Sitting of 21 May 1990

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

    War Widows' Pensions
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of claims for war widows' pensions are successful (a) on initial application and (b) on appeal.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): About 46 per cent. of claims for war widows pensions are successful on initial application. Some 19 per cent. of cases which go to appeal are successful.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that incomplete records and the passage of time make it increasingly difficult to prove or disprove that war service has contributed to the death of a pensioner? Many widows as well as their husbands suffer for many years and find it extremely difficult. Is not it time that we took a more generous approach to widows whose husbands suffered as a result of giving service to the country during the war?
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind and I have every sympathy with the lady—he will know that her case is to go to
    2
    appeal. He seems to be asking about automatic entitlement to a war widow's pension. The basic condition for the award of a war widow's pension must be that the husband's death was due to or substantially hastened by service in the armed forces. There must be that causal connection or the rates of the war widow's pension could not be justified.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the implementation of proposals in "The Way Ahead" to benefit disabled people who want to achieve independence through working.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Detailed work is progressing on our proposal in "The Way Ahead" to introduce a new benefit, disability employment credit, which will make it easier for disabled people to work. We intend to introduce legislation in time to bring the new benefit into effect from April 1992.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new benefit will give enormous new opportunities to disabled people to join the community in the fullest sense? Does he also agree that three elements are necessary to make that possible? The first is training—will he talk to his hon. Friends about that? Secondly, employers should display a degree of patience to enable people to settle in to the work. Thirdly, a safety net should always be provided so that those who try to go out to work but find that it is not possible will always be able to return to receiving the full benefits to which they were previously entitled.
    Mr. Scott: I agree very much with the points that my hon. Friend has made. We shall be aiding the provision of a safety net by enabling those on invalidity benefit before they go into work, which attracts the disability employment credit, to retain their underlying entitlement to that benefit. Therefore, they will not have to requalify for it if by chance they are unable to sustain the job. I believe that the disability employment credit will be an important encouragement to people to go into work. It

    3
    will reinforce the emerging demographic pattern, which I believe will compel employers to look beyond the disabilities that they see to the abilities that frequently lie behind them.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that there is great concern among people with disabilities and their carers about the Government's attitude to the independent living fund? Will he therefore seek to persuade the Treasury that it is extremely important that people with disabilities should not experience poverty and that poverty and disability should not be synonymous?
    Mr. Scott: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I was able to announce an extra £8 million for the independent living fund and I am in discussion with the trustees of the fund about its future.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the Minister still expect to save £10 million by introducing the new credit as I was told in a parliamentary reply? Is he aware of the concern of Nicole Davoud and her working group on the credit that it should not exclude people who can work only for less than 24 hours per week, that it should not be means tested like family credit, and that the maximum allowable income should not restrict disabled people to lower-paid work? What assurances can the Minister give to the working group on those important issues?
    Mr. Scott: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's right—indeed, duty—to press me on those matters, but we have exchanged views on it before and he knows as well as I do that we are still working on the details of the benefit. We estimate that it will cost about £80 million to help 50,000 disabled people to obtain employment. The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that that is an important step in the right direction.

    Lone Parents
    Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much a lone parent with two children would have to earn to be better off in work than on benefits, making an appropriate assumption about the costs of child care.
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much a lone parent with two children would have to earn to be better off in work than on benefits, making an appropriate assumption about the costs of child care.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): It is not possible to generalise in the way that the questions seek as individual circumstances vary so widely and lone parents' income in work will also depend on whether maintenance is paid. The benefit system does, however, recognise that lone parents who work may face additional costs of various kinds, and the earnings disregard for such lone parents on housing benefit is to be increased from £15 to £25 a week in October.
    Ms. Short: First, will the Secretary of State apologise, on behalf of the chair of the Conservative party, to lone parents throughout the country who are deeply hurt by the suggestion that their children are likely to become criminals and are taking part in a wrecking of society? Secondly, do the Government understand that many lone parents would love to work but cannot do so because of
    4
    the costs of child care? Will he reconsider the Government's decision to prevent lone parents offsetting the costs of child care against benefit because the Government are thus trapping large numbers of them into poverty and into living on benefits when they would like to be independent and give a better life to their children?
    Mr Newton: With regard to the first part of the hon. Lady's question, I do not accept—nor do I think that my right hon. Friend would accept—the interpretation that the hon. Lady has placed on his remarks. We all share a common concern to improve the position of lone parents. My right hon. Friend was doing no more than talk about some of the difficulties that they and their families may face, which we are all concerned to tackle.
    With regard to the second part of the hon. Lady's question, I have already referred to one significant improvement that we are making in the in-work earnings disregard. She will be aware that a significant number of lone parent families are helped by family credit, which is very much directed at them—about a third of those on family credit are lone parents. We shall continue to try to improve the benefits system, not least to try to improve the collection of maintenance, which provides portable income for those who receive benefit and then gain work. That will make a significant contribution to the problem.
    Mrs. Mahon: The Minister will be aware that many lone parents will be disappointed with that answer. Will he reconsider taking the cost of child care into account? I add my support to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) about the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). Will the Minister also send a message to the Prime Minister, and point out to her that the majority of lone parents have not had the access to wealth that she had when bringing up children?
    Mr Newton: Undoubtedly, many lone parents are in difficult circumstances. That is why we have made a number of improvements in the benefit system which are designed to help them. Some have already come into effect. Another, to which I have referred, will come into effect in October. Perhaps the biggest single weakness in our system at present is the lack of effective collection of maintenance to which we are directing close attention.
    Mr. Favell: Labour Members talk as though the money to provide child care for lone parents will drop out of the sky. It has to be paid for by other taxpayers—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about directors' pay rises?"] Is it reasonable that a tax-paying couple should provide Rolls-Royce child care treatment for lone parents when it is perfectly open to those parents to do what other working women have to do—look to their mothers, aunts or neighbours to help out, rather than expect the help to come from taxes?
    Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that any improvement, as some would see it, or change in the benefit system in this sector, as in others, would cost money, and a decision would have to be taken about where that should come from and whether it might be better spent elsewhere. The last survey done on this subject—admittedly, it is rather old as it was done nearly 10 years ago by the social policy research unit—showed that about four out of five lone parents did not have any child care costs, even when they were in part-time work.
    Mr. Rooker: Is the Secretary of State aware that last week the accounting officer of his Department, when asked why there had been a massive disincentive for lone parents to work during the past eight years, as identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, twice told the Public Accounts Committee that it was due to ministerial policy decisions?
    Mr. Newton: I am aware, having talked with my Permanent Secretary about the matter this morning, that he had some interesting exchanges with the hon. Gentleman last week. But I have not yet been able to read the transcript——
    Mr. Kirkwood: Slacking!
    Mr. Newton: Because it is not available.
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, it is.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will forgive me if I do not get drawn further down that path, especially as I believe that he has been promised a further note on some of the matters involved.
    I must also tell the hon. Gentleman for the third time, but without apology, that the aspect of the system that has most obviously changed for the worse in the past 10 years has been the growing deficiency in collecting maintenance, which we are now vigorously trying to correct—I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement.

    Low-paid Workers
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many low-paid workers are entitled to claim means-tested benefits and also liable to pay income tax; and what was the number in 1985.
    Mr. Newton: Although the information is not available on the basis requested, there are at present about 470,000 benefit units where the head is in full-time employment, pays income tax and receives an income-related benefit. Comparable information is not available for 1985.
    Mr. Corbyn: I find that answer extremely surprising, because on 16 March 1990 such an answer was indeed given to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), and an analysis done by the Low Pay Unit showed that in the past four years the number of people who fall into the means test trap has risen from 290,000 to more than 400,000. That is because—I hope that the Minister will tell us what plans he has to change this rule—indexing is linked to prices, not earnings, so many more families than before are worse off as a result of the policies adopted by the Department. If the Minister is serious about conquering poverty in this country—I have my doubts whether he is—will he kindly change the indexing formula so that more families will not get caught in the poverty trap as they do now?
    Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman may agree that the position is rather more complicated than he has acknowledged. He has referred to figures relating to the number of people with marginal deduction rates of 70 per cent. or more. An important part of the reforms that we undertook was dramatically to reduce the numbers subject to marginal deduction rates far higher than that. For example, whereas before the reforms more than
    6
    200,000 people were suffering deduction rates of more than 90 per cent., that number has fallen sharply but there has been some corresponding increase lower down.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the Conservatives took office we have taken people out of the income tax net because real income tax allowances have increased by 25 per cent. more than inflation, and that the reason why the overlap has increased is that we have also increased benefits available to the low paid? Indeed, the family income supplement, the forerunner of the present family credit, which was designed to assist the low paid was introduced by a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to say that the number of people paying income tax would be far higher but for the changes that the Government have made. He is also right to refer to the changes that we have made which mean that income-related benefits are now calculated on income net of tax and national insurance contributions, which has helped to reduce those high marginal deduction rates and been a significant improvement in the system.

    Housing Benefit
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to review the operation of the housing benefit system.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Although we monitor closely the working of the housing benefit scheme, we have no plans for a major review.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that if we subsidise something we often get more of it, and that people in local government who administer housing benefit and, incidentally, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 believe that such subsidies are often a temptation to people to throw themselves on the authority for accommodation? If she agrees with that, would she further agree that the way to do something about the housing problem is to recreate a market in rented homes, and that if we could abolish controls on newly rented property we would reinstate the friendly landlady, who would be willing to take in many of the young people and others who sleep rough on our streets?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. She has raised it before in the House and she will know that regulation of rents is a matter for the Department of the Environment. She will also know that housing benefit is not intended to help pay excessively high rents. Our arrangements for reimbursing local authorities for housing benefit expenditure give them an incentive not to pay benefit above reasonable market levels. Local authorities have powers to restrict benefit in cases where accommodation is over-large for a claimant's needs or unreasonably expensive. In the longer term, we propose to restrict the amount of housing benefit payable for properties at the top end of the market, but information to achieve that is not ready and will not be ready for some time.
    Mr. Kirkwood: If the Government will not undertake a major review of the housing benefit system, will they take an urgent look at the way in which the housing benefit system prejudices the young, especially the

    7
    homeless young? Will the Minister study the speech by Mr. Donald Maclean, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, who said in Peebles on Friday that stray dogs get a better deal than the young homeless in Scotland and that a civilised society such as ours should be able to do better than that? This is the first time in my experience that a senior and respected police officer has become involved in the benefit debate, and the Government should not ignore that. In the monitoring or review process, will the Minister bring forward urgent help for people under 25?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am not aware of the speech made by Mr. Donald Maclean but I will certainly look at it. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the young homeless. I am sure that he is aware of the administrative and other changes introduced by the Department to help 16 and 17-year-olds become entitled to benefit. An announcement about that was made in November and changes were made in the interaction between benefit and youth training schemes. Those were announced by the Department of Employment in March. In July we made a substantial change in benefit arrangements for young people who have to live away from home. Of course, we continue to monitor the situation.
    Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend constantly reviews the housing benefit system. Will she look at the position of pensioners in receipt of small occupational pensions for which they have paid during their working life? When money becomes available will my hon. Friend try to improve their standard of living through the rates of benefit paid to them as that group of people has been hard hit by current inflation and the introduction of the community charge.
    Mrs. Shephard: As my hon. Friend says, the Department continues to review the position of all groups. One result of such review was the changes made in October to help particularly needy pensioners of the kind described by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware of the appalling hardship and deprivation caused to many people and certainly to my constituents because, as the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has said, the occupational pension is fully taken into account and the amount of housing benefit is therefore either derisory or none at all? Why do the Government penalise time and again so many of our senior citizens who, because they receive such a pension—in many cases a small amount—have to pay large amounts in rent and rates so that their standard of living is constantly being undermined? The Government bear a heavy burden of responsibility for the shocking poverty which has resulted from the changes in housing benefit.
    Mrs. Shephard: I repeat that it was precisely such groups that the Government sought to target with our October package of help for older and poorer pensioners and, of course, are keeping the position under review.
    Mr. Burns: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a genuine problem about the payment of housing benefit? It usually takes two weeks and sometimes more to process an application, but many people who become homeless have to pay their rent weekly and landlords will not wait until the housing benefit application has been processed. It
    8
    seems to be a vicious circle. I am sure that all hon. Members would be extremely grateful if my hon. Friend's Department could come up with any reasonable way to look at the rules and allow flexibility to minimise the number of people caught in that unfortunate trap.
    Mrs. Shephard: The administration of housing benefit is a matter for local authorities. I believe that my hon. Friend has raised previously his concern about the way in which this is done in his constituency. Housing benefit claims are meant to be processed in 14 days. Many authorities achieve this target, and there is no reason why all of them should not do so. However, if claimants have to wait because of the inefficient operation of housing authorities there is the possibility of a crisis loan.

    Benefit Uprating
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in which years during the 1980s the uprating of supplementary benefit or income support rates provided for an increase in their real value; and by what percentage.
    Mr. Scott: These benefit levels have been uprated every year to take account of forecast or actual movements in the appropriate index. In a number of years there has also been specific extra help for special groups such as pensioners, disabled people and families with children.
    Mr. Battle: We are beginning to view with deep suspicion the statistics that the Government give us. Will the Minister recommend that all Conservative Members read the Select Committee on Social Services' report on low-income statistics before repeating the false claim that the poor are better off under this Government? Is not it a fact that the real value of income support fell by 3·7 per cent. between 1981 and 1989? How would the Minister respond to my constituents who spell out the fact that their income is £84·99 a week on benefit and their outgoings on basic essentials are £91·84, so there is a shortfall of £6·85 every week? How would Conservative Members manage on such an income for at least a year?
    Mr. Scott: We are studying the Select Committee report. We note that the Select Committee has said that it wants further work to be done on the pattern of statistics and the way in which they are provided and to increase both in scope and depth the figures provided by the Government on these matters. We shall take account of those recommendations as we consider the report.
    I repeat that the benefits are uprated year by year by the appropriate index. In addition, we have found the money to provide extra help for low income families, for older and disabled pensioners and for families with children.

    Pensioners' Charter
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met a group of pensioners' representatives to discuss the pensioners' charter; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Scott: We regularly meet representatives from pensioner organisations to discuss a range of issues of concern to them. Most recently, I accompanied the Prime Minister at a meeting with a delegation from the National Pensioners Convention.
    Mr. Skinner: The Minister will know that one of the demands made by pensioners is for the Government to restore the link between pensions and the prices and earnings index. The breaking of that link resulted in the Government stealing £12 per week from every pensioner. He will also be aware that pensioners want to abolish standing charges and prescription charges and to have free travel like Ministers who are carted all over the country. They also want to get rid of the poll tax. Why does not the Minister go down to her bunker in Downing street and tell her to get rid of it and get off the pensioners' backs?
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman, who, as ever, is strong on rhetoric but short on facts, may remember that the last Labour Government failed to honour its obligation to uprate pensions annually in line with the RPI. Their record in allowing inflation to run rampant through the incomes of pensioners also let the pensioners down considerably. It comes ill from the mouths of Labour Members to criticise us on this.
    Mr. Ashby: When my hon. Friend meets the pensioners' representatives will he point out the real things that the Government have done to ensure that future generations of pensioners have a decent pension——
    Ms. Short: Such as?
    Mr. Ashby:—such as personal pension plans and so on, so that by the year 2000, most pensioners will have an occupational pension as well as a state pension and will have a decent standard of living?
    Mr. Scott: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The encouragement of the growth of occupational pensions, the introduction of personal pensions, and the encouragement for people to save during their working lives is bound to transform the lives and prospects of people in retirement.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Minister accept that a major point of concern to all pensioners is the right to fuel and heating? Will he give serious consideration to the abolition of standing charges for gas and electricity supplies to pensioners and to the introduction of a cold climate allowance that is automatic and continuous?
    Mr. Scott: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point, but I am not sure that the abolition of standing charges would necessarily help those most in need of assistance with heating. We incorporated the old heating allowances when we moved to the new system of income support. The case for the abolition of standing charges is not, in my view, convincing.
    Mr. Barry Field: Has my right hon. Friend read the comment by the person to whom we may not refer in this House that the challenge facing the country is to find a more active role for pensioners? Does my right hon. Friend agree that many a nimble tune is played on an old fiddle? Will he consider my ten-minute Bill, which attempts to abolish age discrimination? Many pensioners are fed up with the emphasis placed on the quantity of life rather than the quality, as they have a real contribution to make to society.
    Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments, if not with the precise terms of his ten-minute Bill. Demography will encourage employers to take more
    10
    notice of the abilities that senior citizens can bring to our economy. By abolishing the earnings rule, we have taken a substantial step in encouraging pensioners to contribute.
    Mr. Meacher: In the light of the Minister's first reply, does he accept that the basic pension rose by 20 per cent. in real terms after six years of Labour Government, but by only 2 per cent. after 11 years of Tory Government? Does he acknowledge that the decision by the European Court of Justice last Thursday concerning pension ages has implications for not only occupational pension schemes but the state retirement pension? Does he agree that aligning the pensionable ages of men and women need not be unduly costly if it is undertaken gradually and if the individual is given the choice between a lower retirement age or a higher pension? As the European Court judgment was made in respect of article 119 of the treaty, which is directly applicable in courts in the United Kingdom, will the Secretary of State act before he is forced to do so? If so, when and how?
    Mr. Scott: As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is not the level of the basic pension but pensioners' total income that matters. Under the present Government, that has risen twice as fast as that of the population as a whole, by 31 per cent. or 3·5 per cent. per annum, compared with 0·6 per cent. per annum under the previous Labour Administration. We are studying the implications of the European Court's judgment and will announce our conclusions to the House in due course.

    Maintenance Payments
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure that more maintenance is recovered from absent parents.
    Mr. Newton: We are currently reviewing the maintenance system and aim to bring forward proposals later this year. In the meantime, we have taken action to increase maintenance recovered under the current system.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those initiatives, though somewhat delayed, are very welcome? Non-payment of maintenance is an abuse which comes to the attention of many right hon. and hon. Members—certainly it comes to my attention. Referring to earlier exchanges, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is unwillingness on the part of the average taxpayer constantly to plough money into public spending? If the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and some of his unreconstructed followers do not recognise that, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) certainly appears to do so. What sums of money does my right hon. Friend expect to recover from absent parents this year?
    Mr. Newton: I shall regard the latter part of my hon. Friend's remarks as a question properly and accurately directed at members of the Opposition Front Bench. The amount of maintenance that we expect to recover should increase from rather less than £200 million last year to £260 million in the current year, which is a significant increase. For that reason, I am a little resistant to his suggestion that we have been slow on these initiatives. Much has been done within the present system, and we are considering whether it can be made much better.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State accept the congratulations of Labour Members on, after 11 years of inaction, doing at least something on this front? But will he accept our criticism of a scheme that allows mothers on welfare to make over their maintenance payments to the state being extended to when they return to work? If it is, will not he create yet another disincentive to work?
    Mr. Newton: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which we can consider in the wider review. I hope that he will agree—he was not inclined to do so the last time we discussed this—that for the state to involve itself in wholly private transactions would be a major step that should not be embarked on without consideration.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that walking out on one's family is not an option which fathers should be able to consider? Will he undertake to consider the effect of the system that was introduced in Australia in 1988 for national collection and enforcement and its introduction in this country?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, we have looked to see what we can learn from the Australian system. I was in the United States at Easter examining a system that operates in two states which has something in common with that in Australia. We can learn from both, even though we might not be able to copy either exactly.
    Mr. Meacher: Is not this whole exercise purely aimed at cutting public expenditure rather than assisting lone parents, precisely because any maintenance recovered is used to dock benefit by a corresponding amount? If the Government wanted to assist mothers and their families, would not they use the £80 million that the Secretary of State expects to gain from the recovery of maintenance to return to mothers and their families at least some of the £1,100 million that they have stolen from them by freezing child benefit over the past three years?
    Mr. Newton: Far more than £80 million has been allocated in the past two years to help low-income families with children, not least lone-parent families. As to the first, rhetorical, half of the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is no. The plain fact is that lone parents who are receiving maintenance and their children are in a better position than those who are not receiving it, which is why we want to introduce a system for maintenance.

