  Mr. Atkins
  No. Proposals for a north-west bypass of Northampton are the responsibility of Northamptonshire county council as highway authority.

  Freight
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figures he has for the tonnage of freight carried by road and ferry to continental Europe from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Liverpool and Newcastle.

  1989 (provisional)

  Net weight (tonnes)

  Port

  Powered road goods vehicles

  Unaccompanied trailers

  Total

  Forth (including Kirkcaldy, Leith and Grangemouth)

  1,362

  94

  1,456

  Clyde (including Glasgow, Ardrossan and Greenock)

  1,136

  19

  1,155

  Aberdeen

  516

  7

  523

  Liverpool (including Garston)

  1,549

  3,289

  4,838

  Tyne

  4,601

  31,668

  36,269

EMPLOYMENT

  Coal Mining (Accidents)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his most up-to-date assessment of the progress being made in reducing the number of accidents in the United Kingdom coal mining industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The British coal mining industry is the safest in the world. The total accident rate continues to decline each year. The latest published British Coal "all accident rate" of 32·25 per 100,000 manshifts is the lowest figure ever recorded. This is the clearest indication of the continuing progress in reducing accidents achieved by British Coal in co-operation with the work force, workers' representatives and Her Majesty's mines inspectorate.

  There were two fatal and 25 major injuries at licensed mines in 1988–89. The annual figures have changed little in

  YTS: in-training by occupational classification and disabled status Great Britain at 31 March

  All trainees

  Disabled trainees

  Training occupation classification

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Administration and clerical

  60,027

  69,327

  69,498

  67,772

  1,086

  1,490

  1,553

  1,391

  Creative, educational and recreational services

  6,763

  8,120

  8,646

  8,893

  173

  213

  210

  149

  Health, community and personal services

  34,060

  41,888

  42,092

  40,553

  573

  728

  879

  672

  Selling and storage

  38,076

  42,553

  39,557

  34,642

  552

  714

  801

  559

  Scientific occupations

  1,699

  2,029

  1,931

  1,661

  17

  14

  25

  21

  Catering and food preparation and processing occupations

  13,549

  16,012

  14,635

  11,923

  606

  734

  694

  539

  Agricultural and related occupations

  15,772

  17,973

  16.402

  14.066

  628

  791

  762

  518

  Fishing occupations

  272

  391

  321

  278

  3

  2

  6

  0

  Transport operating occupations

  2,763

  4,591

  4,874

  5,171

  9

  12

  8

  15

  Construction and civil engineering occupations

  42,491

  58,271

  60,745

  58,071

  910

  1,169

  1,224

  997

  Mining, oil, quarrying

  175

  410

  314

  150

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Electrical and electronic engineering occupations

  12,604

  18,724

  19,447

  19,952

  99

  123

  108

  94

  Mechanical engineering and metal processing occupations

  25,242

  34,532

  33,815

  33,686

  245

  308

  313

  276

  Motor vehicle repair and maintenance occupations

  22,035

  28,268

  29,262

  30,177

  187

  263

  308

  304

  Non-metal processing and printing occupations

  5,356

  7,518

  8,518

  9,387

  273

  358

  452

  446

  Clothing and textiles manufacturing occupations

  7,620

  10,277

  9,609

  7,902

  279

  373

  342

  217

  330
  Mr. Atkins
  HM Customs and Excise figures for the tonnage of freight exported by sea in powered road goods vehicles or unaccompanied trailers from the ports of Forth, Clyde, Aberdeen, Liverpool and Tyne to continental Europe (excluding the Republic of Ireland) in 1989 are given in the table.

  recent years. The Health and Safety Executive's mines inspectorate has met the owners and operators and given advice on ways of improving safety in this sector.

  Youth Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details for Great Britain and for the west midlands region, for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date, of the number of YTS trainees within each of the 18 training and occupational classifications and their sub-categories(a) in total and (b) with disabilities.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures for the number of YTS trainees within each of the 18 training and occupational classifications for Great Britain and the west midlands in total and with disabilities for each year from April 1986 are as follows:
  331

  All trainees

  Disabled trainees

  Training occupation classification

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Security services occupations

  26

  90

  61

  86

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  17,139

  14,590

  16,895

  15,090

  3,691

  3,977

  4,361

  3,388

  Total in training

  305,676

  375,564

  376,622

  1359,460

  9,331

  11,269

  12,046

  19,586

  1 Subject to revision.

  YTS: in-training by occupational classification and disabled status West midlands at 31 March

  All trainees

  Disabled trainees

  Training occupation classification

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Administration and clerical

  8,450

  9,376

  9,061

  8,516

  100

  139

  141

  125

  Creative, educational and recreational services

  841

  962

  931

  998

  10

  11

  10

  8

  Health, community and personal services

  4,659

  5,212

  4,990

  4,427

  57

  58

  44

  36

  Selling and storage

  4,856

  5,141

  4,456

  3,779

  54

  47

  51

  35

  Scientific occupations

  140

  156

  141

  125

  1

  1

  2

  0

  Catering and food preparation and processing occupations

  1,644

  1,794

  1,544

  1,224

  35

  40

  36

  30

  Agricultural and related occupations

  2,058

  2,270

  1,931

  1,574

  55

  51

  50

  33

  Fishing occupations

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Transport operating occupations

  168

  291

  312

  391

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Construction and civil engineering occupations

  4,806

  5,625

  5,254

  4,851

  61

  61

  63

  50

  Mining, oil, quarrying

  1

  86

  77

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Electrical and electronic engineering occupations

  1,603

  2,046

  2,002

  2,047

  4

  9

  10

  9

  Mechanical engineering and metal processing occupations

  3,611

  4,647

  4,771

  4,976

  46

  57

  67

  64

  Motor vehicle repair and maintenance occupations

  2,727

  3,089

  3,010

  3,020

  16

  17

  26

  21

  Non-metal processing and printing occupations

  823

  989

  1,158

  1,358

  26

  32

  41

  28

  Clothing and textiles manufacturing occupations

  694

  895

  923

  781

  29

  62

  53

  37

  Security services occupations

  3

  60

  25

  53

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  2,665

  2,006

  1,641

  1,274

  652

  679

  662

  486

  Total in training

  39,751

  44,647

  42,227

  139,394

  1,146

  1,264

  1,256

  1962

  1 Subject to revision.

  Figures relating to the sub-categories of the 18 training and occupational categories can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new businesses are estimated to have been established and how many people were employed in them in the last five years; what are the comparable figures for 1974 to 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Between the end of 1983 and the end of 1988, the number of businesses registered for VAT in the United Kingdom increased by 182,000. This was the net result of 994,000 registrations and 812,000 deregistrations. Between the end of 1974 and the end of 1979, the number of VAT-registered businesses rose by 85,000, the net result of 809,000 registrations and 724,000 deregistrations.

  Direct estimates of employment in new firms are not available. However, a recent study indicates that between 1985 and 1987, new firms employing five or more people created 1·2 million additional jobs.

  Coal Mining (Employed Persons)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of persons employed in(a) British Coal deep coal mines, (b) licensed private deep
  332
  coal mines, (c) British Coal opencast mines and (d) licensed private opencast coal mines in 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average number of persons employed during these years in British Coal deep coal mines as detailed in the Health and Safety Commission's annual report 1988–89 was:

  Number

  1986–87

  125,400

  1987–88

  104,400

  1988–89

  86,900

  Information on the numbers of persons employed in licensed private deep coal mines and opencast mines is not available to the Health and Safety Executive.

  Training Voucher Scheme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to allow any participants in his training voucher scheme to operate their involvement in the scheme outside the auspices of the local TEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the prospectus "Training Credits for Young People" I invited training and enterprise councils (TECs) to submit proposals to implement pilot credit schemes on a local basis. Around 10 pilots will be selected, to run from April 1991.
  333
  It will be for the TEC to propose the arrangements for issue and encashment of the credit and to ensure that it is used in respect of approved training delivered by an approved training provider. I shall be looking for arrangements in general which offer young people wide scope for exercising choice. It will also be for the TEC to propose arrangements for young people who wish or need to train outside the TEC area.

  European Year of Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on United Kingdom participation in European year of tourism 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The British Tourist Authority has taken the lead in co-ordinating the United Kingdom's participation in the European Year of Tourism. It has launched a number of campaigns to promote the interest and active involvement of the United Kingdom tourism industry and many events have been planned across the country throughout 1990. Thirty-nine United Kingdom projects have been accepted for co-funding by the European Commission.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  to ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage growth in(a) full-time employment and (b) part-time employment in the last year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the year to December 1989 full-time employment in Great Britain grew by 2·5 per cent. and part-time employment by 4 per cent.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many non-specialist Health and Safety Executive inspectors, by grade and discipline, were employed by the Health and Safety Executive technology division in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many trained specialist Health and Safety Executive inspectors, by grade and discipline, were employed by the Health and Safety Executive technology division in each of the last five years;

  (3) how many Health and Safety Executive inspectors, by grade and discipline, were in training in the Health and Safety Executive technology division in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  HSE's technology division was set up in 1987. The table shows HSE inspectors within technology division by grade. Information on discipline is not readily available and records do not separately identify specialist inspectors in training before 1989.

  at 1 April

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Specialist inspectors

  Superintending Specialist Inspector (Band B)

  4

  9

  9

  9

  Superintending Inspectors (Band C)

  23

  20

  21

  21

  Principal Specialist Inspector

  102

  99

  101

  98

  Specialist Inspectors

  83

  75

  72

  74·5

  (of whom in training)

  (n/a)

  (n/a)

  (12)

  (16)

  334

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Factory Inspectors

  Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Deputy Superintending Inspector

  3

  2

  2

  2

  Inspector 1B

  5

  2

  1

  —

  Nuclear Inspector

  Principal Inspector of Nuclear Installations

  2

  3

  2

  2

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the current estimated capital costs of the computer system which will replace the Health and Safety Executive shield system will be; and what cost-benefit evaluation has been carried out by the Health and Safety Executive or by any other organisation of the need for this new system.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The system (called FOCUS) being planned for HSE's new field operations division will supersede a number of existing systems, including SHIELD. The current estimated capital cost directly attributable to FOCUS is £.0·5 million.

  A preliminary cost-benefit analysis of the new system was carried out at the feasibility stage. Since then the scope of the project has been widened to reflect the structure of the newly established field operations division. A further investment appraisal will therefore be produced later this year.

  Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on which dates since 1982 the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances met; and which of the organisations with membership of ACTS was represented at each meeting.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances met on the following dates:

  Year

  Dates

  1982

  22 January

  *10 May

  *30 November

  1983

  30 March

  *29 June

  29 September

  1984

  10 January

  8 May

  2 November

  1985

  *7 February

  *2 May

  22 August

  7 November

  1986

  5 February

  2 May

  7 November

  1987

  5 February

  *7 May

  5 November

  1988

  3 February

  19 May

  *2 November

  1989

  9 February

  11 May

  *3 November

  1990

  *5 February

  The CBI and TUC were represented at every meeting. Local authority representatives were not present at meetings marked with an asterisk.

  Factories
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory premises were newly registered with each of the Health and Safety Executive's area offices in 1989, 1988 and 1987, based on information contained in the Health and Safety Executive's shield database.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence the Heath and Safety
  335
  Executive possesses as to the proportion of factory premises which are not registered with the factory inspectorate and the proportion of factory employees who work in unregistered premises.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not possible to state the proportion of premises which are not registered or the proportion of factory employees who work in unregistered premises. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is aware that some firms fail to register their manufacturing premises with it as required under section 137 of the Factories Act 1961. HSE's factory inspectorate aims to spend a proportion of its resources each year on the identification and inspection of unregistered workplaces as part of its programme of preventive inspection.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a further statement about the sale of the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Howard
  The business at Chesterfield skill centre will not now transfer to Astra Training Services Ltd. as originally planned. The transfer relied upon the assignment of the lease at the skill centre to Astra, but the landlord, Chesterfield borough council, has refused to make the premises available to Astra.

  As a consequence of the council's decision, there is no option but for the business to close. Ten jobs will be lost and a valuable training facility will disappear. Where possible staff at the skill centre will be redeployed; action will be taken to find alternative training provision for the trainees.

  Union Subscriptions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to introduce legislation to change the position of union subscriptions being deducted by employers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no present plans to introduce legislation relating to the payment of union subscriptions. The Government, however, keep all aspects of trade union and industrial relations law under review. We have always made it clear that we shall bring forward proposals for further legislation if we believe it is necessary.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will give the total number of(a) private, (b) voluntary sector and (c) employment service job clubs to be closed from Great Britain and each of the standard regions and the proposed timetable involved;

  (2) what is the total number of (a) private job clubs, (b) employment service job clubs and (c) voluntary sector job clubs currently in operation in Great Britain and for each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for job clubs, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Member.

  International Labour Organisation
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to publish the response of Her Majesty's Government to the conclusions of the committee of experts of the International Labour Organisation on the application by the United Kingdom of convention No. 87.

  Mr. Eggar
  As required by the International Labour Organisation, the Government will be responding to the conclusions of the committee of experts on the application by the United Kingdom of convention No. 87 in its next routine report on this convention. This report will cover the period 1 July 1988 to 30 June 1990 and will be considered by the committee of experts at their next meeting in March 1991.

  Nicholas Labour Hire Ltd.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representation she has received in relation to Messrs. Nicholas Labour Hire Ltd. of Winckley square, Preston.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations about Messrs. Nicholas Labour Hire Ltd. of Preston.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contracts his Department has arranged with Nicholas Labour Hire Ltd. of Winckley square, Preston.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no records of my Department arranging a contract to purchase services from Nicholas Labour Hire Ltd. of Winckley square, Preston.

  Training Standards
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the training standards advisory service's second annual report for 1988–89 is to be published.

  Mr. Eggar
  A review of the activity and findings of the training standards advisory service covering the period 1 April 1988 to 30 September 1989 has recently been completed and the report will be published soon.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the annual budget allocated to each inner London area office for employment training since its inception; and what are the criteria used in determining the level of each office's budget.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Budgets for ET at regional level have been introduced in the current financial year, taking account of past performance and numbers of long-term unemployed people. Budgets for each area have been set by the operational director in each region taking account of these criteria and local needs. Information on budgets is for internal management purposes.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage element for child care provision in the annual budget allocated by the
  337
  Department of Employment Training Agency for the inner London south office since the inception of employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Area level budgets for ET have been set for the current financial year by operational directors taking account of past performance, long-term unemployment and local needs. Elements such as child care are not separately identified, although the requirement to make provision available for lone parents remains in place.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Oilseed Rape
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what acreage of oilseed rape has been sown in the current year; and how much was sown in the previous five years.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest estimate for the area sown to oilseed rape in the United Kingdom for harvesting this summer is 400,000 hectares. Figures for the previous five years are as follows:

  Thousand hectares

  1985

  296

  1986

  299

  1987

  388

  1988

  347

  1989

  323

  Contaminated Feed
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pigs which have eaten contaminated feed have as a result(a) been slaughtered or (b) died of natural causes, over the most recent period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Gummer
  Precise figures are not available but we understand that up to 1,200 pigs which have consumed the contaminated feed since 1 January have been or are expected to be slaughtered for welfare reasons. This updates the figure given in my reply of 9 May. There have been no cases which I can confirm of pigs having died as a direct result of eating the contaminated feed.

  Livestock Medicines
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the number of veterinary surgeons dispensing medicines for livestock and the extent to which prescriptions are dispensed by pharmacists not associated with the prescribing veterinary practice.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department does not have this information.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he first learnt that a domestic cat had contracted a sub-acute spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The school of veterinary science at Bristol university first consulted the Ministry's central 338
  veterinary laboratory on 1 May. A Ministry pathologist visited the university on the same day and collected samples for further investigation at the central veterinary laboratory, where the disease was confirmed on 8 May. We were informed on 9 May.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a reply to his letter dated 26 M arch referring to Mr. James Critchley and Mr. Dennis Clarke of Wolston and Harborough Magna.

  Mr. Curry
  A reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth's letter was dispatched on 11 May.

  Infected Sheep Offals
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now ban the feeding of infected sheep offals to pigs and poultry.

  Mr. Maclean
  No: there is no evidence of a risk to these species from the feeding of sheep material.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Third World Economic Development
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has sponsored any studies of the role of a social market economy in fostering economic development in the Third world.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My Department has sponsored a number of studies on the role of the market economy in fostering economic development in developing countries. We believe that it is only through sound market-oriented economic policies and encouragement of the private sector that these countries will achieve sustainable economic growth.

  Asian Development Bank
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about relations with the Asian Development Bank.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I attended the annual meeting of the board of governors in New Delhi from 2 to 4 May. I was able to discuss a range of issues with fellow governors and with Mr. Tarumizu, president of the bank. We enjoy excellent relations with the bank.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) last met the director of the Asian Development Bank; and what was discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I met Mr. Tarumizu, President of the Asian Development Bank, at the bank's annual meeting of the board of governors, held in New Delhi from 2 to 4 May. We exchanged views on a range of policy issues, including the importance of environmental and population factors in the bank's work, and the forthcoming replenishment of the Asian Development Fund.
  339
  I extended an invitation to President Tarumizu to visit London in his official capacity should the opportunity arise. I also met the executive director who represents the interests of Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom on the board of directors, and expressed appreciation for his work on our behalf.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Government Ministers last discussed Vietnam with the United States Government.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government keep in regular touch, both at ministerial and official level, with the United States Government on the problem of the Vietnamese boat people. I last discussed matters in Washington on 23 April.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has considered the proposals recently put to him by a consortium of non-governmental organisations for aid to Vietnam; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I am still considering these proposals. I hope to make a statement shortly.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contact Her Majesty's Government have had with the Government of Vietnam about the funding of an aid programme in that country.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 16 January at column 178. We have made it clear to the Vietnamese authorities that we expect them to meet their responsibilities towards their own people, including the boat people in Hong Kong, as a precondition for starting a Government-to-Government aid programme. I have since received proposals for NGO programmes in Vietnam, which are being considered.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the development assistance committee of the OECD is expected to decide how to treat aid to eastern Europe in calculating official development assistance.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The development assistance committee has proposed that assistance to eastern Europe should not be included in its calculation of official development assistance as a proportion of GNP. The United Kingdom has supported this conclusion.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to deploy aid and trade provision to eastern Europe.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No. The aid and trade provision is part of the overseas aid budget for developing countries. Economic assistance to eastern Europe is provided from a separate ODA PES sub-programme.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the debt relief gained by developing countries since the Brady plan was announced.
  340
  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government welcome progress under the strengthened debt strategy, most recently reaffirmed at the interim committee of the IMF on 7 May. The strategy, including the associated economic reforms, will have a significant impact on debt problems facing those countries which participate. But it is early days to reach any definite conclusion.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to encourage the writing off of debt owed by developing countries to the European Investment Bank.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. Like all the multilateral development banks, the European Investment Bank is a preferred creditor and we believe that it should be repaid on time.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the levels of debt relief provided under the Toronto plan for the poorer countries in Africa.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the levels of debt relief received by poorer African countries under the Toronto plan.

  Mrs. Chalker
  According to World Bank estimates, the first 12 concessional reschedulings of official debt obtained by the poorest countries under the Toronto plan reduced these countries' debt servicing obligations in 1989 by an additional $50 million relative to conventional Paris Club reschedulings. These benefits will increase over time as more eligible countries reschedule under the Toronto terms (16 have now done so), and as progressively more of the debt stock is covered in successive Toronto reschedulings.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he perceives as the actual benefits gained by developing countries from the Brady plan.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government welcome progress under the strengthened debt strategy, most recently reaffirmed at the interim committee of the IMF on 7 May. The strategy, including the associated economic reforms, will have a significant impact on debt problems facing those countries which participate.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to give bilateral aid to Nicaragua.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 2 April 1990,Official Report, column 415.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest information he has received concerning the famine in Ethiopia.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest information he has received on the famine in Ethiopia.
  341
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest information he has received on the famine in Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Military activities continue to pose a serious obstacle to the relief effort and attempts to secure agreement on the reopening of the port of Massawa have so far proved unsuccessful. Nevertheless, the southern line operation from Assab to northern Wollo and Tigray is proceeding, with the co-operation of the Ethiopian Government and the rebel side; an airlift of emergency items for vulnerable groups in the Eritrean capital of Asmara is under way; and recent reports indicate that cross-border operations from Sudan are making a significant contribution to the supply of food. This provides grounds for limited optimism that it may prove possible to avoid the worst problems of mass starvation and mass migration, but the situation remains delicately balanced.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Minister for Overseas Development discussed the situation in Ethiopia during her recent visit to the United States of America.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Ethiopia following the discussions of the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) in the United States of America.

  Mrs. Chalker
  During my visit to the United States I discussed the situation in Ethiopia with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, with senior members of the United States Administration, and with Ministers and senior officials of other major donor countries, as well as with the Ethiopian Minister for Planning and the Commissioner for Relief and Rehabilitation. Throughout I stressed the need for early peace negotiations, and for the full co-operation of all parties in ensuring that relief supplies reach people in need in all parts of Ethiopia.

  I welcomed the progress of the southern line operation for transporting food across the lines of conflict into northern Wello and Tigray. I emphasised, however, that this alone could not meet the full needs of northern Ethiopia, and that every effort should be made to negotiate arrangements for re-opening the port of Massawa for relief supplies. During my visit, I joined other donor Ministers in issuing the following statement of principles:

  Statement of principles for humanitarian relief efforts in Ethiopia

  We, the representatives of Canada, the European Community and its Member States, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America, do hereby call upon all parties to the conflict to observe strictly the following principles to ensure speedy and effective humanitarian relief to the victims of drought and conflict in Ethiopia in order to prevent large-scale starvation.

  We strongly urge all parties to the conflict:

  1. To suspend hostilities immediately to facilitate relief operations, bearing in mind that the situation of internal conflict is a major obstacle to the humanitarian relief effort;

  2. To guarantee the safe-passage and facilitate distribution of humanitarian relief supplies via land, sea and air through neutral channels such as international organisations, churches and other NGO's;

  3. To recognise the co-ordinating role of the United Nations in relation to the international humanitarian relief effort:

  342

  4. To ensure the availability of the relevant ports and airfields and the associated road links for humanitarian relief activities; and

  5. To refrain from military attack on aircraft, ships and road vehicles delivering humanitarian supplies, thus ensuring the safe passage of food deliveries through all possible channels.

  All humanitarian relief efforts by the international community will be undertaken fully respecting the principles adopted by the United Nations to govern such operations.

  We call upon all donors to respond generously to all elements of the humanitarian relief program, including measures necessary to re-establish normal functioning of port and airfield facilities and associated road links.

  Recalling that this situation of conflict is a major factor in the serious humanitarian situation in Ethiopia, we solemnly appeal most strongly to all parties to resume their efforts for peace and national reconciliation and to this end, to resolve outstanding procedural difficulties on the basis of flexibility, and to proceed to substantive negotiations with a view to achieving a lasting political settlement.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Save the Children Fund on the internal purchase programmes of the Relief Society of Tigray.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have regular and valuable discussions with the main agencies involved in famine relief in Ethiopia, including CAFOD and Save the Children Fund. These have included the issue of internal purchase of food in Tigray. The conclusion we have reached is that we should continue to concentrate our assistance upon alternative means of providing food for those in need.

  Namibia
  Mr. Mullin (Sunderland South)
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further aid the United Kingdom Government are planning to give to Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) at column 612.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he will take to help relieve the pre-independence debts incurred by Namibia.

  Mr. Maude
  The handling of pre-independence debt is among the issues currently being negotiated between the Governments of South Africa and Namibia.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will now publish a report on the visit of a British delegation to Cambodia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 27 March at column 123.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received concerning the need for medical aid in Cambodia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The needs for medical assistance in Cambodia are widespread, particularly in primary health
  343
  care and also to combat malaria and tuberculosis. We are assisting through UNICEF's programmes, and through the joint funding scheme for NGOs.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid Her Majesty's Government are giving to developing countries to assist in implementing the Montreal protocol on chlorofluorocarbons.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid Her Majesty's Government are giving to assist developing countries to implement provisions of the Montreal protocol.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are helping developing countries to assess the implications of their signing the Montreal protocol, and have committed more than £200,000 to a study of the options open to India for phasing out substances that deplete the ozone layer.

  We are ready to give further help to developing countries and are taking an active part in international meetings at which those countries' needs are discussed, one of which will be the second meeting of parties to the Montreal protocol, to be held in London next month.

  Mozambique
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of aid to Mozambique is programme rather than project aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1988–89, the last financial year for which we have firm figures, gross British bilateral aid to Mozambique amounted to £34·7 million, of which nearly 52 per cent. was accounted for by programme aid and over 22 per cent. by project aid.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting of donors at the United Nations on the emergency situation in Mozambique.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer earlier today to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie).

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom aid to Mozambique.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have for a number of years maintained a significant bilateral aid programme for Mozambique: in 1988–89 gross British bilateral aid to Mozambique amounted to over £34 million. This assistance has focused on three main areas: balance of payments finance in support of the Mozambian Government's IMF-backed economic reform programme; project aid, concentrating on rehabilitation of transport and energy infrastructure and associated technical assistance; and emergency relief and refugee assistance.

  Angola
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the drought situation in Angola.
  344
  Mrs. Chalker
  There are reports that during late March and early April late season rains have fallen in southern Angola, which is the worst affected area. We continue to monitor the situation, although this is not easy given the difficulties of internal travel in Angola. The European Community has provided £11·9 million in food aid since 1988, the United Kingdom share of which is £2·3 million. We have allocated £1·25 million in all in emergency aid bilaterally over the same period, including most recently a grant to the world food programme to provide secure storage facilities for emergency food aid in the Angolan port of Namibe.

  I am considering urgently our response to the 10 May appeal by the United Nations Secretary General.

  Maldives
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about Britain's support for the republic of the Maldives.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about aid to the Maldives following the visit there by the Minister for Overseas Development.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I visited the Maldives from 4 to 6 May to mark the 25th anniversary of their independence. During the visit I reviewed our aid programme to the country. British aid to the Maldives is planned to increase to £700,000 in 1991–92. About half of the programme is allocated to financing training for Maldivian students in the United Kingdom and, during the visit, the Maldivian Government requested more training places.

  The rest of our assistance goes to support the establishment of an English language teaching centre to provide in-service teacher training from primary level upwards; and, secondly, to support the Maldivian Government's programme of monitoring and improvement of the marine environment. We have been asked to help with the establishment of an environmental research unit and our high commissioner will be providing my officials with full details for consideration.

  VSO is very active in the Maldives. We support a project run by Voluntary Service Overseas to manage an integrated development programme in an outer atoll called Shaviyani, two islands of which I visited. I was most impressed by the dedication and effectiveness of our volunteers there and elsewhere, and of our other aid officers in the Maldives.

  Clean Technology
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the United Kingdom is giving developing countries to assist in developing and adopting clean technology for industry, particularly for the energy sector.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the United Kingdom is giving for the development and transfer of environmentally clean technology for developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Projects funded through the bilateral aid programme are subject to scrutiny as set out in the ODA
  345
  "Manual of Environmental Appraisal" in order to ensure that they comply with national environmental standards and international protocols, conventions and codes of conduct, to which the United Kingdom is party, aimed at safeguarding the environment.

  Examples of projects intended to foster the introduction of environmentally clean technology include support for a Government of India study on a CFC-alternative strategy for India and support for a workshop in Malaysia to promote public awareness of the ozone problem.

  With reference to the energy sector we are, together with the World Bank and bilateral donor Governments, preparing an environmental manual for power development in order to assist the adoption of consistent international standards for aid-funded projects. We are assisting the Government of Bangladesh to identify energy conservation opportunities in a range of industries.

  South Africa
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives from South Africa about assistance for projects to help black people in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I had a number of such discussions when I was in South Africa earlier this year, and representatives from South Africa are regular visitors to the ODA. I also refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 19 March, at column 431.

  Elephant Conservation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any requests from African Governments for additional support for elephant conservation schemes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are considering a recent request from the Government of Kenya to fund a new project, costing some £400,000, for the provision of equipment to improve the communication systems in Tsavo (east and west) and Meru national parks.

  Kashmir and Punjab
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of India about the denial of human rights in Kashmir and the Punjab.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are in regular contact with the Indian Government who are well aware of our views on these issues.

  Global Environment Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on discussions to set up a global environment fund at the World Bank-IMF meeting on 7 and 8 May.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is tin. Government's policy on setting up a global environment fund at the World Bank.
  346
  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings).

  Global Warming
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid Her Majesty's Government intend to give developing countries to adapt to the possibility of global warming and a rise in the sea level.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are aiming to help limit global warming and sea level rise by assisting developing countries through the aid programme in forestry, energy efficiency and CFC alternatives.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid he is planning to give developing countries to adapt to the possibility of global warming and sea level rise.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are aiming to help limit global warming and sea level rise by assisting developing countries through the aid programme in foresty, energy efficiency and CFC alternatives.

  Renewable Energy Sources
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the United Kingdom is giving to developing countries to assist in developing renewable energy sources.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1988 expenditure from the bilateral aid programme on the development of renewable energy sources was some £15 million. In addition renewable energy components such as solar and wind-powered pumps, solar-powered refrigerators, solar water distillation and solar water heating have been incorporated in projects which are not primarily energy focused.

  Israel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial help the Government are providing to the Palestinians in Israeli-occupied territories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 8 May 1990 at columns 17–18.

  Health Education
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase assistance for health education in the developing world.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Health education is, and will continue to be, an essential component of many of our aid activities. Our bilateral health and population assistance is aimed at providing primary health care for the poorest people. Health education activities are an important part of these programmes. They also feature in other bilateral social sector programmes such as education; clean water and sanitation; and improved housing. We stand ready to do more if Governments ask for assistance in this important field.

  Rain Forests (Intellectual Property Rights)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the response made to the proposals sent to the Overseas Development Administration by, and the administration's contacts with, Dr. Darrel Posey and Professor Fittkau, on the need to protect the intellectual property rights of native peoples in relation to the sale of rain forest pharmaceuticals and rain forest ice-cream.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Overseas Development Administration has received no proposals from, or had contacts with, Dr. Darrel Posey and Professor Fittkau on this subject, though I understand Dr. Posey is in the United Kingdom this week and my officials may be able to contact him.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates his Department has made of by how much the average community charge would be reduced if the cost of police and fire services were removed from local authorities.

  Mr. Chope
  The effect of the average community charge on removing services from local authorities would depend upon the amount of revenue support grant that was removed at the same time.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals to revise the operation of the standard community charge.

  Mr. Portillo
  We are collecting information from charging authorities on the use they have made of their discretion to set a standard charge of between 0 and 2 times the personal community charge for their area and to specify classes of property for special treatment in addition to those already prescribed by the Secretary of State. I shall consider this information.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 9 May to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, if he will list all those grants which fall outside aggregate Exchequer finance.

  Mr. Chope
  The main current specific grants outside aggregate Exchequer finance are listed in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" chapter 21 table 21.4.4, published by HMSO in January 1990 (Cm. 1021). Other grants relating to the housing revenue account and all grants relating to capital expenditures are also outside aggregate Exchequer finance.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the amount the City of London is planning to spend above standard spending assessment in 1990–91 expressed both as a percentage and in pounds per head.

  Mr. Portillo
  The City of London is planning to spend £10,130 per adult or 63·1 per cent. above its 1990–91 standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for (i) 1987–88, (ii) 1988–89, (iii)348
  1989–90 and (iv) 1990–91 his estimate of (a) total local government expenditure, (b) the moneys raised from domestic ratepayers-community charge payers, (c) the sum of Government grants, business rates and other grant income and (d) local authority income charged by local authorities, showing the percentage increase in nominal and real terms between years.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) all those local authorities which were subject to rate capping in each of the years from 1985–86 to 1989–90, (b) the initial expenditure limitation proposed by the Secretary of State in each case, and (c) the actual expenditure limitation, where different from (b) in each case.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: I am placing in the Library tables showing the authorities designated for selective rate limitation by successive Secretaries of State for the Environment, the expenditure levels determined by the Secretary of State in each case and where appropriate that redetermined, and the rate limit proposed in each case and that finally set, where different, for each of the years requested.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the numbers and percentages of households which will move in any given year in each region of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement outlining his assessment of this movement on community charge collection systems and total local government revenue.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: My Department makes projections of the total number of households in each area, but the movement element is not separately identifiable. We plan to collect information on register changes later in the year when the system has been running for a reasonable period of time. I do not anticipate that the mobility of charge payers will have any significant effect on local government revenue and I am confident that local authorities will be able to maintain reliable, up-to-date registers.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he now has concerning the number of councils that are charging 0, 0·5, 1, 1·5, or 2 times the community charge on second homes.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: I am presently collecting this information.

  Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the value to date of grants given by the European regional development fund to tourism projects in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The value of European regional development fund grants awarded to tourism projects in England and Northern Ireland to date is 194–5 million. Similar information for Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.
  349
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has issued any guidelines to local authorities on green belt policies when preparing local plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: Relevant guidance is on planning policy guidance notes No. 2 on green belts and No. 12 on local plans, both issued in 1988, and in DOE circulars 14/84 and 12/87.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that planning applications from local authorities relating to the green belt are assessed by the same criteria as those emanating from individual or commercial sources.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Those who determine planning applications and appeals are statutorily required to consider each development proposal on its merits, regardless of the identity of the applicant.

  Hull District Council
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be replying to the various correspondence and telephone calls he has received from Hull district council requesting a reply to the city inner area programme submission 1990 to 1993.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No such inquiries have been received. I have today approved Hull's urban programme for 1990–91.

  Travelling Show-people
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to ease travelling show-people's planning problems.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend has published today a consultation paper inviting views by 13 July on a proposed amendment to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. This would enable up to five residential caravans inhabited by travelling show-people and their families to be stationed without planning permission on land which is the subject of an annually renewable certificate granted by an organisation authorised by my right hon. Friend. It would also enable the land to be used for the purpose of maintaining and storing fairground equipment used for their business. The consultation paper also invites views on a proposed amendment to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, so that site licensing and planning requirements may be aligned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be consulting on the same basis.

  Royal Navy Personnel (Poll Tax)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 12 March regarding Royal Navy service men being liable for payment of the poll tax.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 11 May 1990]: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), replied on 9 May.

  Mineral Plan Reviews
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mineral plan reviews have been completed by local authorities in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 11 May 1990]: Section 3 of the Minerals Act 1981, which came into effect in May 1986, imposes a duty on mineral planning authorities to undertake reviews of mineral working sites in their areas and make such orders as they consider appropriate. There is no statutory requirement as to the timing, frequency and manner of conducting reviews, and no requirement to notify the Secretary of State when they commence or finish. However, I understand that some 35 mineral planning authorities had formally commenced their reviews by December 1989.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been given to local authorities by his Department relating to the resources required to carry out mineral plan reviews.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 11 May 1990]: Guidance on the financial implications of the duty to review mineral workings was given in DOE circular 11/86. This said that the duty to review should not have significant manpower or expenditure implications for mineral planning authorities. Compensation arising from an authority's decision to make orders might give rise to additional expenditure, though provision is made for compensation to be abated in certain circumstances. Authorities are expected to accommodate any additional expenditure or manpower within the resources available. Further advice on reviews generally was given in minerals planning guidance note No. 4, published in September 1988.

  Brundtland Report
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why he has decided not to attend the ministerial follow-up to the Brundtland report in Bergen.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer, 11 May 1990]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment regrets that he is unable to attend the Bergen conference. There is a limit to the number of international environmental conferences he can attend personally and on this occasion he decided it was necessary to remain at home to deal with domestic issues. The Government are strongly committed to the success of the Bergen conference. We have made a substantial contribution to the preparations for the conference and I shall be leading the British delegation next week.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many agreements have been made by the Nature Conservancy Council under section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968, or section 16 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 which have not been subject to the financial guidelines produced as a result of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  The majority of NCC payments under management agreements are made under the terms of
  351
  "Financial Guidelines for Management Agreements"—DOE Circular 4/83 published on 31 January 1983. Payments are also made in respect of national nature reserves to encourage the maintenance and enhancement of the scientific interest. Information on how many agreements have not been subject to the financial guidelines is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Company

  Area affected

  Dale of expiry of Order

  East Surrey Water Plc

  East Surrey

  9 August 1990

  Eastbourne Water Company

  Eastbourne

  22 February 1990

  Folkstone and District Water Company

  Folkestone

  14 March 1990

  Mid Kent Water Company

  Mid Kent

  25 January 1990

  Mid Kent

  25 July 1990

  Mid Sussex Water Company

  Mid Sussex

  16 July 1990

  Severn Trent Water Ltd.

  Buxton

  21 March 1990

  Derbyshire

  26 April 1990

  Nottinghamshire

  Leicestershire

  Southern Water Services Ltd.

  Kent and Sussex

  20 January 1990

  West and East Sussex

  21 May 1990

  West and East Sussex

  19 July 1990

  North and East Kent

  19 July 1990

  South West Water Services Ltd.

  Devon and Cornwall

  2 February 1990

  West Kent Water Company

  West Kent

  4 February 1990

  The following water companies introduced hosepipe bans under section 16 of the Water Act 1945 on 4 May:

  Company

  Area affected

  Mid Kent Water Company

  Mid Kent

  Southern Water Services Ltd.

  North Kent

  These are the first hosepipe bans to be introduced in 1990. I understand that none of those introduced in 1989 remains in force.

  Water use restrictions in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to increase the responsibilities of local authorities in their monitoring of domestic water supplies; what action he intends to take to record the number of samples taken that do not meet required standards centrally; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Section 56 of the Water Act 1989 places a general duty on local authorities to keep themselves informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of both public and private water supplies in their areas.

  For public supplies the primary monitoring is undertaken by the relevant water company, which is required by the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 to maintain a public record of the results of the analysis of samples and send information at least annually to each local authority in its area. This monitoring will provide the basis for the annual report on the quality of water supplied by each company which the drinking water inspectorate will prepare on behalf of the Secretary of State, although the inspectorate may also carry out some monitoring of its own. The results of any monitoring carried out by local authorities will also be taken into

  Water Supplies
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the areas in England and Wales which have water use restrictions applying in the current year.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The table lists the areas of England which have been affected this year by drought orders made by my right hon. Friend under section 131 of the Water Act 1989 to enable water companies to restrict the use of water:

  account, but we do not see any need for them to increase the effort they themselves devote to monitoring public supplies.

  In the case of private supplies, my right hon. Friend has it in mind to use the power in section 56(5) of the Water Act 1989 to make regulations covering the performance of local authority functions, particularly in relation to sampling and analysis and the associated charging arrangements. An advisory group, which includes representatives of the local authority associations, was established earlier this year to consider the content of the regulations. When we receive its conclusions, a consultation document will be issued.