    Benefit Processing
    Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to improve the working of the Glasgow social security centre; and what plans he has to extend benefit processing work away from south-east England.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Glasgow centre is processing claims for income support faster and more accurately than the London offices from which the work was relocated. As ever, we are continuing to look for even greater improvements.
    We plan to relocate the work of 21 London offices to centres in Glasgow, Belfast and Makerfield.
    Miss Widdecombe: Does my hon. Friend agree that that greater speed and accuracy—I should be grateful if she would quantify it—has been achieved by the greater ease
    12
    of retention and recruitment away from London and the south-east? Is not there a lesson in that not only for her Department but for others?
    Mrs. Shephard: The policy of other Departments is a matter for them, but the Department of Health, in conjunction with the Department of Social Security, is transferring many staff to Leeds. On my hon. Friend's point about accuracy and speed, in the London offices there was a 29 per cent. error rate in the payment of income support. That has fallen steadily and now stands at 9 per cent., which is a vast improvement. Income support can now be assessed within five days, compared with up to 14 days previously. The problems in the London offices were, as she says, caused by the retention and recruitment of staff—a problem shared by the DSS with many large private concerns.
    Dr. Godman: How do the error and processing rates in England compare with those in Scotland? Are not there still offices in Scotland that are undermanned in terms of the workload presented by too high unemployment and other social and economic circumstances? When will the Greenock office be given more staff to deal with these problems?
    Mrs. Shephard: Performance in offices varies throughout the country. The figures that I cited for the group of London offices were the worst. I believe that I am right in saying that no office in Scotland has the problems of that group. The introduction of an operational strategy and directing staff to priority work mean that there will be a continuing improvement in the achievement of targets throughout the country, including Scotland. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that improvement has been achieved in Scotland through the relocated work in Glasgow.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be aware that the three offices to have work relocated to Glasgow first were those at Ealing and that there has been a dramatic and welcome reduction in the time taken to process applications. Is she aware that the interface with the Department of Employment is the one causing delays because the office cannot keep up with the greater pace? Will my hon. Friend liaise with the Department to ensure that the momentum is maintained?
    Mrs. Shephard: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do all that is necessary to alleviate that problem.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Churches
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby representing the Church Commissioners, how much money was spent in the last year on the maintenance of archaeologically and architecturally significant churches.
    Mr. Michael Alison(Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Responsibility for the maintenance of the Church of England's 16,400 churches and cathedrals, most of which are listed, rests with the parochial church councils and chapters. It is estimated that in 1989 the Church found in excess of £70 million for maintenance of those buildings,

    13
    mainly through the giving of its congregations, but including about £7 million state aid towards structural repairs of outstanding churches in use.
    Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the importance of these churches of great architectual significance extends beyond the congregations that use them. What support is given from central Government funds to assist in their maintenance? A number of significant Christian churches in, for example, the middle east are falling into a state of sad disrepair. Can anything be done, either by the Church Commissioners or through discussions with central Government, to provide much-needed funds for those wonderful buildings abroad?
    Mr. Alison: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to take notice of the latter part of his question about churches overseas, but I agree that there are some fine churches with Anglican roots in European countries. I repeat that about £7 million of state aid flows, largely through English Heritage, into the main pool of resources for maintaining these splendid old churches.
    Mr. Carrington: My right hon. Friend will be aware that considerable disquiet is expressed from time to time about the effects on the interior fixtures and fittings in churches of changing the use of churches from worship to alternative practices. Will he convey to the ecclesiastical authorities our concern to ensure that not only the fabric outside churches but the artistic heritage inside is preserved?
    Mr. Alison: Yes, we pay careful attention to that problem. Not many months ago, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked about the future of important organs in old churches. We have a procedure for ensuring that the artistic heritage is treated with the same respect as the old buildings.
    Mr. Cryer: Each year applications are made for consent to demolish listed church buildings. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any idea of the numbers involved, as that would show the shortfall between the money raised locally and through English Heritage grants and that necessary to stop the demolition of churches, which has continued almost unabated for the past 20 to 30 years? We need to take action to stop further demolition.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, of 1,261 churches declared redundant between 1969 and 1989, only 297 have been demolished. So three quarters of them have been preserved and remain standing. In respect of the 297, a rigorous procedure had to be undergone before demolition could be authorised. Moreover, I am happy to say that more churches have been built than have been demolished. Three hundred and ninety-one new churches have been built, so we have made a net gain in the demolition stakes.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of my own parish church in Gretton in Northamptonshire are pleased to have received a grant of £34,000—I had the sterling support of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell)—but that that is only a drop in the ocean compared with the needs of many parish churches throughout Britain? We face a tremendous problem in maintaining our great heritage, and we must all bend our minds to deciding how best to achieve that.
    Mr. Alison: I take my hon. Friend's point, but he will appreciate the significant performance of parishes up and down the country in raising as much as £70 million towards the maintenance of our elderly and historic churches. That shows that there is a vast source of good will and commitment to enable the Church as a voluntary association to do its own main burden-bearing.

    South Africa
    Mr. Gow: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the policy of the Church Commissioners about investment in the Republic of South Africa; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: The Commissioners' policy is long established and has been well publicised. They do not invest in any South African company or in any other company where more than a small part of its business is in South Africa. When they invest in a company with a small stake in South Africa, they try to ensure that that company follows enlightened social and employment policies, as far as that is possible within the system of apartheid, of which they have repeatedly expressed their abhorrence. In common with the rest of the Church, the Commissioners welcome the important political developments since the end of 1989 and hope that the momentum will be sustained.
    Mr. Gow: Is it really the case that the Bishop of Oxford has it in mind to bring legal proceedings involving the Church Commissioners concerning the investment policy of the Church of England? Instead of indulging in absurd litigation of this kind, should not the bishop and the Church be engaged in the business of saving the souls of the people, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry and healing the sick? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that this mischievous bishop will not be considered for appointment to Canterbury?
    Mr Alison: It is not, alas, in my gift—even on this important occasion—to give a definitive answer to my hon. Friend's final question. But I can confirm that the Bishop of Oxford appears to be intent on taking legal action against the Church of England. It could only bring the Church into disrepute if the bishop proceeded with his legal action against the Church Commissioners. The action is bound to be adversarial and will be perceived publicly as hostile. I hope that the Bishop of Oxford and his associates will decide to withdraw it.
    The Church Commissioners derive no more than one third of 1 per cent. of their annual income from South African sources and effective action to eliminate even this tiny fraction could bring hugely disproportionate detriment to the Commissioners' beneficiaries—of whom my hon. Friend gave an enlightened and extended description.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Although one can understand the motives of the Bishop of Oxford, may I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), answering on behalf of the Church Commissioners? The Bishop of Oxford's action seems to be a distraction from more important priorities. Will the right hon. Member for Selby urge the Church Commissioners to sustain their present policy of not investing in South Africa unless they are advised by the

    15
    Christian churches in South Africa to change that policy? Will they above all not be over-hasty in a decision to change their policy under pressure from the Government or anyone else, but rather lead and advise the Government on what their policy should be in the interests of the souls as well as the bodies of people in South Africa?
    Mr. Alison: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, I repeat that the Church Commissioners do not invest directly in South Africa. The complexity of disentangling even that tiny residual investment, which is associated with some of the largest household names in British industry, would be considerably detrimental for the clergy and pensioners whom we have to support. We could not await an imprimatur of approval from the churches in South Africa to consider changes in that large overall investment.

    Christ Church, Bootle
    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the future of Christ church, Waterloo, Bootle.
    Mr. Alison: A proposal to use Christ church, Waterloo as a nursing home is at present under consideration.
    Mr. Field: Does the Commissioner accept that we believe that he must be apprehensive about giving a reply like that when the Church spends so much of its time saying that it looks after the inner city? One of the finest buildings in Bootle has been left empty for nearly 10 years. The diocese and the Commissioners are sitting on any application for the matter to be referred to the redundant churches fund. Will he allow that to happen this year?
    Mr. Alison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that 10 years of vacant standing in Bootle is an unacceptably long period. The hon. Gentleman will know that there have been several attempts to try to persuade alternative users to come forward and in many cases promising schemes foundered at the last moment. However, there is at least now a positive scheme for a useful future for the church and under the impetus of the hon. Gentleman's question I will do everything to accelerate a definitive decision and a constructive future use for the church.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Organisation
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received from hon. Members about the organisation of the House; and if he will make a statement.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I receive representations on many aspects of this matter from hon. Members in all parts of the House. Hon. Members will know that I share a number of their concerns. Together with others, I am giving close consideration to ways of securing improvements and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that a real improvement that could be made in this place would
    16
    be to start at a different time? Does he agree that the 2·30 pm kick-off is deliberately designed to allow hon. Members—mainly Tory Members—to make money by moonlighting outside this place? Is not it scandalous and bordering on the obscene when ex-Cabinet Ministers can pick up £250,000 for two days a week at Barclays bank and elsewhere and that others have four, five or six jobs while the workers are being told to go steady on wage rises and pensioners are being pushed through the hoop day in and day out? Why does not the Leader of the House introduce full-time Members of Parliament and get rid of the moonlighting?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am comforted by the fact that most of the country judges the fatuity of the points made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) by the intemperance of his arguments. Even if they had any validity, they would be destroyed by the way in which he presents them. The hon. Gentleman may recall that there was an experiment such as he suggested, with the House sitting during the morning——
    Mr. Skinner: I was not here then.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It was started even before the hon. Gentleman was here. He would have revelled in it. It was introduced under a substantial Labour majority in the House, but the experiment foundered after quite a short time.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the present system has served us well for a very long time and, furthermore, that those who were opposed to television—as I was—now find that many people look in to see what we are doing in the afternoon? In the morning they would be too busy to do that. Above all, we want hon. Members in this place who have time for other interests. This would be a dreadful place if we were all full-time employees. We must have outside experience which is most valuable.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for the calm way in which he presented the arguments that prevailed in the House when the matter was last considered about 20 years ago.
    Dr. Cunningham: It is unsatisfactory for the Leader of the House to suggest that, because there was an experiment 20 years ago, we could not benefit from a review of the way in which we conduct our business now. This House seems to sit for more hours and more days than almost any other western legislature, and we are not conspicuously better at producing effective legislation. There is surely a case for us to examine again why we must sit for such long hours. Will the Leader of the House at least consider this matter under the auspicies of the Commission or in some other way and report back to the House?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's point is entirely different from that of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is founded upon exactly the opposite premise. The hon. Member for Bolsover argues that the House is hardly manned at all, that we all do other things all the time and that, because of moonlighting, we are scarcely here. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) suggests, with much more reason, that the House sits longer hours than are reasonable compared with other legislatures. A suggestion of that kind, related

    17
    also to the efficiency of our work, and put in the hon. Gentleman's moderate fashion, may deserve consideration. It is quite different from the point advanced by the hon. Member for Bolsover.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: In view of the distinguished work that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has done in opposing the Labour party's new policy review and the national executive, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider giving the hon. Gentleman special facilities and more accommodation in his new role of leader of the opposition to the Leader of the Opposition?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall consider the suggestion, but I fancy that it may be of more use to the nation, if not to the Labour party, for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to be exposed in public as much as possible.

    Records (Storage)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will provide secure accommodation for the storage of records in the keeping of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and the Select Committee on Defence.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have received no representations from either my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) or my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) that they are experiencing any particular difficulty in this matter, but I note the hon. Gentleman's solicitous concern.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would more secure accommodation speed up the process whereby Parliament can ask questions about this relationship between the Ministry of Defence and SGL? Can we chase the inquiries that Mr. Nicholas Comfort and others tell us the Conservative Chief Whip is making into the business links of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and clarify the Ministry of Defence's extremely carefully and ambiguously worded letter to me on possible American complaints about the hon. Member for Hampshire, East? Does the Leader of the House approve of the Chairman of a Select. Committee having such public relations links in matters that his Select Committee is supposed to scrutinise?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman's points arise in no respect out of his original question. Equally characteristically, he knows that they are the subject of an investigation by the Select Committee on Members' Interests and cannot sensibly be dealt with by this sort of question and answer. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise any points of substance, he can and should refer them to that Select Committee.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the original question by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was on the security of Select Committee records and reports and so on? Is not it a fact that many hon. Members are extremely careless with their papers? When they leave Select Committes they often throw away their papers very carelessly. Reporters in this place are past masters at going through wastepaper bins and paper sacks, and rightly so if hon. Members are careless. Should not we be more careful with our paperwork? Sometimes hon. Members get hysterical at the
    18
    paperwork that is put before them. But when Committees sit in public, at the end of the day, a report is written and all the stuff that they are keeping secure is in the published report. Does my right hon. and learned Friend wonder why there is all this fuss?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the original question, all classified documents are registered and kept in secure facilities in secure areas. Members of Select Committees have access to them only under supervision in those circumstances. As I understand it, the Select Committee on Members' Interests would not have access to documents of that kind. My hon. Friend makes a fair point that was recently underlined by the Privileges Committee. Hon. Members should take greater care of important documents than some of them sometimes appear to do.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not it true that the fact that the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence has outside interests related to defence——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the question on the Order Paper, which is about the storage of records.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not it true that those links have caused consternation and that the Select Committee investigation, which will take up a great deal of time, may come across confidential documents that should be kept in secure places? Would not the whole matter be simplified if hon. Members who are Chairs of Select Committees did not have outside interests? Whatever the personal position, that would assure the public outside that there is no possible conflict of interest between the two.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The two questions are quite separate. The Select Committee on Members' Interests is investigating the broader question. Documents in the custody of the Select Committee on Defence are treated as top secret, registered and kept in secure facilities in secure areas.

    Statues
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to arrange for additional suitable statues (a) of parliamentarians and (b) of animals near the precints of Westminster; and if will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My remit as Leader of the House does not extend beyond the parliamentary precincts. I therefore have no plans for statues of either parliamentarians or animals as my hon. Friend suggests. There will, however, be some interesting opportunities to place works of art in various forms in the new parliamentary building when it is occupied next year.
    Mr. Greenway: Why are not statues of parliamentarians, excluding animals, erected until after they are dead? Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage any suitable Committee to reconsider that decision? Although we do not want any mad cows in Parliament, will my right hon. and learned Friend promise to join me in leading a campaign to establish in or near Parliament a statue, with a fine steed, of the leader of any Government who succeed in preserving minimum standards for the export of horses and ponies after 1992?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As always, I am compelled to admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity. However, as the rule
    20
    that would prevent a statue of him from being erected until 10 years after his death has been in force since 1925, it has a respectable ancestry.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Donald Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: One at a time, please. I call Mr. Thompson first.
Mr. Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. As you will know, tomorrow we are to discuss the community charge. A recent poll in my local newspaper has stated that most of my constituents are in favour of community charge capping. However, as there will be some legal action about community charge capping in either the near future or the far distant future, will we be in order if we discuss all aspects of the community charge tomorrow if we manage to catch your eye?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of that question and I can give him the answer. The motion has not yet been tabled, and until I have seen it I cannot consider the scope of the debate or whether it would be appropriate for me to exercise my discretion with regard to the sub judice rule.
Mr. Thompson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you saying that the leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats has not yet tabled the motion?
Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what I said.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Energy given you notice that he intends to come to the House to make a statement about the future of the coal industry? If reports from the British Coal Corporation are to be believed, we are threatened with the extinction of the coal industry in Scotland, the north-east and Wales and with savage cuts in the coal industry in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. The Secretary of State for Energy has apparently been appointed to take charge of co-ordinating Government publicity, but we should like him to come to the House to tell us what he is doing to co-ordinate the Government's energy policy.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I have not had any request for a statement on that matter, which I understand arose because of a leak in one of the newspapers.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask a question about the consistency of the use of parliamentary language? You, Mr. Speaker, are rightly quick to complain when hon. Members attack Members of the other place. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) to refer to the Bishop of Oxford as "mischievous"? Is that parliamentarily acceptable?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Bishop of Oxford not at present a member of the House of Lords, although he may become one in due course.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson). First—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hughes: First, in accordance with normal procedure, tomorrow's motion will be tabled early this evening in the Table Office. That is often done on Opposition days by members of all parties. It will he available for the hon. Member for Calder Valley and others to view there, and it will give ample opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and others to criticise the community charge as a whole, as well as specific details of it.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is for the convenience of the House if motions are tabled as early as possible, as it gives the entire House the opportunity to consider the motions on the Order Paper.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you were given notice by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that he would like to take time this afternoon to make a statement about the appalling events that have occurred in the past few hours in Israel and the occupied territories? Not only were seven unarmed Palestinian labourers shot, but now the Israeli defence force has put 1 million Palestinians under curfew in the Gaza strip and on the West Bank.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not had such a request.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask Opposition Members who are rising to remember that there is a great demand to take part in today's Opposition day debate, especially from Scottish Members who wish to refer to Ravenscraig. The hon. Gentleman may finish his point of order, but it is not a matter for me.
Mr. Nellist: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be brief.
Many hon. Members, perhaps on both sides of the House, would have wanted to make representations through the Foreign Secretary on how it is possible that, according to the IDF, one in a thousand people in the Gaza strip were wounded last night and this morning. That is 622 people out of a population of 650,000. That is horrific.
Mr. Speaker: It is indeed a very serious matter, but I have received no request for a statement.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a point of order that is directly for you, Mr. Speaker, related to the tabling of questions, on which hon. Members need advice, and it follows points that have already been made. I understand that the Secretary of State for Energy has been given an additional responsibility relating to the co-ordination of Government publicity. That is clearly outside his remit within that Department, and outside the work of the Department. What opportunity is there for hon. Members to table questions to him about his carrying out of that function?
Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that co-ordination of policy is a matter that is normally raised in the House. The

23
hon. Gentleman's colleague on the Front Bench—the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—also co-ordinates policy.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising from question No. 73, you will have heard the Leader of the House announce that the Select Committe on Members' Interests has carried out an inquiry into the conflict of interests in the case of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) between his interests as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and his commercial interests. That information has never been revealed by our Committee. The statement of the Leader of the House was a clear breach of privilege, as he has no right to make it. It has been the Committee's aim to retain as much secrecy as possible on those matters; the right hon. and learned Gentleman did precisely what the Committee has been trying to avoid for the past month.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I did not quite get the thrust of that point of order—[Interruption.] I think that it is fairly common knowledge that that Select Committee is examining those matters.