  Sewerage
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to offer grants to properties that are not connected to a main sewer as a means of improving the environment in such areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The water service companies have a duty to ensure that their areas are effectively drained and to provide mains sewerage for properties in response to a valid requisition. Grants are available under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts 1944 to 1971 towards the cost of requisitioned schemes providing first-time connections to mains sewers in rural areas.

  Drought Orders
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications have been made to his Department in the current year by water supply companies for extension of drought orders, or drought orders; and if he will list the companies.
  353
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department has received 12 such applications this year from the following companies:

  Company

  Number of applications

  East Surrey Water Plc

  2

  Mid Kent Water Company

  2

  Southern Water Services Ltd

  5

  West Kent Water Company

  11

  Yorkshire Water Services Ltd

  22

  1Withdrawn.

  2Of which one withdrawn.

  Tropical Forestry
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the tropical forestry action plan 8; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 5 April, at column 733.

  River Diversions
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what rivers have been involved in a diversion scheme during the past 10 years; what was the length of any diversion of individual rivers and the cause of the diversions.
  354
  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Neither my Department nor the Department of the Environment holds information on rivers in the form requested. My Department produces statistics on lengths of designated main rivers and I have placed a copy of the latest summary in the Library of the House. I am aware, through grant-aided schemes, that there may be minor diversions of rivers in connection with flood alleviation works.

  Pesticide Pollution
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received a copy of the Soil Survey and Land Research Centre's survey of pesticide pollution in Cornwall; what action he proposes to take to stop dieldrin passing up the food chain; and whether he will take steps to ensure that a copy of the above report is placed in the Library.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have received a copy of the Soil Survey and Land Research Centre's report dated June 1989 and will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library. As a result of high levels of dieldrin found in the River Newlyn, approval for aldrin, which breaks down into dieldrin, was withdrawn in May 1989. The National Rivers Authority continues to monitor Newlyn fish for residues of dieldrin; the results are encouraging.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Israel: Detainees
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Israeli Government for the release of persons kidnapped and held in Khiam prison.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have not made specific representations to the Israelis on the Khiam detainees. The Israeli authorities are fully aware of our long-held opposition to the presence of Israeli forces in South Lebanon. We have consistently sought their complete withdrawal. Our policy on the taking of captives by anyone anywhere is well known.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the taking of hostages by the Israelis is one of the reasons given for not releasing Western hostages in Lebanon? Further, should not the Government make quite clear to the Israelis that their hostage taking is not only a crime in itself but is also making the task of obtaining the release of Western hostages more difficult?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we call for the release of all hostages in the Lebanon by whomever and wherever they are held. The Israeli and the United States governments have recently denied having any discussions about the possible release of Khiam captives in return for the release of Western hostages.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord be more specific and say whether Her Majesty's Government think that the release of the prisoners at Khiam could have a bearing on the release of Western hostages? If the answer to that question is
2
in the affirmative, is there not therefore a case for Her Majesty's Government speaking to the Government of Israel on the matter?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that although the question is timely, this is a very delicate moment. I must be cautious in anything I say. Our efforts are concentrated upon trying to secure the release of British hostages and other Western hostages. They will continue unabated. We follow up every lead both in London and in Beirut, and indeed that is a principal reason why our embassy staff have remained there throughout a very dangerous and difficult period. We shall continue to maintain and use every contact which we think may possibly bring results.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. If this is a sensitive matter, I do not wish to press it further at present.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I must press my noble friend the Minister a little further on the issue of Western hostages. Will he confirm that the Israeli Government have publicly stated more than once that they will return these prisoners if Israelis held in Arab hands are returned? Does he agree that this really has nothing to do with the question of Western hostages?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Israelis said that the prisoners in Khiam prison are held on suspicion of involvement in resistance operations in the security zone against the South Lebanese and Israeli armies. On 1st May an Israeli MoD spokesman acknowledged publicly that some, if not all, are held pending the release of Israeli servicemen missing in Lebanon.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this House would warmly support the Government in any steps they take to persuade all governments with influence to use that influence to bring about the release of all hostages in Lebanon, whoever holds them and whatever faith and allegiance they may have? Will he reassert the

3
British Government's recognition that the grief of the families is the same whatever the religious faith or allegiance of the hostages?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his remarks. Everyone in this House realises the position of the hostages and their families and appreciates the cruelty of their ordeal.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware —and this also applies to the noble Lord who tabled the Question—that Israel has no direct responsibility for this Lebanese prison? Is he also aware that the people held there could certainly not be compared with hostages in any way?
Lord Reay: My Lords, Khiam is run and controlled by the South Lebanese army. We believe that Israel would have a decisive influence on the conditions and on the freeing of those prisoners.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister agree that nations which have had their people taken as hostages, as we have, and countries that hold hostages or influence the holding of hostages must now make an ultimate endeavour to ensure that talks take place with the object of securing the release of these people who have suffered so much for so long?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we hope that there has been some progress in the release of hostages. We also hope that the recent releases will be the first step towards the freedom of all hostages held in Lebanon.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty in which the Minister finds himself in fully answering these questions. However, does he recall the official statement from the Iranian foreign minister that the kidnapping by the Israelis of Sheikh Obeid and others is a relevant part of the question of solving the hostage problem? Further, is not another obstacle to obtaining the release of Western hostages the substantial evidence which has now been accumulated that the Israelis are condoning the systematic use of torture in this prison?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are concerned at reports received from humanitarian organisations, including Amnesty International, relating to ill-treatment of the Khiam prisoners. We call on the Israeli authorities to exercise their influence with the South Lebanese army to improve conditions at the prison. We shall take an early opportunity to raise the matter with the Israeli Government.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I must ask the Minister whether the record shows that the Israelis are not responsible for that prison. That is a vital point which I should have thought the Minister would have mentioned in his first Answer.
Lord Reay: My Lords, with respect, I believe that I have answered that question.

The Inflation Rate
2.43 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the annual rate of inflation to April 1990; and what was the equivalent annual rate of inflation to April 1979 announced in May 1979.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the all-items RPI annual inflation rate for April 1990 is 9·4 per cent. The comparable rate for April 1979 was 10·1 per cent.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I note that after 11 years of the crusade against inflation the change is just a few decimal points. I again ask the Minister whether the Government will concede that the Chancellor's Budget forecast for end year inflation will once again be wrong and for the third year in succession be an underestimate.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord is disappointed that the present inflation rate is not above 10.1 per cent. We stick by the Chancellor's forecast of what the inflation rate will be at the end of the year.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any change in economic policy takes between two and five years to work through to the economy and that therefore the precise date in the original Question totally lacks relevance to anything?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I appreciate that economic policy takes a long time to work, but if one is asked a Question, one must answer it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not clear that the Government's policy of high interest rates is not working? Is the Minister aware that figures published today show that factory-gate prices rose by one whole point last month, and that the retail sales figures show that retail spending is still increasing? Is it not clear that high interest rates are not the right medicine? Will the Government do something more to control credit, which is causing the problem at present?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, interest rates are the right policy with which to deal with this problem. Consumer credit control does not work except in the short term, and then it leads to massive distortions, as every country has found. If the noble Lord looks at the key markets, such as the retail sales market, he will find —not on a monthly basis because that is the wrong way to look at such figures, but on a three-monthly basis—that in the last three months compared with the comparable three months a year ago, retail sales are up 1.5 per cent. The noble Lord will also be aware that car registrations are well down and the housing market is flat, which show that high interest rates are working.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend remind the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that when recently asked on radio how he would deal with inflation, the leader of his party said that, to cut a long story short, he did not know?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is correct, but we can appreciate the difficulties of those who have to operate in a thought-free zone.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, for a long time we have been told that the Government's priority was to reduce inflation. They have clearly not done so. One mus. wonder how much trust one can put in their other aspirations.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we clearly have reduced inflation. The noble Viscount's memory must, alas, be extremely short. He does not have to think that: far back to the days when inflation was well into double figures and up into the 20s. As the noble Viscount will be aware, the recent monthly figures have been distorted by two items which are not taken into account in other European countries. One is the community charge. In that, no allowance is made for the generous government rebates which are not taken into account when calculating the RPI. Secondly, in the Community no country other than Ireland includes mortgage interest payments.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, will my noble friend put those figures in context? What has been the annual average rate of inflation in the United Kingdom since May 1979? How does that compare with the annual average rate of inflation of the 12 European Community countries during the same period? Secondly, how does it compare with the record of the previous Labour Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the previous Labour Government's average increase in RPI was 15.5 per cent., whereas ours is 7.9 per cent. That may be slightly misleading because if one takes out mortgage interest payments, the matter becomes more relevant. On that basis, the Labour Government's average was 15.6 per cent. and ours is 7.4 per cent. One can see that the current inflation rate of 7.9 per cent., excluding mortgage interest payments, is about only 0.25 per cent. above the lowest that Labour ever achieved. In comparison to Europe, in the 10-year period betwen May 1979 and February 1990 our inflation rate—that is, our headline inflation rate—was 0.1 per cent. above the EC average. If one works that out on a comparable basis—I said earlier that one has to remove the community charge or the rates, as they were, and mortgage interest payments—one finds that our inflation rate was 0.7 per cent. lower than the Community average.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in reply to a previous question he told us that it takes between five and 10 years for any change to work its way through? Yet a few moments ago he told us that the immediate effects resulted from the poll tax and other taxes. It did not take any time for the mortgage and poll tax increases to be seen in the
6
rise in the inflation rate. They showed up almost immediately, not within the five to 10 years mentioned.
Is the Minister aware that I am more concerned that the recent increases in the retirement pension were pitched at 7.6 per cent., as always a couple of per centage points below the current rate of inflation? Have the Government any plans to review the recent pension increases to bring them in line with inflation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the increase in the rate of inflation between September 1989 and April 1990, as the noble Lord well knows, will be reflected in the next uprating of benefits.
Lord Jay: My Lords, if the Minister believes that the mortgage rate should be taken out of the RPI, does he also believe that rents should be removed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that some countries charge nothing for owner-occupied or tenanted property costs. Some do. I was trying to give a truer comparison than using the headline rate.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend remind the House when it was under a Labour Government that inflation hit just over 27 per cent.? Is it not true that, as a result of that government going on bended knee to the IMF and making savage cuts in all the public services, they began to get the rate under better control? However, it was even then much higher than today.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that the date for which my noble friend is looking is August 1975, when the rate reached 26.9 per cent. That shows just how high it went. I have explained on numerous occasions, not only today, how much better it is under our Government than under the Labour Government.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that an important section of opinion in this House considers that the handling of inflation by both main parties has been grossly incompetent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the current rate of inflation, both the headline and the underlying rate, is far too high. That is why we shall get it down.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we welcome the fact that the rate of inflation today is marginally lower than it was when his Government took office? Nevertheless does he accept that after 11 years, the achievement of a balance of payments deficit of £22 billion in place of a surplus of £200 million when the Government took over is less than impressive? Bearing that in mind, is he prepared to say that the Government's battle against inflation is an economic miracle at this time?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this Government's battle against inflation is never done.

7
It is top of my priorities. We shall continue to fight it and it would be quite nice to hear from noble Lords opposite whether the Labour Party has a policy on it.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I have listened to the Minister's sterling defence. Has he read the latest Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin? It states that inflation will remain at around 10 per cent. through to the end of the year. If he has read it, do the Government agree or disagree with the Bank of England?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the statement of the Bank of England that economic policy is back on track.

European Commission: Financial Scrutiny
2.54 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they would support the extension of the European Parliament's powers to investigate payments by the European Commission to interest groups within and outside the Community.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we can see the case for extending the Commission's financial accountability to the European Parliament. The European Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee is already responsible for scrutinising the Commission's financial management.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he say, following the debate last July initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on the report on fraud in the Community, vhether the task force promised by the Commission has now been set up? Further, has there been any reaction by the Commission to the excellent recommendations set out in that report?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the anti-fraud unit to which my noble friend referred was set up last year by the Commission. It published its first annual report earlier this year, which focused on reporting fraud and simplifying legislation. The group of experts has also been set up under the same initiative and has already succeeded in cutting the number of product classifications, particularly in the meat sector.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House the amount of money paid to British interest groups by the European Commission? What criteria had to be satisfied before those payments were made?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that I have no information with me on the amounts of the payments made to interest groups. I shall happily find that out and let the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition know about it. I shall possibly place a copy of the information in the Library.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, is the subject of improved scrutiny of the Commission's work likely to be on the agenda of the inter-governmental conference next December?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the agenda has not yet been set for the inter-governmental conference set up for next December to discuss economic and monetary union. At the Dublin Council on 25th and 26th June a decision will be taken on whether to set up at the same time another inter-governmental conference on political union. Meanwhile, the Foreign Ministers of the member states are examining the options for political union. They will report to the Dublin Summit. One of these issues will undoubtedly be the increasing efficiency of the Community institutions. It will cover the subject of any possible changes in the relationship between the European Parliament and the Commission. We shall have our own constructive ideas to put forward on trying to ensure that the Community's institutions are made more effective and more efficient.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some people might be puzzled about this Question? Who are the "interest groups" within and outside the Community? Can he give us a list of them?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe that there is a very long list of interest groups which receive assistance from the Commission. I do not have that list with me, as I indicated in my reply to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. However, I shall make one available to the House.

NHS Nursing Strength
2.57 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they are combating the shortage of nurses in the United Kingdom, and whether they will ensure that foreign nurses employed to make up this shortfall will not be exploited.
Barones Blatch: My Lords, there is no national shortage of nurses in the National Health Service. A survey by the Office of Manpower Economics showed that at 31st March 1989, 3·2 per cent. of all qualified nursing posts in Great Britain had been vacant for three months or more, compared with 3·3 per cent. in 1988. The number of nursing staff employed in the National Health Service rose by 13·2 per cent. between 1979 and 1988. Even after allowing for the change in working hours from 40 to 37 ½ in 1980–81, the increase is still over 6 per cent.
Obviously there will always be recruitment difficulties in particular areas and specialties. However, the declining numbers of school-leavers over the next few years has implications for the National Health Service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not this flurry of figures constitute a hopelessly inadequate reply to a question about the chronic shortage of nurses in the

9
NHS? I am willing to challenge the Minister to say so if I am incorrect, but I believe that this shortage can be testified to by the Royal College of Nursing and the major royal colleges, which are all woefully aware that there is a chronic shortage of trained nurses. The Government's response is to try to get agency nurses, which costs £33 million more per year. They go to EC countries and non-EC countries, and is the noble Baroness aware that they even go as far as Hong Kong? Many of the so-called nurses recruited are far below our standards; some of them have no proper salary. All this constitutes a threat to the National Health Service.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the facts simply do not bear out anything that the noble Lord has just said. I shall deal with just one inaccurate figure that the noble Lord gave concerning agency staff. Of all staff employed in the National Health Service only 1.5 per cent. are agency nurses and of that figure 83 per cent. are employed in Greater London. As I said in my initial Answer, there will always be particular difficulties with specialisms in certain areas, but the facts that. I gave in that Answer do not bear out anything that the noble Lord has said.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the National Health Service loses married nurses with children because of the low rate of child care and creche provision that is made? Will the Minister say what the Government think about that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true that nurses leave the health service for retirement, pregnancy, family reasons and other reasons. However, the figures again show that there has been a net gain to the nursing service. Some 24,200 nurses a year leave nursing in England but in 1988 to 1989 that figure was mors than covered by 16,400 new nurses qualifying. In addition, 9,700 nurses returned to nursing. That made a total of 26,100 nurses. That represents a net gain to the nursing service.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, what are the specialties in which there are shortages and what are the Government doing about that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can list a number of things the Government are doing as regards improving recruitment and retention of nurses. A massive advertising campaign is being conducted and has already produced 170,000 inquiries about nursing as. a career. There are a number of district health authorities which are targeting mature entrants and re-entrants to the service. Pay has increased in real terms by 43 per cent. There is a pilot scheme of flexible pay arrangements which enables more money to be paid for particular specialisms and scarce specialisms. There are local initiatives, flexible working, job sharing schemes and child care schemes. The Department of Health is supporting the Open College's return to nursing project which is offering a package of resource materials that will be launched in September. I could go on.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my main question was: what are the specialties in which there are shortages? May I have an answer to that question, please?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I referred to particular shortages. I have described some of the ways in which those shortages are being addressed by different district health authorities. A considerable amount of work is being carried out in this respect.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am amazed by her Answer? If there is no shortage of nurses, why has she referred to a massive advertising campaign to recruit more nurses? Further, has the Minister seen the report that was published today which showed that in every single region there is a grave shortage in the number of nurses being recruited? This is more serious in some regions than in others. Did the Minister also see the statement made by the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing which emphasised the problem of the shortage of nurses and the need to improve conditions, not just pay but also creche facilities and opportunities for part-time work? Those facilities have proved to be absolutely inadequate. I am amazed by the Answer the Minister gave.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have read the press reports published today. I believe they did a great disservice to the amount of work that is being carried out in many district and regional health authorities. I checked one of the reports concerning a health authority which was deemed to be the fourth worst in the country. I must report that that authority had 9,644 qualified staff in post at the end of March this year. That is 225 nurses up on the previous year. That figure represents the highest number of qualified staff at the end of the year. If one asks health authorities whether they are having difficulties in recruiting nurses, the answer is yes. However, if one asks them whether nurses are in post after many of the efforts that I have outlined have been made, the answer is that the nurses are in post.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I have recently travelled in the Nordic countries, Australia and New Zealand. Is my noble friend the Minister aware that those countries have a far smaller population than this country but our nursing recruitment is much better per capita than that in those countries which have a nursing shortage, particularly in rural areas? Is she further aware that as regards exploitation.—
Lord Denham: That is two questions!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe I have covered the particular difficulties experienced by some local authorities. I have also outlined the enormous efforts that are being made by many district health authorities to improve recruitment and to face up to the difficulties that will occur when a shortage among the people available for nursing arises due to the fall in the numbers of 16 year-olds in the population.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the Minister say what effect the payment of the poll tax by nurses has had on recruitment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is much too early to give a specific answer to that question. However, eventually all nurses will be trained under the auspices of Project 2000 and will receive the maximum relief for the community charge. If a special case were made for nurses it would discriminate quite considerably against many young people who earn the same as student nurses.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be kind enough to consider contacting the Royal College of Nursing, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the Royal Colleges of Physicians and of Surgeons to seek their views on what they feel is a chronic situation as regards the shortage of nurses? I think that is a fair proposition.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the department is in touch with all those bodies all the time. I believe that that is right and should continue. However, I also prefer to deal in facts.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some of us were intrigued by the statement in the Question that foreign nurses who are being employed to make up the shortfall may be exploited? As far as I can judge, the reply that the Minister gave has not resolved that problem. Is she further aware that if I had any evidence that such exploitation was occurring I would go direct to the Minister and would not waste my time putting down a Question?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe the remarks of the noble Lord were comments rather than a question. However, had that part of the Question been addressed, I could have proved that there was no exploitation of these young people.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p. m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill will be taken.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 115DD:
Before Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("General duly of local authorities to consult
.—(1) Each local authority shall maintain a statement of their proposals to consult on the exercise of their functions under this Part with —

(a) users of community care services resident in the area of the authority;

(b) carers of such users;

(c) local community and voluntary organisations including organisations representative of ethnic minorities.

(2) In preparing or revising the statement, a local authority shall consult with those persons mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(3) The local authority shall publish the statement and take such other steps as are necessary to secure a wide knowledge of its contents in the area.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 115DF. There has been a general welcome from all sides for the Government's proposals for community care, certainly in principle. The Committee has helped to improve the initial proposals, particularly by agreeing to amendments regarding ring fencing, the timetable for implementation and assistance with start-up costs.
Amendments Nos. 115DD and 115DF seek to introduce into the Bill a new clause which imposes a general duty on local authorities to consult the users of community care services, the carers, the local community and voluntary organisations. Amendment No. 115DF requires organisations of disabled persons and any organisations which provide care for disabled persons to be consulted by local authorities. It seems an extraordinary omission that Clause 44 (2) should leave out disabled people from the list of bodies that should be consulted.
There is already a system of joint consultative committees which brings together health authorities, local authorities and voluntary organisations to plan community care services. The amendments seek to build on that system by ensuring proper consultation procedures as of right. Amendment No. 115DD specifically mentions ethnic minorities which are under-represented and have particular problems which need to be taken into account in the planning of community care.
We feel sure that the Government will either accept the amendment or offer to bring forward a substitute amendment because the Minister of State for Health, Virginia Bottomley, indicated at Committee stage in another place that that was the Government's intention. In that debate she said:
"Conservative Members are interested in the user, the consumer, the individual. We know that the individual could not care less whether care comes from the private sector, the voluntary sector or the local authority. Individuals want high-quality, good-value care, and that is what the Government will secure under the new regime… I should like Opposition Members to consult the writings of Tessa Jowell. She states time and again that the key to community care is to consider the interests of the consumers rather than the providers".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 13/2/90; col. 910.)
The amendments provide the opportunity to put those words of the Minister of State for Health into practice in the Bill.
The amendments also have particular importance in the light of the Committee's decision last week to accept amendments regarding ring fencing, the timetable for implementation and assistance with start-up costs. However, since those decisions last week it appears that the department's spin doctors have been at work. The press has been full of inspired briefings regarding possible delay in the implementation of community care. I quote from today's independent:
"The Government is considering delaying implementation of its care in the community proposals until after the general election, amid fears that they may prove a political and financial minefield. Despite widespread support for the changes, which from next April would see the councils take responsibility for co-ordinating community care for the elderly, handicapped and mentally ill people, ministers outside the Department of Health are more worried about the impact of these changes than they are over the more conteoversial NHS shake-up".
There have been a number of similar stories in several other newspapers.
The Government cannot say that they did not warn them. Today's debate provides the first opportunity for a Minister from the Department of Health to state the Government's position on the possible delay in the implementation of the community care proposals. When the Minister replies I hope that she will be able to tell the Committee, which surely has as much right to know as the press, whether the Government intend to delay implementation of the Bill's community care proposals. If the Government propose to allocate sufficient resources, which will be properly ring fenced, and an adequate timetable with help as regards start-up costs there is no need for delay. The worst of all worlds would result from the Government providing inadequate resources, unprotected by ring fencing, and having to force through the community care proposals on an impossible timetable.
For those reasons it is crucial that proper consultation takes place with all interested parties. That is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Local authorities should be answerable to their local population for the exercise of their community care responsibilities. We already propose in the Bill that plans for community care should be published, as the noble Lord has said, and that local authorities should consult widely in drawing them up. Indeed, Clause 44 includes an amendment accepted at Report stage in another place to clarify the situation.
It is also right that care services should be responsive to the needs of users and carers. Our proposals seek to achieve that in several ways. First, the arrangements for assessing individuals' care needs will take into account the views and wishes both of the individual service user and his or her carer. Secondly, their views can be made known through the case management process and the formal quality monitoring arrangements which will form
14
part of contracts for care services. Thirdly, I hardly need to remind the Committee, following our acceptance in principle of Amendment No. 113AS and my undertaking to reconsider the matter and to come back with a government amendment at a later stage, that local authorities will be required to consult representatives of users and carers in drawing up their plans.
As we have mentioned previously, the Bill seeks to provide a framework which will enable local authorities to deliver community care services in line with our proposals in Caring for People. We shall soon issue draft guidance which will give more detailed information to local authorities about what we expect of them. It will spell out the need to involve users of services and their carers. If it is found that guidance is not followed, as we have established in previous discussions on similar points, the Secretary of State has powers of direction which he will not hesitate to use.
Therefore, while I sympathise with the thinking behind the proposals, in practice it would seem that requiring the authorities not only to consult with those involved in providing and using community care services but also, as the amendment implies, to consult on proposals for consulting others is excessive. That is particularly so when it involves consulting groups who, while they may be interested in seeing plans—which they will be able to do in any event—are not involved directly in providing or using services. I believe that the greater transparency which will result from our proposals in this area of provision will be beneficial to everyone.
To grapple with the question of the press comment to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred, that is purely speculation. The Government and the department are continuing to work towards the implementation in April 1991 of the community care proposals in the Bill. That is the Government's position.
We have already made provision to ensure that users and carers can make substantial input into decisions about the type of care services which are available to them. The new clauses would place a burden on authorities which might hinder rather than help that provision. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ennals: I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would comment on whether or not the Government intend to postpone implementation of the proposals. Comments in both the Sunday press and today's newspapers give the impression to anyone who has been in politics for some time that there has been some discreet, off-the-record briefing. My noble friend read some words from the Independent:
"The Government is considering delaying implementation of its care in the community proposals until after the general election, amid fears that they may prove a political and financial minefield".
The Observer, in its leading sentence, says:
"The Government is considering delaying the implementation of its community care reforms for fear that rows over funding will be damaging in the run-up to the next election".

15
There is a remarkable similarity between those reports which gives the impression that someone in the department or in No. 10 Downing Street or elsewhere has said something off the record. The noble Baroness gave an assurance that the Government still intend to implement these parts of the Bill. Can she also give me an assurance there has not been some subtle behind-the-scenes briefing?
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord has been in politics longer than I have and it may be for that reason that I did not gain the same impression from the press comment. However, I can only reaffirm that the Government will continue to keep the timetable under review in the light of circumstances. For example, we shall take careful note of what local authorities tell us about their preparations. However, April 1991 remains the date for implementation.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: We on these Benches support the amendments. In the unfortunate absence of my noble friend Lady Seear I should like to intervene briefly on the matter.
The Minister said that her department had issued guidelines for voluntary organisations in these matters. Do voluntary organisations include the universities?
I must declare an interest because 10 years ago, through a charitable organisation known as the Education Trust Ltd, of which I am still the chairman—it was founded by the Industrial and Provident Societies in about 1922—we founded at Addenbrooke's Hospital a research clinic to care for and treat free of charge undergraduates of both sexes from the colleges of the University of Cambridge. The clinic is concerned with research into the prevention and treatment of soft tissue injuries.
We are involved with the Cambridge Health Authority and the University. Will the guidelines have been issued to the university or to the health authority? Certainly, the guidelines have not come to the Education Trust Ltd. which was so influential in setting up the clinic. As this is a technical and local matter, I do not expect the Minister to reply at this stage. However, we support the amendments.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may take the opportunity to clarify the position slightly. I referred to guidance, not to guidelines. We have established that guidance is a rather stronger weapon than guidelines in that respect because it is subject to the Secretary of State's power of directions. As far as I am aware, that guidance, which has not yet been issued—it is about to be issued—can be made available to anyone who requests it. In the normal course of events, it will go out to health authorities and voluntary sector organisations which provide services in the area.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am obliged to the Minister for that answer. The term "guidance" is a little harsher than the term "guidelines" and is probably more useful. As chairman of the Education Trust Ltd. I shall put myself on the list to obtain some information.
Lord Carter: I am sure that the Minister will agree that we do not want to enter into debate about the difference between guidance and guidelines, as we did at a late hour last Thursday evening. I listened with care to what she said. On the question of the press stories, we shall simply have to put it down to coincidence that they have all appeared over three or four days and said exactly the same thing.
The duty to consult users should be included in the Bill and not simply left to guidance to be taken account of in assessments and the excessive interests of certain groups. It is important that that duty should be included in the Bill and it is therefore important to ask the opinion of the Committee.
3. 23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 115DD) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 112.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

[Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Chester, Bp.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mais, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Mayhew, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Diamond, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dunrossil, V.

Ogmore, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Phillips, B.

Ezra, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Seebohm, L.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Hanworth, V.

Somers, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Soper, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stallard, L.

Hayter, L.

Stedman, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jacques, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jay, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kearton, L.

Walston, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Annaly, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Arran, E.

Allerton, L.

Auckland, L.

Ampthill, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

17

Beloff, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Marsh, L.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Blyth, L.

Mersey, V.

Borthwick, L.

Middleton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mills, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Morris, L.

Brightman, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Butterfield, L.

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Porritt, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Portsmouth, E.

De Freyne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dudley, B.

Renton, L.

Effingham. E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gridley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint

Shannon, E.

Marylebone, L.

Sharpies, B.

Henley, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hesketh, L

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Stockton, E.

Hood, V.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Johnston of Rockport, L

E.

Joseph, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kimball, L.

Terrington, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Teviot, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kitchener, E.

Thurlow, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Ullswater, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Westbury, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wise, L.

Manchester, D.

Wolfson, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 115DE:
Before Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Regional Inspectorate
.— (1) The Secretary of State shall as soon as practicable satisfy himself that there is adequate provision and resources for the inspection of community care in each region of England and Wales for the purposes specified in this section.
(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that such inspection shall include the following functions—

(a) the setting of service standards for community care;

(b) the provision of advice and assistance to any local inspectors employed by local authorities and to agencies providing community care; and

(c) the undertaking, in liaison with any local inspectorate, of detailed inspections of aspects of community care provision.

(3) A local authority shall, in carrying out its functions under this Part have regard to any relevant advice of the inspectorate in respect of matters falling within subsection (2) above.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment at the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull,
18
who will speak to it during the course of the debate. There is widespread agreement in both Chambers and in all parties as well as among the multiplicity of statutory and voluntary organisations involved in community care that above all this Bill must raise the quality of community care.
Social work is and always will be fraught with problems. It is the nature of social work to deal with problems. Those problems are not just of the kind which hits the headlines, such as child abuse. That was dealt with in the Children Act. We are not talking about such issues today. We are concerned with community care for a whole range of problems such as mental illness, mental handicap, disability, drug and alcohol abuse and homelessness, which are no less fraught with difficulty than those that affect children.
The Government's White Paper Caring for People outlined ways in which the quality of community care services would be monitored and promoted. Their proposal was that local authorities should set up free-standing inspection units, accountable in each case to the director of social services. The Government issued a consultation document on that matter.
From these Benches we warmly welcome that approach. It is right that each local authority should be in a position to have what is called an arm's length inspectorate. But the proposals—which, as I said, are broadly welcomed—fail to deal with issues of natural justice, for which a wholly independent inspectorate is required and for which regional arrangements are necessary. This amendment proposes a structure to meet those ends.
I do not believe that in controversial issues people are ever totally satisfied with an inquiry that is made solely by a local authority about its own work. There is a case for ensuring that the investigation is done on a broader basis. This amendment offers a fundamentally different system in order to ensure that independence and consistency which were so strongly argued for and recommended by the committee chaired by Lady Wagner. Our proposal is for a regional inspectorate governed by a regional board consisting of representatives of health bodies, voluntary organisations, local authorities, personal social services and housing at elected member level, as well as of the users of their services.
If this amendment is accepted as a principle, later amendments could deal with the detailed issues of composition. Therefore this amendment is designed to establish a principle. It will ensure that there is no intentional or unintentional collusion between those people who provide the inspectorate and those who provide the service. That has always been a problem with a purely internal investigation or inquiry. Because of major involvement by local government in this matter, there would be a majority representation of elected members.
Beyond that, the regional inspectorates would be steered by a national council whose purpose was to receive the views of regional boards in order to be able to develop national guidelines on registration, re-registration and inspection of local authority, private and statutory homes, as well as nursing

19
homes. The Government's proposal for an arm's length inspectorate includes children's homes and independent schools. That is yet another reason for providing an umbrella council and regional boards.
None of this proposed structure in any way cuts across the proposition for an arm's length inspectorate within the registration authority. This very local service would be an officer-and-administration-led arm's length inspection and would have a broader quality control function at the local level. The boards could set the context within which the arm's length inspectorates for each local authority would operate.
I should like to point out that there is no conflict between this and the social services inspectorate established by the department and very well directed by Mr. Bill Utting. The Department of Health's own guidance suggests that one authority might undertake inspection on behalf of another on an agency basis. This proposal acknowledges some degree of co-operative arrangement. It is argued that such arrangements could be much more successfully managed within the framework of regional boards which themselves would be under a national advisory structure of councils.
We therefore do not propose that there should be any change in the role of the social services inspectorate, nor should there be any change in the role of supervision at an authority level. There is a need for an independent inspectorate which would command the respect of the public, local authorities and the Government. The overriding rationale for a body such as a regional inspectorate unit is to ensure absolute detachment from each local authority for the registration and inspection functions.
Another advantage of that kind of body would be that it would ensure consistency of standards across the region and contribute to the raising of standards in some areas. That is very important. One of the problems that we face at the present time is the enormous variation in standards from one local authority to another. I believe that a body established on a regional basis would help to raise the level of performance of some local authorities to that of the best.
I hope that this proposal will commend itself to the Committee. If the principle is accepted, either by the Government in their reply or by other means, the opportunity will be created to work out in greater detail just what should be done. We do not want anything heavily bureaucratic. We want to establish an independent inspectorate, one that is independent of those for whom it would be responsible. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for generously moving this amendment, which stands in my name. After due consideration I felt it right that another point of view should be put to the Committee; namely, the point of view of the Association of Directors of Social Services.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has spoken of the need for an inspectorate that is wholly independent
20
of the local authorities. That need could be met by a regional inspectorate governed by a regional board. However, there are inspection units within the majority of local authorities in this country. Those inspection units have proved to be successful. Furthermore, such units give to each local authority a right to consider problems and to set standards in their own departments. The directors of social services feel that to add yet another tier will make for difficulties.
One has also to consider the geographical difficulties. If there is a regional board, as is provided in the amendment, it will not be easily accessible to staff, to carers or to those making complaints.
Finally, we have an inspectorate based on the Department of Health under the leadership of the Chief Inspector, Mr. Bill Utting. The inspectorate has proved itself to be of high value. It was proved at the time of the Cleveland Inquiry, when it did an excellent job of work inquiring into what was going wrong in the Cleveland area.
I would prefer to see resources spent on developing local inspection units. I would also prefer to see resources spent on expanding the national inspectorate under the Department of Health. Although I have put my name to the amendment, I thought that another point of view should be put to the Committee. It is perhaps inevitable as an ex-director of social services that I should put the view of my colleagues who are now in the field.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox: I support the amendment with even greater conviction than when I originally put my name to it as an amendment embodying the principle of the need of some form of systematic and genuinely independent inspection. My conviction has grown, as my concern has grown, with the passage of the Bill through this Committee. The more debates I have heard, the more acutely aware I am of the potential suffering that may arise as a result of some of the unforeseen effects of the proposed legislative changes and the lack of safeguards being built into the operation of the new system from its inception.
The amendment has no party political connotations. My support for it is born of a profound concern that the proposed changes, however good and commendable in principle and potentially good in practice, are by definition untried. In policy areas as complex as health and welfare there are almost bound to be problems in the implementation of radical changes. In the fields of health and welfare administrative problems lead to anxiety and distress and possibly suffering for patients, clients, families and carers. Among them will be some of the most vulnerable people in our society. There will be the frail and/or confused elderly whose numbers we know will increase dramatically in the next few years, as well as the growing numbers of the mentally handicapped, mentally ill and chronic sick people who will be living in the community. They are the people who are least able to articulate their needs, to assert themselves or to claim their rights. Therefore I believe that it is of the utmost importance that there is in the Bill some form of quality assurance for basic

21
standards of care for those who will be affected by the radical changes in provision for care in the community.
I said at the outset that my concern has been growing during the passage of the Bill through its Committee stage. The reasons for that are threefold. The first is the lack of adequate information on which to base with confidence and accuracy some of the costings of the proposed changes. Secondly, there are the problems currently being experienced in some local authorities in fulfilling their present responsibilities, let alone for taking on their new enlarged remit and doing so in such a tight timescale. Thirdly, there is the need in principle and in practice for a genuinely independent inspectorate. That is especially necessary in an area where there is great variability in standards of provision and where the stakes are so high in terms of potential human suffering, much of which could remain hidden.
Perhaps I may say a few brief words to amplify each of those areas of concern. First, on the lack of adequate information on which to set up some of the new arrangements, I believe that it has become alarmingly clear during the debates on amendments proposing some form of evaluation that there is a large irformation deficit. The Minister has used again and again phrases which indicate that the introduction of change will be an evolutionary learning process.
There has also been a disturbing reference on more than one occasion in the field of community care that once an assessment has been made of a client's needs there is no assurance that those needs will be met. The extent to which they will be met will depend on the availability of resources. What happens if those resources are not available? Even now organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux have numerous very sad cases of people being discharged into the community whose diagnosed needs are not being met. That is before the expansion of responsibilities which will increase the workload and pressures on social service departments.
My second area of concern relates to issues which are causing particular anxiety. I refer reluctantly to those cases where social service departments are currently failing to meet many of their clients' needs. Many Members of the Committee come from areas with excellent local authority provision and excellent social service departments, providing very good services. I am sure that they will continue to provide those good services. But it is no secret that some local authorities are not so efficient and effective.
In one local authority I know a director of nursing services has had to employ private social workers to care for cancer patients being discharged from hospital because he did not receive adequate support from local social service departments. I am not imputing blame but stating facts. In another area, I know of a primary school head teacher in a very deprived district, where there are children from desperately unhappy backgrounds, marred by broken families, living in squalor, where drug and alcohol abuse are part of their daily lives. This dedicated head teacher finds the local social department less than helpful with the children's problems when she asks for help. If I may for a
22
moment be tactless enough to raise the unhappy question, what happens if social workers feel that they have to take strike action again? Who will then care for all the vulnerable people who will be their responsibility?
I raise these examples not to be invidious or to make political points but only to try to inject some realism into a situation before us. It is a realism born of working and living for many years in areas where I fear that the problems will be even greater than they are now as more prople come to be cared for in the community and where therefore it is even more important to have an adequate independent inspectorate to try to ensure consistent, at least minimum, standards of care.
My third and concluding concern is to reaffirm and endorse in principle the need for an inspectorate to fulfil the functions set out in the amendment, an inspectorate which will be independent and which I hope will be multi-professional, to ensure adequate provision for health as well as social needs. If the amendment, or something on that line, were to be accepted I believe that it would be good for the Government. It would be a great relief to all concerned over future developments. The Government would be seen to be building in a quality control mechanism, thus demonstrating good faith that they care for those who will be affected by the changes that they are introducing and that they are committed to ensuring that they will not suffer as a result of any unforeseen effects. It would also reassure all those who are worried about the possible suffering accruing from unanticipated problems.
The concept of community care is premised on the hypothesis that the community cares. Many people in the community, both professionals and informal carers, do care and care marvellously for people with diverse needs and problems. But many other people are also suffering from lacunas in provision. Many people are falling through the safety net and many carers are suffering from having to meet excessive demands with inadequate support. As even more people come into the orbit of community care the already overstretched resources may fail to meet the increasing demands. Many people with serious problems may fail to receive the help they need.
Without some kind of independent monitoring of a systematic kind in the form of an inspectorate not necessarily along the lines stated in the amendment, such people may suffer unnoticed. They are more likely to do so in the anonymity and isolation of the community than in hospitals. There, as was said in previous debates by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, there are at least some forms of monitoring in, for example, clinical areas for medical education or the education of other health professionals and nurses.
The principle of the amendment is of fundamental importance. I believe that failure to accept the principle of an independent inspectorate for community care will exacerbate the serious and legitimate anxieties which currently abound among professionals, patients, clients, carers and the public. Acceptance of the concept of an independent inspectorate would do a great deal to allay those anxieties. I sincerely hope that the Minister will