Points of Order

  CONTRACTS (APPLICABLE LAW) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Ordered,
  That the Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill [Lords.] be referred to a Second Reading Committee—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Opposition Day
[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Ravenscraig
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I repeat what I said a moment ago, that there is great demand to participate in the debate. Although it is not possible for me to put a limit on speeches because this is a half-day debate, if hon. Members limit their speeches to 10 minutes, many will stand a good chance of being called.
  3.39 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the decision by British Steel to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig with major job losses; recognises that the hot strip mill and a major new investment programme for Ravenscraig are essential to ensure a viable future for the Scottish steel industry; calls upon British Steel to reverse its catastrophic decision; and urges Her Majesty's Government at every level to unite in opposing British Steel's decision and to do everything possible to reverse a closure which threatens the future of the steel industry in Scotland.
  I do not need to spend much time convincing the House of the importance of the issue and of the significance of Ravenscraig to the Scottish economy. It is easy to draw unpleasant conclusions and predict dire consequences of the recent developments and the announced closure of the strip mill. We on this side try to avoid the doomsday argument and try not to proclaim daily that the end is nigh. Too many people in Scottish politics see disasters as a political opportunity privately to be welcomed, even if publicly deplored.
  Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly a question mark and genuine anxiety not just about the 770 jobs whose loss is immediately threatened, but about the whole future of the Ravenscraig plant. If, at the end of 1994, it is producing steel and slab alone, incomplete and vulnerable, clearly problems will arise. That fact is bluntly recognised in the press release of 16 May issued by British Steel, which made the announcement about the strip mill:
  "The impact of the continuous casting investments at Port Talbot and Llanwern will, in due course, also affect steel production at Ravenscraig so that production of steel at that works beyond 1994 will be dependent upon the economic and commercial scene and the demand for steel slabs."
  In the context of what has happened, that is less than a ringing commitment to the future of the Scottish steel industry.
  Certainly everyone in Scottish politics will be uncomfortably aware that the Arthur Young report, which was produced in February 1988, set out what it saw as a possible scenario, leading the total dismantlement of the Scottish steel industry. So far, it is unpleasantly and uncannily on course to become reality.
  Other important plants in Scotland—Clydesdale and Dalzell—have their problems and will undoubtedly be the subject of debate on another occasion. The House, and certainly the men who work at Clydesdale and Dalzell, will forgive me and will understand if I focus on Ravenscraig's future.
  The mood of Scotland is undoubtedly that we should unite to fight the possible closure and the immediate threat

  25
  to the strip mill. I have no wish to make an abrasive speech. Like everyone else in Scotland, I seek co-operation and the widest possible coalition from which we can attempt a counter-attack on this issue. However, the Secretary of State would not expect me to fail to record my disagreement and, indeed, dismay at the way in which the matter has been handled until now. We are paying the price for the Government's hands-off attitude, for their insistence that this is a matter simply for the commercial judgment of British Steel and for giving the impression that they have no particular remit or responsibility for the matter. All too often Ministers have looked like passive spectators.
  On Wednesday there were supplementary questions on the private notice question from the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who is in his place, for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), who I am glad to see has come to listen to the debate, and for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I should like to suggest that they in their enthusiasms were fringe figures and that in suggesting that Government involvement in the future of Ravenscraig was improper, they were ploughing a lonely course. The trouble is that they seem to reflect the views of the Department of Trade and Industry all too accurately. That is one of our problems.
  For a long time it has been clear that British Steel has a less than full commitment to its Scottish operations. If we are to avoid the disaster that the Arthur Young report predicts, there must be a sustained and urgent effort. My charge against the Secretary of State for what happened in the past is that there is no evidence that that effort was made.
  I met the right hon. and learned Gentleman in December 1989—I remember the conversation well—when a number of colleagues and I expressed our keen alarm about what was happening to the three major steel-making centres in Scottish industry. There were also a number of occasions when the Secretary of State was pressed again during Scottish Question Time—I rehearsed that during the questions following the private notice question—and he told us that he would meet the chairman of British Steel in the relatively near future or shortly. Unfortunately, on 2 May the term "shortly" had a particularly sinister significance, because the Secretary of State was summoned for the wrong reasons—to be given, in effect, formal intimation of execution.
  Press speculation—the Secretary of State will know of the article that appeared in The Observer—has suggested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew well what was going on. That article stated:
  "Inquiries by The Observer reveal that far from learning for the first time last Tuesday of plans to close the plant, Rifkind and the Scottish Office had been fully appraised of British Steel's intentions as they developed."
  The Secretary of State has strongly and hotly denied that, and I am very happy to accept his assurances on that point. However, it leads to the inescapable conclusion that, if he did not know, he should have done, and that if he had asked, he might well have been told.
  The long period of inaction that led up to last week's meeting with Sir Robert Scholey left British Steel unhindered in its plans to put in place an unsound strategy, which had disastrous consequences for our cause. I believe that the Secretary of State posted himself missing from the field of action during that time.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Although accepting the Secretary of State's assurances, does the hon. Gentleman find it extraordinary that, given that the chairman of British Steel had made it clear two years ago that, eventually, he wanted to close the hot strip mill and that, in the past few months, he refused to meet either the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, the Secretary of State did not wonder whether something was up? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather amazing that it came as such a surprise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the end of the day?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman has given a summary of my remarks and I agree with him.
  The tragedy upon which we must concentrate is the fact that it will not be easy now to divert British Steel from its chosen course. Privatisation has weakened the public interest that can be brought to bear and the leverage that could be exercised. The prospects for altering the decision would have been infinitely better if those chances had been taken before that decision was publicly announced. The Secretary of State must bear some responsibility for that. I welcome the fact, however, that the Secretary of State had been converted by circumstance to a more positive attitude in the past 10 days. He has made clear his concern and the fact that he wishes to see the decision reversed. I understand that he had a positive meeting with the stewards from Ravenscraig this morning and that they took some encouragement from what he had to say. I would be unhelpful and churlish if I did not welcome that.
  The debate will give us the chance to clarify not only the Secretary of State's position, but that of the Government. It is extremely important that that opportunity is taken. The Secretary of State has used words such as "deplore", and said that he is "disturbed". He has stated that the Scottish Office
  "seek to persuade British Steel".—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 887.]
  That is all right as far as it goes, but Scotland will demand something a little more positive and energetic than is suggested by those words. If we are to have any chance of success in our task, we cannot go at it by way of apology, afterthought or on a "sorry-to-bother you" basis. That will not impress Sir Robert Scholey and Mr. Llowarc of British Steel. We cannot have a Secretary of State who speaks in constrained language and leaves the impression, at least with some of us, that, while he is certainly trying to satisfy Scottish opinion, he is also keen not to sacrifice the good opinion of colleagues who may not agree with him.
  There has been an attempt at various times to downgrade the issue. It has been suggested that the future of Ravenscraig is of importance to Lanarkshire, but not to the Scottish economy as a whole. I have been told by journalists of the words used by the Secretary of State at a press briefing—I hope that I have got the words accurate—when he said that the job loss was not
  "dramatic in itself although disappointing to those affected".
  It seems that the Secretary of State is trying to put a pedestrian cloak over an industrial crisis of sharp proportions, which also involves a number of personal tragedies. What we seek from the Secretary of State today is a definition of where he stands and, more importantly, what he intends to do. We are looking for a commitment by the Government as a whole that goes well beyond simply polite and cursory inquiries at British Steel headquarters.

  27
  My second point to the Secretary of State—I hope that he will be able to help me—is that he needs allies in every part of his party, the Government and the country. If he knocks on the door of Sir Robert Scholey, he may well be seen as a predictable visitor—a dutiful nod to Scottish opinion—and discounted as such. If representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry or the Prime Minister were to come and argue the case, say that Ravenscraig was something of central importance to the Scottish economy and there should be reconsideration, that would shake British Steel's complacency, and be a central part of the campaign.
  We have been told be the Secretary of State that his Cabinet colleagues are in total agreement with his line. Indeed, the vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservative party, at a meeting of the steel core group in Strathclyde region on Saturday, said that there was total agreement among Cabinet colleagues. I hope that that is true, and welcome it because I recognise that in Scotland there is an almost united opinion.
  The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is just leaving the Chamber, was quoted as saying:
  "The future direction of the campaign should be to persuade British Steel to invest in Scotland and to take advantage of the magnificent workforce."
  I agree with that and think that almost everyone in Scotland would do so. I hope the fact that the words came from the hon. Member for Stirling may reassure some of the Government's Back Benchers that my position is not ideologically unsound, on that issue.
  We need evidence of positive support beyond the Secretary of State for Scotland. If hon. Members remember what the Leader of the House said last Thursday and the previously expressed views of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, they will understand why there is a great deal of doubt about whether that support is forthcoming in Scotland and I suspect, possibly just as importantly, in British Steel headquarters.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will not think that I am making a cheap point—it is not meant to be—but I cannot help thinking that it is of some significance that there is no Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry in the Chamber to listen to this debate. At best, that is discourteous and I fear that it may confirm the political signifiance of the split that I believe exists. I hope that my fear can be laid to rest by the Secretary of State.
  I want the Secretary of State to be successful in this matter, but he needs the help and support of his colleagues. He must not approach the task as someone who has been given a licence to argue a case because of his special difficulties, while the Government's general line remains unsympathetic. That would be a recipe for a cosmetic exercise bound to failure.
  I shall briefly outline the reasons why the Government should be involved. I do not think that British Steel is just another private sector company, as has been again and again suggested by Conservative Members. Ministers hold a golden share. I appreciate that they say it is for limited purposes, but it exists and they do not normally hold golden shares in just another private sector company. They are responsible for the guarantees that have been given.
  28
  Those guarantees, particularly on the issue of the possible sale of assets in Scotland, require considerable clarification.
  I have looked carefully at the statement made by the present Minister for Health, then Minister with responsibility for industry, in the House, and it is not clear whether that guarantee applies only to a closure at the end of 1994 or would apply after 1994. Having discussed such matters more recently than many other people with British Steel, I suspect that there may be potential for a dispute about what that undertaking is worth. That should be clarified.
  The golden share and guarantees are evidence that we are considering a sensitive issue with widespread economic importance. It is not a routine, undramatic loss of another 770 jobs, even with all the pain and bitterness that that would produce. It will have a knock-on effect on all the steel industry in Scotland and the Scottish economy as a whole. Sir Robert Scholey, with his narrow and no doubt legally justified point of view as chairman of British Steel, may want to shrug off some of those effects, but the Government cannot.
  I am told today by ScotRail that 50 per cent. of the revenue of British Rail freight in Scotland is produced by Ravenscraig. There will be a substantial impact on the brave new world of privatised electricity of Scottish Power if it loses what I suspect is the biggest customer in its portfolio. I know that the new private company which is to replace the Clyde port authority in a few months, if the private legislation gets through the House with the continuing support of the Government, will depend heavily for income on the landing dues at Hunterston, the loss of which will knock a massive hole in its financial position. I mention all these because they are examples of the wider public interest which have clearly not been taken into the reckoning by British Steel when reaching its decision but which should be dealt with by the Government.
  Everyone who has followed the debate will understand what I mean when I say that national press reaction to what has happened in Scotland has been particularly unfortunate. The dismay with which the news has been greeted in Scotland has met with some derision in the press. The decision to close the strip mill has been seen as a virtuous exercise in commercial realism.
  That point of view has been put in trenchant terms by the Financial Times and The Independent, and in offensive terms by the Evening Standard, which some hon. Members will know as London's local evening paper.
  "Ravenscraig must close",
  it tells us. Perhaps I can give a flavour of the article:
  "The Scots, who have become subsidy junkies as successive Governments … have tried to bribe them with ever larger handouts at the expense of the comparatively little-subsidised English taxpayer, will no doubt wail like a trampled bagpipe at the removal of British Steel's financial support for Ravenscraig."
  That is in no way a useful contribution to the debate.
  By way of a corrective, I made some inquiries in the Library which referred me to an interesting debate in the House in which a Transport Minister pointed out that subsidy for transport in south-east England will rise from this year's £387 million, in constant terms, to £669 million in 1992; and that the underground in London will get £2·2 billion investment over the next three years. I make no complaint about that; I accept that it is necessary. I make the point only by way of a corrective against those who call

  29
  our legitimate anxieties the tortured wail of a bagpipe. It might be of interest to some hon. Members to know that the Scottish Office budget for industry, energy, trade and employment this year is £251 million. That begins to show why we do not sympathise with some of the harsh and crude language, bordering on the insulting, which has entered the debate.
  I warn the House that it is a comforting theory to say that there is no need to look at the merits of a closure of this sort—that management has decreed and management must always be right. But in this case the management has got it wrong. There was a letter in The Scotsman today from Cardinal Gordan Gray, a much respected leader of the Roman Catholic community in Scotland. He described himself as appalled by what has happened, and protested that there was no morality in the market place. I recognise that that is a controversial view, but I stress that one does not need to agree with the cardinal on that point to agree with those of us who argue that it would be tragic and deeply wrong to close the strip mill at Ravenscraig.
  This is not a smokestack industry to be decently buried; it is not a lame duck industry producing an unwanted product at an unacceptable price. We have it on the authority of the Prime Minister herself that the work force have done well—they produce steel at 2·33 man hours per tonne, which is as low as any plant in Europe. The workers are not going because they are inefficient or because they are loss-making. I cannot quote figures on that, but I believe that it is true. They are going because British Steel has made an assumption that the capacity is not needed and it can cut it because the market will remain depressed. That assumption can and should be challenged.
  Strip production in British Steel at the moment is about 5·5 million tonnes. Strip capacity at the two Welsh plants will be about 6 million tonnes. We must bear in mind the fact that the number of car units to be produced in this country will rise from 1·2 million to 2 million with the arrival of Japanese firms; we must remember the increase in North sea activity; the prediction that the European market over the next four or five years will grow by 1 per cent. a year; and the fact that we have a substantial direct deficit in steel trade with the rest of Europe, and with Germany in particular. So is it right to cut our capacity calculations so neat and assume that we cannot put any of these things right and pick up an increasing share of our own market?
  Mr. Roger King: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the expansion of the British car industry to 2 million car units per year. I accept that that is a realistic target for the end of this decade. Why did Scotland not want to be part of that development? Its work force rejected the setting up of the Ford factory in Dundee. Many of us would be more sympathetic to the Scottish cause if it did not turn its back on such high-tech industries.
  Mr. Dewar: I shall answer that petty point with a rather more serious one. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the question why, when there is to be a big increase in demand for steel for the car industry, British Steel assumes it will not supply that demand. That is the case for the survival of Ravenscraig.
  My last point is rather unusual, because I shall conclude by looking at the motion and the Government amendment. This debate is not an end in itself. It should
  30
  not be seen as an empty political exercise, which is how some of our debates are seen. I have concentrated on government and the parliamentary campaign, but every section of Scottish life, including, to be fair, the Scottish Conservative party, is anxious to contribute to the fight to save the strip mill at Ravenscraig. The work force, under the leadership of the shop steward, Tommy Brennan, and his colleagues, has led by example and deserves better than this announcement.
  I shall conclude by speaking about the role of Government. I am depressed by the Government amendment because it will undermine confidence in the Secretary of State's good intentions and commitments and his readiness to go into battle on behalf of the plant. The Government amendment says that this is a matter for "commercial judgment". It certainly expresses concern about the job losses that would follow the closure of the strip mill. However, the only thing it does in terms of action is to invite British Steel to explain and defend its decision. It does not commit the Government to anything and does not promise any action. There is no hint of ministerial pressure or of the Department of Trade and Industry getting its hands dirty in a good cause.
  In reply to a private notice question tabled by me, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
  "I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the desirability of doing that which can be done to reverse the decision."—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 888.]
  The key question that we want answered by the Secretary of State is, what can be done? He spoke about
  "that which can be done".
  Does that amount simply to inviting British Steel to explain and defend its decisions? If that is the strength of the Government's involvement and of Ministers' imagination and commitment, it will not do.
  It is quite disgraceful that the shop stewards were given the news by the local director and have had absolutely no access to top management. They have not seen Jake Stewart, the head of the strip division, or anyone else of similar seniority. That should be put right. What could be more tentative than merely to invite British Steel to defend its decision? We are looking for positive evidence of Government action in support of the campaign. The Government's response will be seen as totally inadequate in Scotland, and the House should recognise it.
  When we tackle British Steel, we want to know that the Government are fighting our corner. I say unashamedly that, if the Secretary of State wants to put himself at the head of that campaign, we will give him every conceivable support and will be grateful for that sign of initiative and energy. If he does not do that, it will mean that the Government propose to do nothing apart from saying to the work force of the strip mill in Ravenscraig, "Perhaps you would like to explain why you are about to be executed." When that little exercise has been carried out, that will be the end of the Government's involvement. That will not do, and it will be seen not to do.
  Our motion calls for reversal of the decision to close, asks British Steel to think again, and asks the Government "at every level" to join the struggle to save the plant
  "and to do everything possible to reverse"
  the decision. The first part of that motion is not original. It is almost exactly the substance of an early-day motion signed last week by all Tory Back-Bench Members representing Scottish constituencies. The second part

  31
  spells out the essential minimum and a Government commitment in which I understand the Secretary of State believes. It outlines what Scotland expects.
  I know that it would be extremely difficult for the Government to do this, but I ask them not to oppose our motion and not to insist on their amendment. There is no heresy, there is nothing unacceptable or out of line with what the Secretary of State has represented as his position, at least in Scotland, in our motion. If the Secretary of State will not accept our motion, I urge him to spell out why he will not do so. If he did, it would unite Scotland and create the kind of platform from which we could mount a campaign which had a genuine hope of reversing the decision and saving the plant.
  4.5 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'recognises that British Steel's investment and operational decisions are a matter for the commercial judgment of the company; nevertheless expresses its concern about the potential employment consequences of the company's decision to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig; recognises the considerable productivity achievements of the Ravenscraig workforce; invites British Steel to explain and defend its decision; and deplores any attempt to extract political capital from this event rather than offering any constructive solutions.'.
  I listened with care to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Despite all the fine rhetoric, the House waited in vain to hear exactly what he would have done in these circumstances if he were in my position. I am aware that we are in government, but the House and the people of Scotland are entitled to know what, if the Labour party believes that action from the Government is required and if this is meant to be more than simply empty rhetoric, a Labour Government would be doing in such circumstances. There was not a scintilla of information from the hon. Gentleman on that point.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The hon. Gentleman had his chance.
  Mr. Dewar: I am responding to the Secretary of State's invitation.
  It is unfortunate that this decision was announced before Government influence could be brought to bear. If the Department of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister were to see Sir Robert Scholey and put to him the sentiments that the Secretary of State had been putting in Scotland, I would see it as strong evidence of the Government's intention to reverse the decision.
  Mr. Rifkind: If the action required by the hon. Gentleman, and the action that he says that a Labour Government would take, were simply that different Ministers would speak to British Steel than are speaking to it now, he cannot claim that that adds up to a fundamentally different approach to these matters.
  Over the past few days, there has been great concern in Scotland, from all political parties and across the industrial spectrum, about the announcement by British Steel last week. In the light of some of the comments in
  32
  newspapers in the south and others, it might be helpful to explain why that concern is felt so deeply. There is perhaps an impression in some quarters that the only point at issue is the loss of 770 jobs. Similar announcements in various parts of the United Kingdom have not led to similar reactions.
  Irrespective of political views, all of us in Scotland know that the issues involved are wider and greater than that and that the concern is, first, that closure of the hot strip mill could severely weaken, and might lead to the closure of, Ravenscraig as a whole, with the loss of about 3,200 jobs in an area of high unemployment. Secondly, if that happened—it must be seen as a possibility in the light of the announcement by British Steel—for all practical purposes it would signal the end of the steel industry in Scotland. Therefore, wider issues are involved than simply the number of jobs to be lost from closure of the hot strip mill.
  An additional important factor is that over the past three years, throughout the United Kingdom, but including Ravenscraig, British Steel has been making some remarkable achievements. Privatisation, far from leading to a decline in the industry as a whole, has brought tremendous new profitability and competitiveness, for which British Steel is to be congratulated and admired. It is a remarkable achievement. It is also significant that throughout that period Ravenscraig, including the hot strip mill, contributed to that profitability and was part of the success story. That makes last week's announcement much more significant.
  As far back as October 1985, Sir Robert Haslam, the then chairman of British Steel, said in evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs: "Ravenscraig is in profit." If that was true in 1985, the tremendous progress made by British Steel and by Ravenscraig since suggests that the company's profitability must, if anything, be greater rather than lesser.
  Mr. Jim Sillars: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I will do so shortly.
  Not only Ravenscraig but its hot strip mill have been functioning to substantial effect. The House may recall that five years ago British Steel contemplated closing the mill but had second thoughts. It turned out that those second thoughts were better than its first thoughts, because far from the market for the mill's products declining, it substantially increased—partly due to British Steel's own success—and the mill was fully utilised.
  Another aspect is the dearth of information available to British Steel's employees. I say without qualification that we all recollect the point made by British Steel to its work force at Ravenscraig a few years ago, that the best prospect for the future of the plant, including the hot strip mill, would be increased productivity and competitiveness, and good industrial relations. I do not believe that there has been one iota of criticism from any quarter about the way that Ravenscraig's work force responded. Although that does not guarantee the work force a future livelihood—nor can it—it imposes an obligation on British Steel, in the event of a very unpalatable announcement having to be made, to give its employees the reasons for it.
  Mr. Sillars: The Secretary of State mentioned a remark made by Sir Robert Haslam to a previous Select

  33
  Committee on Scottish Affairs. I draw attention to the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment, which
  "invite British Steel to explain and defend its decision".
  To whom is British Steel to
  "explain and defend its decision"?
  Is the Secretary of State aware that the people of Scotland will take it as a clear sign of the Government's determination not only totally to condemn British Steel but to examine the whole issue properly if he, the Leader of the House and the Cabinet announce this week that they have overcome the problems involved and will convene a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs very quickly, for the single purpose of investigating British Steel's contention that it is taking the right commercial decisions? It seems to me that a Select Committee would be the right instrument for judging whether British Steel's action is correct. Will the Secretary of State back that proposal?
  Mr. Rifkind: I note the hon. Gentleman's comment, but I cannot help but recollect that when we last had such a Select Committee his party refused to be represented on it. Such a proposal does not sound very convincing coming from that quarter.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked what role the Government should play in the circumstances that have arisen. I refer to the interesting and constructive remarks by Mr. Brennan, the leader of the Ravenscraig shop stewards, whom I met this morning. He began by telling me that he wanted to make it absolutely clear that the case for the hot strip mill and for Ravenscraig as a whole must be fought and determined on commercial grounds, and on those grounds alone. Mr. Brennan went out of his way to emphasise to me the point that he has made publicly: that political campaigns and emotional appeals to British Steel or anyone else would be counter-productive. It is a sign of the changing position in Scotland, as throughout the United Kingdom, that Ravenscraig's leading shop steward should have made that point.
  I noted that in its editorial this morning the Glasgow Herald, which serves the west of Scotland, said:
  "No one is advocating old-style interventionism. Everyone agrees with Mr. Rifkind that the case has to be argued on a commercial and not an emotional basis."
  It should be understood by all hon. Members that the work force and many others in Scotland believe that this matter will ultimately be determined by British Steel. There is no question of the Government issuing orders to a company, whether it be British Steel or any other, about what it should do with its plant and factory. British Steel will reach its own decision, but that is not against the interests of the Scottish economy.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden is responsible for the motion on the Order Paper. Unlike the early-day motion that was tabled a few days ago, it calls on the Government to do all within their power without specifying what that might be. That is a throwback to a previous age, and I certainly could not recommend that my hon. Friends support such a motion.
  Mr. Dewar: I hope that the Secretary of State will spell out what he will do and what steps he is taking to fight the case on the commercial grounds to which he refers and which he supports.
  Mr. Rifkind: I wish to continue my remarks and address the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: It is an issue of commercial judgment. The convenor of Ravenscraig, Tommy Brennan, said that it is a commercial, viable industry. To assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the question of commercial judgment, does he recollect that he stood still when the South of Scotland Electricity Board decided to import 1 million tonnes of Chinese coal, which was grossly impractical? The market is not always correct. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that proved a disastrous contract, which he could have stopped.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to differ on the merits of his point.
  The Government are not, cannot be expected to be, and are not expected by most of those in Scotland to be responsible for trying to run the steel industry. That does not mean that the Government can simply be disinterested when decisions are announced that have significant employment implications. That does not apply only in Scotland, and it cannot be relevant to British Steel alone. If any major United Kingdom company, such as British Aerospace or ICI, were to withdraw from the United Kingdom, of course Ministers would be concerned and would wish to discuss it with the chairman of the relevant company. They would wish to hear the reasons for that and to express their concern. The company would decide what its decision should be, but Ministers must be concerned.
  I say to the House and to those commentators in the south who have expressed disagreement with such an approach that that would be relevant irrespective of which part of the United Kingdom was affected. British Steel, as the amendment states, should recognise the concern that has been expressed and explain and defend its decision. If it believes that there are justifiable commercial grounds for a decision that would have significant and serious implications for the economy in an important part of Scotland, it is not unreasonable to expect it to explain its reasons, especially to the work force. I will certainly be urging it to do so.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose——
  Mr. Rifkind: May I continue? Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. The more that I give way, the fewer hon. Members will be able to do so.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden said that Ravenscraig is of great importance to the economy of Scotland. As I said in the Scottish Grand Committee, and it is important to emphasise it, Ravenscraig is crucial to the well-being of the people of Motherwell and to the economy of Lanarkshire because of the employment implications. It has significance and implications for the wider Scottish economy, just as any other major employer does. It is not the largest employer in Scotland, and Labour Members do a disservice to the cause that they wish to advocate by overstating their points. There are a substantial number of large employers in Scotland who make a useful and valuable contribution to the Scottish economy. One thinks of Ferranti with 6,000 employees, the Rosyth dockyard with 5,300 employees, Rolls-Royce with 4,960 employees and similar companies.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: How many steel mills?
  Mr. Rifkind: By all means let the Opposition emphasise the serious and severe implications for the Lanarkshire economy and suggest the implications for the wider Scottish economy, but they know as well as I do that the importance of Ravenscraig is similar to that of IBM, Ferranti and other companies of a comparable size. It is not appropriate to suggest that different fundamental considerations apply.
  Only one in 300 employees in Scotland works at Ravenscraig—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry, but if the Opposition think that exaggeration and emotion help their case, they are doing a disservice to the people of Ravenscraig and I will have no truck with it.
  Dr. John Reid: No one denies that there are bigger employers than Ravenscraig in Scotland. But can the right hon. and learned Gentleman name any other concern which, by its closure, would withdraw 50 per cent. of the freight transport from British Rail, almost 25 per cent. of the electricity consumed and a huge amount of fuel and cause such massive repercussions in terms of services throughout Scotland as would Ravenscraig? I doubt whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman could find one such concern.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has a good case, but he must not exaggerate it. He referred to the use of electricity, but he should know that 1·5 per cent. of the total output of power in Scotland goes to Ravenscraig. Ravenscraig is as important as any other customer would be. The hon. Gentleman must not spoil a good case by exaggerating it. I do not in any way intend to underestimate the importance of Ravenscraig, but I will not be tempted into suggesting that somehow the future of the Scottish economy depends on one Scottish plant.
  Mr. Dickens: I hope that I shall be helpful. Because of the social consequences and differences between the contracts with British Rail, the Scottish electricity authorities and so on, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the management of British Steel could negotiate keener prices with these companies that depend so much on Ravenscraig, Ravenscraig could again become a commercial consideration?
  Hon. Members: It is.
  Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleworth and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) will realise from the response to his intervention, the point at issue is whether at present there is a good commercial case for maintaining the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig. We hope that British Steel will provide proper information on that point.
  Mr. Michael Grylls rose——
  Mr. Gavin Strang rose——
  Mr. Rifkind: I should like to continue my remarks because I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to take part.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on his latter point?
  Mr. Rifkind: If I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I should have to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for
  36
  Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). I must ask the hon. Member for Garscadden not to insist.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me about contacts that we have had with British Steel over the past few months, so it might be helpful if I put them on the record. There have been meetings with Sir Robert Scholey at ministerial level, a meeting between my officials and the chief executive and ministerial and official correspondence with the company. There have also been telephone contacts between my officials and British Steel, both at plant management level and with the chief executive. During that period, I instructed my officials to prepare a paper making the commercial case for further investment at Dalzell in the context of British Steel's current review of plate strategy. A decision to expand Dalzell would, of course, have consequences for the future security of steelmaking at Ravenscraig. It can be seen, therefore, that over the past few months we have had ongoing contact with British Steel about its operations in Scotland.
  Three weeks ago, I asked Sir Robert to come to see me to discuss various matters—in particular, the Scottish Office paper on plate mill investment. He replied that he would be willing to do so but that he particularly wished to see me on 15 May as his board was meeting the previous day and he wished to inform me of decisions likely to be taken by his board. I was concerned by the implications of that and asked Sir Robert to come to see me before the board met. We had an informal meeting on 3 May, but he gave me no information then regarding the proposals that were likely to be put to his board. Nevertheless, I asked him whether the board would be considering plate mill investment as it affected Dalzell but he said that a decision on that was unlikely for some months. I made it clear to him that, if the board considered the future of the hot strip mill at that meeting, I hoped that, given its contribution to British Steel's profitability, the mill would not be closed as that would have implications for the future of Ravenscraig as a whole and I would find it necessary to express my views in the event of such an announcement. Sir Robert quite properly declined to comment on what his board was about to consider.
  My next meeting with Sir Robert was on 15 May. The suggestion that the Scottish Office has had no contact with British Steel over the past few months is completely bogus.
  I have been asked whether there might be an alternative purchaser for British Steel's assets in Scotland. Hon. Members have referred to the commitment in the prospectus, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The shop stewards themselves have emphasised that that is not their first option. They wish British Steel to continue to have responsibility for its assets at Ravenscraig, and that is a view that many will share. It would be helpful if British Steel could say whether it believes that the circumstances referred to in the prospectus, in which it would contemplate an alternative private sector purchaser for its assets, now pertain. If British Steel does not believe that that stage has been reached, it would help if it would outline the circumstances in which such arrangements would apply and it would also help if British Steel could confirm that it sees itself as remaining committed to such a course. We must be clear that, for that option to be worth considering further, it is necessary not only that there should be a willing seller but

  37
  that there should be a potential buyer. If there is a potential buyer at home or abroad, it would help our continuing debate if that interest made itself felt.
  Mr. Dewar: During our exchanges following the private notice question on Wednesday, the Secretary of State said unambiguously that he deplored the decision that had been made and that he sought to have it reversed. Is that still his position, and how does he intend to achieve that?
  Mr. Rifkind: It is indeed still my position. Everything that I said to the House last week remains exactly and without qualification my position. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
  Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that all Conservative Members believe that he is acting entirely honourably in taking his present line and seeking more information from British Steel about its proposals? None of us would do any less for our constituencies. But will he bear in mind British Steel's record in job creation, given that since 1976 British Steel has created 45,000 new jobs at Corby, Consett, Sheffield and Shotton, where there had been huge job losses? New jobs can be created if the closure finally goes ahead.
  Mr. Rifkind: Of course my hon. Friend is correct, and there are good precedents to suggest that if, unfortunately, jobs are lost in a locality—even in an area of high unemployment—it is not the end of the world. Having said that, one hopes that that can be averted in the first place because there is a significant time lag in creating new employment or attracting it to the area and, in the meantime, significant unemployment results. Our main objective is to establish whether British Steel will be prepared to reconsider the decision that it announced last week.
  We must all be realistic. We cannot assume that the representations will succeed. As Secretary of State for Scotland, I have a responsibility to consider the implications for Motherwell if the hot strip mill closed next year. Accordingly, on a contingency basis, I am asking the Industry Department for Scotland and the Scottish Development Agency, together with the other relevant interests including local authority and private sector interests, to consider what could be done to encourage new employment and investment in Motherwell in the event of the hot strip mill closing—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are giving up."] No, it is not a question of giving up. Opposition Members would be the first to criticise in nine months' time if the campaign to save the hot strip mill did not succeed and if the Government had done nothing to anticipate that possibility. I want to be entirely frank with the people of Motherwell. We know and Opposition Members know perfectly well that there can be no guarantee for a campaign of this sort. My responsibility is to use the facilities available to anticipate one possible outcome and, on a contingency basis, to plan what that would involve. I make no apology for that.
  We will also want to explore with British Steel the statement that it made last week that the company will take positive steps through British Steel Industry Limited to assist in the creation of new jobs in Motherwell. Clearly, that would he an important component.
  Of course, our primary desire is for British Steel to respond to the concern that has been expressed. If it cannot explain and defend the decision that it announced
  38
  last week, we will be delighted if it reverses that decision. There is already a precendent for British Steel doing just that: three years ago it reversed an intention to close the hot strip mill and that was found to have been a wise change of mind because the mill went on to high productivity and to contribute towards the profitability of British Steel's operations. British Steel had second thoughts then, and I very much hope that it will have second thoughts now. That would benefit the future of the people of Motherwell and Lanarkshire, and it might also make an important contribution to British Steel's ongoing profitability.
  4.32 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me early in this debate. I am also grateful to you and to other hon. Members on both sides of the House for your good wishes following my recent heart operation. I am sure that hon. Members will understand if I do not stay for the whole debate.
  The closure of the great Ravenscraig works and Dalzell works in my constituency would be a grievous blow to Lanarkshire and to the whole of Scotland, with the loss of 10,000 jobs and £100 million a year in income. The social consequences do not bear thinking about. It would not be the death of the local community, nor the end for the steel workers of Ravenscraig. They are too fine workers, there is too great a strength and vitality in the local community for that. But it would be a painful and bitter 15 years of the kind that we hoped was behind us. Over the past 15 years, we have already lost three times the number of steel jobs that remain. The case for a comprehensive redevelopment programme for Lanarkshire is there already.
  No steel workers, certainly not the steel workers at Ravenscraig and Dalzell, see themselves as working in a national symbol, still less an industrial museum. They see themselves as producing efficiently a useful commodity for a fair wage. They would not be there if their work was not economic and commercially viable. They do not need to be told that it is the economic and commercial case that has to be argued.
  It is not my intention to apportion blame. It is my duty to ask what can sensibly be done, and to call for it to be done. The Secretary of State has said British Steel has not provided any details as to why it believes that the closure of the hot strip mill is necessary. That is true. But the underlying strategy of British Steel has been clear since the closure of the cold strip mill at Gartcosh. Although it is public information, neither the privatisation prospectus of British Steel nor any of the stockbrokers' circulars gave the capacities of the different stages of steel production in each of the major works. It was left to the Arthur Young report, commissioned by Motherwell district council, to spell out the underlying strategy of British Steel, which would be carried to its logical conclusion if British Steel was constituted as a private monopoly producer, with its monopoly power in the United Kingdom strengthened by the higher transport costs from elsewhere in the European Community.
  In strip products, the bottleneck lay in continuous casting at Port Talbot and Llanwern. Ravenscraig pioneered continuous casting in British Steel flat products, and long ago achieved 100 per cent. continuous casting. The commissioning of the continuous casting extensions at Port Talbot planned for early in 1991 would mean that

  39
  British Steel could then attain its peak 1989 levels of output without Ravenscraig. Now, with British Steel's announcement of the further continuous casting at Llanwern, all three strip mills will have 100 per cent. continuous casting by 1993, putting the final question mark over Ravenscraig.
  In the current review of plate strategy, the lowest cost solution would be the redevelopment of the Dalzell heavy plate mill. Scunthorpe knows that it is not capable of rolling greater thicknesses of steel. But that deal option would be ruled out if Dalzell could not rely on a continuing supply of slabs from Ravenscraig. The prior announcement of the run-down at Ravenscraig appears to be a move to pre-empt the decision on plate strategy. In fact, the decisions are interdependent. The reality is probably that British Steel is putting them to its board separately to ease their acceptance.
  In 1989, British Steel worked flat out, yet there was a record £20 billion deficit in Britain's balance of payments. Since then, the prospect for final demand for steel in the United Kingdom has increased with the expansion plans of our depleted motor industry, promising the biggest increase in vehicle production of any country in the Community. The European Commission has concluded that it is possible for steel plants to operate at lower levels of average capacity than previously assumed. The idea that "it is possible to maintain steadier" demand by restricting capacity does not work, since customers lost at the peak do not return at the trough, and suppliers abandoned at the trough will not oblige by supplying at the peak.
  The first question, therefore, is whether 1989 steel capacity to which British Steel proposes to restrict itself without Ravenscraig strip products is consistent with the restoration of economic growth and the balance of payments in the United Kingdom.
  The smaller vessels and specialised plant at Ravenscraig have enabled it to produce difficult-to-roll products like electrical steels which have not been economic at Port Talbot and Llanwern. It is widely expected that if British Steel acquires Klockner in Germany, it will source such special steels from there, and cease its production in the United Kingdom. The second question is therefore whether the restriction in product range without Ravenscraig will further weaken Britain's competitive position.
  Both those questions will have been considered by British Steel. If its decision is to be questioned on the ground of competition policy which the present Government and all Governments must have, as a monopolistic or restrictive practice, the mechanism for doing so is the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the United Kingdom, and the European Commission. The formal and informal review would almost inevitably have both a United Kingdom and a European dimension. But, as most Ravenscraig products come under the treaty of Paris, the primary formal responsibility for competition policy in this case would probably lie with the European Commission. The European Commission regulatory regime has certainly been moving away from restricting competition and capacity to expanding it, as with the planned ending of
  40
  voluntary restraint agreements on imports of steel by 1992, but it would be expecting too much to rely solely on that approach.
  The third question is technology. The continuous casting of 9 to 12in thick slabs, now operating at Ravenscraig and still being extended at Port Talbot and Llanwern, is an obsolescent technology. The new technology is thin-slab casting, with continuously cast slabs 2in thick going straight into a slimmed-down hot mill, and coming out as hot rolled coil only 0.lin thick, with little work for a slimmed-down cold mill to do to reduce the coil to a typical 0·04in thick cold rolled strip of the kind used for car bodies. Furthermore, the strip is superior, very fine grain steel, as a result of the more rapid cooling than is found in the present thick-slab technology. The mills are smaller, but considerably more sophisticated than conventional hot and cold mills.
  The pioneering thin-slab caster is now being run in by the Nucor Corporation at Crawfordsville, Indiana. An informative article on it appears in the current May edition of Metal Bulletin Monthly, the leading international journal of the steel industry. The expected cost reduction over thick-slab steel is a decisive $50 to $75 per ton, and energy savings are substantial. The Nucor plant uses electric arc steel, which limits the purity of the steel to that of the scrap used. But the process is operable on basic oxygen steel in an integrated steel works, though its introduction will require a serious but manageable development effort. Sooner or later, integrated steel works will have to come to grips with this new technology.
  Ravenscraig is well suited to be the pioneer plant for the introduction of the technology to integrated steel making because it is large enough to introduce an effectively new strip product to world markets, while its relatively small vessel size and the need to upgrade and replace the present finishing end make it suitable as a development plant. There are certain aspects in which it looks as if Ravenscraig's continuous casting experience could already improve on Nucor practice. The development would be complementary to the investment planned at Port Talbot and Llanwern.
  The Government should offer British Steel this option for Ravenscraig, as a pioneering development plant, in addition to its present roles, essential in any production complex, as the swing plant and the maker of special products. It is not a soft option.
  While the Economic Community state aids code bans subsidies, it allows support for investment involving research and development, which would certainly be the case here. Other European countries support civil industrial research to a greater extent than we do, and the record shows they benefit commercially. It is fully economic for Governments and the European Community to enable private firms to go beyond the short term and conservative practices which so many firms believe their shareholders require of them. There is no reason why such a development at Ravenscraig should not be a joint venture between British Steel and other European, American or Japanese companies. All face the same problem of introducing this important new technology.
  There is much technical and commercial investigation to be done before such decision can be made. The Government should seek the full participation of British Steel, which I believe would be forthcoming. I have a letter from Mr. Martin Llowarch, chief executive of British Steel, confirming that thin-slab casting will have a major