23
give a sympathetic response to the principles of the amendment.
Lord Seebohm: I was interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. In the world in which I earn my living there are always internal and external auditors. It is right and proper that there should be an external body in this case so that it can make a general supervision of community care in the country as a whole.
I have discussed the matter with those in my local authority. There is no doubt that the director is keen to have his finger on his own inspection and internal audit. Indeed, he says that his senior inspector, or local auditor, has the rank of deputy director answering directly to him. He can make certain that such services are run in the manner that he would wish.
I do not know whether the amendment is correct as it stands. There is a case for providing an overall inspectorate, although I do not know whether it would be done more sensibly by the regions or by the Government. There is no doubt that the directors are determined to have a high level of inspectors on their own staff.
Lord Renton: The amendment must be read together with Clause 46, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, quite rightly pointed out. Clause 46 will give the Secretary of State the power, although not an obligation, to appoint local inspectors for each local authority. However, under the clause as it stands he might not appoint any at all. Either the local or the regional method of inspectorate would cost public money at a time when we should be saving that to the greatest possible extent. That is especially so when we are dealing with people in society who are unable to care for themselves. They are the first to suffer from inflation.
Having listened to the speech of my noble friend Lady Cox and to those which preceded it, and taking account of my experience, I believe that a system of inspection is necessary. I have thought about the matter a good deal in the past day or two and I have come to the conclusion that a regional inspectorate would be better. We need a system analogous to the well-established regional inspectorate of the constabulary. It may well be that the regions dealt with by the police are bigger than would be required for this work. The regions must not be too large
I take the point that it is better to have regionally-appointed, independent inspectors rather than those appointed for each local authority. As was wisely pointed out by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, local inspectorate units are appointed by the local authorities and we do not want duality. We do not want one inspectorate falling over the other, otherwise we shall have the situation—if I dare utter a Latin tag—quis custodiet, ipsos custodes?
Lord Ennals: Please translate.
Lord Renton: Who will inspect the inspectors? Which inspectors will do what? I believe that the independent regional inspectors will be of greater
24
value as regards the advice that they can give to local authorities than the local authority inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State for local authorities. They would be too close.
The subject of costs should be regarded as fundamental and should override all our discussions. A regional inspectorate could sometimes give advice to those working locally which would enable public money to be better spent than at present. There may even be an opportunity for saving public money without departing from standards of care. Therefore, I opt for the regional inspectorate.
I do not like the way in which the clause has been drafted. It contains one grammatical mistake, but that is small and we all make those. Although the side note refers to "Regional Inspectorate" the contents of the clause refer only by implication to there being an inspector for each region. We must make the situation more clear and precise.
I hope that the Government will accept the views that have been put forward. I also hope that on Report they will replace Clause 46 with provisions along the lines of those in the clause that we are now discussing.
Baroness Seear: I support the principle behind the amendment although I am not certain whether the wording is correct. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, gave a clue about the need for an inspectorate. He said that of course the social services departments and the local authorities want their own inspectorate to ensure that they are up to standard but that the person appointed was the deputy director to the director of social services. If a subordinate employee is inspecting your work surely there will not be the objectivity—to put it mildly—that there would be from a regional inspector who is completely independent of the body being inspected. That is what we want.
Although I am second to none in believing that we must be extremely careful with public money, in this case I do not believe that money should be the overriding consideration. Unless we get the provisions right and have proper inspections we shall have the most hideous casualties in community care. By any measurement that is too expensive.
Lord Kilmarnock: I always listen with great respect to everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, about social services. However, on this occasion I am not inclined to follow her. She is quite correct that the Government proposals for arm's length inspection units have some positive features. They would inspect and report on both local authority and independent residential homes. It was intended that they should include inspectors recruited from outside the social services department and from former home owners. Therefore, there are certain encouraging developments.
As has already been said, none of that adds up to a national monitoring system of quality control or assurance which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned. There is a tide of anxiety running through the Committee on this whole matter of quality control, not only in this part of the Bill but also at the beginning of it. If something along these

25
lines is achieved now, it may be possible to link that with a similar system for the National Health Service.
I believe that it is very unlikely that the Committee will be happy to leave the Bill as it stands on the question of quality assurance. As has already been said, whether this is the right form of words—and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that it is not—and one might have some doubts about the way the amendment is expressed, the general feeling of the Committee seems to be that something along these lines will be required before the Report stage. That should be taken on board by the Government because if not, I am certain that the House will wish to return to the matter.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I wonder whether any Members of the Committee have any idea of what will be the cost to the public funds of this proposal—a network of regional inspectorates all over the country. It is one's experience of such organisations that once instituted they tend to grow. Keen, eager people interested in the work—and the work will be both interesting and important —tend to cause the work to increase and to recruit additional members of staff.
In our present situation it would be rather odd if Members of the Committee were to support a proposal, the cost of which they have no idea. I have no idea what would be the cost. It may be that the Minister can tell us what will be the initial cost and the contemplated increase. However, until we have that information it seems rather irresponsible for us to support a proposal of this kind.
Lord Renton: I am sure that my noble friend will have borne in mind that the proposals under Clause 46 would also involve public expenditure. It is possibly a question of whether it would be better expenditure to have a few regional inspectors or many local ones. Personally, I prefer a few regional inspectors.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend was trying to save me trouble because he anticipated the point to which I was coming and, as always, I am deeply indebted to him for that.
We have not yet discussed Clause 46. It is clear—and I should have thought generally agreed —that we do not want both this amendment and Clause 46. Until we have discussed Clause 46, includirg the question of its cost as well as its efficacy, it is difficult to ask us to vote for this amendment and the whole series of regional inspectorates which that would involve.
I was struck too by the fact that my noble friend Lady Faithfull who, with a display of courage such as one associates with her in discarding an amendment which bears her name—and it is very brave to do that —referred to the setting up of another tier of inspectorates. As some Members of the Committee will know, I have a little experience of social security administration. Something which has always haunted social security administration in this and other countries is the tendency to multiply bureaucratic organisations—and I do not say that offensively —and to build up staff.
26
Basically, very often one must take a decision as to whether the money should be spent on direct assistance to unfortunate people or on building up staff who are supposed to secure that that assistance is most efficiently given. Obviously there must be a balance between those two. However, when we are asked to set up another tier of inspectorates as my noble friend so well described it, I should have thought that there was good reason to hesitate.
As my noble friend Lord Renton reminded us perhaps a trifle prematurely, until we have discussed Clause 46 the Committee is not able to take a balanced view as to whether the proposal in Clause 46 is or is not likely to be more effective and economical in operation than what is proposed in this amendment. Therefore, although I shall listen to what the Minister says with great interest, my present view is that until we have discussed and decided on Clause 46, it is a great mistake to adopt this amendment.
Lord Ennals: Will the noble Lord accept that Clause 46 is entirely about the inspection of premises used for the provisiion of community care services? It is not about the quality of care provided, which is what this amendment is about. Here we are dealing with service standards of community care and so on. Clause 46 is about premises.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord makes my point for me. Until we have discussed Clause 46 and are clear as to exactly what it does, it remains premature to adopt a partially conflicting amendment. As always, I am deeply indebted to the noble Lord.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, says that inspectorates tend to proliferate. If one looks at the figures as regards the factory inspectorate, which is a group with which I am familiar, one sees that that inspectorate has proliferated not at all. I am not sure about the inspectorate of schools. However, I challenge whether it is correct to say, based on experience, that such inspectorates grow and grow.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I specifically limited that observation to inspectorates and organisations in the social security area. As regards the tax inspectorate, I can only say—
Baroness Seear: I said factory, not tax.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry. I understood that the noble Baroness was referring to tax inspectors and one always has great admiration for them or at least it is expedient to say so. The factory inspectorate is a different area. The point I made is that I am afraid that in the social service sphere that danger is real. I believe that, from her own experience, the noble Baroness will realise that.
Lord Renton: On the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, it is relevant to point out that subsection (4) provides:

27
"Any person inspecting any premises under this section —
(a) may interview any person residing there in private— (i) for the purpose of investigating any complaint as to those premises or the community care services provided".
Therefore, it goes beyond the sphere of premises.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is it not important when we discuss means of quality control, which is undoubtedly a crucial area to get right, to remember what the Bill is about and how it works?
To talk about regional inspectors setting service standards seems to me somewhat unrealistic. The standard will be set by the local authority in the specification which it puts forward to whatever agency or home with which it is making arrangements, and then it must ensure that it obtains that which it specifies. That is how the standard will be set. The standards relate to what happens to an individual in a particular home. It is essential that the local authority produces the right specifications and monitors them to see that they are properly carried out. That is basic to the working of the Bill. It is a new system; we do not know how long it will take for it to settle down or whether it will work 100 per cent.
There has to be a method of complaint and inspection, but it is wrong to say that regional inspectors will set the standards. If they existed, they could look at the standards and try to obtain national standards, but they could not set the standards; they would have no way of doing that. It is said that the regional inspectors will provide advice and assistance to local inspectors. One can imagine the top tier saying, "Come on boys, you are not doing this right". However, local inspectors are employed by the local authority to ensure that the standards set by the local authority in its deals with the local agencies are met. Two sets of inspectors talking will not necessarily achieve that.
Subsection (2) (c) refers to the undertaking, in liaison with any local inspectorate, to carry out detailed inspections. That means that two lots of inspectors from two different areas will go along together to look at something which the social services department arranged with a local home. They will then discuss together whether what is happening should be happening. That does not make very much sense.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, that internal and external audits are extremely useful in business and in running any large organisation. But this legislation concerns obtaining the best one can from local homes and agencies and from local authority staff. There needs to be a complaints procedure and a way of ensuring that specifications are met. Councillors from local authorities must ensure that the specifications are sufficiently high. One cannot have all those layers. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, a different system may apply for inspection. However, it would be a fundamental change in the context of the way in which the Bill will work.
I shall listen with great interest to my noble friend Lady Hooper, but she must take on board that it is essential to obtain the highest possible standards;
28
and it must be one of the Government's objectives to apply those standards uniformly throughout the country. We need to know how that will be achieved. If my noble friend can explain that then I hope noble Lords who tabled the amendment will not feel the need to press it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I may ask a few questions before the Minister speaks. Last weekend in Suffolk I attended an engagement which concerned disabled people. I met a lady who was extremely disabled. She used an electric wheelchair, and told me that she had just had her home help cut completely. Also, I live in rural North Yorkshire and I know someone with Alzheimer's disease who is living in a cottage by herself. She has no home help because no one will travel to the cottage to clean it.
When we speak of inspecting and trying to obtain services for those who need them, it is worrying because sometimes there are no services provided at all. I ask the Minister how she will ensure that the people who need help will receive it? When I asked the lady in Suffolk why her home help had been cut, she said, "I was told that there were people more disabled than I coming into the community"; that was the reason.
It would be difficult to be more disabled than that lady. I think that she probably had multiple sclerosis; she was paralysed from her shoulders down and had no use in her arms at all. She had a husband, but he was working. That puts tremendous stress on a marriage. What will happen if he walks out?
I ask the Minister those questions because it is worrying, and I can only see the situation worsening.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Somers: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke of the number of bureaucratic organisations which we could well do without. I entirely agree with him. There are too many such organisations which are completely needless. However, the organisation which we are considering in the amendment today surely comes under an entirely different heading.
That organisation is necessary because the authorities who organise care are not necessarily—shall I say?—reliable. It is essential that there should be some kind of inspection procedure which will force them to go to the fullest lengths possible in carrying out that care.
Baroness Hooper: This has been a most useful discussion. If the amendment serves no other purpose it has enabled everyone to understand the problems and, we hope, the kinds of solutions that are available. I am most grateful to everyone who took part, particularly my noble friend Lady Faithfull for her act of courage, and also my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton for reminding us to look at Clause 46, which gives persons authorised by the Secretary of State a right to enter and inspect premises where community care services are provided if they are thought not to be satisfactory.
As has also been said, there is the inspection of residential care by the authorities themselves. That

29
will be extended by the arm's length inspection units which the local authorities will be setting up to inspect their own direct provision and provision arranged through others. I hope that the intention in having arm's length inspection units will overcome the problems in the particular example quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm.
In the White Paper we devote a large part of Chapter Five to questions of quality of inspection and monitoring. We also made clear our intention to strengthen the role of the social services inspectorate, both to support and help local authorities to adapt to their new role and to carry out inspection functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. The inspectorate already produces, and will continue to develop, guides to good practice and standards, whether in domiciliary or residential care. The Departrrent of Health will continue to collect statistical data regarding social services provision and will develop the key indicators which are already produced. The department will also continue to support relevant research and evaluation to inform the development of standards and quality of service.
The social service inspectorate, which is part of the Department of Health, already has a network of regional offices. They provide the necessary scrutiny of local authorities at regional level independent of individual local authorities. There are therefore already in existence the two tiers of inspection advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm: the authorities arm's length unit and the SSI. A third tier of independent inspection would only add confusion and the additional bureaucracy to which some of my noble friends referred.
The Committee will, I hope, agree that the approach that we are taking therefore meets the thinking behind this new clause. It is important that the SSI is adequately resourced with good quality people carrying out its tasks; and that will be the case. We do not want to set up a bureaucratic regional structure with too closely defined responsibilities along the lines proposed in the new clause but rather to develop the role of inspectors as outlined in the White Paper. For example, the new clause does not cover the significant role in both policy and practice which the social services inspectorate plays in training; another area of great significance.
My noble friends Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lady Cox both asked for more assurances in regard to quality. Certainly the main aim behind the proposals is to improve quality of care. We believe that quality will be assured by building quality standards into all the contracts for care which will have to be entered into; by monitoring quality through case management and through monitoring of contracts; by complaints procedures which are provided for—an example of a fall-back position which might meet the case put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham—and also through the inspection units to which I have already referred. Those will be the routine methods. In addition, there will be longer term research and evaluation projects.
Where local authorities fail to provide services—a point raised by my noble frend Lady Cox—the Secretary of State can find them to be in default and has the power to require them to remedy the fault.
30
Therefore, the role of the social services inspectorate will continue to develop in response to local authorities taking on these additional responsibilities. We feel that we need the flexibility to respond to new areas where its advice and expertise is needed. We are all anxious to improve the quality of community care but I do not believe that the new clause is necessary to achieve that.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, can she explain whether the social services inspectorate will have power to take on the work envisaged under the Bill —in particular under Clause 46—as she implied? Is there some provision in the Bill which I have overlooked?
Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness made an interesting comment on the social services inspectorate, but can she give the Committee any idea of the scale involved? There is a great deal of work to be done. How many inspectors will there be and what background will they have? It may be that they are needed, but we should have more information about them.
Lord Kilmarnock: My understanding—the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—is that the inspectorate is responsible to the Secretary of State but that it cannot initiate inspections of its own volition; it has to be called in by local authorities which desire to have their services looked at. Is not that the current position? If so, have the Government any plans for strengthening the role and the powers of the inspectorate?
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may remind the Committee that, as I said, the intention outlined in the White Paper is to strengthen the role of the Social Services Inspectorate; in other words, we will be building on the existing structure and experience. The Social Services Inspectorate will report to the Secretary of State on the effectiveness of local inspection arrrangements and on the methodologies and standards applied when measuring the quality of services and care secured. I hope that meets the point put by my noble friend Lord Renton.
As regards the number of people working in the inspectorate and their adequacy, I gave the assurance that we intend the inspectorate to be adequately resourced with good quality people. I realise that that is not going as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, would wish me to go. However, I understand that there are currently 200 inspectors and supporting staff, and that the Bill allows for the Secretary of State to initiate inspections by the SSI.
Lord Ennals: I am most grateful to all who have taken part in this interesting debate and, of course, to the Minister for her reply. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said that this is not a party political matter and the debate proved that it is not. The debate was in fact more interesting and well -informed between the Members of the Government Benches than on these Benches, because there was not much debate on this side of the Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is always such an honest person. She will never say anything that

31
she does not believe. I respect her for deciding that there are parts of the amendment that she does not like and therefore will not press it. That raises her even higher in my estimation; but if I am to pay a compliment I must return with something else. Of course the noble Baroness and other directors of social services do not want to see some other form of inspectorate that might conceivably be critical of the way in which the directors are working in their own local authorities.
Baroness Faithfull: The point I was making in that connection is that there is another inspectorate outside the local authority—the Ministry of Health local inspectorate. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that I have been an inspector as well as a director of social services.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, the inspectorate has the right to initiate an inspection without being invited by the local authority. It is its right and duty to do so. As my noble friend the Minister said, inspectors are regionalised. After every inspection a very full report must be submitted to the Secretary of State. If faults are found the Secretary of State, through his inspectorate and officers, consults the local authority. In that way, standards are lifted.
Lord Ennals: I am glad that I provoked the noble Baroness into making that response because it yet again brought out her experience from which we always benefit in these debates. We have learned much from this debate and it is a matter to which we must return on Report.
I do not think that anyone in his or her right mind would want to see well-established and well-staffed local inspectorates, well-established and well-staffed regional inspectorates and a well-established and well-staffed national inspectorate. I was slightly amused when the Minister, when asked how many people work in the SSI, replied that they were good quality people. I hope so, but I do not know how many there are and I ought to know.
Baroness Hooper: I said that there were 200 inspectors.
Lord Ennals: The noble Baroness says that there are 200. Frankly, we should be moving towards some system where the regional structure of the SSI is developed so that it can perform the kind of function that lies behind this amendment. A number of noble Lords have said—including the noble Lord, Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, who did so with some strength—that it is important to reach the standards we are seeking to achieve and that anyone from outside who looks at those standards should do so with independence. None of us is the best judge of our own performance. It is always better to have someone with a degree of impartiality brought in to look at the service.
As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, made a very interesting contribution to the debate. She was absolutely right: We want to raise standards. Sometimes that may mean bringing the standards
32
of those local authorities which are rather poor in performance up to a higher standard. Whatever words we use—whether we call it a regional inspectorate or something else—we need an organisation at regional level which will be better able to raise standards than a body at national level. People who work together in the same region, the same county or even in the same country are much more likely to be able to influence each other.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was obviously worried about costs, and I understand that. I favour the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. When we come to judge the cost of a service we have to judge the cost of not providing it. None of us can doubt that the standard of community care in some authorities is very poor indeed. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the enormous amount of unmet need. The whole purpose of this Bill is to try to meet that unmet need and to see that there are structures which will enable us in 10 years' time, when we come to look at our community care provision, to find that we have raised the standards.
There is worth in that. There should be some element of payment to ensure that our structure for ensuring good standards is of itself of a high quality. There should be good standards in ensuring good standards. I return to what I said at the beginning. I had no intention, and have no intention, of pressing this amendment to a vote. If the Minister agrees, I hope that there can be some consultation among those who have taken such a very constructive role in this debate to see whether we can provide an organisation at regional level which is obviously linked with the SSI, which draws on what is being done at local level and which does not stand as a free and independent bureaucracy.
Strong feelings have been expressed by the many people who have spoken that there needs to be an independent inspection. We are talking about the whole field of community care and not about buildings, and so on. Therefore, we need a structure which is not in the Bill nor the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the hope that there may be some consultation. I hope the Minister can say that she will be prepared to consider returning with an amendment at Report stage which is more generally acceptable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 115DF not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Clause 46 [Inspection of premises used for provision of community care services]:
Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 115DG:
"Page 51, line 21, at beginning insert:
("() The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, require local authorities with responsibility for care in the community services to establish a registiation and inspection system for those services not already subject to registration by virtue of this or any other enactment.
() Such registration and inspection schemes shall include such guidance and regulation as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that —

(a) a voluntary organisation or other person desiring to provide care in the community, not covered by existing registration; or

33

(b) a voluntary organisation or other person contracted by a local authority to provide care in the community not covered by existing registration procedure,

shall at all times have regard to the welfare, health, safety and property of those persons for whom the care in the community services are provided.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment also concerns inspection but on a somewhat smaller scale and on a more particular point than the wider issue of inspection which we have just been debating. I put forward this amendment in the same spirit as the previous amendment in order to develop the argument about the kind of inspection that we need to have and why we need it.
I am particularly concerned here with,
"a registration and inspection system for those services not already subject to registration by virtue of this or any other enactment".
What I am getting at is the large number of privately financed and profit-making concerns. There is nothing wrong with profit making. I have in mind private concerns and voluntary bodies which in particular provide domiciliary care. It is the home help type of care on a commercial or non-commercial basis. That is an extremely important part of community care. My own view, for what it is worth, is that there is nothing more important, when looking after people in their own homes, than to have someone who will come in to make sure that the place is kept clean and that the washing up is done. It is care at that level that I am speaking about here.
It is very difficult to ensure that that kind of care is done properly. Years ago I was involved in a study as to how the home help organisers controlled the people for whom they were responsible. It is remote control because the controllers cannot see what is being done. The home helps get into the homes of the clients, because that is the only place they can be, and they are subject to a dual loyalty. They have a loyalty towards the people employing them—the local authority—and also a loyalty to the clients. Some of the home helps do their work extremely well but —let us be frank about it —some of them exploit old people. I have seen that and it is very difficult to stop. The old people who are being looked after are too afraid to report the home helps. Exploitation takes place because nobody finds out.
This amendment covers a limited area but it is an important one. Inevitably and rightly, there are private organisations which are being set up and some of them are excellent. I suggest that some of them may not be. We need to have included in our inspection the registration of all these bodies so that there cannot be exploitative groups which will take advantage of the situation in the homes. The organisations should be registered and subject to inspection.
I hope that that provision will do something to stop possible abuses. I say that, realising from personal experience just how difficult it is to pin down this problem. I have no intention of pressing this amendment to a Division. I shall be very interested to hear the comments of the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I rise to support the noble Baroness on this amendment. As she said, private and voluntary care homes are subject to registration. We
34
want to find ways in which small homes can be included. At present, domiciliary and day care services provided by private agencies and voluntary organisations are not included in a registration scheme. That must be a mistake because the matter is extremely important. It is quite obvious that the Government expect that there will be major developments in the provision of domiciliary and day care by the private agencies and voluntary organisations.
Where these services are provided under contract by an organisation acting on behalf of a local authority there should be less of a problem. The local authority can specify in the contract what standards are required. It can monitor adherence to those standards. The encouragement of enterprise and innovation which the new deal for community care is intended to promote may bring with it some dangers which were touched on by the noble Baroness. There is a growing demand for services funded wholly from the means of the user or the user's family. It is not necessarily a safeguard that the organisation which an individual approaches already has a contract with the local social services department. There may be no contract with it. The non-contractual work is not subject to regulation either by inspection or by registration.
It is in that area that we can find abuse. There are obvious dangers. The noble Baroness referred to the elderly who may be exploited by unscrupulous people. That may be done through excessively high charges for domiciliary services or services which are not up to standard. As the noble Baroness has also said, elderly and disabled people are the last to complain. They do not want to have a row. Most of us do not want to have a row if we can avoid it, though we get involved in rows now and again. The people we are concerned with do not want to row at all. They feel heavily dependent on and often deeply respectful of those who provide them with domiciliary services and also those who help with day care facilities at day centres, social clubs, and so on.
This amendment builds on the proposals contained in Clause 43. It aims to strengthen the arm of the local authority to ensure that agencies are not run by unsuitable people. The Secretary of State will have power to specify the criteria of unsuitability. The local authority would have power to enforce such criteria. The amendment also proposes that voluntary organisations or private companies which provide such services,
"shall at all times have regard to the welfare, health, safety",
which may refer to fire precautions or other aspects of the service being provided.
The noble Baroness argued the case very well. I may have taken a little longer in doing so. I believe that there is a very powerful case indeed for extending the area of inspection into the fields described in the amendment. I hope that the Government will agree to it.
Lord Kilmarnock: I do not wish to lengthen this discussion; but my name is attached to the amendment and I fully support it. The noble

35
Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the domiciliary dimension which will obviously become increasingly important and which is not at present covered by legislation. There is also the fact that homes with fewer than four beds do not currently have to register under the Registered Homes Act 1984. That is another peculiar aspect of the matter. I think that I am right in saying that both the Wagner Report and the Griffiths Report recommended that registration should be extended to homes with fewer than four residents.
There are regulations under the 1984 Act which regulate the conduct of residential care homes and the provision of facilities and services. They attempt to ensure that a home should provide for each resident such accommodation and space by day and by night as is reasonable. That is a fairly weak provision, but there are certain smaller homes to which it does not even apply. Whatever regulations exist should be extended right up and down the scale in terms of size. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, they should certainly include the delivery of services in the home. On those grounds, I support the amendment.
Lord Butterfield: I have one point to make. I am most concerned that we should appreciate the delicate line which exists between entry and intrusion into the homes of old people. We must be most careful when we frame these regulations that we do not give people the impression that, if they are receiving domiciliary care, their house is an extension of the outpatients' department of a hospital.
We must realise how important it is that those who frame the regulations get the matter right. This is also important for those who will be responsible for carrying out the very important extension of the work of the National Health Service and community care services. We do not want people closing their doors to domiciliary care because they do not want the inspector visiting them and finding that they do not do the washing up, and so on. That is rather an extreme example. However, I am sure that what I am saying is in the minds of all those who are behind this most interesting amendment.
I remember how much difficulty there was long ago during the last century when a great problem arose in Manchester about mothers making up artificial milk for their children incorrectly. The whole profession of health visitors had to be evolved. It was most difficult to ensure that they could get into the homes of the mothers and show them how to make up the milk. I understand the difficulties which have arisen in some people's minds about health visitors having the right of access. I want the noble Baroness to know that I realise it will not be very easy to frame the regulations which will cover those activities.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I understand that a similar amendment was tabled and discussed in another place. Therefore, we are aware of the concern behind the amendment about the need for safeguards for
36
the new forms of community care. I hope to be able to establish why we feel those worries are not justified. We had a wide-ranging discussion on the previous amendment which is linked in part with this one. We recognise the problem of small homes containing fewer than four people to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred. We are looking at the situation.
We believe that it is unrealistic and impracticable to place another statutory duty on local authorities to register and inspect services. There are many ways—and I referred to some of them during the debate on the last amendment —in which the quality of service provision will be controlled. First, from April 1991 local authorities will be placing contracts with providers of social care services. Those contracts will contain mechanisms for monitoring and for ensuring that the specifications, including any requirements as to standards, are being met.
In my view, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, under-estimates the motivation and power of those who will be buying their own services. I am sure that in order to survive in a competitive situation, private companies will need to provide good quality services at reasonable prices.
Baroness Seear: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. In my opinion, her assertions are totally unrealistic. Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee an example. I once knew an old lady who was dying and who eventually died. She was 78 years old and uneducated. She had a home help who was a lifeline to her because no one else came to see her except the occasional visitor. The home help would say to her, "Oh, I do like that vase!". A long pause would follow and the old lady would say, "Would you like to have it?". On her next visit she would say, "I do like that rug". That is the kind of situation which will arise.
Therefore, to say that such an old lady would go into the market and trade in order to get another home help is toally unrealistic. Those are the kind of people about whom we are talking. Of course there are other people who will trade; but this is not where the market operates. I believe in the market principle, as does the noble Baroness. However, it has its limits. Old women at home who are half dotty already will not go into the market and say, "My home help is a crook".
Baroness Hooper: The noble Baroness underlines the great difficulty which arises in this connection. I referred to the contractual mechanism. That is one of many safeguards. In the situation just illustrated, clearly that may not be very successful; but we anticipate that it will be in others.
Secondly, there is also the process of case management which will ensure that those who receive care in the community have their cases reviewed at regular intervals. Thirdly, we accept the importance of local authorities establishing and promoting their complaints procedures to ensure that difficulties are dealt with satisfactorily. That is an issue to which we shall no doubt return in more detail at a later stage.

37
Finally, Clause 46 gives the Secretary of State the powers, which we have already discussed, to inspect premise.) where community care is being undertaken, especially those premises which are not safeguarded by existing legislation. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that Clause 46 will allow inspection by the Secretary of State's appointee of private and voluntary services with which the local authorities have made contracts.
Lord Ennals: Can the noble Baroness say what those powers include? Are services other than residential services covered?
Baroness Hooper: I believe that this extends to domiciliary and day care services. However, I think perhaps I should check that fact and confirm it to the noble Lord.
The arrangements to which I referred will go a long way towards achieving the control which this amendment seeks without the introduction of new regulatory controls. I can assure Members of the Committee that we shall continue to watch the operation of these services. As I said, there are other provisions in the Bill to promote and safeguard quality. I know that the noble Baroness has said that she does not intend to move that amendment and therefore I shall not need to urge her to withdraw it.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Lord decides what to do, will what the Minister has just said extend to homes with fewer than four residents? Have I understood her correctly? Subsection (1) includes the words:
"(other thin premises in respect of which any person is registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984)".
The homes to which I am referring are not of course registered under that Act. Therefore will the powers about which she has just been talking extend to those smaller homes?
Baroness Hooper: Clause 46 gives the Secretary of State pcwers to inspect premises where community care is being undertaken. It does not exclude smaller homes.
Lord Carter: Perhaps I may press the Minister on the same point. She has said that the Government are considering the problem of small homes. We understand the difficulty. There was a recent press release from her department, which I do not have with me, in which Mrs. Bottomley, the Minister of State, Said that the Government intended to bring forward legislation on that matter when the opportunity was right. What is that legislation, and when might we see it? There is a problem with small homes.
Lord Ennals: Perhaps I may ask a further question before the Minister replies. I should have asked the same question if my noble friend had not done so. The part of Clause 46 that the Minister read did not seem to include inspection. Inspection may not be the correct word. It did not seem to include the observance of domiciliary services. I bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield.
38
Does the clause also include domiciliary services and day care services provided by private agencies? My reading of the clause was that it did not, but if I have it wrong I shall be relieved to hear that the clause includes, first, small homes; secondly, domiciliary services; and thirdly, services provided by private agencies.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister replies, is it not a fact that some people who wish to make money out of vulnerable people have groups of small homes with fewer than four residents? There is nothing to stop them doing that. They may have several homes with 30 or more residents. There may be three or four people only in each home and therefore the homes are not registered.
The Minister mentioned competition in the marketplace. It is difficult to find anyone who is honest and willing to clean people's homes. There is not much competition in this sphere. There is therefore a danger.
Baroness Hooper: The answer to some of those queries is that the Bill covers day and domiciliary services and small homes where there is a contract for the services. That point applies equally to Scotland. We have perhaps not made it clear that we are talking about a group of amendments which include Scottish amendments. My noble friend has drawn that point to my attention. Those areas of concern are covered where a contract exists.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the timing for carrying out the consideration offered by my honourable friend the Minister of State. I have no timing to give him at the moment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am glad that my noble friend made the point about the contract. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave an important example of the old lady who had been deceived by her home help. We have all known that happen. I do not believe that it need be a cause for pouring such scorn on the Bill. If the home help is employed by the local authority, she will only be discovered to be unsatisfactory if someone reports the matter. One cannot have the inspector calling on every old lady when the home help is there. Some member of the family would have to report that the vase had gone. That home help would then cease to be used by the local authority.
If the home help is employed by a private agency, the private agency will be responsible. The contract is the means of control. That agency would have to be told that it would not continue to hold the contract or it would have to get rid of unsatisfactory people. The Bill applies even in the case of that old lady. It is not she who goes into the market for another home help; it is the authority which goes into the market for another agency or changes the home helps that it employs. I believe that the provision applies. I dislike the use of the work "market" as a type of joke in that context because it frightens people. Strong control on this point is built into the Bill and matters should be a lot better than they are at the moment.
Lord Ennals: Before the Minister decides what to do, I am still puzzled. I understand that in another place the Government gave assurances that there would be "inspection of clients' homes". If that is the case, I cannot see how Clause 46 can cover domiciliary services in the way the Minister suggested. We are anxious because the home help service is only one service provided by local authorities, but it is an important one. The quality is sometimes worsening. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the fact that home helps often do not do cleaning and yet that is frequently the most important thing that an old gentleman or an old lady—there are some old gentleman who need home helps because they are not as good at housework as the ladies—needs. There is still some ambiguity and uncertainty about the matter. The Minister should settle our minds about it or assure us in some other way. We need to be sure about this matter.
Baroness Hooper: It is much the same point as that raised by my noble friend Lord Renton when we were discussing the previous amendment. Clause 46 refers to premises:
"in which community care services are or are proposed to be provided by a local authority".
Lord Ennals: That does not include private houses.
Baroness Hooper: It does not exclude them.
Baroness Seear: Does the clause mean the physical premises or the care that goes on within those premises? The clause is not clear. It could mean either.
Baroness Hooper: The clause refers to "premises" and "community care services" which are being provided there. It seems to me that the inspection of premises is to see not just that they are adequate but that the community care services that are being carried on there are adequate.
Baroness Seear: This matter is not clear. "Premises" to me suggest a physical building—seeing whether the loos are all right and that type of thing—not checking on the quality of care given to the inmates. The clause may mean that, but the wording is not clear. We should know which it means. I agree that it could mean either.
Lord Seebohm: I do not wish to prolong the matter any longer. I am sorry to make the Minister get up, sit down and get up again. I have discussed this matter with my local authority. The director of social services is worried about the small homes. The Bill allows him to inspect only where the services are provided by the local authority. The small commercial homes are not provided by the local authority and so do not come under the Bill. That is the trouble. There must a completely new approach to get this matter right.
Baroness Faithfull: I too am puzzled about this matter because under the Children Act where there is one child in premises those premises must be
40
visited and inspected. I am not sure why the Children Act should be different from the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: When we refer to "premises", it seems that Members of the Committee are concerned about an individual's home, as in the case of domiciliary care. Obviously there would be no question of an inspector inspecting the client's own home. Therefore we must draw the distinction between that and the inspection of the services provided in a client's home. It follows that the reference in Clause 46 (1) to,
"premises … in which community care services are or are proposed to be provided by a local authority".
covers the services and not just the building. However, we shall read the comments made, as we always try to do, bearing in mind the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. We shall try to ascertain whether there is any need to clarify the matter, at least by a clear statement from me on the position at a future stage.
Lord Ennals: I am glad that the noble Baroness will look at this, because we are in a state of great confusion. On page 52, Clause 46 (4) states:
"Any person inspecting any premises under this section—
(a) may interview any person residing there in private".
Does this imply someone in a day centre or a place where home helps foregather to plan their services? I do not believe that the noble Baroness knows what it means and I know damned well that I do not. I suspect that no Member of the Committee does. Those sitting in the boxes may know what it means but they have not brought it to light in the legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness will return at Report stage with a statement as to what the powers are and what they are not.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that what is intended is clear—that is, to ensure that when a complaint is made a reasonable investigation can be carried out. That meets much of the concern raised in the course of the discussion.
Baroness Seear: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the consideration that she has given to this. As I said at the beginning, I have no intention of pressing the amendment at this stage. We shall wait to hear what further clarification the noble Baroness can give at a later stage. We shall certainly come back to the issue and not leave it at the next stage. However, I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p. m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 115E:
Page 52, line 14, leave out from ("practitioner") to end of line 16.
The noble Lord said: I wish to talk about a slightly different aspect of Clause 46. As Members of the Committee know, I am advised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, and my concern lies in that area. Clause 46 (2) (b). which was mentioned

41
earlier, states that any person inspecting any premises may,
"inspect any records … relating to the premises, or any person for whom community care services have been or are to be provided there".
Subsection (5) on page 52 states:
"No person may—

(a) exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) (b) above so as to inspect medical records …

unless he is a registered medical practitioner".
So far, so good. My amendment would delete the rest of subsection (5), which states:
"in the case of the power conferred by subsection (2) (b) … the records relate to medical treatment given at the premises in question".
The difficulty there for schizophrenics is that it could well be that the records held elsewhere or that relate to treatment given elsewhere may be of more importance than the treatment given at the premises in question. As the Committee knows, these unfortunate people from time to time have to go into hospital, where their treatment is stipulated. Then, if suitably fit, they are discharged into the community and will come under the general auspices of this part of the Bill. What these schizophrenics have been given or told in the hospital to do with regard to medical treatment may be of much greater importance than the treatment they receive at the care centre or elsewhere.
It therefore seems to us that the qualification of,
"medical treatment given at the premises in question",
is too tight for the kind of people whose main treatment has been given elsewhere and may be of great importance. Also, I do not know but I suspect that this may apply to other types of illness and not just to schizophrenics. That is why I have not narrowed the amendment to apply only to the mentally ill. I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could explain whether I am wrong. If not, will she agree to the amendment or something similar that she might introduce at a later stage? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that there is a misunderstanding about the purpose of this clause. Its purpose is to provide to persons authorised by the Secretary of State the power to inspect certain premises. The persons authorised will normally be members of the social service inspectorate or nursing and medical staff of the Department of Health in England and their opposite numbers in Scotland and Wales. The premises are those premises in which community care services are provided and in respect of which no power of inspection exists in other legislation. This means unregistered residential care homes and day centres and similar establishments.
The purpose of the power is to enable the authorised persons to inspect both the services provided and the way a local authority is exercising its community care functions. We would expect such inspections to form part of the investigation of serious complaints and other major irregularities. They may also be used in conjunction with monitoring of local authorities' performance. In any
42
event we do not expect that it will be necessary to make a great deal of use of them. The main inspection and monitoring function in respect of private and voluntary facilities with which local authorities have made arrangements will fall to the authorities themselves. They do not need special legislative provision for this and will be expected to include in contracts the arrangements for access and inspection. It may happen, especially in small houses, that the residents' doctors may decide to keep case notes on the premises. Medical records held on other premises such as day centres may contain details of care or treatment provided elsewhere. Given the general purpose of these provisions, we do not feel that it would be right for such records to be open to inspection nor do we see any need for them to be.
I believe that the confusion is because my noble friend is concerned about the records specifically relating to an individual patient. However, the purpose of the clause is to inspect the premises and the quality of the provision provided at those premises as well as to look at the local authority and the way in which it carries out its duties. In the light of this explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord rises, perhaps I may ask whether the noble Baroness is aware that her answer to this question pre-empts the answer given by her noble friend on the previous amendment. It still seemed to be somewhat doubtful exactly what was being inspected. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has now said in terms that there is no doubt whatever that the quality of care being provided is to be inspected, whereas earlier there was some doubt as to whether that was so. It may well be that in order fully to understand the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, we need the clarification that we were promised on the previous amendment.
My own interpretation of the clause was different. I believed that it concerned solely premises. I do not say that the noble Baroness is wrong. I should find it reassuring to discover that the provision is not only about premises but about the care offered in those premises. However, until we know that, we cannot interpret the validity of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that what I said was consistent with what my noble friend said on the previous amendment. First, the provision covers those premises that are not subject to inspection, premises where the local authority will have contracted to provide services. Therefore three things are being inspected: the premises themselves, the provision that is provided from those premises and the way in which the local authority has exercised its function in contracting with those premises. My noble friend, on the other hand, is concerned about the specific provision for a particular patient and the records that pertain to that patient.
Lord Mottistone: We are getting closer but not close enough. Clause 46 (5) states:
"No person may —

(a) exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) (b) above so as to inspect medical records; or

(b) exercise the power conferred by subsection (4) (b) above, unless he is a registered medical practitioner".

The power conferred by subsection (4) (b) is to examine people in private. I accept the point that my noble friend is making which is that the Government are mainly concerned with examining the overall provision of services. However, in order to determine that, a doctor may want to examine a particular patient as that is a good way of finding out whether an institution looks after schizophrenics, for example. Therefore the doctor exercises his rights conferred under subsection (4) (b) and examines a patient.
By that I mean that if the patient is mentally ill, the doctor talks to that patient. He does not do anything nasty. I know that some people around the country are doing nasty things to children in this respect. The doctor talks to the patient. He may want to consult the records to see what treatment the patient is receiving. As the patient has left hospital, he may have stopped taking his medication. The doctor will want to know what the medication is. That information will probably be in the records which relate to the medical treatment that was given on the premises. Until the patient said he no longer wanted the medication, that medication would have been provided. If the doctor can refer back to the treatment that was given when the patient was last in hospital, he will also find out what medication was given then.
My point has still not been taken. The inspector may say to himself, "I really do not know whether this schizophrenic is being properly looked after because I cannot tell what treatment he has received in the past. Therefore I need to have that extra piece of information to put all the pieces of the jigsaw together. If I do not know whether the schizophrenic is being looked after properly, I do not know whether the care that is provided in this institution is good enough".
One of the points that my noble friend did not address was that of the limitation to consult only records relating to medical treatment that is given at the premises in question. That is the point at issue. She did not give me an answer to that. She took us down another track which, whatever she may say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, contradicts what my noble friend Lady Hooper said earlier. If that is not the case, I hope they will both look into the matter together and sort it out. We must know the answer to that matter for the sake of the previous amendment and this one and perhaps many that will come on Report. That stage could last a week, if we are to judge by the present rate of progress.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should say that the matter may also involve a long-acting medication that may have been given in the premises in question by a psychiatric nurse.
Lord Mottistone: That is true. I invite my noble friend to clarify this matter. If she can, that will be a jolly good show; but so far there has not been much hope that she will do so.
Lord Winstanley: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has a point here. He knows, as do many of us, that there is a tendency for patients who are suffering from schizophrenia to stop taking their medication once they are removed from the immediate control of the consultant who has been looking after them in hospital. They tend almost by definition to stop taking their medication. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is concerned that when inspections are carried out those who are conducting them should ensure that patients are receiving the proper treatment. That is not a matter that is connected with community care. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wants to see some kind of inspection carried out of the standard of therapy which is being provided for patients. That is a clinical matter. It is a matter which needs attending to; but I am not entirely sure that the noble Lord is right in thinking that this is the way to deal with it.
Lord Rea: As a visiting medical officer who was often called to see patients in elderly people's accommodation, I should say that I have often looked at medical records. I would have found it quite impossible to distinguish between the notes relating to the treatment that was being received at those premises and those relating to previous treatment. If the medical officer concerned has recorded the whole history of treatment, all the notes will be there in any case.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment seeks to permit someone who is authorised by the Secretary of State to examine any medical records which are held on premises being inspected, whether or not they relate to care or treatment that is provided on those premises. It is that blanket approval to examine records that is causing concern. However, there is a further confusion here to which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred. A doctor may be concerned about the medical condition of a particular patient. He will have access to the medical records anyway if he is the patient's doctor. If he is not the patient's doctor but is concerned about the care that the patient is receiving, no doubt he will alert the patient's doctor to that problem and the case will be investigated. We are confusing again the inspection of premises—and the inspection of the quality of care that is provided on those premises—and access to medical records concerning the treatment of a particular patient.
It may not be entirely relevant, but it is worth mentioning that a Bill which concerns access to health records is being discussed at the moment. There is widespread anxiety that there should be greater access to medical records. However, for the purposes of this clause we are talking about two different things. We shall look at what has been said in this debate when considering the previous amendment and this one. In the light of those

45
remarks. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I shall not push the amendment any further. We have aired the subject sufficiently well in any case. However, I suggest to my noble friend Lady Blatch that she did not answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that it is impossible within the meaning of Clause 46 (5) to distinguish between medical treatment that is given on the premises concerned or medical treatment that has been given somewhere else. There is room at least for clarification, whatever the purpose behind the clause may be. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 115AEA:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of staff from health service to local authorities
.—(1) In connection with arrangements relating to community care services made by virtue of this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the transfer to employment by a local authority of persons previously employed by a National Health Service body.
(2) Regulations under this section may also make provision with respect to the return to employment by a National Health Service body of a person to whom the regulations previously applied on his transfer (whether from that or another National Health Service body) to employment by a local authority.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2) above regulations under this section may make provision with respect to—

(a) the terms on which a person is to be employed by a local authority or National Health Service body;

(b) the period and continuity of a person's employment for the purposes of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;

(c) superannuation benefits; and

(d) the circumstances in which, when a person ceases to be employed by a National Health Service body or local authority, he is not to be regarded as entitled to benefits in connection with redundancy.

(4) In this section —

(a) "local authority" and "community care services" have the same meaning as in section 44 above; and

(b) "National Health Service body" means a Regional, District or Special Health Authority or a National Health Service trust.

(5) Regulations under this section may make different provision with respect to different cases or description of case, including different provision for different areas.").
The noble Baroness said: The issue which this new clause addresses is one which was raised in the Griffiths Report; that is, the question of ensuring that the skills of staff employed in long-stay hospitals are not lost when responsibility for their patients passes to another authority. As the report pointed out, such staff will have direct personal knowledge of individual former patients and their needs, as well as a wide range of skills which are equally valuable in a community setting. This has been a matter of some concern to National Health Service staff interests and was also raised during the Bill's Committee stage in another place. My honourable friend the Minister of State undertook that we would be bringing forward proposals in this area. I am
46
glad to be able to fulfil that undertaking today. I understand that my noble friend Lord Sanderson will bring forward a similar amendment for Scotland on Report.
At present staff who transfer to the employment of the local authority at the same time as their former patients move to local authority care would not be regarded as continuously employed for various statutory purposes. They will finish one employment and begin another. That means that, unless the NHS could offer them a suitable alternative job, they would become redundant and be entitled to compensation. Furthermore, they would have to work for the local authority for two years if they were full time in order to acquire statutory rights in their new employment.
Amendment No. 115AEA therefore empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for the transfer of such staff. In particular, that would allow a person's service with the NHS and local authorities to be treated as continuous employment. That means that statutory rights, such as access to an industrial tribunal, would be protected and that NHS service would continue to be counted for the purposes of calculating any future redundancy payments or compensation for unfair dismissal.
The purpose of the clause is straightforward but the detailed definition of the circumstances to which it should apply requires some care. It is important that proper account is taken of the views of those immediately involved, including health and local authorities and representatives of the NHS staff. That points to a regulation-making power as the best way of proceeding because there can be detailed consultation about the terms of the regulations, and that is what we intend.
My noble friend Lady Cox raised a similar point at an earlier stage. To ensure consistency I should say, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said last week in response to that point, that local health authorities will continue to employ nurses to work both in hospitals and in the community.
As regards people with a mental handicap, we said in paragraph 2.17 of the White Paper that we would be exploring with the professions, local authority associations and other interests how nurses' skills and experience can best be made available in the new pattern of services. The present amendment ensures that, where it is agreed that staff should transfer, there will be a simple means of achieving that which avoids unnecessary redundancies. That does not in any way prejudice consideration of the wider issue.
The Government recognises that the new clause does not address every single aspect of the move to community care. In particular, the voluntary and private sectors will have an increasing part to play in the new mixed economy. It would be impracticable to bring them within a clause such as this given the great variety of employment conditions they may be operating. However, we believe that the clause, within its limits, has a useful part to play in assisting the smooth transition to community care and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: The Committee will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the clause. I have just a couple of points to make. The first concerns the point that she made that there will be full consultation with staff in all transfers. The Government have taken some wide enabling powers by regulation in the clause. What rights will employees have if they do not agree with the proposal to transfer them? Will they have all the normal rights under employment law?
Secondly, subsection (2) deals with a person who has been employed by the National Health Service, transfers to a local authority and subsequently returns to work in the National Health Service and protects his rights in those circumstances. What is the position regarding a member of staff who was employed ab initio by a local authority and had not previously been employed by a health authority and is then transferred to the employment of a health authority. Would he be protected under the terms of the clause?
Baroness Hooper: I can answer yes to both of those questions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 115EA:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Standard Spending Assessment and community care in rural areas
.—After subsection (9) of section 80 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(10) The basis of distribution contained in a report under subsections (1) or (5) (a) above shall include components reflecting the higher cost of providing community care in rural areas."").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 115EA I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 115EB. The Committee will see that the amendments deal with the higher cost of providing community care in both rural areas and inner city areas.
Turning first to Amendment No. 115EA, which deals with rural areas, there is no specific provision in the legislation for local authorities to meet the extra cost of providing community care for individuals in rural areas. The new powers for local authorities to assess individuals' needs and to secure the means for alleviating those needs will almost certainly result in the demands for existing and predicted budgets to be more fully addressed. The cost and the time taken in the delivery of service to individuals who are scattered across a locality will inevitable affect the decisions of those who have to set the standards for service delivery and the subsequent placing of contracts.
I draw the attention of the Committee to a recent report on rural housing by ACRE (Action for Communities in Rural England). It was commissioned by the Rural Development Commission and revealed that there are 376,000 cases of housing need in rural areas. The report indicates that that is more than double the estimate of those who are registered on council waiting lists in rural England for 1989. It emphasises that there are serious housing needs throughout rural England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): Will the noble Lord give way? I did not catch the name of the report.
Lord Carter: It is a report by ACRE—Action for Communities in Rural England. It is a housing needs report prepared for the Rural Development Commission.
In addition to mentioning the figures concerning housing need in rural areas—53 per cent. of the homeless are to be found outside the metropolitan areas—perhaps I may repeat figures which I have given before regarding the district council where I live in Wiltshire. It is an area of 67,000 people, and includes small market towns. Three years ago the budget for bed and breakfast accommodation for the homeless in that district council area was a little less than £5,000. The out-turn expenditure for 1989–90 is £95,000. That is for one small district council.
We all know that bad housing can lead to many of the problems which have to be dealt with through community care provisions. In addition to housing there are problems relating to rural transport which lead to elderly people effectively being marooned in their homes and the additional cost of providing a comprehensive service over a wide area. There is therefore a strong case for extra help with the cost of providing community care in rural reas.
I turn now to Amendment No. 115EB, which deals with inner city areas. We are all aware of the high cost of providing accommodation in inner city areas: the higher staffing costs and the cost of serving a high-need population in inner city areas—the homeless, those with drug and alcohol problems, those infected with HIV or with AIDS and ethnic minorities. I understand that black people are between three and five times more likely to be diagnosed as schizophrenic than white people. That probably says something about the standards of assessment of schizophrenia. However, that is a problem in inner city areas.
There is poor infrastructure of community care in inner city areas, which one might describe as a patchwork quilt. The quality of service varies from borough to borough, particularly in London. There are problems of co-ordination of the provision of the service that is required across the boundaries of the boroughs. How will that affect the placing of contracts which specify that users must be from a particular local authority area?
It is clear that there will be substantial problems in delivering effective community care in both rural and inner city areas. The amendments are intended to deal with those problems. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: The National Council for Voluntary Organisations wishes me to point out the number of young people who are moving away from rural areas and of elderly people who are staying and the number of village shops and post offices which are closing. The situation in rural areas is becoming difficult for the elderly, particularly those who are disabled and those who become ill. Perhaps those factors should be taken into account.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As I understand it, those matters would be taken into account when the revenue support grant for the local authority concerned is under consideration. As I understand the amendments, they simply pick out those two specific items and seek to treat them separately in respect either of rural areas or of inner cities. I shall be interested to hear from my noble friend what the effects of doing that will be. It is certainly my understanding that questions such as the degree of extra costs in particular areas must be taken into account when the general revenue support grant is under assessment and that there would not necessarly be any case for simply picking out those two matters and dealing with them differently from every other issue that arises in that respect.
Lord Henley: I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in moving the amendment, but I hope that I can convince him that the amendment is unnecessary. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, those factors will be covered in the general consideration of the revenue support grant. I do not think that it would be wise to pick out two factors and enshrine them in legislation in Section 80 of the Local Government Finance Act so that they would be given more prominence than others.
The allocation of funds to individual authorities through the revenue support grant is based on standard spending assessments which give a central Government view of appropriate revenue expenditure by individual authorities to enable them to provide a standard level of service. Included in the overall assessment is a notional element for the personal social services, which from 1991–92 onwards will include the cost of our community care policies. That element is in turn based on detailed formulae which take account of the numbers and needs of residents of each authority.
The formula upon which the distribution report is based, therefore, already takes account of the varying needs of different local authority areas in relation to the provision of community care services. The current distribution arrangements are deliberately designed to be sufficiently flexible to respond to the whole range of diverse factors affecting local authority expenditure needs, not simply those two factors. For instance, the formulae place particular emphasis on the elderly and, most importantly in view of demographic changes, the proportion of very elderly. They also have regard to the numbers living alone and allow for such factors as the numbers of elderly in receipt of income support.
We recognise that the way in which central funds are distributed may have to be reconsidered in the light of the new responsibilities that our community care proposals will place on local authorities. We are actively discussing the implications for the personal social services' distribution formula with the local authority associations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already made it clear that he will take account of any new evidence made available to him when setting the standard spending assessments for 1991–92. That could, of course include views on particular
50
difficulties of providing services in rural or inner-city areas. I am sure that my right honourable friend will take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, about the ACRE report and of the NCVO's evidence presented by my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
The present arrangements already have the capacity to respond to local factors in the way that the noble Lord seeks. For example, with regard to inner cities, they take account of the unavoidable labour cost factors relating to London and the surrounding south-eastern counties. To introduce a legislative requirement to focus on specific concerns would unnecessarily restrict both the distribution mechanism itself and the discussions which inform the distribution decisions.
I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment following my assurances that my right honourable friend is engaged in discussions with the local authority associations.
Lord Renton: I must apologise to the Committee for having missed the first three minutes of the debate, but I nevertheless hope that noble Lords will bear with me because it seems to me that, if the community charge needs modification—and there is a general feeling that in some respects it may —it should be considered not selectively or in a piecemeal fashion, but in the broad. We should not therefore try to amend it by the provisions of the Bill.
However, it so happens that, as my noble friend Lord Henley pointed out, in relation to the cost of community care in rural areas and in the inner cities, the arrangements for the revenue support grant which affect the amount of the community charge are of a kind which take account of the varying needs of each area, including the social services and community care needs. In any event, it would therefore seem that the amendments are not necessary. I certainly join with the plea that the noble Lord who moved the amendment, no doubt in great sincerity and with zeal, should now withdraw it.
Lord Henley: My noble friend is correct. Obviously, we must discuss the implications of the community care proposals with the local authority associations. That might lead to slightly different weight being placed on different factors in reaching the SSA on which the RSG is based.
Lord Carter: I find the Minister's answer disappointing. It does not recognise what is now happening. The Minister set great store by what he called the present arrangements which are designed to deal with the problems to which I referred. If that is the case, why did the ACRE report discover that there were 376,000 cases of housing need in rural areas? Everyone was amazed by the findings of that independent report. I referred to the figures for the homeless in rural areas. In the case of inner city areas, you have only to walk across the river over Waterloo Bridge to see how community care is failing and to see the people who live in "Cardboard City".
On the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, there are no

51
general needs indicators in the SSA calculations for the higher cost of provision in, for example, rural areas. The personal social services element does not reflect the service character—for example, the cost of providing services over a wide area as in rural areas.
For all those reasons, the Minister's answer is not satisfactory. There is a problem. As the present arrangements are not working well, it ought to be written into the Bill that that extra provision should be provided. The only thing to do is to ask the opinion of the Committee.
5. 38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 115EA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 117.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Birk, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kennett, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Listowei, E.

L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Carter, L.

B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mulley, L.

Falkender, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ogmore, L.

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Galpern, L.

Phillips, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Rea, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Grimond, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Bellwin, L.

Aldington, L.

Beloff, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belstead, L.

Allerton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Arran, E.

Blatch, B.

52

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boardman, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Borthwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterfield, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleraine, L.

Newall, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norrie, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Digby, L.

Pender, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Donegal!, M.

Portsmouth, E.

Dundee, E.

Prior, L.

Elles, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Greenway, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gridley, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Rodney, L.

Marylebone, L.

Romney, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Henley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hives, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hood, V.

Sharpies, B.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Stockton, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Strange, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Ironside, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Jenkin of Roding, L.

E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sudeley, L.

Joseph, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Teviot, L.

Keyes, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Killearn, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kitchener, E.

Tranmire, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Layton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V.

Windlesham, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Young, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5. 46 p. m.
[Amendment No. 115EB not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 115EC:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Training for voluntary organisations: general power.
—(1) The Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, give financial assistance—

(a) to persons providing educational or training courses in connection with the provision of community care services or support for users of community care services or carers of such users by voluntary organisations; and

(b) to persons providing financial or other assistance to those attending such courses.

(2) Financial assistance may be given under this section in any form, and may in particular be given by way of grants, loans or guarantees or by incurring expenditure for the benefit of the person assisted.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No, 115EC which stands in my name and that of my

53
noble friend Lord Carter, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115ED, 116A and 116C. Although Amendment No. 116C is connected with the other three amendments, it is not very closely connected. As it has been tabled in the name also of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I shall merely express support for it and leave the noble Lord to deal with the detail.
There is nothing between us on the importance of encouraging the voluntary organisations in this area. The case for the voluntary organisations was put clearly in the White Paper and by the noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That is not the point at issue. I fully believe also that there is nothing between us on the question of the importance of quality of care, the need for quality assurance and so on. Where we may regretfully disagree is about how quality will be assured.
The purpose of the first three amendments in this group is to help to ensure that quality assurance by seeing that the appropriate education and training, notably in the voluntary sector, is provided to those who will be participating in the provision of community care. That is the point at issue.
We start from the position that, in encouraging the voluntary organisations to participate, we have to recognise that at the present time probably many if not all of them are not fully equipped to do that job. They have skills and understanding but may lack some of the appropriate expertise. One reason for the amendments therefore is to find a way to help them acquire the relevant education and training.
Let me say immediately that I am not one of those who believe that what we might call "amateurism" is good enough in this area. Indeed, I go further. I believe that throughout our economy and society amateurism has put us into many of the difficulties in which we find ourselves. The solution lies in many areas. It lies in enhancing the quality of educational training that we provide. I do not think that bumbling along relying on the devoted, gifted amateur is satisfactory. That is a general point. I do not refer only to the provision of community care, although the argument certainly holds for such provision.
The problem does not arise because we do not know what to do but because we do not do it. I refer to the voluntary sector. One reason is that it is very hard to obtain the funds that will enable such courses to take place. From my knowledge of the voluntary sector I do not see how these funds would become available unless the Secretary of State takes the lead to a very considerable degree and accepts some responsibility for providing funding.
If I am totally honest, as I always am with the Committee, I would go further. We are not discussing ad hoc courses. I should like to build on the excellent development of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications that the Government have encouraged. It seems an area in which the NCVQ could play a useful role. With regard to the NCVQ, the care sector consortium could become the lead industry body for work in this field. However, in order for it to do so funding has to be found somewhere. I do not see how the funding could come
54
from the voluntary sector. I do not see the funding coming from the local authorities bidding for community care via the voluntary organisations. The local authorities will not find themselves able to fund them.
On Amendment No. 115ED, I regret to say—I have done this before to the Committee—that having considered the amendment, it does not state what I wish. I am a very slow learner; I tend to get there in the end. However, the Secretary of State should provide the broad framework, the broad guidelines, within which training and education would take place and the NCVQ, voluntary bodies and others would then get down to the detailed training programme.
I agree that "training programme" could be interpreted in the broad sense. However, the amendment could be read in the narrow sense. The role of the Secretary of State is not to lay down the training programme in detail but, to return to terminology used last week, to provide guidelines in that area.
Lord Ogmore: On the subject of professionalism—I believe that that was the intent of what the noble Lord said when he referred to amateurism—in this country we are gradually shifting towards professionalism. Some years ago I had some association with the world of rugby, which has become completely professional even though of amateur status. I know that it is seeking excellence all the time, but if we completely depart from the amateur status some aspects may be lost, especially if one refers to rugby where everything is geared to such excellence. The few who achieve such excellence maintain that level. However, so many of the minor clubs may miss out by a search for excellence. We have to take care that we do not go too fast down the road of excellence. There is a danger that the vast majority who are mediocre or average tend to miss out through the excellence of the high fliers.
Lord Peston: I am indebted to the noble Lord. I have to tell him that rugby is not my game. However, there are other games that one could take seriously. By his analogy he raises a vital point. In terms of community care there is no substitute for the devotion that the voluntary bodies bring to this area. I take that to be the analogy to the amateur spirit to which he referred. However, I make the same point about sports and games as I do about community care: it is better to do the thing properly. I even believe that about rugby, which is a game that I do not particularly care for. I always thought that it was a girl's game played by rather brutish men.
Lord Winstanley: To amplify the point made by my noble friend, when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to amateurism and said that we wanted professionalism, he was not talking about people being paid but about people being trained. That is a very different thing. The matter of paying people is a very different factor. We want a very high standard of performance from the voluntary bodies but there is no way that they will be paid. However, they will be paid for the training that will give them that high

55
standard of performance. Perhaps the noble Lord would have phrased it better if he had not referred to amateurism in the way that he did but qualified it in this way.
Lord Peston: No question of payment has arisen on the amendment. With regard to rugby, I thought it was an amateur game although I should like to see it played professionally. I believe that Rugby League is a professional game. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go through the whole sporting calendar in detail.
I hate to moan on about it, but doing things properly on the basis of correct training, education and expertise is still an aspect that we find hard to accept in this country. If we are ever to go forward as a successful country we have to take professionalism seriously in the sense that I use the word.
I hope that I may now proceed on that basis on Amendment No. 116A. In so far as local authorities can be persuaded to be involved in such arrangements, funds could come forth from the Secretary of State to enable them to be financed. I have raised the question of finance. In order to anticipate those Members of the Committee who may say that they are worried about government expenditure and so on, I rely on the same argument that the Government use. I draw the attention of the Committee to page (xi) of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The Government recognise that Clauses 44, 45, 46, 49, 50 and 52 will require a general strengthening of management at all levels and an increase in running costs. The memorandum then states:
"These would be offset by better targeting of services as a result of these activities and by some reallocation of existing resources".
In other words, the Government are getting away from the question of, "Where does the money come from?" by arguing that what they want to do is self-financing. If the Government can put forward that argument on behalf of their proposals it is equally valid for me to do so in respect of these clauses.
I believe that the provision of education and training will make the measures much more effective. Therefore, rather than adding any net cost to the public purse they will, if anything, save money. I say that in anticipation of any Member who may argue, "Where will the money come from?". I argue that this is an investment which will yield returns and improve the provision of the Treasury. I hope that the Minister's brief contains a note from the Treasury saying that the amendments must be supported. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment in part based on the submission that I have received from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. We must realise what the voluntary sector has to offer. However, it needs highly-trained people to organise its management. It is often unnecessary for voluntary workers to be fully qualified although they must be given certain
56
information in order to point people in the right direction.
I like the words contained in Amendment No. 115ED:
"The Secretary of State shall establish a training programme for the purposes of better equipping voluntary organisations".
That is the real point. We are not looking to train every voluntary worker to carry out a skilled job alongside the highly-trained, skilled people. They are partners and supplement the service. I remember asking the local authority for three more staff in my department. It would not provide them because it considered that there were not the resources. I enlisted 30 voluntary workers to supplement the trained workers but they had to be given certain information and training. Therefore, the voluntary organisations need money to set up the appropriate training and information services.
Lord Ennals: I agree with everything that the noble Baroness has said. However, will she not go further and recognise the fact that many of the voluntary organisations providing services either in conjunction with local authorities or independently have professional staff members as skilled and as well-trained as those working for statutory bodies? For instance, MIND runs a casework and legal advice service and those employed to provide that are trained and highly-skilled professionals. It is a voluntary organisation because a great deal of its money is raised in that way. It has inspired and is helped by many volunteers throughout the country. However, its central work is carried out by highly-trained, highly-skilled professional people.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I agree that in every voluntary organisation there are highly-skilled people; for instance, in Barnardo's and the National Children's Home. However, there are others who supplement those people and who are vitally important. They need to be given information in a less-skilled training programme. We need training programmes for the highly-skilled and also the less-skilled people who offer a good service.
Lord Mancroft: I believe that in discussing the amendment we may enter a minefield. I have some expertise in the treatment of drug and alcohol abuse where by far the greater standard of excellence and expertise is in the voluntary sector. The expertise found in the health and local authorities is, in many cases, deplorable—and I choose the word carefully. It has a directly adverse effect on the patients or clients.
The problem is that there are now four voluntary sector establishments in that field which are training people to a high standard. On completion of training they have no certification nor magic letters after their names because none exists in this country. At present the best trained practitioners in the United Kingdom have been trained in America but the American qualification is not accepted here. One enters an area where one professional body is squabbling with another and saying, "My qualification is better than yours".

57
I am slightly worried because, although one is making a provision for training, one is not specifying the training. Who is to say that it is the right training? What will be the qualification gained as a result? Unless that is made clear one is merely inviting a great deal of time and money to be spent and a great deal of trouble to be taken in order to have people trained in an area which may not be appropriate to their job.
In the area about which I am talking—that is drugs and alcohol—not many people are qualified. If they were undertaking training they would merely be teaching other people who did not know what to do. That is a dangerous area to enter. I believe that the professionals in the field—perhaps "professionals" with a small "p"—should decide the necessary qualifications, set up the registration and certification bodies and then approach the local and health authorities and ultimately the Department of Health.
I am slightly cheating because some months ago I had informal chats on the subject with my noble friend. It appears that the Government and the Department of Health are keen that such training should begin in that way. It seems to be a more sensible way than writing the provisions into the Bill in this form. If we agree to the new clause we are putting the ball in the Department of Health's court where it should not be; it should be in the court of the voluntary sector allowing it to reach its conclusions and to come forward for registration. That is the better way of providing training.
Lord Kilmarnock: As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, indicated in his opening remarks, Amendment No. 116C, to which I am speaking, has been grouped with the previous amendments on the ground that it concerns grants to voluntary bodies. The amendment seeks to deal specifically with the problem of voluntary organisations whose catchment areas cover the boundaries of more than one local authority and who will find themselves in danger of closing as a result of the new system of community care funding.
We are seeing a shift from providing general grant aid for voluntary bodies to the contractual system which the Bill introduces. I am aware that there is a London boroughs grant system which is run through the lead borough of Richmond. However, I understand that it is unlikely to be able to increase funding in the cross-boundary areas and that it is cash limited.
The White Paper and the Bill envisaged the general pattern of funding for community care shifting towards contracts negotiated between providers and local authorities, usually on a block basis. That makes sense in respect of such provisions as local day centres and residential care homes for the elderly. However, it makes somewhat less sense for other activities which may not be able to function so well under the arrangements. There are a few problem areas in which that model is not appropriate and to which I should like to draw attention. For example, there are eases in which the client group has no necessary link with any particular authority. That is so for many people who are dependent on alcohol or
58
drugs, about which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, spoke, and for many single homeless people who may have become mentally ill as a result of their period of homelessness. It has been suggested that around 40 per cent. of users of some projects in central London for homeless people are suffering from some form of mental illness.
There is also the case of the client group which is not large enough in any one local authority to justify provision in that area alone. That will be the case for the so-called low incidence disabilities such as deafness and blindness which we have already discussed on an earlier amendment and for many specialist kinds of provision such as crisis intervention in drug and alcohol work.
It will also be the case in projects working with people who are HIV positive, who have AIDS-related conditions or who have full blown AIDS. Those people are not confined to local authority areas, and those conditions are essentially of a cross-boundary nature.
It will be the case for all agencies providing any kind of open-door services, as they are called, such as drop-in counselling or projects such as crisis intervention in drug dependency. In such cases people come from dozens of authorities and may be in contact with the agency for only a few weeks.
Neither the local authorities with which the clients have a link nor the local authority within whose area the service is situated may wish to accept the responsibility. The point is that voluntary organisations have been started in many of these fields because of their ability to tackle innovatory projects across local authority boundaries. One example is the alcohol recovery project. That accepts referrals from people who may be considered to have a link with 55 authorities, some of which are in Scotland or Ireland. If, before accepting someone for day-care counselling or residential care on an interim basis, the project has to contact all the authorities with which the person has any link in order to try to persuade one to accept the responsibility and then to negotiate a contract for the service, there will be chaos and the system will become totally ineffective. Another project which has been mentioned with which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is closely connected is Phoenix House. That is a project in North London which provides residential support, rehabilitation and treatment for drug users. It takes clients from anywhere in the country.
As we move into the new system, there is something of a problem as to how the cross-boundary voluntary sector activities will be funded. As I have already mentioned, the only mechanism in existence whereby local authorities can collectively fund voluntary services across their boundaries is through Section 48. In London that is the arrangement funded through the London borough of Richmond, but we are talking about a problem which is wider than London.
If we are to do anything about this, and if we are to recognise the role of these cross-boundary voluntary agencies, Clause 47 seems to be the most appropriate place. Therefore, the amendment is to that clause. It introduces a new subsection (7E) after

59
(7D) which empowers the Secretary of State to make special grants for mental illness which we have already discussed in the ring fencing debate. The most appropriate place in the Bill to give recognition to cross-boundary voluntary bodies is at the end of this clause and that is why the amendment is there inserted. This is not an amendment which I propose to move to a division, but it is incumbent on the Government to tell us what they intend to do in this very important problem area.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Crossroads care attendance schemes support these amendments. They give care to very severely disabled people in their own homes. They may have cancer; they may be very elderly or have a severe physical disability. The care attendants are often married women who have some time on their hands and are able to give a few hours to the scheme. They sometimes go to a person's home, stay the night, put the person to bed at night and get them up in the morning. There is lifting involved in that. Anyone who knows about lifting knows that the person should be properly trained otherwise there may be damage to the back. Therefore, to get these schemes off the ground there needs to be training and very often pump-priming grants. There is a danger that those might disappear.
Lord Motristone: I strongly support the principle of this group of amendments, and I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch will have something encouraging to say about them.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I take up one matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I do not believe that he meant it seriously when he suggested that because of the greater efficiency which would follow from the adoption of these proposals, there would be no cost. In any event, he must face the fact that the expenditure incurred would be immediate and any of the savings for which he hopes would not mature for years. Therefore, we are concerned with some immediate expenditure.
Of itself that is no reason to reject the proposals. However, I believe that when any Member of the Committee makes a proposal for further expenditure on public funds, an explanation is owed to the Committee of the expenditure involved. Are we talking of five, six or seven figures? What sort of figure is contemplated?
Just as any Member of the Committee in private affairs would always consider on any proposal what was the right amount to be spent on it, so when we are dealing with public affairs—and particularly in this Chamber which has no responsibility for public expenditure—we owe it to ourselves to be able to say how much will be the cost of something which we are advocating. Without the advantages of official briefing, it is not expected that the noble Lord opposite will be able to give a precise figure. However, he owes it to the Committee to give an idea of the magnitude of the sum involved because while many Members of the Committee may feel well disposed towards certain proposals if the
60
expenditure was small, as it rises one's doubts must be reinforced. It is very difficult to form a judgment on an amendment involving public expenditure unless those who bring it forward give some idea of what it will cost.
Lord Swinfen: As I understand it, the Government are looking for more and more assistance from the voluntary sector to help disabled and disadvantaged people of one kind or another. I know from my own experience of a charity that young people who come to look after very severely physically disabled people for the most part have a very limited life in that work. Their burn-out time is about 12 to 18 months. It takes very special people to make a career in that sort of work.
I know of one instance where a young man was working during his summer holidays looking after very severely physically disabled people. The following year his father asked him whether he would return to the John Groom's organisation. He said, "No. It was almost as much as I could take to complete the six weeks because I found it so distressing". That means that voluntary organisations train people who will not be with them for six, 10 or 15 years. They must continuously spend money on training replacement staff. That is voluntary money raised from the general public which cannot be used elsewhere.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred—I use his words—to bumbling along with the gifted amateur. That reference was unfortunate and I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his qualification and the subsequent confirmation from the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I was also grateful for the comments made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who referred to the special contribution made by the voluntary sector which is very often significant and complementary to that of the professionals. It is therefore important to place on record the value of the voluntary sector and we must lay the ghost of the reference to "bumbling along".
Lord Peston: Perhaps I could interrupt the Minister because I do not want her to be too kind to me. I meant what I said. I do not for one moment doubt the contribution that the voluntary sector makes. I am also well aware that it contains a number of people who are very capable. However, I meant "bumbling along with the gifted amateur". It is what is wrong with the country; not what is wrong with the voluntary sector. I do not withdraw the remark, even if the noble Baroness becomes angry with me. It is what I meant to say.
Baroness Blatch: I say with equal vigour that a considerable part of the voluntary sector, with or without our help, makes a significant contribution. We do not have to bumble along with them. Their training needs are often met from within their own organisations.
These four amendments are all concerned with voluntary organisations. Amendments Nos. 115EC and 116A would in different ways enable the Secretary of State to make grants for the training of

61
staff of voluntary organisations. Indeed, Amendment No. 115EC would go further than that and make it possible for grants to be put to profit-making concerns. I am sure that that was not intended. Amendment No. USED would require the Secretary of State to set up and finance a training programme to enable voluntary organisations to assist in the provision of community care services. Finally, Amendment No. 116D would enable the functions of voluntary organisations providing services to people from a wide area to be centrally funded.
The Government recognise the importance of the voluntary sector in providing much needed services to the community. The White Paper Caring for People stated that one of the key objectives for community care services was,
"to promote the development of a flourishing independent sector alongside good quality public services".
Thus local authority social services should be enabling agencies, stimulating and supporting service provision by voluntary and private organisations. The Government therefore recognise the need for staff in the voluntary sector to be trained and qualified for the work they do. However, the proposals in these amendments are not an appropriate means for achieving that objective.
First, the value of the voluntary sector is that it is in some measure independent of both central and local government. We already fund the voluntary sector to a considerable extent through Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. Local authorities also make a considerable financial contribution to local voluntary organisations. For govenment to provide through a central initiative significant additional funding for the training of staff, even for three years, would begin to undermine the very notion that the voluntary sector is indeed in some meaningful way voluntary and independent.
Secondly, responsibility for training staff within the voluntary sector rests primarily with voluntary organisations as employers. Government have a role to play in encouraging relevant training for appropnate staff in all sectors of the personal social services and have already taken a number of important initiatives in that respect. The Secretary of State already has power under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 to make grants or loans to voluntary organisations providing community care type services.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. I am pleased no be able to assure him that the Government are funding the council to participate in the work of the care sector consortium through a Section 64 grant. Furthermore, local authorities have powers under Section 65 to provide grants to voluntary organisations which they would be able to use in funding training for staff of organisations with which they agreed contracts for provision of community care services. Also, using powers under Section 63 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, the Secretary of State has encouraged local authorities to provide places on their training courses for staff from the voluntary sector under the training support programme. In 1990–91 the
62
training support programme includes £7.6 million I specific grant for the training of staff working with elderly people.
We have encouraged local authorities to provide places on their own training courses for staff from those sectors, particularly training provided using the Department of Health's training support programme funds. Also, as part of the follow up by the department to the Wagner report on residential care, the National Institute for Social Work has been commissioned to undertake a programme to promote the training of care staff in homes of all types. A further special programme of funding is unnecessary.
My department's social services inspectorate will continue to lead work on identifying training needs and setting up initiatives to deal with them. In relation to community care, it has set up, jointly with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW), a Training for Community Care Strategy Group. The voluntary sector in relation to personal social services is represented on that group and has already made a considerable contribution.
Amendment No. 116C covers rather different ground. It addresses the situation where a voluntary organisation runs a hostel which draws its clientele from a wide area, and indeed where it may not be obvious in which local authority the people concerned are ordinarily resident. I readily acknowledge the difficulties in coping with that situation, which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, so vividly described. However, I do not think that the proposals in this amendment, which break the important principle that local services should normally be locally funded, are the right way of tackling it.
First, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that when they have little or no means such hostel dwellers can claim income support and housing benefit, which together should cover their accommodation and maintenance expenses, thus leaving only the balance of the cost to be met by the local authority. Secondly, it may help if I explain how the principle of ordinary residence works. That is the way in which the local authority responsible for a person's care can be identified. A person is reckoned to be ordinarily resident in the place where he has chosen to make his abode when the need for care arises. In the case of a homeless person that is simply the place where he happens to be when the need arises.
I agree that that can place a disproportionate burden on local authorities that have places within their areas where homeless people tend to congregate. But there are ways of dealing with that: local authorities can work together and agree that one should act on behalf of a number, or that each authority should look after the people who arise from within its own area on a knock-for-knock basis. In either event, as was explained when we were talking about urgent treatment earlier in our debates in Committee, the local authority has two alternatives. Either it can agree with the hostel that everyone admitted to it will be supported to the extent necessary by the local authority for the first