  41
  effect on strip products. If I am wrong, and British Steel will not co-operate, the Government should go ahead with other steel companies. It would be best if the necessary investigations were started by this Government, but against the timetable which British Steel has set out, it would not be too late to initiate such a development after the election.
  This is not the first time that I have suggested a major development project to a private British steel company. Nearly 25 years ago I suggested to the Steel Company of Wales—before nationalisation—that it should develop the world's first adaptive computer control system for its cold mill. A young engineer whose first job in the steel industry was on that project is now the works director at Shotton.
  I speak as the Member privileged to represent the constituency that contains Ravenscraig, but as Opposition spokesman on science and technology I believe that this is the kind of industrial development project which any Government should be prepared to back after full investigation. I would say to my constituents that we have learned not to trust people who offer us guarantees in a world where we are accustomed to having to win the hard way, but I firmly believe that this readiness to embrace the future is the best route for us to pursue.
  British Steel has a task of human and not merely financial reconstruction—I am thinking not of social obligations, but of the morale, capability and enterprise of the people whom British Steel will need to employ in the future. They will wish to respond to the kind of challenge that I propose, and I believe that they will.
  4.46 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members in welcoming back to the House the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) after his recent operation. As always, the House listened intently to him because he speaks with an unrivalled personal knowledge of the industry and was most constructive. We all extend to him our best wishes for a steady, continuing and full recovery.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to some of the reports about Ravenscraig in the English press. I was surprised by the tone of some of those comments, about which it is worth saying two things. First, no one has been calling for a subsidy, as was alleged. The hon. Member for Garscadden did not call for a subsidy—I do not know what he was calling for, but I shall leave that aside for the moment. There is simply no question of the Scottish interest, or of Scottish steel workers, Scottish Members of Parliament or the Government seeking a subsidy. Secondly, the reports seemed to suggest that the position taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was unexpected, unusual or incompatible with the principles that the Government have adopted in their approach to industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government have rightly rejected old-style interventionism, which has had such disastrous consequences for many parts of Scotland as for other parts of the United Kingdom. However, to reject interventionism is not to argue that when major decisions such as the one we are considering have been announced industry and Government are inhabiting wholly different worlds. That is an absurd proposition.
  42
  That is as true of the Department of Trade and Industry as it is of the Scottish Office. One of the Sunday newspapers rightly referred to the limousines of the captains of industry queueing up at 1 Victoria street—the headquarters of the DTI—and commented, "They must be talking to somebody."
  Yes, management must manage, but to accept that proposition is not in any sense to accept that there is some law of management infallibility. My right hon. and learned Friend rightly said that in 1987 British Steel nearly closed the strip mill at Ravenscraig. That was followed by three years of record production.
  Let me give another constituency example. Hon. Members will recall the campaign about the Armitage Shanks tubal works in Barrhead. On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Minister of State asked the holding company to defer the redundancies to allow a full study of constructive alternatives to take place. That position was fully and publicly endorsed by the Prime Minister. My right hon. and learned Friend's position is perfectly correct, and it is wrong to suggest that he has taken a unique stance that is incompatible with previous Government decisions.
  If British Steel is to be persuaded to change its mind, two things must happen. First, there must be a united and sensible response from all concerned. Partisan points have been made in the debate—it would be surprising if they had not—but, broadly speaking, Scotland has so far given a united response to the announcement. Secondly, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly said, British Steel will be persuaded to change its position only by commercial facts and figures, and perhaps by the constructive suggestions made this afternoon by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. It will not be persuaded by ranting and raving—however satisfying such activity may be to hon. Members.
  During the past few days, some Opposition Members seem to have been obsessed with studying every statement made by every Minister or spokesman to see whether minute observation can detect textual or syntactical differences between what was said on different occasions. They remind me of the mediaeval scholastics who spent so many years arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin: their activity is about as useful.
  I do not wish to stir up passions in other parts of the United Kingdom by making remarks about the Welsh, but for a long time there has been a suspicion that the decisions of the senior management of the company—now and before it was privatised—have been biased in favour of south Wales and against Ravenscraig. That may or may not be correct, but the feeling exists regardless. That is why I argued—as did the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, with greater expertise—for the break-up of British Steel on privatisation, and why I support the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
  Of course the Secretary of State was right to say that we must not take our eye off the ball, and that our priority must be to put forward a rational case to encourage British Steel to change its position. He was also right to announce today contingency plans for the regeneration of Lanarkshire in the regrettable event of the decision going ahead. I was astonished that Opposition Members jeered that decision. Do they not want contingency plans? Do they think that there is an absolute guarantee that the decision can be reversed? There is no such guarantee.

  43
  We must face up to the possibility that a decision may already have been made to close Ravenscraig in the long term. Although I have no knowledge that it has been, we must recognise that it is a possibility.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If the Secretary of State's initiative goes ahead—whether or not the strip mill closes—it is likely to produce enormous benefits for Lanarkshire with the introduction of new industry.
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. It does no one any good for Opposition Members to deride the efforts made throughout Scotland, by people of all political persuasions, to regenerate areas that have faced major closures. If the decision has been made, the sooner British Steel fulfils its obligations to offer Ravenscraig for sale—if it has no further use for it—the better. However, that is not, and cannot be, the priority for the moment. It is better for that possibility to be faced in a year's time than in 1994, when I suspect there will be no possibility of a buyer coming forward with sensible proposals.
  The entire House will agree that the trade unions have reacted with determination, and also with great common sense. They have the right to expect the House to act with the same common sense.
  4.56 pm
  Dr. John Reid: It is a testimony to the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) that there are few speeches that are worth getting out of a sick bed and coming to the House to hear.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to passion, anger and emotion. It is inevitable that there will be some of that today, partly because of the importance of the Ravenscraig plant to the entire Scottish economy, partly because of the pride in the efforts of the Ravenscraig work force that has existed for many years—a professional pride shared by a cross-section of Scottish opinion, regardless of political persuasion—and partly because survival has never been easy for Ravenscraig or its work force, but has had to be fought for and won, sometimes at an immense price in terms of self-sacrifice and effort. However, there would be no identification, interest or attachment on the part of people throughout Scotland—highland crofters, border farmers, manual workers and professionals from the lowlands and the west of Scotland—without that passion. There is emotion too: no group of men and women have fought for so long with such vigour, dignity and sheer common sense as the Ravenscraig work force.
  When the Secretary of State warns us against emotion, I hope that he realises that it is not always negative emotion. I make no apology for not adopting the clinical approach of the mercenary advocate on behalf of Ravenscraig. However, both he and my good friend Tommy Brennan will be pleased to know that, although passion and emotion will be involved, they will not be the substance of our argument this afternoon. That would be to demean the efforts of the work force, who would be the last to indulge in sentimentality or to seek charity. The Secretary of State knows that, as he met them this morning. He must also know that, contrary to the
  44
  poisoned opinions of some London leader-writers for whom Motherwell appears to be a faraway town—a town about which they care little and obviously know even less—the case for Ravenscraig has never been based on sentimentality. It has been based on an appreciation of hard facts of commercial and industrial importance—facts relating to industrial productivity and industrial performance as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South outlined in far greater detail than any other hon. Member could the economic and industrial alternatives that may be considered. In view of some of the myths, inaccuracies and half-truths that have been stated, I shall reassert several simple facts.
  First, last week the chairman of British Steel did not announce merely the closure of the hot strip mill; implicit in every detail was the closure of the whole Ravenscraig plant. That announcement was predictable and, indeed, predicted not only by my hon. Friend and me, but in the Arthur Young report which was commissioned by Motherwell district council, was widely available and was ridiculed by Ministers in 1987–88. Although the closure may have been predictable, it was not inevitable. It could have been avoided if the Government had heeded the warnings before and during privatisation.
  I do not wish to spend time on recriminations. I mention that fact only because British Steel's so-called guarantees in December 1987, as I said at the time, were more a timetable for the execution of the plant than anything else. It is clear from the announcement of the closure of the hot strip mill that it is a timetable to which the chairman of British Steel is keeping exactly. It implies the closure of the whole plant in 1993–94. That is what we are fighting against today. We are fighting not only for the 1,000 jobs directly or indirectly related to the hot strip mill, but for the 2,500 employees over and above those to whom Bob Scholey gave notice last Wednesday. If Bob Scholey wins his case, we will also be fighting for the Dalzell plate mill. Nobody who knows anything about steel believes that he will leave Clydesdale tube works on its own, 400 miles from the rest of British Steel's operations. Therefore, let us be clear about the importance of the announcement about the hot strip mill. If Bob Scholey wishes to blow the Scottish steel industry to bits, the Ravenscraig hot strip mill is the trigger that he is using.
  Secondly—this has been covered in a dispute, more academic than real, between the Secretary of State and me—the Ravenscraig plant is crucial not only for Lanarkshire, but for Scotland in terms of freight, transport industries, road and rail, the Clyde port authority, electricity and fuel. Thirdly, the hot strip mill is not a dispensable luxury to either the Ravenscraig plant or British Steel. For the past three years it has been working to capacity and, as the Secretary of State said, producing steel of high quality. It is important to remember that it has overcome the tremendous difficulties of producing high-quality steel, which cannot easily be replaced by alternative production in high-volume plants within British Steel. Until last Wednesday, the mill was commercially viable and in the absense of detailed information to the contrary it must continue to be considered commercially viable.
  Fourthly, Ravenscraig is not only commercially viable, but one of the most productive plants in Europe. The Japanese and many others use it as a measure of productivity and a yardstick for economic efficiency man hours per tonne. At Ravenscraig workers are producing

  45
  and operating on a figure of 2·33 man hours per tonne. That is the best and most efficient figure not only in British Steel and the United Kingdom, but in the whole of Europe. Every productivity record at Ravenscraig has been broken and every target set by the management attained. The workers at Ravenscraig have not been given the right to continue by Sir Robert Scholey; they have earned it.
  Fifthly, all that has been achieved despite immense obstacles placed before the work force in terms of inadequate investment, unfair preferential loading, intermittent production pauses and, always, the morale-sapping suspicion that, whatever the effort and results, they will remain on Black Bob's blacklist for eventual closure. Let me make it clear that neither I nor anyone else in any way associated with Ravenscraig resents investment in other plants. That investment is the instrument of security for thousands of dedicated workers. We are saying that the same long-term security has been earned by the work force in the Motherwell plant.
  Sixthly, if British Steel management has been wrong—the Secretary of State intimated that—at times it has been infamously wrong in its forecasts of future demands. That is why the research undertaken at the behest of Motherwell district council may prove invaluable to our cause. I do not say that British Steel has been alone in its forecasting errors, but forecasting is a vital element in the present decision. There is a strong case for arguing that there is no over-capacity within British Steel and, indeed, that the so-called over-capacity has been built in to justify the closure. Hon. Members may ask why. Surely it is not merely because of the prejudices of the chairman of a large corporation. Let none of us forget that British Steel is a monopoly producer. It was privatised as a monopoly, despite the arguments of Labour and Conservative Members. The reduction in capacity within British Steel can be viewed as reasonably as a measure for price increasing as for cost cutting. For that reason, I commend to the Secretary of State the suggestion of Mr. Hamish Morrison of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) that a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be seriously considered, lest British Steel is allowed the freedom to abuse its monopoly to the detriment of all its United Kingdom consumers. Alternatively, the matter should be referred to the European Commission, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South suggested.
  There is every indication of a strengthening of demand for strip steel products. The North sea oil industry is undergoing the first stages of a new revolution. Every indicator suggests that the car industry stands on the brink of a new upsurge. The deterioration in condition and decrease in numbers of our merchant fleet demands urgent attention. I name but three areas of potential expansion. Given those signs, the price increase incentive to British Steel and its history of forecasting, it would be a rash man indeed who would be prepared to take at face value the assurances of the chairman of British Steel.
  Finally, the steelworks and strip mill are particularly well placed to provide the products for expected future demand. As I said earlier, it has been an ironic quirk of what some consider to be the unfair development plan a propos Ravenscraig that it has become the plant that produces high-quality, difficult-to-make steels. If the hot strip mill goes, it is extremely doubtful whether steels of such difficulty and quality can be produced by any other
  46
  high-volume plant within the present corporation. That would be a loss not only to Motherwell and Scotland, but to British Steel and our balance of payments.
  The Secretary of State asked what could be done. There are options open to the Government and to Ravenscraig. Hon. Members have mentioned restrictive or monopolistic practices and the possibility of a reference to the Office of Fair Trading, the MMC and the European Commission. There are avenues which the Government could consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South outlined Ravenscraig's capacity to produce high-quality steels, the need for research and development, the demands of developing technology and the future appropriateness of Ravenscraig for thin-slab casting.
  An independent Scottish steel industry has been mentioned and, although I do not underestimate the problems in terms of capital input, the finishing side at Ravenscraig and difficulties with Clydesdale, it is an option. The Secretary of State and his colleagues have mentioned an enforced sell-off. All such options would be closed to Ravenscraig if British Steel were allowed to close and remove the hot strip mill from the site. That is why I unashamedly believe that the maximum political unity on this issue is not only appropriate, but essential. I commend that approach to everyone in the House. In case my argument is viewed with suspicion by some, I also commend to them the editorial in this morning's edition of the Daily Record which has, as so often in the past, its finger on the pulse of Scotland.
  Our motion has not been framed to suggest that we have no criticisms of the Government. We have worries and they were heightened by the announcement today of the meeting held on 3 May—the first time it has been mentioned by the Secretary of State. However, because our overriding priority is to achieve the greatest possible consensus in defence of the Ravenscraig plant, the issue is not and should not be a matter of personal reputation, party advantage or personal advance. We will never be forgiven if we make it so. That does not mean that we should forgo an examination of all the available options, but it means having the maturity and wisdom to realise that if we cannot speak with one voice in opposition to the British Steel decision, none of the possible options has a likely future.
  I am disappointed by the Government's response today. Our motion intentionally avoids criticism of their previous stand. It is liberal, some would say too liberal, in omitting to mention what some consider as previous errors on the part of the Government. It is almost word for word, as was previously mentioned, the motion that Scottish Conservative Back-Benchers rushed to sign in their zeal to be identified with Ravenscraig's case less than a week ago. The Government, however, have found themselves unable to support the sentiments expressed in the motion. People outside will ask why. Are we to believe that the Government, who found British Steel's decision deplorable last week, now find it less so five days later?
  Mr. Rifkind indicated dissent.
  Dr. Reid: I am glad to note that the decision is still regarded as deplorable. Are we to understand that the call from Conservative Back-Benchers to reverse the decision last Wednesday has become one to acquiesce to it? That is what their refusal to support our motion in the Lobby tonight will mean.

  47
  What are we to make of the Government's amendment? We have all heard of the importance of the three Rs, and today we have seen the confusion between the two Rs—Rifkind and Ridley. One half of the amendment, presumably the Scottish Office half, invites British Steel to explain, presumably to its work force, the commercial grounds on which its decision was taken. That is fine as far as it goes, but the other half of the amendment negates that as it insists that the issue is the exclusive business of British Steel. That part obviously emanated from the Department of Trade and Industry, although its Secretary of State has not even bothered to turn up today or even to put his name to the amendment. Once again he is presumed dead, missing in inaction.
  The one thing the Government amendment does is to distil the impression, unfortunately prevalent since the closure was announced, of confusion, division and vacillation in the Government. I take no satisfaction from saying that and I wish that that was not the perception gained. The position of the Secretary of State is unenvious. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity when he says that he deplores the British Steel decision—even if I did have reason, I would be inclined today to suppress my suspicions. However, I and others, including the people of Scotland, have every reason to doubt his assertion that he carries with him a Cabinet united in deploring the decision of British Steel and committed to reversing it. That doubt is a grave handicap in the battle to save the hot strip mill, but it is an even graver handicap for the Secretary of State. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot command the support and confidence of his Cabinet colleagues in his fight for Ravenscraig, he will command it in precious little else of value to the people of Scotland.
  This morning the right hon. and learned Gentleman met Tommy Brennan and, according to news reports, he assured him that he "wholeheartedly supported" the fight to save the strip mill and ultimately the Craig. Tonight the eyes of Scotland will be upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues. I hope that they do not fail to live up to the expectations created by the impression they have already given. If they do, they will be failing not only Tommy Brennan and the workers of Ravenscraig, but Scotland.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I listened with great interest to the speeches of the hon. Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). I agreed with much of the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, but I was saddened that, at the end, he made some narrow points. I was also saddened that, when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) opened the debate, he did not give way to me on a fundamental and important part of the Opposition's motion, which calls on the Government
  "to do everything possible to reverse a closure"
  All I wanted from the hon. Gentleman was an explanation of what he meant by "everything possible", as my interpretation of that phrase may be different. That is why I cannot support the Opposition's motion. Given the speeches of some Opposition Members, "everything possible" could mean the renationalisation of British Steel. It could mean anything, so I cannot support the motion.
  48
  If the Opposition asked whether I supported the efforts to get British Steel to reconsider its decision, the answer would be yes. If the Opposition asked whether I believed that the Government should do everything they could within present legislation and the European Community, the answer would be yes.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South is a remarkable and courageous man to come here so soon after his operation. I only hope that his constituents realise what he has done today. He made one of the best speeches that I have ever heard on the matter, which is a highly emotive and difficult one. He put across difficult technical points in a unique way. I have no knowledge of the steel industry, and it was interesting to listen to fundamental, important technical points being explained in a manner easily understood by those of us not technically qualified or experienced. I found his speech moving as well as easy to understand. The hon. Gentleman, perhaps more than anyone, deserves the Ravenscraig decision to be rethought.
  I have no technical knowledge, but based on the information available to me, it is clear that, if the hot strip mill closes, it will inevitably lead to the rest of the British Steel plants in Scotland having a limited life. That is a realistic way in which to look at the situation—it is not an overstatement, nor am I being over-dramatic. One need only study the investment that has gone to south Wales for many years to realise that the steel industry is no different from any others. If such investment goes to one plant, one area or one sector, it is obvious that that one sector will be in a much stronger position in terms of competition and modernisation than the rest of the industry.
  I commend to the House the attitude of the shop stewards and the work force. I have always said that Ravenscraig should be judged by its performance in the market place. Anyone who suggests that Tommy Brennan and the other shop stewards in the work force have not responded to all the challenges and tasks with which they have been faced would be distorting the truth. They have done far better than anything that they were asked to achieve. Hon. Members should be seen to support workers who behave in that way.
  The future of Ravenscraig and the other Scottish steel plants must be decided by the marketplace. It must be determined by business men making tough, realistic commercial decisions. I take that view not just of Ravenscraig, but of any other operation in the marketplace. I repeat that I believe that the work force at Ravenscraig have earned the right to be treated properly by their employer.
  How can British Steel ever hope to motivate its work force in the future if it is judged to have behaved badly or not given its work force the sort of information that any sensible, enlightened employer would give people when decisions affecting their future are being made? That was why I had no hesitation in signing the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North. I believed that it was right to condemn British Steel for the way in which it carried out this exercise.
  I have made it quite clear why I cannot support the motion in the name of the Labour party and its leader. I cannot support a motion that calls for "everything possible" to be done in terms that are understood by the Opposition. That was why I thought that the hon. Member for Garscadden, who did not allow me to intervene in his speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] If hon. Members