63
few days of admission without further assessment or inquiry or the authority would grant-aid a voluntary organisation to care for people for short periods without local authority intervention.
Finally, it will be the case that under the community care arrangements the voluntary organisation would have to arrange permanent admissions with the local authority where the person it is caring for is ordinarily resident. That may involve the voluntary organisation in dealings with a number of authorities. I acknowledge the difficulty here but I hope that it could be overcome with sensible local organisation. Basically the answers to all those problems must be found locally. Making central grants available simply conceals the need and would prevent problems from being properly examined and tackled. It would also involve the centre inappropriately in local administration. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject these amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Peston, rises to speak, perhaps I may say that the Minister touched on the most difficult point. The voluntary organisations which run the national organisations do not know how to collect the money which they used to receive centrally from different social service departments throughout the country. Perhaps the Minister can give some idea as to what they should do. The voluntary organisations, including Phoenix House and ACET, which deal with home care for AIDS say that it will increase their workload by around 400 per cent. It is something about which they are extremely concerned.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I believe I addressed the point in terms of how one local authority will work with other local authorities in this area. It is important that there is now a qualification of what "ordinary residence" means. I must also refer to the sums of money that will be passed to local authorities which will increase their budgets and enable them to cope with community care. There will be more money available and it will be important for local authorities to address the problem of the very people of whom my noble friend is speaking when making their plans for their areas. That will include people, whether or not homeless, who reside in those areas at the time of need.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Lord, Lord Peston, replies, will he be good enough to define the term "voluntary organisations" used in his amendment? To my mind he seems to have been extremely rude to a number of very well established, very highly professional charitable organisations that have been the leaders in community care for generations.
Lord Peston: I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this interesting discussion. Perhaps I may start with the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. He poses a very interesting problem. I, for one, hold the organisations he has in mind in the
64
highest esteem. However, I do not believe that holding a body in high esteem means that it is not to be subject to criticism. This kind of area is always a matter of delicacy. It applies to all kinds of other areas. One can be discussing the education and training of teachers or of anyone else. One is confronted with the reaction, "Do you not appreciate what a good job they are doing?".
Let me say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that I very much appreciate the good job that these organisations are doing. Many of the participants in these organisations do things which I could not do because I could not cope psychologically with the work concerned. The case given by the noble Lord is a good example of why many of us have such a difficulty. It is not remotely my intention to insult the people involved in the organisations. When I say to someone who is an amateur, "Can't we get down to doing this professionally?" it is not meant to be an insult but to assist them to do the job more effectively.
In my support, or defence, perhaps I may make the point that my proposals are precisely what the voluntary bodies themselves support and what they want in order to do a better job. That is the point I seek to make. Therefore, I do not withdraw my remarks. I did not withdraw them as regards the noble Baroness. It is not because I do not hold these organisations in high esteem but precisely because I do and because I want to assist them to do a much better job in the new era which allegedly we are to get from the Government. I want the organisations to have this education and training. That is the point. I do not seek to insult them. I would make the same point about many other areas of our life with the same intention—to improve matters.
Lord Winstanley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am anxious to determine or elucidate his precise meaning. Does he consider that what he is now doing is as an amateur or as a professional?
Lord Peston: That is a very good question. If what I am now doing is as a politician —occasionally I am horrified to find myself referred to as such —I have to say to the noble Lord that I consider myself a bumbling amateur. I am not good at it. However, if the noble Lord will allow me to go on to discuss public expenditure I would regard myself as not merely an expert but as an expert with very few rivals. In that case I have not the slightest difficulty in referring to myself as a professional. However, where I am a bumbling amateur I welcome a great deal of help from the noble Lord and others to do my job slightly better.
Lord Swinfen: I thank the noble Lord for again giving way. Perhaps I may point out to him that the term "voluntary organisation" in many instances is a total misnomer, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and Members of the Committee will acknowledge. There may be some organisations which are, as he said, totally bumbling. However, the reputable organisations are highly professional and are pushing the community care profession further ahead than almost anyone else.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord, but let me add that I did not use the word "reputable" and therefore, by contrast, the word "disreputable". I do not suggest that the question of being reputable arises in any way. However, I ask noble Lords—and specifically the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen —to bear in mind the point I made that voluntary organisations are themselves extremely keen on these amendments. They want to see these proposals accepted, as I understood did the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It is simply my being obstinate and refusing to back down on the question of amateur versus professional which may get between us on this matter; but perhaps the noble Lord will bear with me and allow me to be obstinate.
Fascinating though this debate is I am not certain that the matter is worth the amount of time we are putting into it, but perhaps I may make two further points. As regards the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I said earlier that I was not keen on the wording of Amendment No. 115ED and that was precisely because of the kind of points he was making. However, I should very much like to see the kind of professionalism that I want—the kind of criteria and needs—coming from the bodies. The noble Lord may not have listened to exactly what I said because this body exists—the National Council for Vocational Qualifications—which in my view can canalise those efforts. I agree that there is not much between us in that respect. I certainly do not see this as something imposed from on high; I see it as saying to people, "What is it you need? How can we provide it?".
Finally, I am very much with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in regard to public expenditure. However, there are two difficulties, or perhaps three, that I can see. The difficulty that I do not see is an inability to do the calculation. To be perfectly honest, I believe that I could do it. My difficulty is two-fold. First, I have a feeling that if I were to say that I propose we should spend £5 million, noble Lords will immediately tell me that I am not allowed in this Chamber to talk about spending money. Therefore, I am slightly caught. I could do the estimates but I think I would then be ruled out of order.
My second point—and on this I do insist—is that if the Government do not come up in this clause with a precise statement of how much money their proposa s will cost (the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is well aware that the Government have only made broad remarks) I do not see why I should be accused of not providing a precise calculation. I refer back to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on an earlier amendment. I should like the Government to tell me what Clause 46 will cost. The noble Lord raised that point. The Government have given absolutely no indication of what it will cost, though I have at the back of my mind a possible answer. Therefore, my defence is that I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in regard to public expenditure. I do not believe that one should say that something should be done whatever the cost. However, we should all play by the same set of rules. If I am criticised for not suggesting a sum of money
66
then the Government should not be allowed to proceed with any of their proposals without telling me, clause by clause, what they will cost. I merely want to play under an equal set of rules.
I have been sidetracked in dealing with my amendment. I am acutely disappointed with the reply from the noble Baroness. I strongly believe that central to this whole development is education and training. The voluntary organisations, as they have advised me, do not find these amendments remotely threatening to their independence; on the contrary, they are extremely keen to have this support. All I can say at this stage is that I will reflect on what I have heard and come back with an amendment on Report with a view to testing the general view of the Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. I15ED not moved.]
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 115EE:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Join! Finance
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a scheme for the making of payments towards local authority expenditure on innovative forms of community care services.
(2) The scheme established under (1) above shall make provision for—

(a) payments by the Secretary of State to be made to a social services authority, and expenditure under the scheme to be made by the social services authority, a district council, an education authority, a housing authority, a housing association or a voluntary organisation;

(b) expenditure under the scheme to be made only when agreed by the social services authority in consultation with the District Health Authority, the district council and voluntary organisations active in the area;

(c) expenditure under the scheme to be of a capital or a revenue nature; and

(d) the social services authority to publish information in their area concerning the use made of expenditure under the scheme and such criteria as are applied in making decisions on proposals for such expenditure.").

The noble Lord said: Once again, for the purpose of this amendment, I am my noble friend Lord Carter and I move it on his behalf.
In an earlier debate we probed the Government's intentions in sustaining joint funding which, as I said, had been introduced when I was Secretary of State. We agreed that under successive governments joint funding had been a useful operation, that it had supported initiatives and had brought together health authorities, local authorities and voluntary organisations.
Bearing in mind the proper concern about funding of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I think that at the time we were referring to existing joint funding of about £146 million. I was told by the Minister that the future of joint funding was under consideration. I was given the impression that it was likely to continue in some form or another. This amendment does not seek to confine or restrict the discussions now being held by the Government; it seeks to ensure that this initiative launched 30 years ago finds its place in future arrangements and on to the face of the Bill.
So far there is no sign that the Government intend to table any amendments or that their timetable for discussions will enable them to do so before the Bill

67
receives Royal Assent. If I am wrong in that respect then no doubt the noble Lord will tell me. Obviously, joint finance is health service money which can be spent on local authority or voluntary organisational projects which promote community care. These projects are jointly agreed through the local joint planning mechanism which, as I have said, brings together, as regards the planning of community care, health authorities, local authorities and voluntary organisations.
I believe we have agreed across the Floor of the House that joint finance has been of great value in enabling new and innovative community care services to develop and particularly those provided by voluntary organisations. It has been used very effectively to complement major health and social service provisions. The provision has been used to fund initiatives across the whole range of community care, often crossing traditional service boundaries, including joint projects involving both statutory and voluntary sectors.
Joint finance has often enabled services to develop which meet the needs of people which would otherwise have remained unmet. I refer, for example, to rural projects about which my noble friend was speaking earlier, and those run by service users. Some very useful work is undertaken by service users and some of it is the result of joint finance. That has made a major contribution over the years and throughout the country to the development of a diverse range of services meeting local community care needs in ways which are flexible and appropriate to the needs of service users.
My own feeling and that of my noble friend is that joint funding should continue in one form or another. It may be that lessons need to be learnt from the experience of the past 12 years. Unless this provision is on the face of the Bill there may remain some uncertainty as to whether this kind of funding will continue. I want to see it on the face of the Bill. In some areas joint finance has been spent on services which should have been paid for out of health or social service budgets. In a number of areas voluntary organisations have had difficulty in obtaining access to joint finance, particularly in connection with black and minority ethnic groups and smaller groups, because of the lack of information, or local procedures and policies. Those deficiencies make it difficult for voluntary organisation applications to succeed.
Perhaps in future such funding can have clearer criteria laid down by the Secretary of State. Local authorities should have a duty to publicise the criteria—the procedure for applying—and they should publish details of how the funding has been spent. For example, that can be shown in the annual report on community care plans.
The Government are currently reviewing the future of joint finance. This clause would make provision for funding for innovative community care projects jointly agreed between health and local authorities, the voluntary sector and other appropriate bodies which could be run jointly by local authorities, voluntary organisations or housing
68
associations. I do not wish to put a cost on the provision other than to say that I believe £146 million was spent either last year or this year. I hope that the figure will continue to increase to meet the rising levels of inflation. I would not see that as an additional form of revenue not already provided for in our existing structures. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is quite correct in that we discussed a similar amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill. I can only repeat what I said then.
We said in the White Paper that we would review the policy and approach to joint finance to determine the most appropriate way forward for this kind of support. Let me take this opportunity to confirm that existing arrangements will continue unchanged until we have completed the review we said we would undertake in the White Paper. That review is in progress and officials are in the process of canvassing views and ideas from the statutory and independent sectors. The Government have an open mind and we seek the most constructive way forward.
I cannot help the noble Lord as regards the timetable. I hope that we go forward as fast as possible. We are interested to take on board the ideas behind the new clause put forward by the noble Lord. I fully support the collaborative approach adopted by the noble Lord and his approach to publishing information about how any funding has been used and how this funding can be accessed by a wide range of organisations.
Therefore, it may well be that the conclusions we draw following the review currently being undertaken will bear similarities to the new clauses which the noble Lord has put before us. I repeat my encouragement to the noble Lord and, for that matter, to any other noble Lord, to continue to feed to us ideas and proposals on this subject. As I said last time, as a review is in progress in terms which we announced in the White Paper, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ennals: I certainly have no intention of pressing this amendment to a Division. I welcome the assurances given by the noble Lord that joint funding and joint finance will continue. I recognise the fact that he cannot give a timing for when the study will continue. The Minister gave some welcome to the principles contained in this amendment. Does he agree with me that there is merit in having some reference to joint funding within this Bill? Will the noble Lord consider that, in the light of the discussions that have gone on—it may be that more money will be provided or that different principles will be applied—and as there is much agreement between us, it would be a good thing that the provision should be written into the Bill between now and the later stage?
Lord Henley: I cannot make that promise. I repeat the assurance that we shall continue the existing arrangements unchanged until we have completed the review. I do not think I can give an assurance that we shall necessarily come forward with anything before the Bill reaches the end of its course.
Lord Ennals: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 115EEA:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Charges for hospital social work in connection with community care assessments.
—(1) A local authority may levy a charge on a District Health Authority, Special Health Authority or NHS Trust towards expenditure incurred by the local authority on the provision of social work support to any of these bodies arising from, or in connection with, any community care plan or assessment made under sections 44 or 45 above.
(2) The system of charging under this section shall be specified by the Secretary of State after consultation with the local authority associations and such other organisations he considers appropriate.
(3) Where the Secretary of State has approved any proposed system of charges for the purposes of this section, it shall be the duty of the bodies specified in subsection (1) above to pay that charge.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I return to a problem which I have raised not once but three times with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in the course of our discussions on this Bill. That problem concerns the obstacles at present in the way of the appointment of hospital social workers. Members of the Committee of my generation may remember that hospital social workers were called almoners. They are not called that now; they are called hospital social workers. They do very important work which will be absolutely crucial to achieving successful community care.
Having said that I have raised the matter three times, I acknowledge at once that the noble Baroness has been conscientious beyond the call of duty in writing to me on each occasion when I have raised this subject. I think I last raised the matter last week and she wrote to me. She said that her reply had to be exactly the same as it was the week before; in other words there was no news.
There is an impasse of a kind. It may be that later we shall Tear that there has been some progress. This is a very serious problem. I am sorry to weary the Committee but I must go back over the history of the matter. The National Health Service Act 1977, in specifying the services to be provided by local authorities to health authorities, required local authorities to make available certain persons to enable health authorities to carry out their functions. Primarily, that referred to hospital-based social workers who, until 1974, had been employed directly by the health authorities but who had been transferred to local authorities at that time.
Local health authorities were given powers to cross-charge each other for services. However, by general agreement those powers were not used until 1987 when one London authority, providing social workers to a range of teaching hospitals (at a cost of more than £2 million to that local authority) claimed reimbursement from its local health authorities.
This move was the culmination of years of attempting to establish a system whereby local authorities with large numbers of hospital social workers (a problem for authorities with one or more
70
teaching hospitals and/or regional facilities) could charge out to those authorities whose residents used the hospital services.
The uneven distribution of hospitals, especially the concentration of teaching hospitals, in some parts of London, had led to expenditure of between £1 million and £2. 5 million for some of the most active providers, and virtually no cost for the peripheral authorities with only a small hospital provision, and virtually no hospital social workers. Close to London, we have one authority which has three teaching hospitals. It ought to be paying for the many social workers which will be needed there. However, there are other authorities that I know of which do not have a hospital. Therefore, they will not have to face that financial burden.
Authorities have received no recognition of that burden in the rate support grant. I thought that I had better mention that fact in case the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter mentioned it. However, I see that the noble Lord has now left the Chamber. As I said, authorities have received no recognition of that burden; neither is there any recognition of it in the new system of local government finance. The problem has now become most serious. Some London authorities, and a few large provincial cities, are carrying a large burden. It is not recognised in the revenue support grant distribution. While all authorities in the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—both potential gainers and losers— (including London) agreed to a cost sharing formula based upon patient flows whereby there would be a pooling system of funding, the county councils which would have been net losers refused to participate. The Secretary of State was unwilling to enforce a system of cost sharing among those authorities and there the matter rests.
However, the situation is rapidly deteriorating at a time when, with the National Health Service reforms, the availability of hospital based social workers is crucial. Poll taxed authorities and those at risk of this in the future are beginning to reduce hospital social work services. They have done so not because they are of low priority —indeed, they are at the centre of the development of community care—but simply because they have to target expenditure on their own residents. Thus at a time when hospital providers and National Health Service trusts will have greater need of hospital-based social workers (for assessment needs, case management, practical support for patients and their families, together with the extraordinary effective emotional support which the hospital social workers provide to families and to individuals in distress) these services are now in danger of being run down.
In desperation one London authority is proposing to send bills for hospital social work to those authorities whose residents use their hospitals. County authorities are already signalling that they will not pay. Therefore, we have an impasse. In my view, it is absolutely essential that there should be an adequate number of hospital social workers in place at the time that this move continues to ensure the availability of community care.
What is the duty of hospital social workers? It is partly to assess need—and they are trained to do

71
so—but it is also in part to meet those needs. They do this through their contacts with the social services and their knowledge of the services available from social services. They also do so by virtue of their contacts with the voluntary sector and their knowledge of the way in which voluntary bodies can provide assistance. They play an essential part in the whole community care programme. They assess needs and provide for the needs of patients before they are discharged from hospital into the community.
If this Bill finishes its course through this Chamber and finds its way on to the statute book and we then have community care working in the way that the Government hoped it will work, it will break down if there are not enough hospital social workers in place. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. However, there is one difficult point in this respect. The value of hospital social workers is that they are also on the staff of the social services department. Therefore, if the doctors and the medical staff are going to recommend something in the community, they must know what is going on there. For example, they must know whether there is a home help or whether there is a place available in a home.
If these social workers are to be on the staff of the hospital, or paid for by the hospital, will they not be losing their affiliation to the social services department? I ask that because hospital social workers are the bridge between the hospital and the community. That is the only point that I wish to make. I do not wish to embark upon the question of pay.
Lord Winstanley: I intervene here to stress that my amendment makes no proposal to transfer social workers back to the health authorities. I agree that they used to belong to the health authorities. However, in my view it is much better that they should remain part of the social services department. Nevertheless, it is essential that somehow or other whoever employs them should be able to pay them. If they cannot be paid, they cannot be employed, and we shall not have any.
Lord Ennals: I entirely support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. He has done this Chamber a considerable service in raising this issue on three previous occasions. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has supported him. I too support him because we have had no indication from the Government as to what they will do about the fact that hospital social workers are now an endangered species. Unless they take some action soon and take a grip on the situation, before the Bill becomes enacted—that means during the course of the passage of the Bill—there will be no hospital social workers, because no one will be able to pay the bills for them.
I find it difficult to understand why the Government seem to be letting matters slide without taking any action to find a solution. However, it may
72
be that they are taking action to find a solution. If that is so, no doubt the noble Baroness will inform us. Moreover, it may be that this amendment is not the best solution. In that case, it is up to them to bring forward a better one. In my view, the Government must put matters on to a sensible footing in this Bill.
When the NHS is operating its new purchaser provider divide, it is even more likely that providers will require the services of hospital based social workers if they are to perform efficiently and effectively. The value of such social work was recognised in the Scottish Office report published in 1988. It demonstrated that not only did this form of social work give the human support required by hospital patients; it also demonstrated that it was extremely cost effective. Local authorities should be allowed to charge NHS providers for their services. If local authorities are not allowed to charge, or if they are not given the money to enable them to pay for services, then the whole project will be lost. The method and level of charging must be subject to control by the relevant Minister. The amendment proposes one way of achieving an essential reform.
In replying to this short debate, I want the Government to tell us what they propose to do about the problem. Alternatively, if they have no proposals, we shall have to return to the matter at a later stage. In moving into a new era in relations between health authorities and social services departments, with the new structures which we are setting up in the Bill, it would be quite wrong not to provide what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, called the invaluable bridge between the hospital and the community, and between the health authority and the social services department.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I too support this amendment. However, the hospital social worker of, for example, the supra-regional unit of a specialising unit—it may be a spinal unit—situated miles from the patient's home will surely also be the link with the patient's local district. I know how hard-pressed social workers are. I take Stoke Mandeville Hospital as an example. It has something like one and half social workers for the hospital patients who come from a large part of Britain. Therefore it is a most important issue.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: We recognise the important role of hospital social workers. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has a long and distinguished record of bringing forward his anxieties about the adequate staffing of that work. When he raised the matter previously he was worried that there was some kind of dispute between the Department of Health and the local authority associations over difficulties which had arisen over the appointment of those workers. In my famous correspondence with him on that subject, I had to point out that on the contrary the department has been doing its best to act as an honest broker.
In 1988 we put forward proposals for a system of cross-billing which we hoped would lead to a fairer distribution of the costs of providing a hospital social

73
work service. That is an especial issue of concern to those local authorities which bear the burden of large inflows of clients into their areas in major teaching hospitals, for example. Unfortunately the local authority associations were unable to agree collectively to a solution and so no agreement was forthcoming at that time. As the noble Lord said, since 1974 the provision of hospital social workers has been a local authority responsibility. I am grateful for the clarification my noble friend Lady Faithful] elicited that the noble Lord has no desire to change that system.
Part of the role of many such employees will be to be involved in the community care planning process and assessment. Many people working for or on behalf of health authorities are already involved in that way. Hospital social workers together with doctors, nurses, consultants, general practitioners, community social workers and care assistants assess their clients' needs, accounting for both their health and social care needs.
What we are planning to do in the Bill on plans and assessment is to reinforce the good practice which already exists and in which hospital social workers already play an important part. Their role is of especial value at the interface between health and social care, as has been said, where people leaving care in the acute sector may need substantial support as they return to their homes or another community setting.
Via the Social Services Inspectorate the department is collecting further information on the extent of the problems which have been mentioned by the noble Lord not merely today but on other occasions. I fear that the proposed cure contained in the new clause might be worse than the ailment, and so I urge the Committee to let us work through the potential solutions, as we shall be able to do, based on the better information that we are collecting and in a way in which the local authority associations and the NHS find workable, because it is essential to have that co-operation.
We need to keep the issues under review. There is a clear argument that looking at one element of charging will lead to debate about many others whether they are local authority provision to the NHS or vice versa. We have a large agenda for change before us, as has been pointed out from the Benches opposite from time to time. That will affect both local and health authorities. We need to set the framework for that agenda in the Bill and then review issues of detailed charging more widely in the light of the experience of general difficulties which arise from working through local arrangements for planning and assessment.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I repeat that if we can work out an agreed approach with the local authority associations, my honourable friend the Minister for Health and I are willing to look again carefully at what may be done in that area.
Lord Winstanley: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. It is clear from what she has said that she recognises that the problem is real and serious. She then said that the department does not yet have all
74
the facts about what the problem is in different areas and that investigations are being carried out to discover them.
When the Department of Health, or indeed any other government department, embarks upon investigations, the tendency is for them to take a long time. My difficulty in agreeing to withdraw the amendment is that, although I accept it may not contain the best possible solution—I even accept that it may not be a satisfactory solution —it provides a solution. If I could be assured by the Minister that as a result of the efforts the department is making to reach some agreement with the different local authority associations we will be told the problem has been solved and how it has been solved before the Bill leaves this place, I should gladly withdraw the amendment. If she cannot say that, I must test the opinion of the Committee so that we can at least register the extent of our feeling on that problem.
Baroness Hooper: I hope to have a solution as early as possible, but I cannot promise it before the Bill leaves this place.
Lord Winstanley: I am grateful to the Minister for expressing that hope and that intent.
Lord Butterfield: Perhaps I may intervene to say that hospital social workers have an important role to play in training junior staff in the hospitals about the interface between health and social services. One of the things that I greatly regret about the disappearance of the famous lady almoner is that she helped many of us in our formative years to find a way to understand the differences between the approach of the social services and the health services.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will agree with me when I say that in the hospitals those people are potentially important ambassadors of the social services and the other type of care. One of the problems about getting all the sides to agree may be that their role on the education and training side of the junior staff and the rising staff in the hospitals has not been fully appreciated. It may need to be a cost which is apportioned differently. A great deal of the problem always hinges on how much the cost will be. Hospital social workers should be seen as people who can build bridges in the minds of the hospital staff and the social services staff in the local authority offices. There is a great need for traffic over those bridges, especially in the shape of the service that is adumbrated by the Bill. If there is anything that I can do to encourage people to see the re-emergence of the hospital social workers as educators and bridge-builders, I shall be proud to give time and effort to that endeavour.
Baroness Faithfull: Before we proceed, would it not be wise for us to consult to see whether there is some way for the social services to pay 50 per cent. and the hospitals to pay 50 per cent.? As the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, the hospital social workers are the bridges between the two departments. They work to the two departments. Rather than ask the health or social services to pay, there should be a 50/50 arrangement. I wonder

75
whether it is possible for us to discuss that proposal and bring it up again on Report.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for making that suggestion. She has recognised, first, that there is a problem; and, secondly, she has offered another possible solution which may be an admirable one.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, told us that the department would enter into discussions and that it would try to do what it could to come to an arrangement with different local authority associations. However, she has not been able to tell the Committee that the problem will have been solved by the time the Bill has passed through the House. I cannot accept this position and for that reason it might be helpful if we tested the view of the Committee on the amendment.
7. 10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 115EEA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Auckland, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Avebury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mackie of Bcnshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Masham of Ilton, B.

L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Northfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Faithfull, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hampton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Walston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beloff, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Belstead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blatch, B.

Carnock, L.

Blyth, L.

Coleraine, L.

Boardman, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Borthwick, L.

Colwyn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cox, B.

76

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Norrie, L.

Geddes, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Orkney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Greenway, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gridley, L.

Pym, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Henley, L.

Reay, L.

Hesketh, L.

Renton, L.

Hives, L.

Renwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Joseph, L.

Sharpies, B.

Kimball, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kitchener, E.

Stockton, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange, B.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Lothian, M.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Lyell, L.

E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wise, L.

Mersey, V.

Wynford, L.

Milverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House be now resumed, and, in moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee meet again at quarter past eight.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Representation of the People Bill
7. 18 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Term and Quarter Days (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill
7. 19 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Transfer of Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("and liabilities") and insert (", liabilities and business").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and it may be for the convenience

77
of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Three of these amendments are precisely the same, the fourth is tangential. I hope the Minister will take on board something which I failed to make clear in Committee and which concerns the unanimity of the various trade unions whose members are affected by the matters that we are discussing. My noble friend Lord Dean and I will be referring tonight—I referred to this at the previous stage of the Bill —to the fact that, despite the bland assurances of Ministers at times, (they have my greatest respect in other matters) the Government appear not to take fully on board not just the anxieties but also the bitterness of the members of the trade unions who are affected by this measure. Those members have said that they are not being treated with the respect to which they believe they are entitled at a time which is, individually, very traumatic for them.
The trade unions affected by the Bill are the UCATT, the TGWU, the GMB, the AEU, the EETPU, the FTAT, the MSFU—those are the industrial unions—the NUCPS, the IPMS, the CPSA and the FDA. All those trade unions have members, some of whom are certainly affected by the issues we are dealing with and some of whom are like y to be affected by them.
We have again tabled amendments which we tabled in Committee because we honestly believe that they are worthy of an attempt to get the Government to understand the dismay of the Government employees at what the Government are doing. The amendments are perfectly straightforward. We cannot see the sense or, as we say in the North, the mense, of the Government's aim of getting rid of this part of the national empire. Other amendments that we have tabled concern the lack of faith which employees have in the Goverrment's ability to protect their interests once they have been sold on, sold off, or, as I would term it, sold down the river, when this traumatic event takes place. We believe it would be sensible for these amendments to be accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has said that the Government cannot see the need for the word "business" contained in the amendments. He said on 23rd April at column 363 of Hansard,
"We do not believe that the addition of the word "business" … would add anything of significance to the Bill".
That may be the Government's view. However, the trade unions believe that the amendments would improve the Bill from their point of view. Therefore we fail 1.0 see why the Government should not accept the amendments.
When I moved these amendments at an earlier stage of the Bill, I talked of the possibility of the establishment of mini-PSAs. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said on 23rd April, at column 364 of Hansard,
"Clearly departments will be closely aware of the need to achieve value for money and to keep their procurement organisation to the bare minimum".
We believe that is part of the raison d'être of the Government in respect of this measure. We are not talking in terms of undue hardship but we are talking about individuals who have served the nation, their
78
departments and these Ministers well. Those individuals believe they are being shabbily treated at this time. Consultations with trade union representatives have indicated that they are far from satisfied. One of the major trade unions is holding its conference at the moment. It seeks approval from its members for a ballot on industrial action. On Friday of last week the IPMS recommended official strike action to its members. That is an indication of the frustration that trade unions feel as regards persuading the Government to discuss meaningfully the impact of the Bill on their members. I shall have more to say on that on other amendments. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, remarked with regard to three of the four amendments in this group, he moved three identical amendments in Committee. I recognise that fact. In moving these amendments the noble Lord appears to have confused two issues; namely, the process known as "untying", by which Government departments are no longer compelled to place orders for goods and services with the PSA and TCS, and privatisation itself.
Until recently government departments had to place their orders for the full range of services provided by the PSA and TCS with those two organisations. They were not permitted to place their orders elsewhere, even if they believed they would succeed in obtaining better value for money or improved specifications. As part of their financial management initiative, the Government have given departments the freedom to seek the best deal they can in the procurement of their goods and services. This will generally mean the placing of orders by means of competitive tenders.
This process requires departments to decide what they want, rather than relying on the PSA and TCS to tell them what they should or will have. Inevitably, therefore, they will need access to advice in specifying and then procuring the goods and services they require. Naturally departments cannot acquire this expertise for themselves without some cost. But the Government believe that these costs are outweighed by the benefits of obtaining goods and services in competition.
The result of the process of untying is that the PSA and TCS now compete directly with the private sector. Those activities which, for one reason or another need to be kept in Government have been removed from TCS, and are being removed from the PSA. Those that remain will be indistinguishable from ordinary commercial activities. We believe there can be no case therefore for retaining them in the public sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, made reference to the phrase "national empire". This piece of legislation, like many others, has been initiated because the Government do not believe in national empires. That is why we resist the amendments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I listened with great care to what the Minister had to say in reply

79
to my noble friend Lord Graham. His comments were a re-hash of what took place in Committee. However, neither in the earlier stages of this Bill nor in the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, tonight have the Government indicated what has failed in the past which has led them to take this view. I think it is rather sad that the Government appear to be falling back on the old idea that their political dogma must be right on all occasions. The Government are obviously not going to move on these amendments.
It is sad that in any privatisation matter, whether it concerns one of the large public utilities that have been sold off or the Property Services Agency —that is another form of public ownership—the Government appear to discount completely any progressive or objective assessments or suggestions that come from the employees involved. In the past I have been responsible at a local level for running a large building department in local government. Subsequent to that I was involved in running a large housing department in local government. I always believed in testing the market. It would be a fool who did not do so. I never believed in handing out contracts just to keep people in work. I never believed that public departments which employed people were convalescent homes. However, that is the inference that the Government appear to be drawing as regards this rather squalid exercise.
It is time that Ministers—perhaps not those in this House but their bosses in another place—realised that trade unions also have an overwhelming interest in the success of the organisations in which their members are employed. It is no comfort to members of trade unions to find that the Secretary of State for Employment suddenly has a conscience about trade unionists because there has been a series of sad accidents in the Channel Tunnel. That does not cut any ice with trade unionists. The image that comes across is that the Government are blatantly biased against trade unions and against the suggestions that sometimes emanate from their members.
We have only an hour to debate the amendments before us tonight. I fully concur with the comments of my noble friend Lord Graham. It is sad that even at this late stage the Government are not prepared to consider the amendments moved by my noble friend.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I acknowledge that the Minister is not prepared to recognise the concern of the trade unions. He picked me up on my use of the word "empire". The Minister knows that I referred to the public empire that is managed by the state. The employees of that empire are proud of what they do. However, they recognise that this Government no longer want to govern their particular part of the empire. That is as plain as a pikestaff.
I believe that the Government are going down the wrong road. If they want an improved, more efficient and cost-effective public service the trade unions are in the business of listening. I do not believe that the Government have listened very carefully or cleverly
80
to the amendment. I intend to test the opinion of the House.
7. 32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 68.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Barnett, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Lockwood, B.

L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

[Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Kimball, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Lothian, M.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boardman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Milverton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orkney, E.

Carnock, L.

Pender, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Pym, L.

Colwyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigavon, V.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stockton, E.

Gridley, L.

Strange, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Hesketh, L.

E.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ullswater, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wise, L.

Joseph, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7. 39 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Transferred staff]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 20, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
("(a) nothing in this section shall prejudice any rights or entitlements of any person arising in connection with any scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is crucial and sensitive as it affects the members of whom I spoke earlier. It falls under Clause 2, which deals with the terms under which transfers and redundancies take place and with superannuation, so Clause 2 is crucial.
The employees are unhappy and uneasy at the way in which the Government have explained what they intend to do. For instance, the Government have said that the terms under which the transfers will take place will be comparable. They have used such terms as, "They will mirror". One of the disturbing features is the employees' inability to relate the Government's intentions under this Bill to their intentions under previous Bills. The Minister must understand that the employees are realistic. They realise that some of them will continue to enjoy their present terms and conditions in respect of pay, work, pensions and redundancy. They will not be disturbed when the dust settles, but, sadly, other employees will be t ransferred out —I prefer to say sold on —with that part of the business to a new management buy-ouf team or whatever it may be and they are obviously anxious.
Ministers in another place, Mr. Chris Patten and Mr. Christopher Chope, are well aware, as I am sure are the two Ministers who speak here tonight, of the deep unease about the fact that the trade unions have failed to take advantage of the way in which questions have been handled by Ministers. Perhaps I may read out a paragraph from the ballot paper issued by the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists with regard to the ballot to which I referred earlier. It states:
"No adequate guarantees have been received that pensions and severance entitlements comparable with and as secure as those in the PCSPS will be provided in the private sector following privatisation despite repeated requests for such guarantees".
I am certain that the Minister will say that there are on-going negotiations, that matters have not yet been resolved and that there are no purchasers in sight. He could put at rest the worries of 20,000 people if he accepted Amendment No. 5 and the other amendments that we propose. The sad fact is that, if the employees whom we are discussing continue to be employed in government, they will feel aggrieved at the way in which they have been treated. If some of them become employees in a new business, they will carry into that business a sense of bitterness towards the Government. If they are neither one thing nor the other—if they are made properly redundant —the terms that they enjoy will not be those that they have enjoyed as civil servants.
I am not here to argue whether those terms are right or wrong, save to say that trade unions negotiate the best terms possible for their members and the Government, as the employer, agree to the best terms as regards the employer. I do not listen to people who talk about generous or cushioned terms because the potential benefits regarding redundancy or retirement are reflected in the modest salaries that are carried in order to enjoy those benefits.
Under the terms of the amendment we want the Government to consider the scheme in as generous a way as possible. The employees' fears can be assuaged and the Government's lot in progressing the matter
82
can be made a great deal easier if they realise that the employees are asking not for an advantage or a benefit but for fair treatment from their employer. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly at this stage. I understand that under the rules of procedure of the House, apart from the mover of the amendment, no one is supposed to rise in support of it at Report stage. However, I believe that my noble friend Lord Graham has made the case for the amendment.
My mind goes back some two or three years when another privatisation Bill was going through the House. At that time we were graced by the regular presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. My noble friend tells me that it was the Dockyard Services Bill. The noble and Learned Lord, Lord Denning, dealt forcefully with the attempt by the Government to alter the terms of engagement which employees had enjoyed over a long period as employees of the dockyards so that they could be varied by a new employer. I believe that I am correct in saying that on that occasion, with the persuasive and forceful powers of the noble and learned Lord, the House indicated clearly that his point, made on behalf of trade unionists, was correct. The basis of the argument was that people employed under a contract should not be sold and traded on the open market without having any say in their future.
My noble friend Lord Graham moved the amendment reasonably. It makes sense and the Government will do themselves no disservice to heed the amendment and perhaps look upon it with more favour than has hitherto been the case this evening.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to delete the existing paragraph (a) of subsection (2) and to substitute a provision whereby staff would effectively be regarded as having been compulsorily retired at the point of transfer. They would therefore be entitled to the benefits that flow from this under the PCSPS, even though they will have retained their jobs and will in no sense be redundant.
As the Government have repeatedly made clear, staff terms and conditions of employment are safeguarded. They will, therefore, be entitled to redundancy compensation if in fact they are made redundant after the transfer. The compensation to which they will be entitled after the transfer will be identical, as far as possible, to that which would have been payable to them under the PCSPS.
Normally, when undertakings in the public or private sector are transferred, there is no question of transferring staff receiving redundancy compensation whilst keeping their jobs. The payment of redundancy compensation in those circumstances would be quite unjustifiable and, as I have explained, it is this anomaly that Subsection (2) (a) seeks to rectify. That paragraph contains standard provisions which have appeared in all recent legislation concerned with the privatisation

83
of organisations whose employees are members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, and this amendment, if adopted, would introduce into the legislation the unjustifiable situation which I have described previously. That is why we resist this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Government rest their case on producing pieces of legislation to eliminate what they consider to be lacunae and anomalies in existing legislation. But it is that existing legislation which forms part of the contract between the Government and the employees. The burden of the employees' argument is that there will be no meaningful consultations. In general, when the Government speak of negotiation they do not mean negotiation with employees but with future employers. Once that has been done there exists a fait accompli and the Government say to the employees, "We have negotiated a very satisfactory deal".
The employees may come to the conclusion that it is a satisfactory deal. The removal of this benefit or part of the contract, for example, may very well be seen by the employees as in totality not unreasonable. But they have not had a chance to look at the total package. They are continually inhibited from reaching what fair-minded trade union negotiators would recognise as a fair deal.
Quite frankly there is an objection. The Minister will move the next amendment. We have a shrewd suspicion as to why the Government are taking advantage of the large majority that they have in the House while the trade unions outside are powerless to intervene. The Minister has given an unsatisfactory answer but I am not in a position to challenge it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) his ceasing to be employed in that service shall not be regarded as an occasion of redundancy for the purpose of the agreed redundancy procedures applicable to persons employed in that service.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am rather surprised by the noble Lord's last remarks with regard to the amendment that I propose to move. I had hoped very much that it was in answer to a clarion call that he made at an earlier stage of the Bill. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that he believed that Clause 2 (2) (b) of the Bill would be in contravention of the Government's obligations under the acquired rights directive. At that time I undertook to consider the issue.
The first point that I should make is that it was never the Government's intention that this Bill should prevent the transfer of any collective agreements affecting the staff of the PSA and TCS. It was designed to ensure that redundancy procedures were disapplied at the point of transfer. We have looked again at the drafting of Clause 2 (2) (b), and we do not believe that it would have the effect suggested at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. Nevertheless, we accept that some
84
clarification is desirable to avoid any suggestion that the paragraph inadvertently goes wider than we intended.
The proposed amendment therefore will put beyond doubt that the redundancy procedures are disapplied only at the moment of transfer. As I said in Committee they need to be disapplied in order to ensure that no confusion is caused by the operation of the redundancy procedures at the point of sale. After the sales the relevant redundancy agreement will continue to apply to the staff of the PSA and TCS in so far as the agreement is capable of operation in the private sector.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will accept that this amendment meets the point that he made in Committee. I hope also that it will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. At Committee stage he spoke to Amendment No. 14, which sought to:
"leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert … Article 3 (2) of the Business Transfer Directive (No. 77/187) shall have effect in relation to the agreed redundancy procedures applicable to a person employed in that service". — [Official Report, 23/4/90; col. 384.]
I took great care to be clear about this matter and at the end the Minister said that he would take note of it and undertake to consider it before the Bill completed its passage.
I do not mean any disrespect to the Minister and indeed for my edification I ask whether he is telling me that, in response to the point that I raised, he and his advisers consider that this amendment is helpful to the thrust of my intention. This amendment was tabled only last Friday and I was made privy to it only today. Because of its lateness I have had no opportunity to seek advice or guidance. Certainly I shall do nothing to stop the passage of the amendment but I shall need to have some guidance from outside the House in order to confirm whether it is indeed helpful or not helpful to the point.
Will the Minister confirm that this is that undertaking; that is to say, the response to the point that I raised?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I went to rather a lot of trouble over this matter. This is the response to the point that the noble Lord made.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister says that this is the response. I tell him that I do not recognise it in terms of the point which I made. I am not an expert in these matters. The Minister is expert in reading a brief that he has helped to prepare which, he said, takes him to the point. Perhaps I may again ask the Minister whether what he said he took a great deal of time to prepare is helpful to the point that I made or whether it is anodyne or even benign.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the simple answer to that is as follows. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raises a good point; namely, that he wishes to discuss this matter outside the House. I can reassure him again. I responded at Committee stage, saying that

85
I very much hoped to be able to respond to the point that he made. Following discussion, I and my advisers believe that this amendment answers the point that he raised. Clearly he may wish to consider this matter further
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I accept the sense of those remarks. The Minister is aware that between now and the Third Reading of the Bill on Friday there is not a long period during which it will be in order to table amendments. I think it would be helpful to the Minister if our discussions were to take place as quickly as possible in order to avoid a protracted Third Reading stage of the Bill on Friday. That could very well happen if those whom I shall consult outside the House tell me that his response is not helpful. However, I accept that the Minister sought to be helpful and I am grateful for that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
("() no person shall be transferred by this section other than by mutual consent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in essence this is a simple amendment. Quite frankly, although I have a brief I do not need to refer to it. This is a heartfelt cry from the trade unions to the effect that before there is a transfer there needs to be mutual consent on the part of the Government, the new employer and the individual.
We know that in the discussions that took place during the previous stage of the Bill the point was raised—and we recognise it—that there will be circumstances in which an employee declines to be transferred. In such a case there are certain benefits —in this case, redundancy —which can flow from that. We do not wish an employee to be told, "Take it or leave it. You transfer, and if you don't transfer you have in effect made yourself redundant, or you have refused an offer, which denies you redundancy". If the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment, I invite him to tell the House and the employees under what circumstances the Government would acquiesce to and be a party to the transfer of employees against their consent. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that we dealt with an identical amendment in Committee. Such an amendment, if passed, would give the staff the opportunity to veto both privatisations. Clearly this would not be acceptable to the Government.
I explained in Committee the extensive measures which the Government were taking to meet the preferences of staff who wish to remain in the Civil Service. I cannot of course give a cast-iron guarantee that all preferences will be met. To do so might mean that the viability of the PSA and TCS would be threatened in the private sector. That would clearly not be in the interests of the organisations themselves, those employees who go with them into the private sector or their customers. The availability
86
of alternative posts in the Civil Service is also a constraint. But the staff have been given an undertaking that the management will use their best endeavours to meet staff preferences.
The PSA preference exercise, covering all staff, has been completed and is being evaluated. With arrangements for the sale of TCS so far advanced, it is more sensible now to wait until the identification of the purchasers is known before asking TCS staff what they want to do.
I should perhaps remind your Lordships that not only will staff have the protection of TUPE in relation to their terms and conditions of employment, but they will also have the protection of the general law in relation to unfair dismissals. In the Government's view, therefore, satisfactory protection is being given to the staff's terms and conditions of service, and as much as possible is being done to meet the staffs preferences. I hope therefore that your Lordships will be able to resist the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is interesting that the Government and the Minister have indicated that employees can rest assured that they have the protection of TUPE 81. Perhaps I may read a letter to the House from a body called the Training Business Group of 141 Great Charles Street, Birmingham. It is addressed to a Mr. Gallagher, who is the national officer of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. It is in connection with the Lambeth Skillcentre. That is one of a number of bodies that are being sold under a management buy-out. The Lambeth Skillcentre is being sold to the Training Business Group. The letter is dated 1st May, and the first paragraph states:
"As I indicated in my previous letter, we have taken very full legal advice regarding our obligations under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations. It was on the basis of this advice, alongside all other relevant considerations, that I advised you that we did not consider it appropriate to recognise NUCPS. This is still our position".
All too eagerly those who are being prevailed upon by the Government to take the Government's hands off aspects of what I continue to call the public empire are acting in a very provocative, unfair, unjust and, I would say, immoral way. The people about whom we are talking have been members of a trade union. It is sometimes the only protection that they have had. This letter gives an illustration. The other paragraph that I believe is worthy of quoting states:
"I reiterate again that, faced with a very substantial loss making situation at Lambeth, our objective and commitment is to work with the people at Lambeth to do everything we possibly can to look after their interests".
At the end of the day if it is in the interest of the new business to make people redundant it will do so because it is the viability of the business with which it is concerned and not the protection under TUPE or anything else.
That is another illustration where employees in my view will be bitter. The Government can do a great deal to recognise that. One of a series of amendments moved either here or in another place provided that businesses that were not viable and making a profit should not be transferred out of the

87
public domain into the private domain. I believe that I am right in saying that it is probably the first privatisation where the Government have not wished to make sure that it was a good buy. They are just anxious to get rid of it.
The people who will suffer are the employees. No one will buy a business that is not profitable or where he will be denied the restraints which will allow the business to make a profit rather than a loss by taking action against the employees. Before I withdraw the amendment has the Minister anything further to say?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, tries to insinuate that the Government have a policy of creating what he calls a good buy. That is not true. We have a policy of producing a viable and successful future. Part of that policy involves ensuring that the employees who go into the new undertaking are properly protected. That has created cost with both these proposed privatisations. It is purely a matter of good business sense to make sure that they are profitable in the future because they have the right level of morale. The noble Lord cannot have his cake and eat it. The Government and the taxpayer may make less money, possibly because we wish to preserve those standards, but the noble Lord cannot at the same time say, "This is not a good buy". He can have one thing or another but not both.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I would settle for a sweetener. I think that £38 million would be attractive.
When the Minister and his colleagues make their policy decisions on how to get out of running these two highly successful public concerns, there is a range of ways in which they can make a business which may not have looked so attractive on the surface look attractive to the potential buyer.
The Minister and his colleagues are storing up trouble. If matters turn out to be as sour and sad as I am told that they will be, we shall return to the House and make Ministers' lives a little less comfortable than they might otherwise have been. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
("() Persons transferring by virtue of subsection (2) above shall be entitled to benefits for retirement on grounds of redundancy, inefficiency or limited efficiency which are comparable to those benefits provided by the principal civil service pension scheme which cover retirement on grounds of redundancy, inefficiency or limited efficiency; and for the avoidance of doubt a benefit or benefits shall be regarded as comparable if, but only if, that benefit or benefits is—

(a) Fully protected by transfer to a trust or fund specially designated and financed so as to secure accrued entitlements to retirement benefits on grounds of redundancy, inefficiency or limited efficiency arising under the terms of the principal civil service pension scheme; or

(b) guaranteed to be met out of Treasury Funds.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, by this amendment we seek an undertaking from the I
88
Government. When the transfers take place the Government, with the best of intentions, will have settled on the best set of terms and undertakings from the potential purchaser. Nevertheless the worry of the employees is that an employer may well be intent on asset-stripping an aspect of the business. Employees are transferred into the private sector with all the protections that are available. There are not many. They then find that in superannuation, redundancy, sickness and a great many matters, the new employer finds a way of reducing his costs by making changes.
If the Minister sees so much advantage to the public in selling on the business, he can do so more easily by giving the employees the guarantees that we ask for. They are simple. If the terms under which the transfer takes place turn out to be blemished—the Minister may say that there should be a timescale, I am prepared to accept that —by the actions of the new employers, in order to give the new employees the guarantees that they currently enjoy, the amendment asks that Treasury funds make up any shortfall that results. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the amendment relates to the redundancy terms for staff who are transferred to the new PSA and TCS companies. It seeks to provide the transferred staff with the same benefits as they have at present and also to provide for the protection of those benefits by means of a trust, a fund or a Treasury guarantee. I dealt at length in Committee with the redundancy terms and assured your Lordships that arrangements will be made to ensure that, after privatisation, redundancy terms will be identical, so far as possible, to those which the staff have at present.
The amendment refers specifically to comparability, but I have already made clear that, on redundancy, transferred staff will be entitled so far as possible to identical terms. All previous privatisations ensured that proper protection was given to staff interests. I and my colleagues in another place are entirely satisfied that this Bill is no exception.
The amendment also raises the question of the security of any redundancy payments made after the privatisations requiring some form of guarantee that, if the new owner defaults on his obligations, the payments will be made from public funds. The giving of a guarantee is under consideration but such a guarantee would be unprecedented in a privatisation of this kind and it is unlikely that the Government will accede to the idea. We believe that, in relation to redundancy, the interests of the staff will be properly safeguarded by the measures outlined during Committee stage.
Finally, it is important to remember that the price that will be achieved reflects the fact that the purchaser accepts the conditions on which he will have to employ the staff. Therefore, the taxpayer will have contributed already to that security in that assessment as the transfer takes place.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I accept the fact that the Government and the new employer will act in good faith. I accept that the new terms struck

89
by the Government and in which the employer acquiesces are agreed in good faith. However, subsequently there may be rotten luck, mismanagement, a change in policy or a thousand things which will force the new employer, or in which he will connive, to change the terms of the transfer. The employees who are transferred do not want to be transferred. At present, subject to keeping their noses clean and being efficient and competent, they will enjoy their present terms until normal retirement.
The Minister used the phrase "shall as far as possible". We are asking whether, in the case of an individual tragedy, the Government will be prepared to accept their responsibilities and underwrite such cases. I am familiar with a Royal Ordnance factory in respect of which the Government gave all kinds of assurances about what would happen to the employees. The local Member of Parliament, who was a Minister of State, was told by the Government what would happen. The factory was bought by British Aerospace, which within a short time decided to close it. The Minister might say that that was the business of British Aerospace. However, previously it had been the Government's business.
The factory having closed, the Enfield council stepped in and assisted in making provisions for the establishment of small businesses. Then, lo and behold, some of the employees of the Royal Ordnance factory who had started small businesses found that their factories were no longer available. They had first enjoyed the terms of employment of the Royal Ordnance factory but were transferred to the employment of British Aerospace. They then started their own small businesses but suddenly found that they had been wiped off the map. That was the history at Enfield during five years.
I do not believe that the Minister is naive but he refuses to acknowledge that circumstances can lead to individuals suffering badly. I hope that those employees will take notice of the fact that, as regards this series of crucial, individual and personal circumstances, the Government have proved to be unthinking and uncaring. They may mean well but that is not good enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2. line 24, at end insert:
("() The person or persons to whom anything is transferred at any lime as a consequence of any scheme made under section 1 above shall provide pensions for persons transferring by virtue of subsection (2) of this section which replicate the provisions of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme; and no changes shall be made to those pensions except by agreement.").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. We ask that the terms under which a transfer takes place shall:
"replicate the provisions of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme; and no changes shall be made to those pensions except by agreement".
90
That is a modest proposal. The Minister has spoken about negotiations and reaching settlements. However, that was not with the employees but with the future employers. Why can the Minister not tell the House that he will insist upon such a condition being carried over? Earlier he said that the price that the Government received for the business would reflect the obligations laid upon the new purchaser. Why do the conditions laid upon the new purchaser not include such reasonable measures? If I were an employer in that situation I should wish to have a copper-bottomed undertaking from a respectable source—as are the Government and the public purse—in order to provide protection. During the next few years there will be an unhappy atmosphere about all such little bits of business. In my view, that will be eased if the Government are sympathetic; not generous or reasonable but merely sympathetic, I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by reminding your Lordships that I made a lengthy and detailed statement in Committee explaining the Government's proposals for pensions in relation to these two privatisations. I do not believe there is anything I can usefully add to what I said then.
The amendment would require purchasers to provide pension schemes which replicate the Civil Service scheme. The Government do not accept the case for doing this. The Acquired Rights Directive and TUPE provide for the transfer of all the staffs terms and conditions of service, except pensions. It would be impracticable to insist that, when undertakings are sold, pension arrangements should remain unchanged. I do not see what justification there can be for treating these two organisations differently from other privatisations involving transferred civil servants or, indeed, from transfers in the private sector.
Of course, the Government recognise the importance of pensions. I explained in Committee the measures which are being taken in order to achieve pensions provisions which are broadly comparable with those in the PCSPS. The staff will, of course, be fully consulted through their trade union representatives about these measures.
In Committee I gave detailed reasons for resisting the noble Lord's amendment. I am sure that he and other noble Lords will forgive me for not repeating them now on Report.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as the Minister knows, I do not wish to be offensive. In Committee he took a great deal of care to present cogent arguments against the amendment. However, even if he repeats them I shall still find them unacceptable. I agree that there is no purpose in doing so.
The argument is comparatively simple; that employees are fearful that they will be disadvantaged in the future. The Government are not guaranteeing that they will not be disadvantaged but are simply saying, "We intend to do our best for you". Employees and trade unions are telling us that their knowledge of some of the potential employers leads them to want stronger guarantees than the

91
Government have seen fit to spatchcock into the Bill.
I certainly agree with the Minister that much information has been put into the Bill. Because of and despite what he said, my trade union friends have asked me to raise this matter again. That is an indication of their unease. I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Transferee companies]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton: moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 3, leave out from ("company") to end of line 4, and insert:

("(a) until the value of those shares or securities is finally established by the National Audit Office on the basis of properly audited accounts; and

(b) without the consent of the Treasury, and the Treasury shall not consent except that six years' audited accounts are available.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment suggests the attitude which the Government should take to the stability, viability and credibility of the manner in which the transfers will take place.
When I raise the issue of the true worth of the sale of a public asset, I need say little to make the House understand that this is a sensitive area. Despite the best intentions—and I say that sincerely—of this Minister and others, recent history is riddled with public assets being disposed of to the disadvantage of the public and to the advantage of the purchaser, and very often to the advantage of one individual.
The Minister can satisfy the public by saying that time is not of the essence and that there is no timescale other than that laid down by the Government. We wish to make sure that the value of assets sold out of the public sector are seen to be fair and reasonable by what I accept is a proper body. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I may be naive but I believe that the effect of Amendment No. 10 is to delay the sale of the PSA or TCS companies until the value of the shares has been established by the National Audit Office on the basis of audited accounts. Further, it prevents the sales until the Treasury's consent has been obtained, and requires that their consent be subject to six years' audited accounts being available.
Dealing first with paragraph (a) on the role of the National Audit Office, I have already explained to your Lordships during Committee stage that TCS has full commercial accounts capable of meeting the requirements of the Companies Acts and statements of standard accounting practice issued by the main accountancy bodies, and that PSA is in the process of introducing them. Those accounting systems will of course be subject to proper audit. They will be perfectly adequate for the Government as vendor, and for prospective purchasers, in valuing the business activities of both PSA and TCS.
92
The value of both these organisations will be based on bidders' assessments of their future profitability when they are freed from public sector constraints. It would be wrong for the National Audit Office to publish their own assessment of the value of the businesses as a going concern before the sales took place, as that would effectively set a ceiling on the purchase price and would clearly not be in the interests of the taxpayer. It is for bidders to make up their own minds on this point.
To delay the sales until six years' audited accounts for the companies were available would mean that neither PSA nor TCS could be sold until at least 1996, which would benefit nobody except their competitors and could cause serious damage both to the interests of the organisations and, more importantly, their staff. I must, therefore, ask your Lordships to resist the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and to reject this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister denies us this amendment on the basis that it would delay the sale. That is absolutely right. We want that sale to be delayed in order to establish a proper price for the assets sold and a proper price for the viability of the company. What a terrible condition to be laid on a vendor.
The Government want to sell this quick rather than sell it right. They have a proven track record in doing that. We shall find that the time of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committees of both Houses will be taken up when, in the fullness of time—and that will not be in six years' time but in the very near future—it is seen that the assets which the Government have sold are sold on for twice the price and that they are divided and again sold for twice the price.
Questions will then be asked. In the future it may be that the Minister will ask from this side of the House a Labour Minister to explain why he was party to such a disgraceful process. The government of the day will be able to say, "It was not our fault. It was your fault". However, it will then be too late because the purchaser will have made the killing and employees will have suffered. Therefore, the public will lose the benefit of the services of reliable men and women who want nothing more than to provide their families with a decent wage and the country with a good, well-run public service.
When I say that the Minister has done his best, that is not very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
8. 26 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 50 [Inspection of premises providing accomodation]:
[Amendments Nos. U5EF to 115F not moved].
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Powers of the Secretary of State as respects social services functions of local authorities]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 115FB:
Page 52, line 29, leave out ("social services") and insert ("community care").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 11 5FB we can resume our deliberations by discussing an amendment which is entirely non-controversial, harmless and merely expresses a desire for enlightenment. Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, which is referred to in the opening words of Clause 47, provides that local authorities shall, in the exercise of their social services functions including the exercise of any discretion conferred by any relevant enactment, act under the general guidance of the Secretary of State.
Clause 47 proposes that that section should be followed by a new section which will require every local authority to exercise its social services functions in accordance with the Secretary of State's directions and that those directions must be in writing.
There are two questions. First, since it is deemed necessary to have a specific requirement that those directions should be given in writing, one is left to draw the conclusion that the guidance in the existing Section 7 need not be in writing since there is no such requirement there. That point is perhaps of mild academic interest in view of the emphasis on guidance in our previous discussions.
Rather more important is the second point that the Bill is not very rich in its reference to social services functions. I believe that I am right in saying that that phrase makes its first appearance in this clause other than in the Long Title. The clause forms part of Part III of the Bill, which is headed "Community Care". The side notes to the three previous clauses all refer to "community care services'' and the explanatory note at the beginning includes the clause under the general heading, "provisions concerning community care services". However, when we reach Clause 47 the phraseology changes and in the first paragraph we find a reference to "social services functions". That form continues in later clauses, subsections and in proposed additions on the Marshalled List.
I ask whether "social services functions" are different from and wider than "community care functiors"? If they are the same, why has the phraseo ogy suddenly changed? If they are different, and if that phrase goes wider than all the other provisions in Part III, is it right that they should find a place in a Bill dealing with community care? I do not know the answers to those questions, but there must be some significance in that change of phraseology. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what it is. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: We on these Benches are very pleased to support the amendment. I am not entirely sure that I agree with the noble Lord regarding the harmless nature of the amendment. Perhaps I may give some friendly advice to the Minister. I suggest
94
that she should beware former permanent secretaries who appear to be bearing gifts.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, very ably expressed one aspect of the amendment. I should like to spend a few moments dealing with another aspect. The amendment will help us to discover the Government's thinking. Clause 47 appears to give the Secretary of State more powers over a wide range of social services than hitherto have been envisaged. I should like to use the amendment to discover how the Secretary of State for Health intends to use those major powers.
In the notes on clauses the Government very clearly state:
"This clause enables the Secretary of State to issue directions to local authorities covering all" —
I emphasise "all" —
"their social services functions".
It is no exaggeration therefore to say that if that happens it will represent a major development in the relationship between the Secretary of State, his successors, the local authorities and those involved with community care in a wider sense.
It would be helpful if the Minister could give us the precise directions which she has in mind. Will she respond to the view that the clause appears to be far too wide in its implications and gives far too many powers to the Secretary of State? That is an opinion widely held by many voluntary and professional organisations and the local authority associations. They all hope that what one might discern as the grey areas of community care—where the demarcation lines are not clear between the local authorities and the Secretary of State —will be clarified by the Minister's answer.
It will be helpful to know whether the use of any of those powers are subject to parliamentary approval. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy the Comittee when she replies.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I might add a brief word appendant to the coruscating speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. When I read the amendment and I was puzzling what it was about, it occurred to me that in sum it could be said that Lord Allen of Abbeydale pointed out that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the Bill. All I ask is whether the noble Baroness will advise me which part of the Long Title covers the clause.
In the Long Title of the Bill, there are many examples of Acts which are amended and brought within the scope of the Bill in that way; for example, the Local Government Finance Act 1982, the National Health Service Act 1977 and so on. However, there is no mention of the Act which is amended by the clause. Therefore, in a spirit of helpfulness I ask whether the Minister would agree to amend the Long Title, if she wishes the clause to remain in the Bill, otherwise it will have to be said to be outside the scope.
Baroness Hooper: It may help the Committee if I begin by explaining the reasons for seeking the general power of direction set out in the first part of this clause. In setting up the new community care

95
arrangements we have put local authorities at the centre of the stage and given them a role as enablers of care provision. It is right —I am sure that everyone will agree—that these services should be provided by a body answerable to local people and with a fair degree of freedom and autonomy to arrange the services and to discharge its duties as it thinks fit. We have provided important controls at the local level in the community care planning and case management and assessment systems that we are setting up. But in delegating responsibility to local authorities in this way it is important that there is sufficient reserve power at the centre to ensure that all local authorities discharge their duties properly having due regard to the care needs of people in their localities. It is to ensure this that we have taken the measures in this clause to strengthen the provisions relating to the centre administration of social services in the local authority Social Services Act 1970. At present the Act only requires local authorities to discharge their functions having regard to general guidance given by the Secretary of State. As regards that point the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked whether it should be in writing.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: The point was simply that as there was no provision about it being in writing, presumably it need not be in writing. We need a provision in the Bill as we have it, to deal with the specific directions.
Baroness Hooper: As there is no specific requirement that must be so, but it is hard to envisage how in practice it could be otherwise than in writing. The new provision goes further and enables the Secretary of State to issue directions. We see two main uses for these: first, they can be used to reinforce our guidance to ensure that important elements in it are taken into account by all local authorities; and secondly, it can be used where a local authority is failing to deliver an efficient service as a prelude to action under the new default powers which are also set out in this clause.
As the Committee is aware, we have recently undertaken a revision of the statutory provision for services for children which are now embodied in the Children Act 1989, and work is going ahead to bring that into effect towards the end of next year. We feel it is important that the general powers of direction cover not only community care legislation, but also this social services legislation and that for mentally disordered people. We have therefore put into the Bill this general provision. I think it would cause difficulties both locally and centrally if the Secretary of State was able to issue directions covering community care services but not other forms of social service. A general power would be helpful in reinforcing the Secretary of State's position across the whole field and we think it desirable to seek this at this time. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
The reference to "social services" therefore as opposed to "community care" simply uses the terminology of the 1970 Act and refers to "social services functions". Enactments conferring social
96
services functions on local authorities social services committees are listed in Schedule 1 to the 1970 Act. They include Acts other than those referred to in the definition of community care services in Clause 44.
In regard to the use of direction-making powers, we have so far said that powers of direction will be used to reinforce community care guidance. We have no plans at this stage to use them in other ways. Before issuing general directions I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will consult local authority associations and other bodies in the customary way, as for guidance.
I am slightly confused by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that the Long Title does not contain a reference to the social services functions of authorities since the penultimate line of the Long Title makes just that reference.
I hope that those comments will have assisted the Committee on the interpretation of this clause.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I am obliged to the Minister for her reply. The debate has turned out to be rather more interesting than I expected. I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who described possible motives to me which certainly were not in my mind. I took it as axiomatic that this Government, in accordance with their normal practice, would be taking greater powers for central government. That is their well-known philosophy and practice, whatever they may say in theory.
The noble Baroness said that it was hard to envisage how general guidance can be given other than in writing. That makes me wonder how directions to local authorities could be given other than in writing. I am still a little puzzled by that part of the provisions in this Bill.
The noble Baroness made it clear that social services are wider than community care. I therefore find the Explanatory Memorandum and the heading to this part of the Bill misleading. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, had in mind is that, although the Long Title lists a number of Acts which are being amended, it does not list the Local Authority Social Services Act. There are general words about social services functions, but the noble Baroness may wish to consult her experts before the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 115FC:
Page 52, line 36, at end insert:
("Complaints procedure.
7AA. — (1) The Secretary of State may by order require local authorities to establish a procedure for considering any representations (including any complaints) which are made to them with respect to the discharge of their social services functions made by or on behalf of—

(a) any person for whom, in the exercise of those functions, the local authority provides a service, either directly or by making arrangements with another person;

(b) any person whose request for such a service has been refused by the authority; or

(c) any person who, as a private carer, is providing a substantial amount of care on a regular basis to a disabled person who is living at home and for whom, in the exercise

97
of their social services functions, the local authority have a power or duty to provide a service.

(2) In subsection (1)(c) above —

(a) a 'private carer" means a person who is not employed to provide the care in question by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment; and

(b) "disabled person" means a person to whom section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 applies.

(3) A local authority shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State as to the procedure to be adopted in considering representations made as mentioned in subsection (1) above and as to the taking of such action as may be necessary in consequence of such representations.
(4) Local authorities shall give such publicity to any procedure established pursuant to this section as they consider appropriate.").
The roble Baroness said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 113BDA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 115FD:
Page 52, line 38, after ("held") insert:

("(a) if requested to do so by an organisation of or for disabled people which alleges that a local authority has failed to fulfil their duties to provide community care services under any of the enactments specified in section 44 above or

(b)")

The noble Lord said: Clause 47, as we have just heard, amends the Local Authorities Social Services Act 1970 by the insertion of new sections in that Act. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has just moved a new section into that Act by way of a consequential amendment which enables the Secretary of State to institute a complaints procedure for all local authorities. I must say that that is most welcome and I do not wish that my amendment should in any way detract from the welcome that we give to that addition.
However, the new complaints procedure does not enable, so far as I can see, organisations of or for disabled people to make representations, including complaints, to local authorities. I regard that as a pity. My amendment seeks to bring into the complaints procedure, so to speak, those organisations of or for disabled people by a different route. It is by a different route because the new section just introduced by the noble Baroness is concerned only with persons. The new procedure depends on the initiative of persons. It does not depend on the initiative of any relevant organisation.
I do not wish to disturb the new section which has been introduced by the noble Baroness because it might be considered anomalous to introduce relevant organisations where the initiators are persons. Therefore, as I said, my amendment brings in these organisations by a different route. There are occasions when organisations as opposed to persons should be allowed to make representations or air their grievances and I should have thought that these organisations of or for disabled people are exactly those who should be given the machinery to do so.
The amendment is therefore designed to give such organisations that opportunity so that the Secretary of State may cause an inquiry to be held where he
98
considers it desirable to do so on representation from those organisations. The amendment is as simple as that and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I support this amendment. With schizophrenics in particular, relatives may have ceased taking responsibility for their care. Sadly that is sometimes because they are almost forced to do so. A voluntary organisation is likely to take an interest in the general services provided for people with that illness when perhaps no one else does. It is important—given, sadly, the poor quality of many local authority services for the mentally ill—to get services looked at when they are deficient. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has filled a gap which even Amendment No. 115FC does not fill.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I briefly support this amendment. A project undertaken by RADAR in 1980–81 showed the importance of this right for organisations. Eleven local authorities were referred to the Secretary of State by RADAR due to their failure to meet assessed needs of community care services. In the majority of cases the service was provided to the disabled person concerned as a result of that intervention. Therefore, I believe that this is a very valuable proposal.
Lord Ennals: I should like to add a few words of support because this is an important matter. I have in mind all those organisations that represent the interests of, and often include among their memberships, those people who are disabled in one way or another. I too very much welcome the amendment moved by the Government but if it were left to individuals to make their complaints it would be very difficult for them. I refer to the mentally handicapped. Obviously MENCAP has a role in that respect. I also think of the deaf and blind where Sense and other organisations have a role. The Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, together with a whole group of other organisations, exist not only to improve services for such people but also to represent their interests. Unless they are entitled to present complaints on behalf of the handicapped many complaints would go unheard.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set up an inquiry if asked to do so by any disabled organisation which alleged that a local authority had failed to provide community care. We believe this to be wholly unrealistic and the amendment is cast in far too wide and general terms. The Secretary of State would have to respond to any request by setting up a full inquiry in accordance with this provision.
We do not feel that it would be helpful to give organisations representing disabled people such a wide ranging power. Experience in the past suggests that there is very little need to hold formal inquiries. There are two reasons for that: first, social service functions, including community care functions, are the responsibility of local authorities. The majority of investigations of failures are usually most appropriately carried out at that level.

99
We have no reason to suppose that a local authority is not capable of investigating failures among its own staff perfectly adequately as part of its normal management function. The proposals that we have made for inspection units will put the local authority in a much better position to exercise that function. Secondly, the reason why central inquiries are seldom necessary is that we have the social services inspectorate, which is able to carry out detailed investigations without the need to hold formal inquiries. That is often a more satisfactory way of dealing with a situation where there has been a failure of care.
There is no reason why the report on such an investigation should not be published in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, was also concerned about individuals. Organisations or individual carers can bring a complaint or make representations on behalf of service users. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, also made that point.
I do not underestimate the very important role that organisations for or of disabled people can play in drawing the Secretary of State's attention to cases where local authorities are failing to discharge their duties. Indeed, we would want them to do so. I have no doubt that if the allegations were serious enough my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would hold an inquiry. However, I do not feel that it would be helpful to put on the face of the Bill a provision on the lines of that suggested in this amendment. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Before the noble Lord decides what to do, as the Minister said that the amendment was too wide, at the next stage can we have a meeting when we might be able to devise an amendment which is not quite so wide? As all noble Lords who have spoken have said, there are special problems which some people have in representing themselves and they need the help of other organisations. It may be that their families need the support of organisations to speak on their behalf.
Baroness Blatch: Certainly, I am not against offering the possibility of talks between now and Report stage. The particular concern is that any grievances can be heard by an individual carer or an organisation. The question is whether we put on the face of the Bill a power which any organisation can simply request; namely, a full inquiry.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she kindly tell the Committee what is the power under which organisations may make their representations? She has said more than once that organisations can make representations. I am wondering under what power in the Bill that can be done. We are seeking to insert that provision in the Bill because we do not find it there. Can the noble Baroness tell me where that provision is to be found?
Baroness Blatch: At this moment I cannot give the specific power. However, there is a right for people to complain. I need to come back to give details of the specific part of the Bill which gives an individual the right to bring a complaint against an authority.
Lord Ennals: Does that mean that if the Minister finds that provision is not in the Bill she will return with an amendment? It is important that organisations should know what their rights are. It is a piece of legislation in which their rights are defined. It is not enough to say that it is the custom or that it should be done. I know that this procedure has not always been followed. On a number of occasions I have put forward on behalf of MIND proposals for an inquiry but no inquiry has followed. Anyone has a right to ask for an inquiry, but that does not mean anything. Anyone may write to anyone: a cat may look at a queen, or whatever it is.
Lord Renton: There is a point that should not be overlooked. Generally mentally handicapped people cannot express themselves at all. In the nature of things they cannot make complaints. They may no longer have a parent or a guardian who can speak for them. Therefore, in the case of a mentally handicapped person it might be important that, if for no other kind of disabled person, MENCAP or a similar body is allowed the opportunity—
Lord Mottistone: That is what I said.
Lord Renton: Thank you: I am much obliged. I will not say why I am repeating the point. I think this matter can be important if further consideration is to be given to this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for the few moments of respite in order, I hope, to meet the very real concerns of all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I understand that the power for complaints will be a new clause contained within Amendment No. 115FC. I am also advised that organisations or carers can bring complaints or make representations on behalf of other service users. I know that my noble friend Lord Renton will be keen to make sure that that is legally correct. I am advised, legally speaking, that the term "person" includes a body of persons corporate or incorporate, so that organisations can make representations on behalf of a client. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Before the noble Lord decides what course to take with this amendment I ask the Minister to consider one other matter. I am not sure that this proposal does not slightly weaken the provision to repeal Section 36 of the National Assistance Act 1948. Section 36 (1) of that Act reads:
"Where the Minister is of opinion, whether on representations made to him or otherwise, that a local authority have failed to discharge any of their functions".
Clause 47, new section 7B (1) reads:
"The Secretary of State may cause an inquiry to be held in any case where he considers it advisable to do so".

101
It takes away the duty to act on representations made to the Secretary of State; he just has a discretion to act. Has the Minister anything to say on that matter?
Baroness Blatch: My understanding is that Amendment No. 115FC will put a very proper formal complaints procedure into this Bill. Does my noble fiend feel able to absorb the impact of that amendment before deciding whether to press this one?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I shall be very grateful if the noble Baroness can absorb the impact of the discussion that we have had and the import of it outlined from all sides of the Committee. It is clearly important that organisations should be able to make representations particularly on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. I am delighted to know that the intent of Amendment No. 115FC is that not only persons but also organisations shall be able to make representations. That does not appear so on the face of the Bill. Some of us know that the word "person" has a peculiar meaning in the language of the law.
When one looks at the amendment as drafted, it looks as if "person" means what you and I consider to be a person; namely, an individual. It is very hard indeed to deduce from the wording of Amendment No. 115FC that "person" has this distinctive legal meaning as well. Will the noble Baroness consider the amendment which has just been moved into the Bill and see whether it can be amended to make it quite clear that it includes organisations as well as persons? I shall be very happy if that happens and, looking around the Committee, it appears that all those who have spoken would also be happy if that were done.
I shall be very happy to withdraw this amendment which was certainly not meant to impose an obligation on the Secretary of State which he could not avoid.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I wish to point out that in looking at the wording of the new Amendment No. 115FC, which I welcomed, none of those described as "person" in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), would be other than individuals. Subparagraph (a) states:
"any person for whom, in the exercise of those functions, …"
"(b) any person whose request for such a service has been refused…"
and
"(c) any person who, as a private carer, is providing a substantial amount of care".
Those are references to individual persons. If the new amendment is to include organisations, which is what we all wish, the amendment needs to say so.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that Section 7AA (1) ends with the words,
"made by or on behalf of.
It then makes reference to the people he mentioned.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I think that this matter is worth looking at again. It was not our intention to impose an unconditional obligation upon the Secretary of State. The provision was meant to apply only in a situation where he considered it advisable to set up an inquiry. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be kind enough to undertake to see that the wording is reviewed to ensure that it reflects the opinion of the Chamber.
Baroness Blatch: In the light of what has been said this evening, we shall certainly look again at the wording.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. On the basis of that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 115FE:
Page 53, line 7, at end insert:
("(1A) No order shall be issued under subsection (1) above in respect of community care functions unless the Secretary of State has warned them in writing not less than three months previously, specifying the grounds on which he believes the authority to be in default in the exercise of such functions.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment rather harks back to Amendment No. 115FB, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Members of the Committee will remember that we had a very interesting mini debate about the powers in new Clause 47. It contains provisions which require the social services authorities—I use the wording "social services" because it is mentioned in the clause—to comply with directions from the Secretary of State in carrying out their functions. It provides for Sections 7A and 7D to be inserted in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, in so far as the Long Title of the Bill allows such insertions, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton.
Under Clause 47 the Secretary of State will be able to declare an authority to be in default and to give directions so as to remedy the default. He can call for an inquiry to be set up in connection with the exercise of the social services functions by the relevant authority. As we said with regard to the previous amendment, the powers of direction contained in the clause are very comprehensive. They certainly were not contemplated by Sir Roy Griffiths in his report on community care, nor did the White Paper Caring for People contain any justification for what is a significant new power of discretion and direction.
The proposed amendment would require the Secretary of State to give in writing not less than three months' notice before the making of a direction to a particular authority regarding its community care functions. If such power were included, it would enable the local authority to discuss with the Secretary of State his judgment on a matter which it is part of the statutory duty of the local authority to continue; but if the Secretary of State is to insist on this he must surely give due warning.
Further, the proposed amendment will allow discussion about the Secretary of State's power to make an order declaring an authority to be in default. For example, it might be possible in discussion to raise the question of the nature of the inquiry. We feel that there should at least be this three months' written notice, after which time discussions would be held between the Secretary of State and the local authority before the order was made. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: We expect the default procedures in this clause to work in the following way. The first stage will be when it comes to the Secretary of State's attention that an authority is failing to discharge its functions. This may come from a number of directions—the work of the social services inspectorate, information received from organisations representing disabled people or by direct representations to the Secretary of State by users of services. The first thing the Secretary of State needs to do is to satisfy himself that the authority has failed without reasonable excuse to exercise its functions. This will entail some form of further investigation or inquiry and may, if the Secretary of State feels it would be useful, include using the general powers of direction to direct the authority to exercise its functions in a particular way.
It will only be after these processes have been exhausted and work with the authorities through the social services inspectorate has failed to secure any improvement in the situation that the use of the default powers will be considered. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is familiar with that concept. When these powers are used the Secretary of State first has to issue an order, then, if it is not complied with, he can seek an order from the court to enforce it. I think that it is clear from what I have said that the initial processes leading up the issue of a default order would in most cases take at least as long as the three months mentioned in the amendment we are now considering. It is quite right that they should. We would not want to issue orders precipitately since they are very much a measure of last resort. Nevertheless, there may be occasions when it is imperative that the Secretary of State acts more speedily.
For those reasons we do not wish to write into the Bill the time limit proposed in the amendment. I hope that in the light of that explanation and assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: Members of the Committee will be grateful for most of that explanation. However, I should like to read with care what the Minister said. I take the point that there will be occasions when it will be imperative for the Secretary of State to act with speed. With that consideration in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 115G:
Page 53, line 20, at end insert ("and persons who are presently or recently have been dependent on alcohol or drugs.").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 115H, 115HA, 116B, 117C, 118B. All of these amendments relate to the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State to designate funding.
Lord Ennals: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I feel that I should point out at this stage that Amendment No. 115HA has been extracted from that grouping and that it will be considered separately.
The Viscount of Falkland: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I speak to Amendment No. 115G which is specifically concerned with—
Lord Mottistone: I was happy to have my amendment grouped with Amendment No. 115HA, but not with Amendment No. 115G. In the circumstances, if Amendment No. 115HA has been extracted from the grouping, I should like my amendment to be considered along with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I should prefer to do that rather than become involved with this discussion.
The Viscount of Falkland: I am perfectly happy to be entirely separated from everyone. In those circumstances, perhaps I may proceed with my amendment. It concerns designated funding or specific grants for those dependent on drugs and alcohol. The aim of the amendment is to amplify and add to what is already in the Bill. When we debated the White Paper and on Second Reading the Minister was at pains—I agree with her—to point out that the problems of drug addicts and alcoholics are mentioned in the Bill. That is a welcome step.
I have had many hundreds of letters from individuals and voluntary organisations which deal with alcohol and drug abuse. They all acknowledge that the problem is mentioned in the Bill, but their anxiety springs from the history of the attitude—if I may put it that way—of local authorities towards drug and alcohol addiction and the uneven pattern of action taken by local authorities to deal with the problems which happen within their areas. It is for that reason that there is enormous concern about the alcohol and drug addiction services, whether they be the residential services, as many of them are, which are threatened at the moment by shaky funding or lesser forms of treatment. The importance of the services should be underlined in some way in the Bill. Funding should be available for those purposes.
Perhaps the Committee will allow me to go into the scale of the problem of drug and alcohol abuse for a moment. As the Committee will detect, my emphasis will be more on alcohol abuse than drug addiction although the treatment of both generally takes the same form when the crisis point is reached.
While speaking to a previous amendment on assessment, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made an excellent and clear speech. He gave the whole picture of addiction in this country. The Hansard report of that debate should be recommended