  49
  believe what Tommy Brennan and others are asking for, there is no merit in trying to gain narrow political points in such a debate.
  I have never made any secret of my views on the marketplace, privatisation and other matters. My condemnation of British Steel is for the way that it has treated the Ravenscraig work force. I shall not in any way withdraw that condemnation, because I believe that Tommy Brennan and his colleagues have earned the right to be treated properly. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, British Steel has once before reviewed a decision, so it is not unrealistic to think that it may do so again. It is also right that British Steel should be required to reconsider any of the needs the work force might have if the hot strip mill were to close. It is important that those 770 people should not be left with no future.
  This debate is one of the most important that we have had for a long time on Scotland's future. There is much more to it than just the economic importance. If it were only the economic importance, we could use delightful figures to get round it. However, there is more to it than that. There is the lack of competition for British Steel in the United Kingdom and the need for greater competition. That is why British Steel must be asked now—we should not leave it—to tell us what it meant by its pledge.
  Did British Steel mean it when it gave the undertaking that it would sell off its Scottish plants if it saw no future for them? If it meant that, the time to sell those plants is when they are going, profitable concerns and people in the marketplace are prepared to invest. The time to do so is not after a thousand cuts, when they have been made uneconomic and non-viable. That is why I believe that one pressure that the House should put upon British Steel today is to ask it what it means by that pledge. If it cannot convince the House, Tommy Brennan, others in the work force and the hon. Members for Motherwell, North and for Motherwell, South, with their detailed knowledge of the industry, that there is a future and it has investment programmes that secure a realistic future, we should send it a clear message: "Honour your pledge, put those plants on the market and let the marketplace decide the future." Let us have some real competition in the United Kingdom; then perhaps we shall hear British Steel singing a different tune.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that this is a crucial debate. The small number of English Members present, some of whom wish to participate in the debate, will, I hope, listen to the wider thrust of the debate. I hope that they will recognise that we are talking not simply about the need to secure an important, continuing investment in the Scottish economy, but about the need to secure the continuing success of a whole industry that has been profitable, and a plant that has made a substantial contribution to the success of British Steel as an entity and deserves better treatment than it has received to date. It has been living with this threat for far too long.
  The importance of Ravenscraig to the Scottish economy is not in dispute, at least not among Opposition Members. The Government got into slight difficulties when they argued that it was important to Lanarkshire, but not the whole Scottish economy. Steel is the
  50
  underpinning of an industrial economy, and ripping steel out of the heart of the Scottish economy is effectively to abolish the platform on which it has been, and should be, built. It does so ironically at a time when the potential market for steel from Scotland is growing and is likely to grow in the coming years.
  The hon. Members who were making sedentary comments about this factor have left, but it is invidious to suggest that it is all right to close down a steel mill because British Steel will be able to attract alternative employment into the district in a short time. We all know—it is especially true of central Scotland—that the trouble is that the jobs that come in to replace the jobs lost are in no way comparable in quality, earning power or the contribution that they make to the local economy. To talk simply in terms of numbers is wholly inappropriate.
  More important, it must be made absolutely clear that the reason why this closure is so offensive and unjustified is the contribution that Ravenscraig has made to the return to profitability of the British steel industry. It is worth stating that that contribution was placed on record by none other than Sir Bob Scholey and Mr. Stewart, the head of the strip division, who made clear to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 21 July 1988 just what a constructive and positive role Ravenscraig played in the recovery.
  In a moment of hot temper, Sir Robert Scholey revealed his prejudice against Ravenscraig, from which we are now suffering. He has never made any secret of the fact that he wanted to close Ravenscraig. It is unfortunate for him that Ravenscraig has proved profitable, productive and successful. To date, he has been unable to close it, because it has confounded all his prejudices against it.
  In reply to a question from me on 21 July 1988, Mr. Stewart said:
  "Ravenscraig has made a very important contribution in the recovery, because of its modern equipment in the steel plant … currently the Ravenscraig steel works is making a substantial contribution, because of its modernity, and the Ravenscraig stip mill is loaded to 15 shifts".
  Sir Robert Scholey said:
  "we have valuable assets in the Ravenscraig works for which we have an ongoing need … Ravenscraig is a great block: steel plant and mill."
  Those were the words of Sir Robert Scholey, who is now so anxious to close Ravenscraig, yet they are evidence that it was a plant that was crucial to bringing British Steel to the level of profitability that it has now achieved.
  The Liberal Democrats have consistently taken the view that, at the time of privatisation, a separate Scottish-based steel company should have been created. That would have secured the future of the Scottish steel industry; at least it should have, because it would have been done on a viable base. It would have created competition for steel within the United Kingdom and removed the tension in the industry between steel unions and between the interests of Scotland and of Wales. The work forces would have been working for separate companies with separate strategies, carving out separate niches for themselves in the marketplace.
  It has been our contention that a degree of competition should be explored. It remains a matter of considerable puzzlement to me that Ministers do not seem to accept their responsibility to promote competition in the
  marketplace, which they are happy to lecture us about at other times. On 22 February, I asked the Prime Minister whether she accepted

  51
  "that, on the ground of competition alone, the time is right for British Steel's monopoly to be ended and for an independent steel industry to be established, based in Scotland? Would that not best serve the interests of competition and of the Scottish steel industry?"
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "The best guarantee of a successful steel industry has been privatization … The chairman of British Steel has recently reaffirmed that. British Steel also gave the assurance that if it did not need Ravenscraig at some future date it would be prepared to sell it to another buyer. That assurance stands and I wish Ravenscraig well."—[Official Report, 22 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 1062.]
  The point at issue is that, if British Steel is allowed to close the hot strip mill—to follow the logic through—in due time there will be nothing left that anyone will want to buy. British Steel as a monopoly producer should not be able to determine what it sells, when it sells and on what terms and conditions it sells; the fact that it can shows a total failure of competition policy. So I welcome the intervention by Hamish Morrison of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), suggesting that the matter should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I shall certainly write to Gordon Borrie, Director General of Fair Trading, to suggest that he looks into that proposition.
  As the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has said, there is a clear possibility that British Steel is seeking to restrict capacity to force up prices—in simple terms, to abuse the monopoly position that privatisation has given it. And it is doing so at a time when the market potential is significantly greater.
  It is absurd to believe that British Steel will willingly promote the establishment of a competitor. There is a legitimate role for Government intervention to establish such a competitor if that is the only way of securing the interests of the consumer as well as the strategic interests of the British economy. Some hon. Members from south of the border seem rather cavalier about this: the fact is that the element of the Scottish steel industry for which Ravenscraig is especially well equipped—the North sea oil industry—is on an upswing which is expected to continue for the next decade.
  In those circumstances, the decision to close Ravenscraig and ultimately to phase out the whole plant is a decision to abandon that market to foreign competitors, at a time when we have a £20 billion balance of payments deficit. Should not the Government have a view on that? Should they be so sanguine about it?
  It is not too facetious to suggest that the logic of the Government's position is that, if British Steel decided that it could not maximise its profitability using steel capacity in the United Kingdom and making its investment here, and decided instead to invest in Korea, presumably the British Government would allow that and take no steps to intervene apart perhaps from remonstrating with the company at a few ministerial meetings. Is there no industrial strategy, no commitment to ensure that there is a strategic bottom line for steel—the more so since we can produce it competitively and efficiently?
  The Government, who believe in the marketplace, have already embarrassed themselves by privatising too many monopolies. They should show themselves willing to stand up and force those monopolies to face competition at home and abroad. That is a legitimate basis on which this Conservative Government could intervene within the
  52
  terms of their own philosophy, and I challenge them to do so. They should also have a view about the strategic base of an industry that we cannot do without, such as steel. I should have thought that servicing the North sea oil industry, with its special steel requirements, was an area in which we should be involved.
  Finally, the Government should recognise that they must show more concern about our balance of payments. British Steel should not be allowed to make a bad situation worse merely because that happens to suit its investment priorities and profitability requirements. Ultimately, an independent Scottish steel industry might be the best way forward, and it could be secured as long as British Steel was not left to monopolise the industry.
  I welcome the fact that the Committee for the Defence of Scottish Steel has agreed that all options should be pursued and that it will be seeking to gather information that might help to bring about—or at least explore the possibility of—an independent Scottish steel industry. I too accept the need for all-party co-operation to stop this decision and to ensure that every option is explored so that, for the good of Britain and the British economy, the Scottish steel industry will continue to flourish and enjoy an investment base for a long time to come.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Mick Buchanan-Smith: I do not want to prolong the debate by reiterating what has already been said. I fully acknowledge the seriousness of the issue and I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has just said. We are not just considering the future of Ravenscraig; we are considering something much wider.
  I am certainly one of those who believe that if Ravenscraig goes, the future of the Scottish steel industry will have an enormous question mark over it. The issue is even broader than that: I find it difficult to contemplate a modern industrial economy such as Scotland's without a stake in the steel industry. That longer-term element is important, quite apart from the immediate repercussions for those who live in the area and for the economy of Lanarkshire.
  I appeal to my colleagues from south of the border. We are dealing with a problem much wider than the mere closure of a single plant. I beg my hon. Friends to understand and sympathise with this broader view. I am sure that if they lived in an area with an economy like that of Scotland they would share my concern.
  Secondly, I reiterate what others have said: we must get at the facts, and I do not have confidence that British Steel will provide them unless we put on pressure. I point out to my hon. Friends from south of the border that that is the main point. If they have greater confidence in British Steel than I have, well and good. Let them put pressure on British Steel to provide the facts and show that our case is wrong.
  When I was responsible for the offshore oil industry in the North sea I am sure that many hon. Members will acknowledge that I endeavoured to increase the opportunities for British industry, but one of my greatest disappointments was British Steel. Time after time, fabricators, engineering companies and others would tell me that they could not improve the British content of their projects because, for the basic steel content in the fabrication job, they could not get a bid from British Steel

  53
  or, if they got one, the quality or delivery dates were wrong. Often, therefore, steel came from as far away as Japan because British Steel did not take the commercial opportunities on its doorstep.
  This is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to pressurise British Steel on this. I have no confidence that it is not turning its back on a commercial opportunity. It is right that the whole House should be united against that, and I hope that my English colleagues will unite with us to ensure that British Steel produces the facts on Ravenscraig's commercial position.
  It does not matter whether British Steel is nationalised or privatised, and I say that not wishing to widen the debate. One of the reasons given by British Steel for not being able to take advantage of opportunities in the North sea was that it was not given sufficient approval for the investment that was required to produce what was needed in the North sea. That is a criticism not only of my own Government but of previous Governments.
  I had hoped that following privatisation there would be more investment and that more opportunity would be taken of what the market place had to offer. I totally support my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he says that we need to get at the commercial facts and that British Steel must justify its decision. Those are the overriding and fundamental objectives and I hope that everyone will unite to achieve those ends. As second best, I would support the proposition advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). If British steel is not prepared to make a go of Ravenscraig and the Scottish steel industry it should step aside and give others the opportunity to do so.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North said, it is easy for a monopoly company such as British Steel to bring about death by a thousand cuts to this section of the steel industry in Scotland. It is easy to whittle down here and there until at the end of the day one is left with an industry that is clearly unviable and in which there may be no private commercial interest.
  I accept that it is for British Steel to make the ultimate decision. If it persists in that decision I shall certainly look to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to the Prime Minister and to their colleagues in Cabinet to put the strongest possible pressure on British Steel to ensure that a structurally viable steel business is put on the market for those who may be prepared to take advantage of the commercial opportunities which undoubtedly exist in Scotland.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I draw to the attention of the House that it was on the recommendation of the Office of Fair Trading in the not altogether different circumstances of the Atlas steel foundry in Armadale that, because of the actions of a large English company, the matter was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. There have been two rather favourable judgments in the court of Lord Milligan. I raise those points in support of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention and I hope that appropriate note has been taken of it because it reinforces the case advanced by many of us in the House.
  My last point is rather more difficult to make but it is as important as those that I have already made. It deals with the simple question of public responsibility. Some people have spoken as if a company such as British Steel or any large company has a responsibility only to its shareholders. That is not my view of morality in public life. People in business have a responsibility that goes wider than their responsibility to shareholders. First and foremost, they have a responsibility to the workers whom they employ. In this case British Steel should have taken those workers into its confidence and told them exactly what was happening.
  I have been concerned with business of one sort or another, mostly small businesses, all my life. I do not know of any small business or business man whom I respect who does not consider in his decisions the community in which he lives. In the village where I was brought up there was a privately-owned paper mill which is, alas, now closed. In all the decisions taken by that paper mill there was some consideration of the effect on the community, on the workers and on the economy of the area. British Steel is in public life and has a moral responsibility to the community to explain what it is doing and to justify it. I do not say that just because British Steel was formerly nationalised because the same argument applies to all major companies such as IBM, Boots, and Glaxo. That responsibility must not be ducked, and so far British Steel has ducked it. I condemn it for that, but thank goodness my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has not ducked his responsibilities.
  5.45pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: There is a spirit of consensus in the House but I cannot go totally along with it because of some worrying aspects about the action or inaction of the Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter. In the seven months since last winter the Secretary of State failed to take up with British Steel that which he knew was coming and which he knew would affect Ravenscraig this year. He failed to take up with British Steel the importance of Ravenscraig to the Scottish and the British economy. In reply to a private notice question last week he failed adequately to answer why he had not done that.
  Today the Secretary of State for Scotland told us that he had a meeting with British Steel on 3 May at which he made representations. The words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) last Thursday will be on the tombstone of the Secretary of State's political grave. My hon. Friend talked about the "missing weeks" and "dead days" during which the Secretary of State's inaction would perhaps be seen as having played a crucial role in the demise of Ravenscraig—if the closure goes ahead.
  I listened with pleasure to the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). His was the sort of speech that should have been made by the Secretary of State for Scotland because there is a role for morals in business and public life. I noticed some Conservative heads nodding during the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

  55
  I remind the Secretary of State for Scotland of some of his comments along those lines. At a meeting with union leaders on 31 November 1989 the Secretary of State said that he would not regard a routine drop in steel demand as excusing British Steel from its undertaking to him two years ago to keep Ravenscraig open until at least the mid-1990s. He said that he did not see privatisation as having altered his role "in any significant sense". The Secretary of State always had a role in seeing how British Steel operated in Scotland, and especially at Ravenscraig, and privatisation did not alter that role. However, he is now saying that the decision is totally commercial and that that is all there is to it.
  He also said in his November meeting with union leaders that his responsibility for the Scottish economy gave him legitimate concern for the actions of major employers in Scotland. I certainly echo that statement because it echoes the speech by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside. In The Scotsman of 30 November 1989—although The Scotsman says that it was on 31 November-the Secretary of State is reported to have said that the normal ups and downs of the market would not be seen by the Government as justifying closure. He said:
  "It was well understood that by 'market conditions' nobody was talking about some dip in the market … The term was clearly meant to refer to some catastrophic fall in demand that could not be contemplated in other circumstances."
  Where is the justification for British Steel's present stance?
  Scottish Labour Members and the work force of British Steel feel that there is an investment bias against Ravenscraig. Hamish Morrison, chief executive of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), said:
  "A ten-year investment famine and the dismal failure to win a significant share of North sea business can give no confidence in a continuing commitment to Scotland by British Steel".
  The Secretary of State has done nothing to counteract that bias against the Scottish steel industry.
  In the past three to five years, the figures show a dramatic increase in steel imports, with a resulting impact on the balance of payments, on employment, and on the British steel industry. What have the Government done to balance that? The outlook for demand shows, particularly in the North sea sector, the possibility of a rise in demand for steel in the mid-1990s. British Steel may contradict that, but its forecasts have not been too accurate.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) have spoken of the direct effect that closure will have on employment in Lanarkshire. I represent Cambuslang, which has in it the Clydebridge steel plant, which is a sister to the Ravenscraig-Dalzell complex. Clydebridge takes the plate from Dalzell and performs specialised finishing treatment, including quenching and tempering, and is one of only two such facilities in Europe. The Clydebridge works are also unique in having a plasma arc cutter, which cuts the steel without changing its molecular structure and leaves it ready for welding. That is typical of the specialised skill in the Clydebridge plant.
  Over the past 15 years, the Cambuslang area has had nothing but dramatic job losses. We have shared with the Glasgow, Shettleston constituency the effects of the closure of the Clyde ironworks and in Cambuslang itself the Hallside steelworks have closed. There have been
  56
  dramatic reductions in the number of jobs available at Clydebridge itself, and only 150 people work there now. Only this year, the Redpath Dorman Long steel stockholders closed. I used to work in the Hoover factory, which 15 years ago employed 5,800 people, but now employs only 1,000. The Cambuslang area has been devastated. Although it is within the Glasgow boundaries, one feels that it is part of Lanarkshire. A number of its people are employed at Ravenscraig so there will be an effect on them quite apart from the direct consequences of closure on Cydebridge itself.
  The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside said that some English Conservative Back Benchers had spoken out against the closure of Ravenscraig. My hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell, North and for Motherwell, South have mentioned my next point, but perhaps it comes more forcibly from someone like me who sees the value of the British state, and who believes that it is unique, and should be kept because it serves the needs of the people. If the closure of Ravenscraig goes ahead, it will signal the beginning of a social move in Scotland away from the desire to remain part of the Union with England and Wales.
  I firmly believe in the British state and will always work for it because I believe that we should reduce barriers, not build them. However, Conservative Members should have no illusions about the attitude of Scottish people if this goes ahead. It is up to the Secretary of State to show the Scottish people that there is something to be gained by being part of the Union. He must deliver this to the people of Scotland, not just the people of Ravenscraig, not as a totem and not as a symbol of industrial virility but as a sign that we have a Scottish steel industry as part of a modern industrial society. If he does not, Conservative Members who regard themselves as part of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party will be shown by the pages of history that they have sown the seeds of disunity between Scotland and England.
  5.55 pm
  Sir Hal Miller: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) in expressing my conviction of the benefits of, and my adherence to, the Union, although I might differ from him on the extent to which the Government have delivered in support of that Union. Some of my hon. Friends might feel that we have delivered a great deal too much. However, I do not want to broaden our debate on Ravenscraig.
  I should declare an interest as a consultant to the steel division of Glynwed Ltd., which conducts rolling operations. However, I have neither sought from the firm, nor has it given me, any information of relevance to the debate.
  I want to explore the concept of a Scottish steel industry, as opposed to a United Kingdom steel industry. I have with me some rather interesting figures about the extent to which Scotland depends on metal manufacture and the metal goods industry, as compared with my region of the west midlands. Whereas 5 per cent. of employment in the west midlands, representing over 102,000 workers, is in metal goods, in Scotland the figures are 1 per cent. and 17,000 workers. In metal manufacture, the figures are 1·6 per cent. and 31,000 workers in the west midlands as opposed to 0·6 per cent. and 11,500 workers in Scotland.