105
reading for anyone who is interested in the problem. Briefly, the costs in human and money terms are extraordinary. It is difficult to cost the problem. As the noble Lord pointed out, we have some 150,000 street drug addicts, many of whom are extremely young. There are 15,000 registered heroin addicts. Even the Department of Health acknowledges that the actual number of heroin addicts may be 10 times that number. It is calculated that about 800,000 people have severe alcohol problems—that means people whose health has deteriorated to a point where they are in danger of death —but considerably more are severely at risk. Many of them are homeless and an increasing number are young. The number of women suffering from severe alcohol problems is rising.
I draw the Committee's attention to an article which was published in a daily newspaper the other day. The article made what should be an obvious point, although it had not occurred to me. It has to do with the cultural attitude towards women's drinking. The article pointed out that 90 per cent. of male alcoholics are looked after by their wives, if they have them; but about 90 per cent. of women who become alcoholics are deserted by their husbands. That points to a curious attitude in this country towards addiction by women. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, gave shattering figures with respect to the number of people addicted to prescription drugs. Some 1.75 million people are addicted to drugs with well-known names such as Librium and Valium and a range of sleeping pills. Many have become addicts because they were wrongly dealt with by their general practitioners. A wrong assessment was made. That point relates also to the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made his excellent contribution.
The incalculable damage to the fabric of society must be obvious to the Committee, but there is an element of denial with the individual addict, as there is in the nation. People blinker themselves to the damage to the family structure, particularly to children and women. Violence within the home is strongly related to alcohol abuse. It is calculated that one in three cases of child abuse is connected to a severe alcohol problem. There is a high incidence of severe alcohol problems related to the repeated battering of wives. As we all know, crime often has a high alcohol or drug related content. Therefore the picture is extremely worrying.
The costs in money terms are not easy to quantify. The centre for health economics at the University of York has produced figures which are of interest and which have to do with alcohol abuse. It calculates the cost to industry for 1986 as £1. 65 million through people suffering from alcohol problems. The cost to the National Health Service is £116 million. Traffic offences account for in excess of £100 million. The cost in connection with crime—which covers the costs of courts, the police and so on —is £139 million. This all amounts to £2 billion for alcohol abuse alone in the country.
The need for services is acute and is growing greater daily. People with alcohol and drug problems need a wide range of assistance. At one end some perhaps need only a small amount of advice.
106
Counselling sessions may help to deal with the stresses and causes of abuse, particularly heavy drinking. At the other end of the spectrum, treatment centres deal with people who are at a crisis level in relation to their addiction. This is where I come again to the problems with the new set-up as outlined by the Bill. These people need immediate access to detoxification and care after detoxification in an environment supervised by professionals. It should be followed by rehabilitation in a residential setting. This is all costly. These measures often lead to a halfway house and to eventual re-emergence into the community, with perhaps counselling for periods.
I am trustee of a treatment centre which deals with the sad cases of people in an advanced state of addiction. Unfortunately relapse is a common feature. Patients habitually leave and then return and it is a difficult process. The professionals who are trained in this field have invaluable experience in dealing with it.
It is not only the people who suffer directly as addicts. The effects extend to families, friends, business colleagues and so on. The current assistance—before I come to the Bill—is provided mostly by voluntary agencies although one or two are run by the statutory sector. There is easy access to individual counselling. Residential services are provided mainly by the voluntary sector in regard to alcohol addiction in conjunction with housing associations. Sadly, these are few and far between when one considers the scope of the problem. They provide immediate assessment and admission for periods ranging from one week to sometimes as much as a year.
Current funding is from a variety of sources, which reflects the nature of the problem we face as to where the responsibility for these people should lie. In some areas health authorities take responsibility for the funding of the services, in others the social services do it, and in some areas there is joint financial support.
However, overall it is generally accepted that there is a higher commitment from health authorities than from social services. Residential services are maintained through supplementary benefit paid by the Department of Social Security. There are regional variations but the benefit normally amounts to a rental payment of about £40 a week and a care payment of £103 per person per week. That goes towards the cost of the social work that is involved in treating these people.
Under the new proposals of the Bill the care payment will be transferred to the local authority to be used in response to the assessed needs of the patient. There is however the uncertainty of whether funds will be used for these purposes, given the priorities and financial pressures on local authorities. Other Members of the Committee have referred to that point in connection with other amendments.
What are the implications for the future? Generally speaking the many hundreds of letters that I have received suggest that voluntary agencies are not sanguine about the future. The arrangement after April 1991 is that local authorities will agree a contractual fee arrangement with agencies. However,

107
certainly those who are involved directly with these problems on a day to day basis in the voluntary alcohol services feel that potential patients are unlikely to approach a local authority directly. As regards both drug addicts and alcoholics, the relationship with a local authority is extremely difficult. Perhaps because of stigma attached to drug and alcohol abuse, those who suffer from these problems are wary of dealing with the authorities at all.
Members of the Committee have referred to my next point in connection with other matters. The number of local authorities which most agencies would have to cope with would be extremely high, as referrals come from a wide area. Those are the problems which are being faced. Many residential projects are under threat at this time. The situation is becoming graver daily. Funding is extremely short and any delay or hiatus in funding would undoubtedly lead to further closures and to more people being at risk. Trained and able people who have a vast experience in this field would be put out of work and would be unable to practise their skills. That would be a great loss to the community.
The noble Baroness has on many occasions outlined the Government's intention, which is clearly to take care of this problem in our community. But how is that to be done and what is the reality of the position? How will the funding be made available? How are we to ensure that local authorities will use the funds available? How will they be able to use those funds under the scope of the Bill?
I should like to end by saying that all is not gloom so far as concerns local authorities. I received a letter today which indicated that in the North East there is a successful and productive relationship between the local health authority and sufferers in that area. However, the writer of the letter, who runs a treatment centre in the North East, said that he doubted whether the same co-operation existed elsewhere in the North. It is that unevenness of attitudes which is causing the problem. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I shall be very brief. I have put my name to the amendment. I should like to ask the Minister whether she can give assurances on three points: that services will continue for clients with drug and alcohol problems; that services will be easily accessible for clients; and that choice will be maintained with the flexible use of treatment options. Treatment is wide and varied.
Drug and alcohol abuse destroys families and disrupts communities. It is worrying that an organisation such as Turning Point has already decided that projects which after 1991 will become dependent on individual funding arrangements will close. That will be a very serious situation.
Lord Mancroft: I shall be even more brief. I am not an expert on local authority finance, even after having listened in the debate last week to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and to the reply of my noble friend. I can safely say that I still do not know
108
anything about local authority finance. That is no judgment on their ability to explain but rather on my ability to comprehend. One of the points that worries me most is that it seems to me from the short time in which I have had dealings with local authorities and health authorities that their own comprehension of their financing is also a little dusty.
Therefore I would not presume to advise the Committee whether it should approve of ring fencing, earmarking or blank cheques (which are probably not a good idea). However, the principle behind the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is important. This is a very unpopular group of patients which is at the bottom of the list of priorities. It would be very helpful if my noble friend would in some way underline in the Bill the importance of these patients, if not by ring fencing perhaps in the regulations governing the publishing of the policies of the local authorities. If those dependent on drugs and alcohol were included in such policies there would be no need to underline their financing requirements. The Government must put a microscope on this group of patients who will otherwise be left out.
Lord Ennals: I shall speak very briefly. I shall try to confine myself to three sentences. First, it is quite clear that alcohol services have received very low priority for funding from social services departments. Secondly, Alcohol Concern says that the proposed changes in the funding of residential care will result in the wholesale closure of residential drug and alcohol projects unless specific measures are taken. Thirdly, when one asks why those services have received such low priority, a variety of answers are given. I shall give only one; namely, that there is no statutory responsibility on local authorities to provide those services. That is the overwhelming reason for the amendment. It should be a statutory responsibility. If it is not, there is no reason to expect that local authorities will automatically pay.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: Even if the local authority has overriding responsibility, there is nothing one can do if the patient does not respond. The Committee will remember that some time ago I recommended that there should be a new court order and that people should be found to be in need of treatment. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that he thought it was a good idea; but nothing has happened.
Baroness Hooper: As the Committee will remember, the Government originally decided that the best way to ensure that adequate resources were directed to care-in-the-community policies was to provide those resources through the revenue support grant. I shall not repeat all the arguments in favour of that proposal, particularly if they are not comprehensible to my noble friend Lord Mancroft. However, we believe that it goes against the grain of our policies to offer local authorities new responsibilities and to ask them to be more fully accountable to their electorate on the one hand and then, on the other hand, determine from the centre

109
how resources should be deployed. That is the general argument, and the Government are now carefully considering the position following the Committee's decision to support Amendments Nos. 108AE and 108AEB, which bear on that point.
I remind the Committee that all the evidence thus far shows that expenditure on personal social services does well out of non-ring-fenced funding and has risen substantially in real terms vis-à-vis other areas of expenditure. Over the past 10 years, it has risen by 37 per cent. in real terms. We have made an exception to that general policy for those who are mentally ill because this is an area where we well know that resources have been inadequately applied and services have in some cases been less than we would wish. Basically, that appears to be because local authorities generally have not been able to give as much priority to providing services to people with a mental illness as to services for other vulnerable groups.
However, no one should assume that, because we propose only to make grants to support the development of services for the mentally ill, we believe that other client groups are less important. Those with relatively rare conditions such as motor neuron disease, to name but one, also need adequate social care. We believe that those groups are catered for by existing legislation, such as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. Resources for those Acts have already been taken into account in the levels of support given to local authorities.
The provisions that we make in the Bill for assessment of need and for community care plans are designed to encourage and require authorities to make provision for those whom they serve on a customer need basis. We are requiring consultation in drawing up care plans with health authorities, the new family health services authorities, housing authorities and voluntary and other bodies providing services. That is deliberately designed to improve the scope for developing relevant services to all client groups, including alcohol and drug misusers, as well as multi-handicapped people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked whether services would continue. They will of course continue. Those services will be in a better position than they are now simply because of the consultation process undertaken by local authorities and the publication of their plans. The provision will be much more visible.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, priority on spending should be decided by local authorities. There are many ways in which central government can help in those important areas—and we recognise how important they are —so central government expenditure on drug and alcohol misuse will continue.
Furthermore, I can inform the Committee that the Secretary of State intends to direct local authorities to include drug and alcohol misuse in their community care plans. I believe that that covers many of the anxieties felt by people operating in that area. With that explanation I trust that the noble
110
Viscount and noble Lords who intended to move the other amendments still included in this group will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Viscount rises, I should like to say that I wish I had the faith and trust possessed by the Minister. I know that there are no votes in drug and alcohol abuse. It is a most unpopular issue. We tried to set up a Phoenix House on the south coast. We have had great opposition, led by the local mayor, to setting up a home or treatment centre. I could show the Minister letters that I have received on this matter, as have the organisation.
That is why there is fear that this form of treatment will fall through the net. I hope that the Minister will be able to ensure that it does not do so; but I do not have her faith.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I do not share the faith expressed by the Minister either. I only hope that, in a rather typically British way, we are not just waiting for a disaster to occur in much the same way as happened in the prisons. I hope that we do not find that there is an enormous explosion of crack or some other substance and that we have to take very fast action at extraordinary cost in order to deal with it.
Obviously I shall not divide the Committee on the amendment at this hour of the night. I am not at all happy with the noble Baroness's brief on this subject, which has been consistent throughout. I do not feel that local authorities will act in the way that we hope. I reserve the right to come back at a later stage and I sit down, rather heavy in my heart at the response that I have received. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 115H:
Page 53, line 20, at end insert ("or substantially handicapped as a result of a previous mental illness").
The noble Lord said: I do not see this amendment as part of a grouping with Amendment No. 115G because the charities with which I am associated have a problem over this point.
The passage that it is proposed to alter is the new Section 7D of the other Act, which concerns grants to local authorities in respect of social services for the mentally ill. That is fine. The previous amendment sought to latch other issues on to the mentally ill provision, which I thoroughly welcome. Indeed, I am grateful to the Government for including this special clause relating to the mentally ill for the reasons that my noble friend the Minister so clearly explained.
The only point in the new Section 7D which is not clear to me is the mention of:
"persons suffering from mental illness".
What does that mean? Does it refer to people who have been mentally ill at some stage in their life? Of all the people diagnosed as having schizophrenia, about 20 per cent. are perfectly well but the remaining 80 per cent. go through life with

111
schizophrenia returning to them from time to time. The object of this amendment is to make sure that the provisions included in the new Section 7D apply to those people just as well as those who are in hospital.
We are talking about care. If for some legal reason in the Bill the phrase "suffering from mental illness" means something that covers a person's lifetime, whether or not he or she is in a sane state at a particular time, nevertheless the point is that that person requires care. The chief medical officer pointed out in 1988:
"It remains an unpalatable fact that many mentally ill people require support and treatment on a long term basis".
He also states:
"Over half those admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of schizophrenia will be left with significant residual symptoms and seriously impaired social functioning".
It is those people, even if they are able to get a job, who need to be covered by the Bill as it stands. If they are, my amendment is unnecessary. If they are not, it is necessary.
Lord Ennals: Perhaps I may both support the noble Lord in the amendment that he has proposed and say a few words about it. I also speak to Amendment No. 115HA.
I know that the noble Lord's amendment is a probing amendment. The answer is very important. He is right that many people who suffer mental illness have a residual handicap which is with them probably all their lives. But that does not apply to everyone. Many people who have had bouts of mental illness may be under treatment for the remainder of their lives but that treatment can operate very effectively. I know plenty who operate very effectively. Schizophenia is one good example. But those who have suffered severe bouts of manic depression have sometimes had electro-convulsive therapy and have been left quite disabled. They find it difficult to return to work again. If one includes those who have spent a long time in psychiatric hospitals, their principal illness is probably institutionalisation. Those are all people who should be included in this definition.
One reason for tabling Amendment No. 115HA is to try to find out from the Government what they intend to do. I very much welcome the indication given in July that mental illness would be dealt with by a specific grant. That was stated by Mr. Freeman and repeated in the White Paper. I am very sorry that Mr. Freeman has moved. People are not allowed to stay long enough in jobs under this Government. He learnt his job very well. He was very constructive, thoughtful and caring. But before we know where we are, he has had to learn the transport game. I am sure that his successor in a few months' time may also be quite good. He is a bright young fellow. But I do not believe that people should be shuffled around like that. It is not right for the service.
However, very little has been said since Mr. Freeman's statement about what the Government have in mind. What is the grant? Will it be a 100 per cent. grant, a 75 per cent. grant, a 50 per cent. grant or what? What are the criteria for eligibility?
112
Initially Roger Freeman seemed to indicate a very broad range of eligibility among patients discharged from hospital, but later he seemed to be corrected by indications suggesting that the Government wished to restrict the category to those under the supervision of a psychiatrist. That narrows it down considerably.
I do not know whether the proposal still stands or whether it may be dropped. I hope that the Minister will tell us. What level of expenditure in broad terms do the Government have in mind? How will it be distributed? Are they talking about £1 million, £30 million or £1 billion? What are the Government talking about?
Eventually local authorities must submit their proposals. Therefore, they need carefully to develop plans, consult about them and know the size of the projects that they can submit. What help will there be for patients living in the community whom social workers, community psychiatric nurses and other hard-pressed services are struggling to keep out of hospital? Will financial assistance be available for effective crisis intervention? That is sometimes carried out by health and local authorities and sometimes by voluntary organisations. Will the services cover the homeless mentally ill? Will they include those with senile dementia?
It is less than 11 months until the scheme will come into operation. The time has now come for the Government to state what local authorities should expect from the initiative.
9.45 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. People with a recurring mental illness, and in particular severe schizophrenia, are unable to cope with the ordinary, everyday practicalities of life such as paying bills. They will need the help of the local authority social services, especially if they have no caring relatives or friends to help them.
Lord Henley: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his kind remarks about my honourable friend Mr. Freeman.—
Lord Ennals: When you go I will say the same!
Lord Henley: That is most kind of the noble Lord. I hope that he will be able to make the same remarks at that time. There is no need to say exactly why we need a specific grant for the mentally ill because we dealt with that matter earlier.
I turn to the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I can offer him reassurance because at present there is no legal definition of the term "mental illness". Therefore, it bears its normal meaning, which encompasses all stages of mental illness; not only acute episodes but any continuing or persistent disabilities. Those whom my noble friend seeks to include in his amendment are included in the basic definition of mental illness and local authorities will be able to use the specific grant to provide services for them. I hope that my noble friend will accept the fact that his amendment is unnecessary.

113
I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Draft guidance just issued on specific grant for menial health care provides, at paragraph 6 (a), that the grant will be available for those whose mental illness is so severe that they have been accepted for treatment by the specialist psychiatric services. Paragraph 6 (b) helps homeless people who could benefit by being in touch with specialist psychiatric services.
I entirely accept that the provision of accommodation, to which the amendment refers, is an essential part of services for the mentally ill in the community. Local authorities will be able to provide or secure a wide range of supported accommodation for people with a mental illness under the terms of the specific grant. We shall take steps to ensure that social services authorities work closely with housing authorities to enable those who are capable of doing so to move into mainstream housing. Leisure facilities are also important and many are provided within personal social services.
However, the most pressing need is to improve social care for the more seriously mentally ill and that is where we intend to target out support. I should also point out that the specific grant which we have in mind about which the noble Lord was asking—I shall not give any figures now and I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect me to—will and can only be a small proportion of the total expenditure which may be needed by both local and health authorities in order to offer a range of adequate provision for the mentally ill. The specific grant is not designed to support the totality of the provision required. I do not believe that the noble Lord would expect me to go any further.
Lord Ennals: I do not expect the Minister to start giving a review of the public expenditure White Paper to be published later this year. However, it is important that local authorities should know what is the per centage of the grant, whether it be 65 per cent., 75 per cent. and so on. The local authorities need to know that.
Lord Henley: I go no further than saying that it will be a small proportion. We do not have in mind that it will meet anything like the totality. To some extent the grant is designed to encourage that provision. As we said earlier, it needs encouragement because it has always been treated very much as a poor relation.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his response to my Amendment No. 115H. That reassures me and I am most grateful.
I should have said that I very much support the sense of Amendment No. 115HA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I am sorry that he did not get a little more from my noble friend, but he did fairly well.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I am very disappointed in the Minister's response. It is the first time that I have heard any Minister say that this grant will be only a "small proportion". I have heard so many speeches by Roger Freeman and have seen Written Answers given in another place. At no stage did I gain the impression that this would be a small proportion of local authority expenditure or any expenditure on the mentally ill. I was very disturbed to hear what the Minister said, not so much in relation to the amendment, but my probing produced a very unsatisfactory answer.
Lord Mottistone: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 115HA not moved.]
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 116:
Page 53, line 20, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State for Health shall lay before Parliament an annual report setting out the resources available to each local authority in connection with the exercise of their Social Services functions under Part III of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
()The Secretary of State for Wales shall lay before Parliament an annual report setting out the resources available to each local authority in connection with the exercise of their Social Services functions under Part III of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee for underrating its intelligence because I implied that the ring-fencing amendment had not been passed. However, in view of the fact that it was passed, I shall not move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 116A to 116C not moved.]
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 117:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Role of Director of Social Services
In section 6 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (which requires a local authority to appoint a Director of Social Services) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (2) to (8):—
"(2) The Director of Social Services of a local authority shall not, without the approval of the Secretary of State (which may be given either generally or in relation to a particular authority), be employed by that authority in connection with the discharge of any of the authority's functions other than social services functions.
(3) A local authority shall secure the provision of adequate staff to assist the Director of Social Services appointed by them in the discharge of his functions.
(4) A local authority shall not, without the approval of the Secretary of State (which may be given either generally or in relation to a particular authority), arrange for the discharge of any of the authority's social services functions by any officer who has not been appointed by, or is not under the direction of, the Director of Social Services for that authority.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, an officer appointed by or under the supervision of a person subordinate to the Director of Social Services shall be deemed to have been appointed by or, as the case may be, to be under the direction of the Director of Social Services.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is important. The Association of Directors of Social Services likes this amendment and I have a personal interest which will become clear in a moment. It concerns the duties and authority of the directors of social services.
I must return to what has been called the Seebohm report, which engendered the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. In the summary recommendations it stated:
"The head of the social services department should be able to give his whole mind and time to the work of the department and should not be subordinate to the head of another department. His post should be statutory and this should be an obligation on the local authority to provide him with sufficient supporting staff.
He along with the other principal officers should work as a team under the leadership of the clerk in the manner in which the Maud Committee have indicated".
That was picked up in the Bill and appears in the Act as follows:
"A local authority shall appoint an officer, to be known as the director of social services, for the purposes of their social services functions".
The Act continues:
"(5) The director of social services of a local authority shall not, without the approval of the Secretary of State (which may be given either generally or in relation to a particular authority) be employed by that authority in connection with the discharge of any of the authority's functions other than their social services functions.
(6) A local authority which has appointed, or concurred in the appointment of, a director of social services, shall secure the provision of adequate staff for assisting him in the exercise of his functions".
That almost completely picked up the recommendations of the committee, and so far as I am aware that Act stands and has not been amended. It is for each local authority to decide how they will implement the requirement. The approval of the Secretary of State is only needed for a major extension of the director's role; for example, if he or
116
she takes on the role of director of housing, as has happened in a handful of authorities including the London Borough of Harrow.
Twenty years ago no one could have predicted the restructuring of local authorities that is now taking place in some areas. That in turn had an impact on the role of the director of social services. The Association of Directors of Social Services believes that amendment is required to the 1970 Act which will clarify the current position. The new clause therefore is intended to strengthen the powers of the Secretary of State where authorities are introducing management restructures which separate the legal post of the director from his day-to-day functions.
In Tower Hamlets the management structure has been decentralised to a number of neighbourhood offices. Although the nominal director of social services has legal responsibility for social services decisions, the actual responsibility lies with neighbourhood chief executives. The post of director is now vacant. The most recent occupant found that he had no powers to reorganise or co-ordinate policies across the borough.
The Metropolitan District of Rochdale is proposing a different structure which collects together a number of statutory functions in a single post of director of corporate services. Day-to-day responsibility for social services functions will be devolved in neighbourhood executives, once again separating the legal responsibility from line management.
The Association of Directors of Social Services respects the right of each local authority to determine its own structure. Its chief concern regarding the substantial changes to the role of a director is where his ultimate responsibility for social services functions lies; in other words, where does the buck stop? That is particularly pertinent given the new responsibilities of the Children Act 1989 and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
Unless a clear line of accountability is introduced through legislation, future inquiries into tragedies such as the death of a child in care or the abuse of elderly people in a local authority home will begin to find that the buck stops somewhere between local management and the nominal director. I am not so bigoted as to think that a recommendation made over 20 years ago is good for all time; but serious deviation from the intentions of the 1970 Act must not be allowed without the approval of the Secretary of State. What is happening in Tower Hamlets and Rochdale does not make managerial sense. In my view they are seriously in breach of the 1970 Act.
Finally, financial responsibility has been transferred from social security to social services. That is something quite new to social services departments, and the authority of the director of social services must be made clear. By this amendment we do not obstruct change. We hope that at least the 1970 Act will abide unless the Secretary of State alters it, which he will be allowed to do under the amendment.
Amendment No. 117 is very important, and I know that the directors of social services will be hanging on to the Government's every word in this regard. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in his amendment. I shall not repeat all that he said but I ask the Committee to look at the matter from the point of view of the staffs. If you are working for a director of social services who also has wide responsibilities for housing or other departments, you do not feel secure or that you are working for someone who is fully acquainted with the details of the situation.
I do not believe that it is possible for any one man or woman who is a director of social services to know the Children Act through and through, to know this Bill through and through, and at the same time to be completely responsible for them and also to take on other responsibilities such as housing. That is beyord the capacity of any one person.
I also reinforce the point about training. Either one is trained to be a housing manager or trained to be a social worker. One cannot do both jobs unless one is fortunate enough to be trained in both areas, which is most unlikely.
Finally, I refer to a personal experience. Last summer I dealt with a most distressing case in an authority which shall be nameless. The director of social services had responsibility for housing and for social services. I must say, with all due respect, that he was unable to give a suitable service in that particular distressing case. The local authority was proved to be wrong. That case may not have happened if the director had not carried responsibility for housing as well as for social services. I support the amendment in the strongest possible terms.
Lord Winstanley: I too support the amendment. I do so as briefly as I can. The amendment was admirably and clearly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and I absolutely agree with what he said. I am sure that the whole Committee does so. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, quoted the words regarding the relevant functions of directors of social services. The words in the Bill are ambiguous, to say the least. If they do not mean what is stated in the amendment, they ought to mean that. Surely that is the purpose of the amendment.
Many of us are aware of the pressures and difficulties, including financing, that local authorities are experiencing. There are also staff difficulties. There must have been pressures which led to the manoeuvres mentioned by the noble Lord in Rochdale, Tower Hamlets and many other places. It is possible that occasionally the reorganisation of functions would work. For special cases the amendment allows for that to happen with the approval of the Secretary of State, but not gradually and unseen or in that kind of way.
In essence, therefore, what does the amendment do? We have already decided to ring fence certain
118
parts of local government rate support grant. The amendment ring fences the directors of social services. I agree with that.
Lord Peston: In supporting the amendment on behalf of the Official Opposition I take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, on not merely his introduction to this amendment but on his own major contribution in this area. I do not say that to him because we expect to pension him off in the immediate future but simply because the area of social services will be forever indebted to him for his contribution.
The noble Lord was right—even though we are debating the amendment at ten o'clock at night—to emphasise the importance of the amendment. It is concerned with management and it lays down simple principles of management as they should be applied to this area—that there should be a clear line of responsibility and that someone should be ultimately responsible, but that that person should also be the person who, so to speak, acts.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that there should be no ambiguity. The great benefit of this amendment is that there is no ambiguity. There is no way round the amendment. The Local Authority Social Services Act may well be ambiguous. Perhaps I may add that I would be happier to have the amendment accepted than to be told that the Local Authority Social Services Act is correctly interpreted in that way. If that is correctly interpreted, we have the slight problem of why it is not being acted on in that way. I hope that the Government, either in the form of these exact words which seem perfectly satisfactory to me or in their own words, take this opportunity and accept the amendment. I do not see that this matter is remotely party political or undermining the Bill. It reinforces what the Government very much want to do. It is with a plea for sweet reasonableness on the part of the Government that for the Opposition I strongly support this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I understand and sympathise with the objective underlying this amendment, which, as I understand it, is that the director of social services shall have the necessary authority and accountability for the discharge of his responsibilities. I entirely endorse the objective. The question is whether it can be achieved by statute.
It is essentially a matter for the local authority which should, we suggest, be allowed scope to organise the management of its services in ways best suited to its local circumstances in accordance with up-to-date best practice and, above all, to promote the government objectives for community care as set out in the White Paper Caring for People.
Here I am thinking particularly of the need to make services more flexible and accessible to those who need them. Authorities that wish to reorganise their community services so as to simplify access to a range of services and to make access more local, should not be unnecessarily impeded by legislation. As the Committee will know, the Bill incorporates a

119
new general power for the Secretary of State to give directions to local authorities and also new default powers.
Together these provisions will make it easier for the Government to intervene effectively if things start to go wrong, to protect the interests of users and carers and to see that the community care policies are given effect. The Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 provides, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, reminded us, that the director of social services be given adequate staff to enable him to fulfil his statutory duties. We would expect the director or his staff to be involved in the appointment of professional staff.
The Secretary of State's approval is already required for other than social services functions to be laid on the director of social services. We do not think that it would be right to involve the Secretary of State to a greater degree in the administrative arrangements of individual local authorities.
The amendment would also remove the possibility of two or more authorities employing the same person to carry out the social services functions where they consider that one person can efficiently discharge those functions. I do not know whether any authorities may wish to make such an arrangement, but I would be reluctant to see that choice denied them.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, was concerned about the line of accountability. It is possible to have clear lines of accountability in several different organisational structures. We accept that clear accountability must exist. I believe that sufficient safeguards exist to investigate and to take action where there is cause for concern. The noble Lord also asked where the buck stopped. That is a very real question in management terms.
It is for each authority to determine the precise pattern of accountability for its officers. Ultimately the legal responsibility rests with the authority itself. It will need to make sure that its internal arrangements allow its accountability to be discharged. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, again questioned the management structure at Tower Hamlets. I do not feel that it would be appropriate or helpful for us to get immersed in the arrangements of that authority. Authorities are free to decide how to organise their social service departments. If they want the director to carry out any other functions.—
Lord Winstanley: I may be confused by what the noble Baroness is saying as against what she said earlier. She appeared to say earlier that the Secretary of State's approval is required before additional functions other than social services functions are laid on the director of social services. Are we to assume from that that the Secretary of State has given approval for what is happening in the authority which has just been quoted?
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure that I can comment specifically on Tower Hamlets. I can confirm to the noble Lord that the Secretary of State's approval is required where the social services take on functions
120
other than those contained in the Act. They require the permission of the Secretary of State.
I must leave as an open question the accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. He felt that a particular authority was in breach of the Act. If that is so, then I believe that it should be dealt with, though at this moment I do not wish to comment upon the situation. Nevertheless, it is a question that must be answered.
Lord Peston: I think that we should clarify a point which seems to me to be quite fundamental. It concerns the first part of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm; namely, subsection (2), which starts with the words,
"the Director of Social Services",
and so on. Is the noble Baroness saying that what is contained in that part of the amendment is not needed because the situation cannot arise? It seemed to me that the noble Lord was saying that the situation he is trying to prevent is, unfortunately, already happening. Is she quite clear in her mind that the problems that have been identified simply cannot be happening legally, so to speak? That is the issue which is bothering us.
The remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, have been somewhat interpreted by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. We all thought that that provision was contained in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. However, in practice that does not seem to be the case. To put it hypothetically, if the noble Baroness can say that what is happening in these boroughs is different from that situation and that she is convinced it is illegal and can be dealt with under the earlier legislation, one might be satisfied. However, it has certainly happened.
Baroness Blatch: I was trying hard not to become embroiled in the instances concerning this particular authority. I shall repeat what I said earlier: if the director of social services is to carry out other functions the authority must have the approval of the Secretary of State. If an authority embarked upon any unorthodox activity I am sure that the social services inspectorate would wish to watch closely to ensure that services were delivered effectively. I have recently been advised that approval has so far been withheld by the Secretary of State in Tower Hamlets.
I believe that enough has been said in this short debate, which has raised many questions. I should like to take the amendment away and discuss it with the department in view of the number of questions which have been left in the air.
Baroness Seear: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. In my view we are discussing two different points. There is the point where a director of social services is given a quite different job to do. As I understand it, that is against the provisions of the initial Act. I think that all of us would agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation.
There is another situation which is perfectly possible. In some circumstances it can be desirable

121
that within the framework of operating the social services in a local authority a director of services may decide that it is a good idea to delegate some of that work to smaller groups in the authority. I can see no objection to that course of action. It can be done while maintaining the line of authority; it is simply delegating. It is done in so many organisations. You simply delegate and you maintain the responsibility. The director would put in controls to ensure that the work is being carried out properly. He would delegate this power to certain groups because in his authority he believes that that is the way it will work. As I said, we are discussing two different issues. I should be glad if the noble Baroness could comment upon the matter. If she cannot do so now, perhaps she will undertake to think about it.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think that we are indeed discussing two different matters. I think that I made clear in my first answer that social services directors must be free to organise their departments either on a patch basis or by some other arrangement, so long as the structure is understood and the services are delivered effectively into the community.
The other issue to which the noble Baroness rightly referred is the assuming of new functions which are not contained within the Act. There is sufficient of a question mark in this respect to suggest that that may well be an issue. As I said, I have been advised that thus far the Secretary of State's approval has been withheld in this particular instance. I believe that we are talking about the additional function of housing.
The third point is the one about which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and other noble Lords are worried. It relates to where the management lines go, who is accountable and where the buck stops. There are sufficient question-marks to cause me to read the debate, discuss the matter with the department and return to the amendment on Report if the noble Lord feels able to withdraw the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: I must say that I was glad to hear what the Minister said. It is clear that apart from Tower Hamlets some other local authorities are in breach of the Act which clearly states:
"The director of social services of a local authority shall not, without the approval of the Secretary of State (which may be given either generally or in relation to a particular authority), be employed by that authority in connection with the discharge of any of the authority's functions other than their social services functions".
That is clear. It is not just Tower Hamlets because several local authorities are doing the same. It is an insult to the directors of social services. Of course I shall not press the amendment. I shall bring it back on Report. I hope that the Government will be able to produce an amendment which covers all the points that we require. If they do that, it will be magnificent.
122
If not, we shall fight the matter to the end. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 117ZA:
Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Health Board Plans
.— (1) After section 13 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 there shall be inserted the following section:—
"Health Board Plans for Community Care Services.

13A. — (1) Within such period after the day appointed for the coming into force of this section as the Secretary of State shall direct, and in accordance with the provisions of this section, each Health Board shall prepare and publish a plan for the provision of health care for the users of community care services in their area.

(2) Each Health Board shall from time to time review any plan prepared by them under subsection (1) above, and shall, in the light of any review, prepare and publish —

(a) any modifications to the plan under review; or

(b) if the case requires, a new plan.

(3) In preparing any plan or carrying out any review under subsection (I) or, as the case may be, subsection (2) above the authority shall consult—

(a) any local authority having responsibilities under Part II of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 in their area;

(b) insofar as the plan or, as the case may be, the review may affect or be affected by the provision or availability of housing, every district or island council in the area of the Board;

(c) such voluntary housing agencies and other bodies as appear to the authority to provide housing or community care services in their area;

(d) such voluntary organisations as are representative of the users of community care services and their families and informal carers in the area of the Board; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may direct.

(4) Plans prepared under this section shall incorporate, so far as is relevant, any community care plans prepared under section 5A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 currently in force in their area.'.").