  57
  When I add to those figures the fact that output at Ravenscraig is preponderantly directed outside Scotland, I find some difficulty in understanding the concept of a Scottish steel industry as opposed to a United Kingdom steel industry. I accept that steel is a basic industry, but we have a steel industry in the United Kingdom. It is being fortified and modernised, and I rejoice in that. However, I find it difficult to believe in the concept of a uniquely Scottish steel industry serving a Scottish market, in the light of those figures.
  I understand that concept less when I reflect that there used to be a uniquely west midlands private steel industry, but it was put out of business when British Steel was subsidised, largely as a result of the Labour party's failure to close the so-called Beswick plants. It wanted to keep a larger capacity than the market could take and was prepared to subsidise ad infinitum. The only result was to put out of business the private steel plants in the west midlands, and eventually to bring British Steel almost to its knees.
  I am no apologist for British Steel. I resigned my minor position over the issue of British Steel being subsidised to put private firms out of business. Loud have been my complaints that British Steel has been subsidised—to get more topical—to give unfair assistance to Sheffield Forgemasters as opposed to the private firm of Walter Somers. I am certainly no apologist for British Steel, but it is slightly unfair to continue describing the company as one that operates a monopoly when it has only 60 per cent. of the market.
  I would not be adverse to British Steel being asked to put up its Scottish plant for sale, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). That is a splendid idea. If a company wanted to take on that responsibility and felt that it could make better use of British Steel's assets, I would very much support such a development. Nevertheless, I return to the point that the outcome would still not constitute a Scottish steel industry. The operation may be located in Scotland, but certainly its market is not there, for the reasons that I have already given.
  I am looking for a level playing field. We in the west midlands do not feel that we have been playing on one. All our expanding industries were directed or redirected to Scotland under the industrial development certificate policy, thus weakening the west midlands' industrial base, with no gain to Scotland.
  Scotland still enjoys higher subsidies from central Government. If one examines regional assistance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nothing to do with it."] Yes, I am going to talk about assistance per head of population. Last year, it totalled £30 per head in Scotland and only £5 per head in the west midlands, despite the fact that household incomes are £4,500 in Scotland compared with £4,000 in the west midlands.
  The hon. Member for Rutherglen speaks about the Government delivering on the Union. They are delivering a higher subsidy to the Health Service in Scotland, making a much greater investment in its infrastructure, and providing a higher grant to local authorities in respect of the community charge. I am confident that the Government are more than delivering in maintaining the Union. I am only asking that there should be a more level playing field.
  58
  I see no point in trying to save Ravenscraig at the expense of another plant in the United Kingdom. There are no grounds for interfering with the commercial management decision that has been made, and there is no cause for different rules to apply in Scotland than in the rest of the Union.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I call Mr. Jim Sillars.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Jim Sillars rose——
  Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You would not expect me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to question the Chair's right to call speakers in whichever order it chooses. However, I shall be grateful for your assurance that you will bear in mind the specific constituency interests of right hon. and hon. Members, and the relationship between Gartcosh, which I represent, and the whole Ravenscraig scenario.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly bear that and all other factors in mind when calling right hon. and hon. Members to speak.
  Mr. Sillars: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) argued that if a country exports most of the products of its industry, it cannot claim ownership of that industry. If one follows the logic of that argument, it must be so that Saudi Arabia does not have an oil industry. Scotland has fishery, whisky and electronics industries, and the bulk of their products are exported. Nevertheless, they are extremely important in strategic terms to the Scottish economy.
  Every time that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove rises to his feet in the House, or appears on radio or television, some right hon. and hon. Members welcome his intervention, because he clearly expresses the views that we have held for some time about the value of the so-called United Kingdom.
  The view held by the Scottish nationalists, which is shared by the Liberal Democrats, is that we would prefer Scotland to have an independent steel industry. Not everyone here knows that in Scotland—but I exclude certain Conservative Members—the shop stewards in particular have it as a priority to seek to reverse British Steel's decision concerning Ravenscraig. Given the extreme importance of the debate, we bow to that decision on this occasion—always reserving the right to state our position when we consider that it is relevant and necessary to do so.
  If I can get the attention of the Secretary of State and of the chairman of the Tory party in Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), I return to the point that I made in an earlier intervention about the need to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs now, with the specific objective of investigating British Steel's decision—particularly given the invitation extended in the Government's amendment for British Steel
  "to explain and defend its decision"
  and to provide information.
  The Secretary of State responded to my intervention with a cheap debating point. He said, quite fairly, that Donald Stewart and Gordon Wilson had refused to serve on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I acknowledge that, and I personally, and my hon. Friend the Member for

  59
  Moray (Mrs. Ewing), regret that they took that action, which we regard as being mistaken at that time. However, they would not have vetoed—nor would they have the power to veto—the setting up of a Scottish Select Committee, yet that is effectively what is being done by Conservative Members.
  The Government amendment will be passed tonight because the English legions will be trooped in. The House will then be inviting British Steel——
  Ms. Margerie Mowlam: What a silly man.
  Mr. Sillars: Does the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) want to intervene?
  Ms. Mowlam: No, it was me who was calling the hon. Gentleman a silly man.
  Mr. Sillars: Does anyone else wish to intervene? Apparently remarks are being offered only from a sedentary position, so I shall continue.
  The Government are asking the House to challenge British Steel to defend its position. To whom will it make that defence? The House does not have a suitable instrument of examination for investigating the company, and we cannot trust the Government. I quote from a letter dated 23 February sent to kin Lawson by the Minister of State, Scottish Office:
  "I welcome Sir Robert Scholey's recent confirmation that the statement which he made in December 1987 concerning the future of the Scottish plant"
  which refers to his statement in the prospectus—
  "still stands and that if there were to be any change in this position in the future, all those concerned would be properly consulted and notified."
  Earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State told the House that when he met Sir Robert he did not think that it would have been appropriate for Sir Robert to have told him about matters that the board was about to discuss. How can we trust the Government to engage in a proper examination of British Steel's defence even if it is prepared to advance a defence'
  We require instead the resources and authority of a Select Committee, which can call on British Steel witnesses to come before it and be properly examined so that the full facts may be properly ventilated. Anyone who knows about the limited resources available to Opposition parties will be aware that a Select Committee is vital to ensure proper, genuine, detailed examination of what is claimed to be British Steel's position.
  It worried me a little that the Secretary of State prayed in aid Tommy Brennan. I join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) in not entirely going along with the consensus this afternoon. The Secretary of State claimed that Mr. Brennan told him this morning, "It's a commercial, not an emotional, issue." The right hon. and learned Gentleman implied in his interpretation of that remark that Tommy Brennan and the Ravenscraig workers are pushing aside all other considerations except British Steel's definition of what is commercial. I believe that the Secretary of State misinterpreted Tommy Brennan's remarks to him this morning.
  I certainly cannot agree with the argument that the closure can be judged only on the commercial decisions as defined by British Steel. It will narrowly define what it regards as commercial criteria. I do not agree with the hon.
  60
  Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who says that the market should decide. Has he never heard of a rigged market, particularly for an organisation that has almost monopoly production? British Steel's long-term aim is to get rid of its Scottish operations and to utilise some assets by selling them second hand in parts of the international community, thus eliminating any possibility of competition from north of the border.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose——
  Mr. Sillars: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman; he has intervened several times. We are talking about an organisation that can rig the market.
  I was delighted to hear the speech made by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who properly lectured the Government about community responsibility. Let us take the national interest into account and measure it against British Steel's narrow definition of what is commercial. Let us take the closure of Gartcosh, which it told us was commercially unviable because it was a long distance from markets in the United Kingdom. Gartcosh's production amounted to 500,000 tonnes a year. Last year, British Steel imported 10 times as much from places further from the United Kingdom market than Lanarkshire.
  This afternoon, we are joining everyone in demanding a reversal. We should all acknowledge that we face formidable obstacles. British Steel is a private company. It can claim that in law, as distinct from morality, it is responsible only to its shareholders. It is a cash-rich private company. The WBS Phillips and Drew assessment says:
  "The balance sheet is outstandingly strong with net cash of an estimated £180 million after allowing for the Walker acquisition plus investments worth considerably more than the £489 million book value."
  There is no danger of British Steel having to approach the Government or another external organisation.
  British Steel's market strategy has been clear from its investment strategy. In the current capital programme, not a brown penny has been earmarked for Scottish plants. Its biggest shareholders are impersonal institutions; 59·45 per cent. of its shares are held by nominees, the umbrella cover for institutional shareholders; 61 per cent. own over 1 million shares each. We are talking about people who are not terribly responsive to the arguments that we advance on behalf of the community. The Walker purchase gave British Steel the ability to buy in and fill gaps in the market if it makes a mistake in production.
  I want to turn the attention of the House, particularly of Opposition Members, to the problem of the atmosphere in which British Steel will respond to our arguments. If Scholey, the board and its shareholders lived in Scotland there would be no problem in mobilising pressure against them. Every time they stepped out the house or the car, they would wince at the public agitation, but they live in an entirely different part of the United Kingdom. While many of us objected to the tone of the Evening Standard leader last week, it simply popularised what the Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Times had been saying. We will be appealing to a hostile board, and probably hostile institutional shareholders, living in an atmosphere hostile to the Scottish people.
  How do we achieve the mechanism necessary to start shifting the board of British Steel? It can be done only by political power that carries a real threat to British Steel. I

  61
  must confess that the role of the Labour party is absolutely crucial. British Steel is extremely nervous about a Labour Government. Page 43 of British Steel's prospectus says:
  "The policies of opposition parties are the responsibility of the parties concerned. The Labour Party's 1987 manifesto set out the Party's policy for social ownership … Mr. Bryan Gould, Labour Party spokesman on Trade and Industry, stated during the Parliamentary passage of the British Steel Act 1988 that 'Opposition Members and the trade union movement strongly believe that the steel industry is most appropriately owned in a form of public ownership. We shall decide that form and the order of priorities by which it is to be secured when we return to power"'.—[Official Report 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 184.]
  Labour Members tell us, and they may be right, that the Labour party will form the next Government after the next election, which could be next year.
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: The hon. Gentleman was right the first time.
  Mr. Sillars: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that.
  Mr. Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman wants the Tories to win.
  Mr. Sillars: No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. For a range of machiavellian reasons I would like to see a Labour Government, but we are seeking unity so we will set that aside.
  Let us concentrate on the Labour party's claims and its motion before the House, which says that "everything possible" must be done. There could be an election at exactly the same time as British Steel is saying that it will close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that the Labour party would give it the appropriate priority. Is not this an appropriate priority for public ownership? If British Steel rejects the good commercial case put by the shop stewards and the people of Scotland—it will do so only out of spite—and if the Labour party, whose policy review comes out on Thursday, said "Let British Steel be under no illusions. If it goes ahead with its plans to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig it will be taken into public ownership by a Labour Government when it is elected next year", that would have a dramatic impact on the board of British Steel. It is the socialist answer that the working people of Scotland expect in reply to the consequences of Thatcherism.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Richard Holt: I am delighted, as an Englishman with a steel works in his constituency, to be able to take part in this United Kingdom debate. I have been trying for the life of me to work out why so many Scots get themselves worked up into such a lather about this issue.
  History shows that we are talking about a steel mill that is 27 years and 20 days old. It has not been going since Adam was a boy. The steelworks has been going since before the first world war, but the strip mill was introduced on 1 May 1963. It is not a longstanding mill about which passions will be roused because it has been in operation for a long time. It was constructed for the wrong reasons. It was brought in by Harold Macmillan's Government. They believed in the possible need for additional steel mill capacity. The experts said that there should be one new strip mill, in south Wales. The Macmillan Government
  62
  decided to have two—one in south Wales and the other in Scotland, which was later named Ravenscraig—to provide employment.
  That was not a commercial but an employment decision and it is on record:
  "The main concern of the layman is where these plants are to be located. The decision of the Iron and Steel Board and the acceptance by the companies … was that it would be a good plan to have these two installations, both capable of considerable expansion. That has made it possible to make a solution which, while no doubt not acceptable to everybody, seems a fair and reasonable solution of the rather difficult location problem."
  Ravenscraig was to produce 500,000 tonnes of steel——
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Nissan is in the hon. Gentleman's patch.
  Mr. Holt: The Nissan plant represents diversification from the shipbuilding industry which is being replaced in the north-east of England. That good development is bringing many jobs to the area.
  Harold Macmillan said:
  "That was the point put to me by Scottish hon. Members and others who came to see me. All that is very much better than if we had located the whole plant in Wales."—[Official Report, 18 November 1958; Vol. 595, c. 1017–9.]
  The Government, under the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, and the President of the Board of Trade, Sir David Eccles, made those decisions to create employment.
  What about Colvilles? Its forebodings in 1962 were correct. It was practically ruined because it had undertaken a project that it thought was unwise. Colvilles almost went into bankruptcy and had to be bailed out in that preliminary construction period before it made any money.
  This all comes back to a commercial decision by the board of British Steel, which says, "This is the international and European market for steel." The board does not say that everything north of Hadrian's wall is inviolate and cannot be touched by the people who are charged with the responsibility for that industry. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) has come into the Chamber to hear me speak, because she was here for the rest of the debate. The redundancies in my area far exceed the 770 people who will be made redundant under the Ravenscraig proposals. People in my area have overcome that difficulty. There is a booming economy again on Teesside, brought about by the district council and other people. Just last week Derwentside council made an announcement about Consett, another strip mill which was closed with the loss of many jobs and without all the synthetic nonsense——
  Ms. Mowlam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Holt: I shall not give way because of the time.
  Ms. Mowlam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Holt: I shall not give way. If the hon. Lady had been here for the whole debate, as I have been, I should happily give way.
  Ms. Mowlam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been in and out of the Chamber over the past hour and a half. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) did not have his glasses on, so he might not have seen me. I should like to set the record straight. If I

  63
  have not just been listening to the hon. Gentleman, I have nevertheless enjoyed contributions of a much higher calibre and quality than the one to which we are listening.
  Mr. Holt: Over the past hour and a half, the hon. Lady has been out more than she has been in. That is obvious to anyone who has looked at the Chamber.
  What is the debate about? It is about whether pressure should be brought to bear on the board of British Steel to change its mind about its decision. What will happen if the campaign is successful and British Steel has to change that decision? One of two things will happen: somewhere else will have to suffer—it could be my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Redcar—or we will be left with a lame dog board for British Steel. The board would never be able to make any decision because it would be afraid of a repetition of the hoo-hah by Scottish Members. We are over-represented by Scottish Members in this place. Any matter that relates to Scotland immediately results in the nonsense to which we listen in these debates.
  Last week it was announced that there would be a modern, clean industrial and leisure development at Consett which will employ 1,300 people in jobs that are not related to the steel industry and are not historic but futuristic. We should look forward to such developments. [Interruption.] Some Labour Members are looking at the clock and saying that I should get on. I remind them that I sat here the other night through an entire debate on the development of the Clyde port in relation to Tees and Hartlepool harbours. One hon. Member spoke for an hour and five minutes and Conservative Members could not speak. I make no apology, therefore, for taking my full time in contributing. The more the Opposition shout and scream, the more likely it is that I shall continue.
  It is interesting that no Labour Member from an English or Welsh constituency has spoken. By definition, such Members must have an interest in British Steel's future and the viability of jobs in their areas. This has been a narrow debate when we should have debated many more matters involving British Steel. Apart from one or two Opposition Members, I do not think that the Opposition have bothered to look at what there is at Ravenscraig. I know that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) knows about it and I was pleased to hear him make a speech about the technical side.
  The Opposition have criticised the board of British Steel left, right and centre, but the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) let the cat out of the bag when he said that it was awash with cash and was profitable and well run. This profitable, well-run organisation cost the taxpayer millions of pounds a year at one time. It now wants to expand and diversify in Germany by buying German steel plants so that the industry operates in a wider European context. Yet they talk about a 27-year-old plant as though it was the heart and soul of Scotland. It is not; it is a steel works like any other which must stand or fall like any other. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Scotland?"] The debate is about steel, not about Scotland. If we want a debate about Scotland, let us have a debate about Scotland's over-representation in this place. Scotland has far too many Members of Parliament for that country's
  64
  population and English Members are forced, by definition, to represent a great many more people than their Scottish counterparts.
  It is because I represent people who work in, and depend upon, steel works that I am pleased to have been able to contribute. It is a pity that no other hon. Member from a constituency south of the border with steel works located in it has taken the trouble to contribute. A great deal of the resentment that has been expressed is synthetic and much of what has been said is no more than political posturing. I do not believe for one moment that British Steel would in any circumstances be justified in changing the decision that it has properly made.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the priorities outlined by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), it does not surprise me that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) reminded me, 43,000 jobs on Teesside have been lost in the past 10 years. It should not surprise the hon. Gentleman that Opposition Members regard the decision as an extremely serious matter and an important event in the history of Scotland. The House should address itself once more to the serious problems that the people of Lanarkshire, and of Scotland more generally, face which they expect us, in turn, to face.
  Earlier this afternoon I referred to the relevance of Gartcosh. It is appropriate to contrast the sacrifice of Gartcosh with the presence and excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who personifies all that is best in Lanarkshire. His presence was a sign of the commitment that we have seen in the Lanarkshire steel industry—in Ravenscraig as well as Gartcosh—and the industry's achievements, which are there for all to see, should not be lightly dismissed. When the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs considered Gartcosh in 1985–86, most of us gave a warning that if, on the basis of commercial judgments such as those urged upon us in respect of Ravenscraig this afternoon, British Steel continued in its determination, it would weaken the prospects of Ravenscraig. Clearly that has happened. The decision need not and should not be fatal.
  But even in the non-partisan spirit of this debate, I must tell the Secretary of State that it is not enough for him to tell us the limited amount that we have been told and to feel that, on the basis of his and his ministerial colleagues' records, they will not be called to account. We can fight, as we will fight, for a future for Ravenscraig and reserve the right to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has not even bothered to be here this afternoon, the Prime Minister and the rest of the Government why the priorities of the men and women of Ravenscraig and their brave commitment to the industry have not been reflected in Government policy.
  The Secretary of State told us a little more than we heard last week. He told us about the fateful meeting on local election day, 3 May. But what happened during the preceding months? Around Christmas time, some of us asked the Prime Minister and, a week later, the Secretary of State for Scotland, what the Government intended to do in view of the rumours that we were hearing. We asked whether the Government would use their influence. Even then, some of us pleaded with the Government to think about using their golden share, and we were told that the