The noble Lord said: I have a long justification for the amendment which I have abbreviated because of the lateness of the hour. I am sure that the Minister's answer will be based on a rather more exhaustive examination than I am prepared to give at this time. The new clause seeks to reflect the proposals contained in the White Paper which make it clear that health boards have responsibilities for community care planning. It states that health boards will be asked to draw up their own plans which will be agreed with the local authorities and other interested parties. However, the Bill gives all community care planning obligations to local authorities. None of the planning is given to the health boards. Local authorities have merely to consult health boards. In addition, the Bill makes no mention of the planning agreements between local authorities and health boards which are proposed in the White Paper. The amendment would rectify those faults. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Scottish local authorities have pointed out to me that they are required to prepare and publish plans and consult the health boards, but that although the health boards are required to draw up plans for the

123
Secretary of State's approval, they are not required to do so in relation to the Act. The Act does not require it. The health boards are not required to consult the local authorities when so doing. In view of what was said in the White Paper about planning agreements, this provision seems to local authorities to set about the matter in the wrong way. The amendment is an attempt to put that matter right. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is quite right to stress the importance of health boards making community care plans which tie in with those which local authorities will be required to make under Clause 49. Planning for community care requires the close collaboration of all agencies concerned, and that is a matter fully recognised by the Government.
As Chapter 6 of the White Paper Caring for People makes clear, our current reforms place a strong emphasis on the need for health boards and local authorities to work together; for example, in ensuring that there is an effective primary and community health contribution to the development of individual community care packages.
Local authorities will be required to consult health boards and other bodies before drawing up their plans. The White Paper specifically states that local authorities must specify how they will co-ordinate their plans and activities with those of health authorities and other bodies. We shall require health boards to draw up their own community care plans. It might be helpful to the noble Lord and my noble friend if I read the appropriate extract from the White Paper:
"Health boards will be asked to draw up their own plans which will be agreed with the local authorities and other interested parties for the development of community care in their area. These plans will require to be submitted to the Scottish Office and progress will be monitored as part of the accountability review (part of the monitoring arrangements of the Scottish Home and Health Department) to ensure that adequate funds are being devoted to this".
Paragraph 10.17 goes on to say:
"There will be a need for planning agreements between local authorities and health boards setting out shared assumptions and objectives as the basis of the community care plans of the health boards and the local authorities. The details will be the subject of further consultations".
Given the Secretary of State's general powers to direct health boards under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, we are not convinced that it is appropriate to write the requirement for health boards to draw up community care plans onto the face of the Bill.
I am particularly unhappy with subsection (4) of the noble Lord's amendment which would require health boards to incorporate so far as is relevant the community care plans prepared by local authorities. I think that this could be unnecessarily prescriptive. It is one thing for different bodies to agree shared assumptions and objectives, as we intend, but quite another to incorporate one body's plans wholesale into those of another. I fear that this would undermine the flexibility which is essential to ensure
124
the best possible collaboration between local authorities and health boards.
I do not believe that there is inconsistency in the approach that we are adopting because it allows for the fact—and this is very important—that the Secretary of State's relationship with health boards is quite different from his relationship with local authorities. I am sure that the noble Lord understands what I mean by that. I hope that with that explanation he will be able to study what I have said and conclude that what we intend is probably in line with what he seeks.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Of course I shall study what the Minister said and I hope that he also will do me the courtesy of looking closely at my amendment proposing the new clause. Obviously my wording is more likely to be flawed than a provision drawn up by the Minister's experts, but even in the noble Lord's explanation he kept emphasising what the White Paper said. All things being equal, we take the provisions at their face value, but at the end of the day what worries us is that the provision could be challenged.
There could be a difference of opinion between the health board and the local authorities. According to my reading of the Bill and my information, the local authorities would have all the powers and would only need to consult the health boards. They have only to say that they have consulted the health boards.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to intervene. That may seem so, but if our intentions are not fulfilled, then Clause 48 and the powers of the Secretary of State come into play.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I accept the noble Lord's words and will examine them with great care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 [Power of Secretary of State to give directions]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 117ZB:
Page 53, line 27, leave out ("directions") and insert ("general guidance").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 117ZB it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 117ABA. The purpose of Amendment No. 117ZB is that the clause unamended gives the Secretary of State very wide-ranging powers to issue specific directions to local authorities which hitherto they have not enjoyed.
Under Clause 48 the Secretary of State would have power to issue directions on all the social work functions of local authorities, including child care and assessment and not just community care as dealt with in Part IV of the Bill. There is the fear that a Secretary of State could privatise the health service simply by issuing directions under the terms of this clause. I am not of course suggesting that the present

125
Secretary of State would do so, but the effects of legislation last for a long time. We believe that the present powers of the Secretary of State to issue general guidelines are adequate and that any extra power is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am glad that the noble Lord has raised this matter because it is of concern to the Law Society of Scotland and to local authorities. It will be interesting to hear whether my noble friend considers that the new subsection to be inserted into the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 implies the wide powers that have been suggested. It is surely not the intention that the Secretary of State should be involved in, for example, child care, assessments and other social work services. That is not stated in the Bill. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's comments on that.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. When I introduced this amendment I linked it up with Amendment No. 117ABA. I should stress that the latter amendment is linked with this amendment. We believe that the Bill as it stands goes further down the road of promoting vague, enabling powers which concentrate powers in the hands of the Secretary of State without much chance of parliamentary review. The director of the King's Fund feels that that will be the case. I am sure the Minister is well aware of that body. The two amendments seem to me to address a good point. Like the noble Baroness, I am anxious to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall deal first with Amendment No. 117ZB. Throughout this Bill we have tried to strike a balance between delegation at local level and retention of necessary central controls By asking us to water down a direction-making power, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, seems to be suggesting that the Bill is too biased towards the centre.
Under the Bill and the White Paper Caring for People we are transferring major new responsibilities to local authorities for the development and operation of community care. It seems prudent to balance this shift of responsibility with the minimum necessary powers at central level to ensure that local authorities carry out their community care functions properly. It is for this reason that we are giving the Secretary of State general powers to direct local authorities on duties they carry out under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (which of course include the community care provisions that this Bill inserts into the 1968 Act).
The noble Lord said that directions could result in the privatisation of the health service. However, directions cannot override the principal legislation which imposes on the Secretary of State the duty of running the health service. The replacement of the word "directions" with the words "general guidance" and the removal of a local authority's duty to comply with directions would water down
126
the general powers to the point that they would no longer be effective. I think that that would be wrong.
For a start the Secretary of State already has a power under Section 5 of the 1968 Social Work (Scotland) Act to issue local authorities with general guidance on their social work functions, and we will be using this power to give local authorities a wealth of guidance on the performance of their new community care responsibilities under this Bill. But general guidance, by definition, cannot be too specific. The great advantage of directions is that they can be tailor-made to individual circumstances and in particular allow the Secretary of State to step in when an individual authority appears to be falling down on very specific aspects of its duties; and of course directions, whether general or specific, carry a good deal more authority than guidance.
I see nothing unreasonable in giving the Secretary of State a power to direct local authorities in their community care functions. When we are dealing with the provision of services to the most vulnerable people in our society it surely makes sense to build in some statutory, central safeguards. Indeed, there is nothing new in what we are doing since the 1968 Act and related legislation, such as the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, already contain direction-making powers as well as powers to make orders and regulations.
It was suggested that the directions under Clause 48 of the Bill could be used to privatise social work. That is not the case. The 1968 Act gives local authorities statutory social work duties and directions cannot override those.
Some anxieties have been expressed about this part of the Bill. I repeat to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour—who expressed some concern about the powers of the Secretary of State —that as regards the Long Title of the Bill one of the objectives is to make further provision concerning the provision of accommodation and other welfare services by local authorities and the powers of the Secretary of State as respects the social services functions of such authorities. That puts the matter in perspective. I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may advise my noble friend what the Law Society said and he can tell me whether he thinks it is right. The Law Society said that the clause is worded in such a way that the giving of directions by the Secretary of State applies to all the social work functions of the local authorities, including those not related to the provision of community care. Is he saying that there is nothing new in that because of the 1968 Act?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I did not say that. I repeated what my noble friend Lady Hooper said earlier regarding the English provisions and pointed out that the Bill makes it clear that there are powers in the Long Title to do such things as my noble friend has mentioned. The power exists on a wider scale than would have been the case previously.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Again I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for her questions. I had been convinced that the Minister was correct until the noble Baroness raised that point. I do not for a moment suggest that he was wrong, but perhaps it is a matter of interpretation. Our amendments originated largely with the Law Society. I shall withdraw the amendment but I hope that the Minister will accept that we may bring it back at a later date. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117A, 117B and 117ABA not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 117BBA:
Page 53, line 31, at end insert ("having regard to the national strategy for Scotland prepared under section (National strategy for local authority provision of communtiy care).").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if Amendments Nos. 117BBA and 117CBA are taken together.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: And also Amendment No. 118XA?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Yes. In Clause 48 the Bill gives draconian new powers to the Secretary of State. In the past one of the greatest obstacles to the development of high quality community care in Scotland has been the failure of the Scottish Office to use the power of guidance which it already has. It could have used that power to guide social work and community care in Scotland much better than it has. For example, there are no national guidelines in existence for the registration of day care establishments. That means that local authorities work in a vacuum trying to set their own standards for such establishments.
In Wales the all-Wales strategy on mental health has given impetus to community care, but Scotland has not chosen to follow that example. The problem will become even more acute because developments such as case management, assessment of needs and so on will require monitoring and the propagation of good practice.
In the English context, Ministers have repeatedly assured Parliament that the proposal will not require additional legislative safeguards because of the role of the Social Services Inspectorate. In Scotland there is no Social Services Inspectorate. The Government must explain what they propose as an alternative.
The precedents for the requirement in Amendment No. 118XA are Sections 17 (2) and 18 (3) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and Section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 about which we spoke last week. In England and Northern Ireland, there are social services inspectorates and in Wales the social workers' service has recently been renamed the Social Services Inspectorate to reflect the strengthening of commitment to quality assurance.
128
If the clause is accepted, it will provide an opportunity to ask the Scottish Office Minister why there appear to be no proposals to strengthen the role of the social work services group in view of the powers provided by Clause 48 and developments in the rest of the UK.
My suggestions are self-explanatory and I hope that the Minister will be able to help me. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We already have a national strategy and statement of objectives for the provision of community care in Scotland and it is detailed in the White Paper Caring for People, much of which is now being enacted through this Bill. As the noble Lord knows, the key part of our strategy, as recommended by Sir Roy Griffiths, is to place the responsibility for community care with local authorities. It is clearly they who are best placed to determine the needs and priorities for community care in their own areas and they will be required to produce detailed community care plans in consultation with health boards and other interested parties. Thus all over Scotland plans will be developed for meeting the care needs of vulnerable people which are fully adapted to local circumstances.
I see no need for the kind of national community care strategy proposed in Amendment No. 117CBA. At best, it would be a wasteful duplication by central government of work already being done at local level. At worst it would represent an inappropriate degree of central control and involvement in community care planning which could serve merely to undermine and frustrate the efforts of local authorities.
I am not suggesting there should be no central control in that important field. We are already providing for that. The Scottish Office will be monitoring community care plans and the progress made in implementing them and wherever it appears that local authorities are falling down on their community care duties the Secretary of State will be able to step in with his direction-making powers under Clause 48 to which we have referred on many occasions.
I see similar objections to Amendment No. 118XA which calls for the Secretary of State to produce an annual statement of objectives for the development of community care. Community care plans will be public documents and it will be quite clear how services are being developed to address assessed needs. The Scottish Office will monitor the plans and the progress in implementing them. The noble Lord believes that the Secretary of State should state specific objectives because, if the objectives were too general, they would be of limited value. However, I believe that specific objectives would represent a derogation from the local authorities' responsibilities.
The second part of Amendment No. 118XA calls' for annual reports on progress. Numerous statistical bulletins are already produced giving a wide range of information. That includes the numbers of people discharged from hospital, the number of mentally handicapped, mentally ill and elderly persons in

129
residential care in the community and the availability of day services.
I am sure that further reports are not the answer, although I believe that it should be possible to look again at the way in which the statistics are collected and published with the objective of making improvements. Such work is already in hand within the Scottish Office. I want to have a look and see what is happening south of the Border, particularly as the noble Lord mentioned Wales. But I do not feel that the answer lies in what he suggests.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am very grateful that the Minister will look south of the Border. Having been very active in many ways during the passage of the 1968 Social Work (Scotland) Act, I firmly believe that we set a standard which was copied, or was attempted to be copied, down south. But as always happens, people leap ahead. The more one looks around the world, and in particular at our own country of Britain, the more one realises that there is never one group which makes smooth progress all the time.
The Minister suggested that he did not like the idea that the Secretary of State should have specific objectives. There is probably something in that. The idea of having too rigid a framework is bad, but there would certainly be no harm in having guidelines, as we discussed earlier. However, I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has taken and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 117CBA not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Power of Secretary of State to make grants]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 117 BA:
Page 57, line 44, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss Amendments Nos. 117BA, 117BB and 117BC together. Amendment No. 117BA ensures that it is the duty of the Secretary of State to make grants to local authorities in respect of their functions under Part II of the National Health Service and Community Care Act, Section 27 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 and Sections 7 and 8 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
As has been said, Amendment No. 117BB requires that a role is identified for the Scottish Office ensuring the transfer of funds from health boards to local authorities. Officials from the social work services group have stated that these grants will be top sliced—an interesting term—from the local authorities' revenue support grants. Therefore, the financial incentive for local authorities to develop community care services for mentally ill people will only be at the expense of other local authority services. No role is identified for the Scottish Office
130
in ensuring the transfer of funds from health boards to local authorities. Indeed, it seems that the Scottish Office may be giving up some control to the Treasury. It has been suggested that in the past the Scottish Office could allocate its own budget as it saw fit and could have made significant grants to mental health projects without the need for new legislation.
The final amendment in this group calls for:
"after ('Parliament') insert ('in addition to that made available under the Revenue Support Grant').
Unlike for England, in Chapter Four, at page 35 of the White Paper, the contribution of resources transfer from the health boards to local authorities receives no mention in the Scottish chapter. Yet it remains fundamental to the achievement of this aspect of community care. The National Health Service changes proposed in the Bill may exert greater pressure for the resources released from long-stay hospitals to be retained and diverted elsewhere within the health boards. There is no legal obstacle to having an English equivalent of the dowries in Scotland.
Without resources transfer, the burden of paying for care will have to be shouldered by local authorities and communities. Long stay hospital discharge programmes should not be subsidised out of the care element except on a temporary bridging basis. There is concern that the specific grant for mental health will be top sliced from existing local authority expenditure and will be project led and that unlike England it will be eligible in cases of hospital discharge but without contribution from the National Health Service.
The Minister will realise that it is an extremely important group of amendments about which CoSLA and other bodies in Scotland are very concerned. His reply will be awaited with very great interest. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: On the first amendment, the Government are firmly committed to giving grants towards local authorities' expenses on developing services for mentally ill people. The White Paper Caring for People, in paragraph 7.15 makes it quite clear that specific grants will be available for this group. There is no question whatsoever of this Government resiling from that commitment, subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill. But that does not mean that these grants will necessarily be a permanent feature. The White Paper makes it clear that the reason why grant aid is proposed for services for mentally ill people but not for other groups is that local authorities generally have not been able to give as much priority to providing services to those with mental illness as to other vulnerable groups.
I am sure that we all hope that, with the help of this grant scheme, local authorities will find it possible to increase the resources that they devote to this important group of people. When that aim is achieved and services for mentally ill people are brought up to a suitable standard, we would, as our consultation paper about the grant has made clear,

131
consult local authorities on how the newly created facilities could be funded in the same way as other parts of the social work programme.
That is why I cannot agree this amendment, not because the noble Lord's approach differs from ours in the foreseeable future but because I believe that the amendment would fossilise the system for all time by removing the Secretary of State's discretion.
On Amendment No. 117BB, I do not think I need take too long in talking to somebody who has been a Minister in government about the powers of the Treasury. There are sound and important reasons of financial management why the Treasury must act as a central controller of the Government's purse strings; otherwise the important economic objectives of any government would be jeopardised.
However, the very important amendment, Amendment No. 117BC—I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord emphasised its importance—raises the most interesting question. I hope that he will forgive me if I deal with it at some length.
I can well understand the noble Lord's concern that grants made under Clause 55 should be new money rather than being diverted from existing resources. That is not, however, the kind of matter that is properly dealt with in primary legislation. Nor does the proposed amendment fairly reflect the arrangements for providing support to local authorities. It may be helpful if I explain to the Committee how these operate.
From this financial year a wide range of specific grants come within an umbrella of central government support for local authorities. This is known as aggregate external finance and in addition to specific grants of the kind envisaged by Clause 55 it includes revenue support grant and non-domestic rate income. The Government obviously have to reach a view each year on the size of the aggregate Exchequer finance. That assessment takes due account of any changes in policy and responsibilities. It is then a matter of deciding how much of that total amount is to be available to authorities in the various ways through the mechanism of specific grants and support of particular policies or through the revenue support grant or non-domestic rate income.
In the way the system operates the more that is to be provided through specific grants the less there is available for revenue support grant. But the choice between specific grant or revenue support grant as a mechanism for payment is less important than making sure that the total settlement responds fairly to new policies and responsibilities. I am sure the noble Lord knows what I mean by that.
The Committee should also bear in mind that at present the revenue support grant already takes account of local authority expenditure on services for mentally ill people. A new specific grant will provide a better means of targeting available resources.
Central government support for local authorities is a matter on which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland holds regular
132
discussions with CoSLA. Members of the Committee can therefore be assured that the local authorities' new responsibilities are being borne in mind and that due account will be taken of them when we decide on the total size of the aggregate external finance settlement. This will include the arrangements for the mental illness specific grant.
I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will understand the difficulties I have, particularly with his last amendment. He said that the Scottish Office could formerly have made grants and that the Treasury is now shackling us. No, the Secretary of State needs specific powers to make grants. The Treasury is simply there as the final arbiter in the totality of the public expenditure round. I am sure that the noble Lord has had experience of that as have I.
As regards the transfer of funds from health boards to local authorities, the Secretary of State can do that within his block if he thinks fit. Nothing in the Bill alters that. As the noble Lord has recognised, Scottish health boards can pay dowries when patients are discharged from hospital. We believe that there is enough flexibility within the system.
The subject of dowries was raised earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. There is nothing to prevent them being paid. However, we do not claim that the system is used universally in England and Wales. It is a possible solution to some problems but it is not ruled out in a Scottish context.
Finally, as regards the development of community care specific grant on mental illness, the consultation period has recently concluded. We have received a considerable number of replies and we are satisfied with them. We shall be studying the document closely and hope to present the Government's views on it during the summer. We hope that it will be well in place for implementation by 1st April, 1991.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister gave a most helpful reply. I was pleased that he realised that the points I raised are causing considerable anxiety in certain areas in Scotland. I shall take care in reading his reply and obtaining advice. Bearing in mind that his was the nicest and most innocuous description of the Treasury I have heard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117BB and 117BC not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 117BD:
Page 58, leave out from beginning of line 1 to ("and") in line 2.
The noble Lord said: This is a small technical amendment. As originally introduced in another place, the clause dealing with community care plans—now Clause 49—contains a definition of community care services. It included a reference to part of Section 27 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947. The provision deals with the aftercare duties of local authorities and health boards in relation to persons who have been discharged from hospital. Most of the rest of the 1947 Act has long since been repealed.
In order to simplify the statutory provisions on social work services generally, the draftsmen of the present Bill decided to provide for the repeal of the residual social work provisions of the 1947 Act and their re-enactment within the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 along with the other provisions relating to community care. That is achieved in the second half of Clause 53, which includes the relevant part of Section 27 as a new Section 13 (b) in the 1968 Act. Section 27 having thus been dispensed with in its original form, the reference to it in the definition of community care services is redundant and requires to be removed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 117C not moved]
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—
("Specific needs of elderly and disabled persons.
In exercising their functions under sections 40 to 55 of this Act, local authorities shall take special measures to attend to the needs of any person who is suffering from grave chronic disease and who, by reason of age, illness or disability, is living in conditions which in the opinion of a court give rise to an immediate and serious risk to the life and safety of that person.")
The noble Baroness said: All amendments are important but I am sad that this very important amendment is being discussed at 11 o'clock in the evening. I move it on behalf of Age Concern and, in doing so, I pay tribute to the work of Age Concern, which does outstanding work with regard to the care and welfare of the elderly.
There are three points to stress in speaking to this amendment. First, existing legislative provision to protect vulnerable adults is inadequate. The mental health Acts do not cover everyone who can be described as vulnerable. For example, they do not extend to those suffering from early signs of dementia. The only other provision—namely, Section 47 of the National Assistance Act —is highly unsatisfactory.
Secondly, at present the Bill contains no measures which will ensure that local authorities step in in emergency cases when people are at grave risk. Thirdly, the amendment should not place an undue burden on local authorities as it leaves them free to develop their own procedures.
As I said earlier, there is a gap not covered by the mental health Acts or Section 47 of the National Assistance Act. I quote from personal experience. When I was a director of social services I arrived home one evening and opened the evening paper to see an article entitled, "Director of Social Services allows old lady to die". I immediately looked into the matter. I found that the old lady had not been out for weeks, she would not allow anybody into the house and no one had right of entry. Gradually she became weaker and weaker. Health visitors, doctors and social workers were not admitted and ultimately the old lady died.
I quote a second case. A doctor telephoned me about an old man suffering from hypothermia. We sent in a social worker who lit the gas fire, took him
134
hot soup and stayed with him for an hour or two. She went away and returned two hours later. The moment she went out of the door, he hopped out of bed, switched off the gas fire and refused to drink the soup. The doctor telephoned again to say that he was suffering from hypothermia. Those are two cases of vulnerable people who are not covered by mental health legislation. However, at the same time they deteriorate and eventually they die. There is no way in which the social services, medical people or health visitors can help.
Therefore, in this amendment we recommend that there should be a general power to promote the welfare of old people. Also, we recommend that there should be a new duty. At present local authorities have no specific duty to investigate complaints, to respond to requests for help, to support elderly people or their carers or to conduct assessments.
An assessment of the needs of a particular person followed by a notification to the individual concerned of the steps to be taken to meet those needs and the obtaining of his or her consent is essential. However, there also needs to be the introduction of the concept of an intervention order if the local authority refuses to consider needs or to act upon the assessment. That would provide a means of appealing against a local authority which has failed to fulfil its duties. There should be emergency powers, including the replacement or repeal of Section 47 of the National Assistance Act.
There was a report entitled The Law and Vulnerable Elderly People and those recommendations were made in that report. I press my noble friend to consider this amendment carefully. It is of vital importance to the people concerned, to the social workers dealing with the case and to the community. It could be said that, if someone will not co-operate and he does not fall under the mental health or national assistance Acts, he has a death wish and we must leave people to live the lives which they wish to lead. However, when it has been possible to enter premises, perhaps with a relative, or possible to support the person concerned, there have been cases where such people have lived afterwards and have been happy and supported.
The amendment concerns a very serious problem.
I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Carter: I am extremely pleased from these Benches to support this important amendment. It is a shame that it had to come on so late at night. I also endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, concerning the work done by Age Concern.
I agree with the noble Baroness regarding the operation of Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948. My wife, as a magistrate, has been involved in a number of those cases. I was struck by the clumsiness of the procedure and the way that it does not meet all the requirements, particularly the requirements for an emergency procedure when there is an old, vulnerable or disabled person at risk. The Government should either accept this amendment, or bring forward their own amendment to deal with this serious situation.
Baroness Hooper: I recognise that similar powers already exist in Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948, and also in the provisions of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. My noble friend Lady Faithfull considers that the power to remove to another place on the order of a court is not sufficient. However, there are a number of difficulties regarding the proposal before us.
In the first place, the local authority's duty would be to attend to the person's needs, irrespective of whether the person is able or willing to consent to the meeting of those needs. It may well be that the local authority will decide that the needs in question can only be met by removal of the person from the place where he is living. But the local authority's power to remove the person would be dependent on the order of a court on application under the 1948 provisions referred to. The local authority's duty under the amendment (as distinct from its power under the existing 1948 Act provision) could therefore only relate to the provision of services which the person could receive in the place where he or she was already living.
Given that limitation, it is hard to see what purpose the clause would serve, beyond that of the assessment provision already contained in Clause 52 of the Bill. Under that provision the local authority, finding a person living in a situation of the kind described so ably by my noble friend and which gives rise to concern, would be under a duty to assess the needs of the person for any community care services. It would be under a further duty to decide what services it should provide. One consideration in that connection would clearly be the willingness of the person to accept any offer of residential accommodation that might be made available to him.
The only advance which the amendment would provide on the position provided by Clause 52 would be to require the local authority to provide a service on the premises whether or not the person wanted it. However, there seems to be no benefit in giving the local authority a duty to provide such services unless the nature of the particular service can be specified in advance.
If, contrary to the effect of the new clause as drafted, the objective is to provide local authorities with a power to remove individuals from their homes for their protection from risk to life or safety, then I have to say that the clause could not readily be re-drafted to secure that result. Certification of risk to a person's life or health by a medical practitioner under the existing 1948 Act provision continues to provide, in our view, the most appropriate way of enforcing what amounts to eviction of a person from his or her home in order to be treated in the way that the statutory authorities perceive to be necessary in his or her interests. We do not consider that it is necessary or desirable to give local authorities powers of removal at their own hand in order to provide services which they feel the person requires but cannot or will not receive in his or her home.
This is a difficult situation and we must all recognise that. However, I can give a clear assurance that the Government are very much alive to the need to ensure safeguards for the protection of people,
136
whether or not of mature years, who are plainly unable to look after themselves, but we see great difficulty in dealing with this by going further than existing legislation or the provisions in the Bill.
My noble friend referred to the suggestion in Age Concern's report on law and vulnerable elderly people. As my noble friend will know, we have given careful consideration to the proposals in the report, but we do not feel that legalistic devices such as the intervention order proposed are the right way to tackle these problems. Social services are needed which are more sensitive to individual needs. That is the thrust of the community care proposals and what we aim to achieve. On that basis, and recognising the importance of this subject, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. Clearly the social services departments will attempt to give every possible service to the person concerned in his or her own home. The forcible removal of a person would be only a last resort.
However, the practical outcome of my noble friend's reply is that social services ultimately will let someone die. While that has to be faced, it is nevertheless unpalatable. Equally, dealing with such a situation is also unpalatable. Therefore, which of the two unpalatable lines does one take? It is hard for a director of social services to see in a local paper that she has allowed someone to die. I realise that if someone wants to die it is fair to say, I suppose, that he or she should be allowed to do so. However, the fact is that many people are assisted and subsequently live a happy life for several years.
I recognise the difficulty of my noble friend the Minister in making legislation to cover such cases, but I still feel that something could be done. It should be possible to have a right of entry in extreme cases—and only in extreme cases—to remove a person to a place of care. However, at this time of night I should like to consider what has been said by my noble friend, to discuss the matter with Age Concern and come back at Report stage. In the meantime, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 118XA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 118YA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Removal of Crown immunities]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 118YB:
Page 59, line 24, at end isnert—
("(3A) Nothing in subsection (1) above affects the extent of the expression "the services of Crown" where it appears in —

(a) Schedule 1 to the Registered Designs Act 1949 (provisions as to the use of registered designs for the services of the Crown etc.); and

(b) sections 55 to 59 of the Patents Act 1977 (use of patented inventions for services of the Crown);

and, accordingly, services provided in pursuance of any power or duty of the Secretary of State under Part I of the National Health Service Act 1977 or Part I or Part III of the National

137
Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 shall continue to be regarded as included in that expression, whether the services are in fact provided by a health service body, a National Health Service trust or any other person.")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 118ZAA. The removal of Crown immunity from the NHS has been widely welcomed as a positive move designed to enhance patient care by ensuring that statutory standards are clearly applicable and enforceable across the NHS. It is standards of patient care and staff welfare which are the essential object of this clause. However, Crown immunity is a complex subject, the removal of which has thrown up a number of unintended consequences which might for one reason or another work against the provision of better patient care. The clause has therefore been drafted to cover a number of areas where simple abolition would or could cost the NHS money without bringing any benefits to patients or staff.
One such area is the use of registered designs copyright or patent material. Legislation covering these areas has consistently recognised the value to the general public of maintaining a Crown or public service exemption for use of such material without the permission of the owner of the intellectual property in the material. These provisions are used sparingly. But on occasions the public interest in patient care is best served by invoking them. There was, for example, a recent case relating to lithotripter machines, where, without use of these powers, NHS patients, would have been deprived of the benefit of this equipment pending the outcome of litigation relating to the patents in the equipment.
These provisions do not allow the Crown simply to use others' ideas without payment. When these powers in relation to the use of patents and registered designs are invoked there is provision for compensation of the owner of the intellectual property. In the case of copyright the power is not a wide one and is indeed one of many cases where use can be made of copyright material without infringement.
Any diversion of effort or funds from patient care which does not bring an offsetting benefit in the form of higher standards is to be avoided. The public interest in patient care will remain even when Crown immunity has in general been removed from the NHS. I commend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 118ZA:
Page 59, line 35, after ("Board") insert ("or Special Health Board").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 118AA. The two amendments insert the new special health boards in the list of health service bodies in Clauses 57 and 58. This means that special health boards will be treated in exactly the same way as ordinary health boards; they will not generally benefit from Crown immunity but they will be exempt from certain taxation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Provisions arising out of removal of Crown immunities from health service bodies]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 118ZAA:
Page 89, line 34, at end insert —
("The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
. At the end of section 48 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (material communicated to the Crown in the course of public business) there shall be added the following subsection —
"(6) In this section "the Crown" includes a health service body, as defined in section 57 (6) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and a National Health Service trust established under Part 1 of that Act or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978; and the reference in subsection (1) above to public business shall be construed accordingly. "").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 118ZB:
Page 90, line 2, at end insert—
("The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947
. In the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 (procedure for authorising compulsory purchases), after paragraph 10 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"10A. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of this Schedule "statutory undertakers" include —

(a) a health service body, as defined in section 57 (6) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and

(b) a National Health Service trust established under Part I of that Act or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;

but in relation to a health service body, as so defined, any reference in those paragraphs to land acquired or available for acquisition by the statutory undertakers shall be construed as a reference to land acquired or available for use by the Secretary of State for use or occupation by that body. ".")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 118A. Schedule 8 to the Bill deals with the removal of Crown immunity from the health service. There is widespread support for this move designed to make it a statutory requirement that the highest standards are maintained within the NHS for the benefit of patients and staff. The removal of Crown immunity has, however, other consequences less beneficial to the NHS. These amendments seek to deal with one such consequence.
Present National Health Service land is Crown property and no-one can compulsorily purchase it. Any acquisition of National Health Service land must be with the consent of the owner, normally the Secretary of State, who will consider carefully the impact of the proposal on the services for patients and the welfare of staff.
However, removing Crown immunity removes this protection. Therefore, the amendment ensures that the land of health service bodies including health authorities, health boards and National Health

139
Service trusts gets the same protection against compulsory purchase as the land of statutory undertakers such as British Telecom and British Gas. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 118A:
Page 90, line 29, at end insert:
("The Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
—(1) At the end of section 16 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (statutory undertakers' land excluded from compulsory purchase) there shall be added the following subsection —"
(3) In the preceding provisions of this section "statutory undertakers" include —

(a) a health service body, as defined in section 57 (6) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and

(b) a National Health Service trust established under Part 1 of that Act or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978

but in relation to a health service body, as so defined, any reference in those provisions to land acquired or available for acquisition by the statutory undertakers shall be construed as a reference to land acquired or available for acquisition by the Secretary of State for use or occupation by that body".
(2) In section 17 of that Act (local authority and statutory undertakers' land) at the end of subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
" (2A) Subsection (3) of section 16 above applies in relation to subsections (1) and (2) above as it applies in relation to the preceding provisions of that section. "").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 [Health service bodies: taxation):
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 118AA:
Page 60, line 18, after ("Board") insert ("or Special Health Board").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Regulations, orders and directions:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 118AB:
Page 61, line 35, after ("and") insert ("subject to subsection (A2) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like, with leave of the Committee, to speak also to Amendment No. 118BA. These amendments deal with a specific concern relating to the very wide enabling powers in the Bill. As the Bill stands, it would confer these wide powers on the Secretary of State once the legislation is enacted. In debates on previous amendments we have discussed the various aspects of these powers.
As we know, it would be possible for the Secretary of State to bring in new orders and regulations which would be subject only to the negative resolution procedure. Thus they could escape the full scrutiny of Parliament. Therefore, we feel strongly that Clause 61 of the Bill should be amended to ensure
140
that wherever appropriate, especially where patient care may be affected, new regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
We have had this discussion on many occasions regarding previous enactments. I hope that when the Minister replies there will be something better than the usual government arguments, which, however well phrased, always amount to an attempt to convince the Committee that a diktat by any other name smells as sweet. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The clauses on fund-holding practices and indicative prescribing budgets to which these amendments relate lay down the principles of these two new schemes and put in place a clear-cut framework for their implementation. It is only right that this should be so. Parliament must have an opportunity to debate and approve the principles, and the people who will have to carry through these proposals want to see the framework properly spelt out.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out that the clauses already contain a number of regulation-making powers. They provide the flexibility which is needed for the schemes to develop in an evolutionary way—by responding to new circumstances and learning from experience. It is also consistent with the legislative basis of the National Health Service since its inception; for example, on the GP services where regulations spell out all the detailed arrangements. Over the years this has been accepted as the right approach. It has prevented primary legislation in this area from growing into a labyrinth which is especially inappropriate for a national service for which a Secretary of State is fully accountable to Parliament.
I believe that Parliament should concentrate on the principles, clearly define the scope of any delegation and hold Ministers to account for the exercise of their powers. I am sure that it will continue to do so. It should keep its eye on the ball and not become bogged down in a morass of legislative detail.
It is for similar reasons that I cannot agree to the noble Lord's proposition that we should use the affirmative resolution procedure for these regulations.
Essentially the regulations concern the implementation and administration of the schemes founded on the primary legislation. It is hardly sensible to delegate those detailed matters to Ministers on the one hand and on the other to pull them back into the parliamentary arena by requiring debates and resolutions, not just at the outset but on each and every occasion on which adjustments are made. The principles will already have been subject to the full debate and approval of Parliament. I doubt whether a repeat performance each and every time that regulations are made would necessarily be of great benefit to anyone.
Of course I recognise that Members of this place will take a keen interest in the development of fund-holding and prescribing budgets and may on occasion want to challenge what is proposed. That would not be out of character. There is already

141
provision for that to be done in a way which is more clearly focused than the way suggested by the amendments. Each statutory instrument will be laid before both Houses of Parliament and be subject to the negative procedure. I suspect that noble Lords opposite will not hesitate to press for a debate if they want to question any of our regulations and consider the matter of sufficient importance to occupy the attention of this place.
In addition, the Committee will be aware that the procedures of this place provide a number of other ways in which the Government can be held to account The joint committee will, as ever, take care to ensure that we have made proper use of the powers that Parliament has given us. I hope that the noble Lord understands our views and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: I should perhaps preface my question by saying that I am not against indicative drug budgets because they seem to be a broadly sensible way of approaching the problem of prescribing. Is the Minister saying that in the Government's view we have debated the matter sufficiently and that no case can be made for having the affirmative procedure? As I understand it—I remain a tyro in these matters—whether it is the affirmative or negative procedure does not affect what happens in this place, but it may affect what happens in the other place. Is the Minister saying that we have explored these drug budgets in so much detail, and that the remaining details are so uncontroversial that the affirmative procedure would not be relevant to the other place? I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carter has the same view: I am not seeking to undermine or wreck the Bill with this proposal, but there are certain matters about which people who are affected—the pharmaceutical companies are a good example—are to say the least a trifle doubtful. Does the Minister intend to be as definite in her answer as she sounded?
I well understand what the Minister is saying. Will she indicate the possibility at least of some flexibility? I am not intervening because I am against some of the things that the Government want to do. On a subsequent occasion there might be more to be said and so the affirmative procedure might be appropriate. I merely ask the question.
Baroness Hooper: The principles of the matters will have been subject to full debate by the time the Bill, eventually as we hope, receives Royal Assent. I am informed that there has been ample opportunity to debate these procedures, because over 1,000 amendments have so far been debated in both places. My point is that the negative procedure permits a debate in both places. However, to require this in each and every case as the amendment suggests would be a little too much.
Lord Carter: When I moved the amendment, I said that I expected the Minister to produce the usual arguments. She did not disappoint me.
Baroness Hooper: If the noble Lord will give way, I have to say that if the same amendments are tabled, then he is bound to receive the same answers.
Lord Carter: Exactly. At this stage of proceedings we shall reserve the right to come back because it is an important matter. However, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 118B and 118BA not moved.]
Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 118BB:
Page 99, line 3, after ("committee)") insert ("(a)").
The noble Baroness said: In approving Amendment No. 115FC and agreeing that Clause 47 as amended by the Committee should stand part of the Bill, your Lordships added to the additions to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 set out in that clause a new section requiring local authorities if so ordered by the Secretary of State to establish a complaints procedure. The effect of these amendments, Nos. 118BB, 118BC and 118BD, is to add that procedure to Schedule 1 to the 1970 Act. Not only will this make it a function of the local authority's social services committee, it will also mean that in exercising its functions the authority will have to have regard to any general guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 7 to the 1970 Act. When Clause 47 becomes law, the local authority will have to observe any directions given by the Secretary of State under Section 7A of the same Act, and the Secretary of State's powers to hold enquiries (Section 7B) and to take special action in cases of default (Section 7C) will also apply to it. I so move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 118BC and 118BD en bloc:
Page 99, line 5, after ("trusts"") insert:
("(b) in the first column, for the words "Section 6 of this Act" there shall be substituted "Sections 6 and 7AA of this Act"").
Page 99, line 5, after ("and") insert ("(c)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 118C:
Page 99, line 28, at end insert:
("The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975
13A. In section 462 (interpretation) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "hospital", after the words "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted the words "or in a National Health Service trust".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 118C and speak to Amendment No. 118E. These two amendments make minor changes to existing legislation consequential on the setting up of National Health Service trusts. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 118CA:
Page 100, line 39, at end insert:
("(8A) At the end of section 103 of that Act (special arrangement as to payment of remuneration) there shall be inserted the following subsection —
"(3) If the Secretary of State by order so provides with respect to remuneration in respect of such pharmaceutical services as may be specified in the order, —

(a) an NHS trust determined in accordance with the order shall have the function of paying sums so determined to the Family Health Services Authority which, under Part II of this Act, has the function of paying that remuneration; and

(b) nothing in subsection (2) above shall apply with respect to that remuneration. "").

The noble Baroness said: It is not uncommon for a hospital doctor to issue a prescription to a patient when he or she leaves hospital and for that prescription to be dispensed by the patient's local pharmacist rather than by the hospital pharmacy. In such cases, at present, the pharmacist recovers the cost of dispensing the prescription from the Family Practitioner Committee and the health authority reimburses the Family Practitioner Committee for the cost. Health authorities have been given the function of meeting these costs by an order made under Section 103 of the 1977 Act.
In future it is likely that doctors working in NHS trusts will similarly issue prescriptions which are dispensed by a local pharmacist and this amendment will allow the Secretary of State to make an order giving relevant trusts the function of reimbursing the FHSA, as it will then be, for the costs of dispensing such prescriptions. The trust itself will recover the costs incurred from health authorities through National Health Service contracts. With that explanation I commend these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 118CB:
Page 100, line 45, at end insert:
("() In section 122 of that Act (recovery of charges), in subsection (1) after the words "this Act", in the second place where they occur, there shall be inserted "or Part I of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990".").
The noble Lord said: This technical amendment will ensure that National Health Service trusts, like health authorities, will be able to recover any sums they are owed in respect of such charges summarily as a civil debt. I commend the amendment to the Committee and beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 118D:
Page 101, line 24, at end insert —
("(1A) In subsection (5) of section 11 (Scottish Hospital Trust) of that Act, after the words "and shall cause" there shall be inserted the words "such accounts to be audited and".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 118DZA:
Page 103, line 49, at end insert:
("(19A) In section 110 of that Act (citation, extent and commencement)—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words "subsection (3) " there shall be substituted "subsections (2A) and (3)"; and

(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—

("(2A) Section 87B (3) extends also to England and Wales. ".").
The noble Lord said: I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Balfour for drawing this matter to our attention. The amendment amends the extent section of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 to allow new Section 87B (3) which is inserted into the 1978 Act by Clause 33 of the Bill to extend to England and Wales. The 1978 Act generally extends only to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 118DA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118DAA:
Page 105, line 20, after ("(4)") insert ("after the word "exercised" there shall be inserted "subject to subsection (5) below" and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 118DAB. These amendments simply preserve the existing provision for appeals to the hospital managers by patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 to be considered by people who have not been involved in their care and treatment.
The Act provides for these appeals to be heard by members. With the advent of executive members and directors we need to make it clear that employees should not be involved whether or not they have been directly involved in the case. This is an important safeguard which I hope will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118DAB:
Page 105, line 21, at end insert ("and
(c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection —
"(5) The reference in subsection (4) above to the members of an authority, trust or body or the members of a committee or sub-committee of an authority, trust or body, —

(a) in the case of a District or Special health authority or a committee or sub-committee of such an authority, is a reference only to the chairman of the authority and such members (of the authority, committee or sub-committee, as the case may be) as are not also officers of the authority, within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977; and

(b) in the case of a National Health Service trust or a committee or sub-committee of such a trust, is a reference only to the chairman of the trust and such directors or (in the case of a committee or sub-committee) members as are not also employees of the trust."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 118DB:
Page 105, line 29, at end insert:
("(5A) In section 117 of that Act (after-care) in subsection (3) for the words "the District Health Authority for the district" there shall be substituted "such District Health Authority as may te determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 118E:
Page 07, line 14, leave out ("managers of that hospital") and insert ("directors of the trust").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Enactments Repealed]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 118EZA:
Page 13, line 8, column 3, at end insert:
("In section 111(1)(a) the words "or paragraph (c)".")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amencment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 1 8EZB. These amendments repeal two small subsections of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. They are consequential on the repeal of Section 99 of that Act in Schedule 10 of the Bill. The repeal of Section 99 is in turn consequential on the provisions in Clause 54 which remove outstanding Crown immunities from the National Health Service. I am sure the Committee will support these minor measures to tidy up the statute book. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 118EZB:
Page 113, line 9, column 3, at end insert:
("Section 149(1)(d).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 118EA:
Page 113, line 16, column 3, at beginning insert:
("Section 124.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Short title, commencement and extent];
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 120 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 121A and 121B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.

  GERMANY AND THE BALTIC STATES: TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
  GERMANY AND THE BALTIC STATES: TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
  INHERITANCE TAX EXEMPTION LEVELS
  INHERITANCE TAX EXEMPTION LEVELS
  TAX CHANGES: COMMENCEMENT DATE
  TAX CHANGES: COMMENCEMENT DATE
  TAX RELIEF WITHDRAWAL: COMMENCEMENT
  TAX RELIEF WITHDRAWAL: COMMENCEMENT
  CROMWELL ROAD: ILLEGAL PARKING
  CROMWELL ROAD: ILLEGAL PARKING
  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS: EC FUNDING
  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS: EC FUNDING
  MULTI-PARTY ACTIONS: LEGAL AID PROPOSALS
  MULTI-PARTY ACTIONS: LEGAL AID PROPOSALS
  CLASS ACTIONS: REVIEW
  CLASS ACTIONS: REVIEW