  65
  Government could not use their golden share because they had placed restrictions on its use. The Secretary of State quoted Tommy Brennan, and Tommy knows that we support him and his first-class trade union colleagues to the hilt. But the Secretary of State cannot be selective. Tommy Brennan did not campaign for privatisation and, when privatisation was achieved, Tommy Brennan did not advocate that no recognition should he given to the Scottish factors. That was in contrast to what happened in the electricity industry.
  Dr. Reid: Gartcosh?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) rightly reminds us that he did not campaign for the closure of Gartcosh. The Government cannot merely go ahead with their policies and then say, "What a surprise; British Steel has told us that it is getting rid of the jobs because of commercial factors but it will not give us the reasons." I have to tell the Secretary of State that the whole thing comes as no surprise to me. There is no legislative obligation on British Steel, although it has a huge moral obligation—to which, so far, it has not responded.
  I hoped that, despite the errors of the past, and although the Secretary of State seems forlorn, alone and unsupported by most of his Cabinet colleagues, the House will decide that there is a case for fighting for the Ravenscraig plant and the future of the industry because of considerations connected with productivity, economic strategy and the experience and achievements of the work force.
  If that happens, we must begin by agreeing not to rewrite history. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) repeated an argument that we have seen advanced in the popular press, in England especially, which is no doubt inspired by Mr. Ingham and the advisers at No. 10. We are told that Harold Macmillan got it all wrong and that he is to be bad-mouthed. I do not recall as a youngster being a great fan of Harold Macmillan, but as a result of his decision hundreds of thousands of families in Lanarkshire and Llanwern achieved a measure of prosperity that this Government have failed to deliver. It is right that the wealth of a nation should be fairly shared throughout that nation and that productivity should be based on a sound economy in which the need for investment and a regional strategy is recognised. Harold Macmillan at least had the wisdom to see that. We need proper training opportunities to ensure that our young people in particular are given the right to work and the right to a future. Given the opportunities that we have been told are offered in Europe, why is the steel industry in Scotland and in other parts of Britain facing the problems of which we have heard this afternoon? The truth is that the Government's policies have created divisions.
  Ravenscraig has shown a record commitment to production. I have heard no complaints this afternoon about profits, if they alone are to provide the motive. The work force at Ravenscraig has been shamefully abandoned because of the decision of a ruthless private monopoly. I am not in favour of giving a private or public monopoly that kind of power or influence over people's lives. There should be accountability. We should not leave those matters and the quality of people's lives to market forces alone. With proper investment and planning and a proper
  66
  strategy for the steel industry, there is a future for Ravenscraig and for Scottish steel. I hope that the House will accept that view.
  I do not believe that tonight's debate will be the end of the matter. In time, the Scottish and British people 'will decide. In time, they will reject influences which represent the arrogance of intellect and the brutality of power and which history will judge to our shame.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: I begin by paying a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). We all understand why he cannot be in the Chamber for the winding-up speeches. He made a brave and thoughtful speech which showed that he knows a great deal about the steel industry. His speech also showed the enormous strength of his commitment to his constituents, to the Ravenscraig steelworks and to the Scottish steel industry as a whole. The expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South has been recognised on the Opposition Benches for a long time. It is a pity that the Government failed to listen to him because if they had done so they would not be in this mess today.
  My colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South, have spelt out a logical, economic and commercial case for the retention of the Ravenscraig strip mill. There have been no emotional appeals about unemployment and the social consequences for the Lanarkshire area. I live in Hamilton and I know what the economic and social consequences will be. None of my colleagues made that appeal. We have argued the economic and commercial case instead. Conservative Back-Benchers from Scotland also made a clear logical case. They argued strongly for the retention of the mill. It was regrettable that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), in his highly intemperate speech, attacked his hon. Friends as much as he was attacking my colleagues.
  Over the weekend I read many press reports stating that the Secretary of State for Scotland was at one with his Cabinet colleagues on the issue. Having listened to the Secretary of State today and having read the amendment to our motion, I must agree with the reports. The Secretary of State has sold out to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Last week, with regard to the closure, the Secretary of State said:
  "I must make it clear that I deplored the decision and its implications for the work force. I am also very disturbed by the potential implications of closing the hot strip mill for the future of Ravenscraig as a whole … we shall seek to persuade British Steel to reconsider its proposal in the interests both of the company and of its work force."
  In response to a question from my hon. Friend he Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), he said:
  "I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the desirability of doing that which can be done to reverse the decision.''—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 887–88.]
  The Government's amendment to our motion does not contain those sentiments. It contains no reference to persuading the company to change its mind. The amendment contains no reference to the Government doing everything that they can to reverse the decision. The only thing that the amendment invites British Steel to do is
  "to explain and defend its decision;"

  67
  It does nothing more than that. The only reference to "deplores" is in connection with
  "any attempt to extract political capital from this event".
  I agree with the Secretary of State about that. The only person who has been trying to extract political capital from the proposal is the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has been playing both ends against the middle. He is trying to appear as the saviour of the Scottish steel industry while in Cabinet he caves in. He is trying to be everything to everybody and he fails to be anything to anyone.
  The Secretary of State asked whether we should allow decisions to be taken on the commercial judgment of British Steel. I do not disagree with that. But that is not the only criterion that we should consider. We should also consider the economic and social consequences of the closure. However, let us consider the commercial aspect. Ravenscraig is profitable and its productivity is high. It continues to break its own records and the plant is at least as good as any in Europe. The work force is superb and its products are an essential part at present of the British Steel range, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South explained. There is an increasing need for steel products in the United Kingdom for car production and for the North sea.
  Given those commercial considerations, what considerations can British Steel place against them? If British Steel can put up commercial considerations against the case that we have made logically and sensibly today—a case that I hope the Secretary of State will put logically and sensibly to British Steel—and British Steel says that it does not accept our argument, what will the Secretary of State do about that? It was clear from the Secretary of State's speech today that he is going to do absolutely nothing.
  Mr. Rifkind: What would the hon. Gentleman do?
  Mr. Maxton: If the Secretary of State would for once take the debate seriously and listen, he might receive answers to his questions. He is the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is responsible and he has the power. He must use all his power and influence to stop the closure.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maxton: It was the Secretary of State who privatised the industry and he refused to include the golden share that some of us proposed in Committee which would have stopped this exercise. The Secretary of State cannot escape his responsibility.
  Does the Secretary of State have a series of meetings arranged with Bob Scholey to ensure that——
  Mr. Riddick: Give way.
  Mr. Maxton: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Riddick rose——
  Mr. Maxton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you throw the hon. Gentleman out if he cannot sit down?
  Will the Secretary of State at least tell us whether he will have some meetings? Has he prepared a detailed case for Ravenscraig to put to British Steel? The Secretary of State has economic and financial leverage. Has it been made
  68
  clear to British Steel that its actions are unacceptable to the Government? Will he take up the point made by Hamish Morrison? Will he refer British Steel to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will he give whatever help he can within the terms of the European Community to assist British Steel, if it feels that it needs help over a short period to retain Ravenscraig? For example, will the Secretary of State take up the proposal on thin slab casting made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South? That was a clear and definite proposal which, if taken up, would require Government financing to fulfil it. Will the Secretary of State investigate that option?
  If British Steel refuses to change its mind under all the pressure, will the Scottish Office finance a full examination of the future of steel in Britain and in Scotland? Will it insist that British Steel makes its Scottish plants available for sale immediately so that if there is a possibility of a Scottish—or another British—steel industry it must be available as a going concern, not as a rundown industry that no one would want. Will the Scottish Office finance a feasibility study on the Scottish steel industry? Will it work actively to form a consortium in Scotland to purchase and run Scottish plants if necessary?
  Those are some practical questions, and the Minister of State has a responsibility to answer them. He is the last chance for the Secretary of State to have any of his credibility in Scotland restored. The Minister of State has a responsibility to tell the Scottish people what he will do to save the Scottish steel industry. If the Minister of State can give no answers to those questions, the people of Scotland will pass their judgment upon him.
  6.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in welcoming the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) back to the House after his illness. His personal commitment to his constituents was well illustrated by his presence today. I am sure that the whole House will wish him a continued and complete recovery from his illness.
  However, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South must have been disappointed by the tone and content of the debate. Apart from his informed contribution, to a large extent it was coloured by political point scoring and nit picking, which is not in the best interests of the Ravenscraig work force. There was a notable, lamentable absence of contributions from Opposition Members of any indication underneath their high-flown rhetoric of what specific steps the Labour party would take to change British Steel's attitude. Just what would the Opposition do?
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked about the golden share. He knows that that is not relevant to this issue. It carries no voting rights. Its purpose is to prevent a holding in the company from reaching 15 per cent. or more, and thus it is designed until 1993 to prevent hostile takeovers. The hon. Members for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to competition and a possible reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  It is for anyone affected by or with an interest in this issue to raise the matter with the Director General of Fair Trading or with the European Community authorities as appropriate. I would not seek to dissuade anyone from

  69
  bringing it to the attention of the appropriate authorities. It is not a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State; it would be for the Director General of Fair Trading and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to determine.
  I have no doubt at all that our general approach to industry is correct in creating an enterprise economy. We have seen that demonstrated in Scotland, where we now have higher manufacturing output and higher employment than ever before, even when manufacturing employment has risen in the past two years by 16,000, and that is on a broader-based and more diversified economy, with tens of thousands of jobs in new industries as a result of inward investment. But conditions change. We are right to press this matter with British Steel, because it was wrong before and it could be wrong again. Market conditions and operational conditions can change. We are right to test British Steel on this decision.
  I inform my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and readers of the London Evening Standard that Scotland is a small country with a population of about one tenth that of England. Although steel is no longer vital to the Scottish economy, contributing only about 2·5 per cent. of manufacturing output, and although unemployment in Lanarkshire has almost halved in the past three years to stand at under 11 per cent. it would still have a big impact if all the remaining thousands of steel jobs in Lanarkshire were to disappear following the decision on 770 jobs now. I would not dissent from those who argue that that consequence could flow from this announcement. Of course, they would also take too many other jobs in other industries dependent on the steel industry. We have a duty to involve ourselves.
  I am not proposing that we should take new powers or seek to inject cash into the industry, which would be in breach of the treaty of Paris, nor that we should change our policy. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are strong supporters of privatisation. Indeed, I had the privilege of steering the steel and electricity legislation through their respective Committee stages. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I firmly support the hands-off approach of allowing industry to take decisions on commercial grounds. That approach is now transforming Scotland's economy.
  Mr. Dewar: I have a one-line question for the Minister of State. He has not said what he will do to bring about what I understand to be the ministerial team's desired result, and that is a change of mind by British Steel. Will he now be explicit?
  Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman had not intervened, he would have found that he did not need to. I intend to refer to that matter.
  When a decision to close a key industry, possibly leading to the disappearance of a whole industry in Scotland, without warning, consultation or adequate explanation takes place, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has a positive duty to involve himself. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has returned from the far east, where he has been seeking to persuade companies there in their commercial interest to locate in the United Kingdom. Some time ago his Department succeeded in persuading Nissan that it was in its commercial interest to locate in the
  70
  north-east of England, assisted by about £125 million of regional assistance. I am delighted for the north-east of England that that success took place.
  I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove that the regional assistance policy that so helped Nissan to locate in the north-east of England is the same regional assistance policy, subject to the same objective criteria, that applies throughout the United Kingdom.
  Although I support market forces and a free market economy, I do not believe that that should be an excuse for an abrogation of duty or for total inertia. The Secretary of State has a duty to question, challenge, test, explore and probe a major industrial decision such as this. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland were right to speak out as they did last week.
  Mr. John McAllion: Will the Minister of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: I shall not give way; I am short of time.
  A range of commercial issues should be explored with the company. For example, we should probe the proposal to reduce capacity while, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) pointed out, imports are rising, with all the implications that that has for the balance of payments.
  There is the single plate mill strategy for Dalzell, on which a Glasgow university paper was prepared and submitted to British Steel and on which the Scottish Office's own paper has also been prepared and submitted. We should discuss with British Steel the implications for Ravenscraig as a whole, and the work that is being commissioned by Motherwell district council will also be valuable in making the case for investment and in considering the development of the steel-using infrastructure of the area. There is the possibility of a welded pipe mill, as proposed by the unions at Dalzell, which would also have the effect of reducing imports. There is also the possible disposal of Ravenscraig to another owner, on which we should press for detail and commitment and thus create the competition that is so dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars).
  At worst, we should seek a better explanation from British Steel of its reasons for closure—an explanation to us and to the work force at Ravenscraig. There is also the contingency work to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred on assistance for the area in the same way as assistance was brought to Merseyside, Sunderland and Inverclyde—including, one would hope, help from the British steel industry.
  The motion shows little of the real will that is necessary to establish unity of purpose of the kind for which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State called. It seems that Opposition Members have learnt nothing about the steel industry from the debacle of their 10 years of office in the 1970s. The motion calls on the Government to do "everything possible to reverse" the closure, but what on earth does that mean? The Opposition have had the opportunity, but they have not spelt that out in the debate.
  Does it mean more cash from the taxpayer? In the decade from 1975, about £14,340 million at today's prices was put into the steel industry. In 1979–80, the taxpayer had to subsidise a loss of £1·8 billion—£5 million a day—and that did not secure efficiency. All it did was subsidise overmanning and inefficiency. BSC's output was at the

  71
  bottom of the league when we came to office. Anyway, a cash injection would be a breach of the treaty of Paris, and the Labour party knows it.
  As the hon. Member for Govan and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) asked, does it mean that the Opposition propose to bring back nationalisation under the guise of the weasel words of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)? Again, we waited in vain for an answer.
  I remind the House that nationalisation ripped the heart out of the Scottish steel industry in the first place. It destroyed an independent, self-contained Scottish steel industry. It transferred control to London and turned the steel industry into an irreversible monopoly—so scrambled did its structure become that it could not be disentangled on privatisation. It left Scotland at the end of a branch line in each product division. That is what has led us to the parlous condition of that Scottish industry today. Nor did nationalisation save a single job. Under nationalised control, since 1974, 12,500 jobs were lost and 14 or 15 plants were closed in Scotland, several by Labour Governments, including steelmaking at Glengarnock.
  Nationalisation would solve nothing and the Opposition have failed in their duty to spell out to the House whether that is the disastrous plan that they would now propose. Or do they plan some kind of updated yuppified nationalisation under the terms "social ownership" or "social control", taking powers to control, compel and direct, and grinding out enterprise in the way that so damaged the economy?
  At the heart of the Labour party's rhetoric is a vacuum. The Opposition motion offers a blank page, with a blank cheque attached. That is insupportable to any responsible body or individual. What is needed is a realistic, responsible and positive approach, such as was offered this morning when my right hon. and learned Friend and I met the trade union shop stewards, and such as that taken at the weekend by the Committee for the Defence of the Steel Industry in Scotland and such as is embodied in the Government amendment.
  We and they recognise that British Steel's decisions are and must continue to be for British Steel to take, based on its commercial judgment. There can be no question of a law-breaking subsidy or of seeking, beyond the powers that we have, to direct decisions. However, we have a duty to press British Steel to explain its reasons; to urge it to take its Scottish work force into its confidence and to give it the facts; to question its broader intention; and to challenge it to defend such an important and irreversible decision, with all that it could mean for the future of the Scottish steel industry.
  It is in that spirit that I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion and support the Government amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 301.

  Division No. 217]

  [7.01 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Alton, David

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  72

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Beith, A. J.

  Illsley, Eric

  Bell, Stuart

  Ingram, Adam

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Janner, Greville

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Blair, Tony

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Boateng, Paul

  Kennedy, Charles

  Bradley, Keith

  Kilfedder, James

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Lambie, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Buchan, Norman

  Lewis, Terry

  Buckley, George J.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Caborn, Richard

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Callaghan, Jim

  Loyden, Eddie

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  McAllion, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McFall, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Clay, Bob

  McLeish, Henry

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McWilliam, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Madden, Max

  Coleman, Donald

  Marion, Mrs Alice

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Marek, Dr John

  Corbett, Robin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Cox, Tom

  Martlew, Eric

  Crowther, Stan

  Maxton, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Meale, Alan

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Michael, Alun

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Darling, Alistair

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dewar, Donald

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Dixon, Don

  Mullin, Chris

  Dobson, Frank

  Murphy, Paul

  Douglas, Dick

  Nellist, Dave

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Faulds, Andrew

  Patchett, Terry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Fisher, Mark

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Flannery, Martin

  Reid, Dr John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Richardson, Jo

  Foster, Derek

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Foulkes, George

  Rooker, Jeff

  Fraser, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Rowlands, Ted

  Galbraith, Sam

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Sheerman, Barry

  George, Bruce

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Short, Clare

  Gould, Bryan

  Sillars, Jim

  Graham, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

  Grocott, Bruce

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Hardy, Peter

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Spearing, Nigel

  Haynes, Frank

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Strang, Gavin

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Henderson, Doug

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Home Robertson, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Hood, Jimmy

  Wallace, James

  Howells, Geraint

  Walley, Joan

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  73

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Martyn Jones.

  Wilson, Brian

  Winnick, David

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dunn, Bob

  Amess, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Amos, Alan

  Evennett, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Favell, Tony

  Ashby, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkins, Robert

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Baldry, Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forth, Eric

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bendall, Vivian

  Franks, Cecil

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Freeman, Roger

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Peter

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gardiner, George

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gill, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Gorst, John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gow, Ian

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ground, Patrick

  Bright, Graham

  Grylls, Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hague, William

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, John

  Butler, Chris

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Cartwright, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hill, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Hind, Kenneth

  Churchill, Mr

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

  Colvin, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Conway, Derek

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Critchley, Julian

  Irvine, Michael

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

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  74

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Riddick, Graham

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Knowles, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knox, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lang, Ian

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Latham, Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lightbown, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sims, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Speed, Keith

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Speller, Tony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Squire, Robin

  Maclean, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Maples, John

  Stokes, Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sumberg, David

  Mates, Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mellor, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mills, Iain

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thorne, Neil

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tracey, Richard

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trippier, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Norris, Steve

  Waller, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Ward, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Watts, John

  Page, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Paice, James

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Whitney, Ray

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Pawsey, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wilshire, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Portillo, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Price, Sir David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raffan, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  75

  Woodcrock, Dr. Mike

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises that British Steel's investment and operational decisions are a matter for the commercial judgement of the company; nevertheless expresses its concern about the potential employment consequences of the company's decision to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig; recognises the considerable productivity achievements of the Ravenscraig workforce; invites British Steel to explain and defend its decision; and deplores any attempt to extract political capital from this event rather than offering any constructive solutions.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  7.13 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the mishandling by Her Majesty's Government of the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
  This is an issue of great magnitude: potentially, it poses the greatest threat of the century to British agriculture. The possible implications of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—or mad cow disease, as it is known—threaten the existence of the entire British cattle herd. Moreover, these serious assertions ignore any possible risks—remote though they may be—of the disease being transmitted to humans. If that awful scenario were to develop, the legacy for which the Thatcher years would be remembered would not be the dismantling of the National Health Service, the privatisation of water or the destruction of our steel industry; the present Administration would be remembered simply for having permitted a new disease to emerge in the human race. However, I shall not develop that argument. I shall concentrate on the immediate issue: British cattle—alone in the world, I might add—have developed BSE, and I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that our first piority is to eradicate it as quickly as possible. The only people who can do that are the Government, but my confidence in their ability to do so wanes by the day.
  Since first entering the House 20 years ago—along with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—I have witnessed many examples of incoherent and confused action, but rarely have I witnessed such incompetence, vacillation and indecision as has been apparent in Ministers' handling of mad cow disease. When the Government have acted, it has usually been a case of "too little, too late". Even the Government's own expert adviser on BSE, Professor Southwood, has admitted that
  "things could have been done a bit quicker",
  and has observed that there is no doubt that it would have been better if we had acted a year earlier. Those are not my words, but those of the Government's independent adviser, whose opinion the Minister—rightly—highly respects.
  Last week, the Minister's bizarre actions epitomised the Government's confusion. He showed all the signs of the vacillation and indecision that are his hallmark. I remind the House that this is the Minister who, ostensibly, was in charge at the time of Chernobyl and who delayed the imposing of restrictions for seven weeks. In those seven weeks, tens of thousands of lambs from areas contaminated with radioactivity entered the food chain.
  The Minister spent the early part of last week showing all the signs of Corporal Jones disease—he stomped from one TV studio to another, as if auditioning for a part in a new production of "Dad's Army". All he seemed to be saying was "Don't panic, don't panic." The results were predictable. When he finally realised that, his expensive PR advisers calmed him down and he moved into the next phase of unsuccessfully trying to feed his young daughter hamburgers. I shall not develop that theme, but I counsel the Minister not to be so foolish in future.
  I concede that this is a difficult issue, but I wish to analyse it coolly——
  Mr. William Cash rose——
  Mr. William Hague rose——
  Dr. Clark: I shall not give way at this stage.
  Among the first questions that must be answered is why the disease arose, and why only in Britain. It is interesting that when Conservative Members find themselves on the rack, all that they can do is barrack and shout abuse.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: What would a Labour Government do about the crisis? Would they ban beef? Would the hon. Gentleman ban beef? What would he do if he were in my right hon. Friend's position?
  Dr. Clark: That is a fair point. I give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that I will enunciate the steps that we think should be taken——
  Mr. Hind: It was a simple question.
  Dr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman is so ignorant that he cannot accept a courteous reply, and a promise from an hon. Member that he will deal with the point, he is beneath contempt. This is a serious problem and the Minister has not dealt with it as firmly as he should have done. I shall explain in words of one syllable, so that even the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) may understand.
  The generally agreed presumption is that meat contaminated with scrapie was fed to cows that developed BSE by one means or another. I shall not go into the particular physiological process. The real question is: why did it happen in the United Kingdom? The key lies in the rendering industry. Before the 1979 general election the Labour Government became aware of the problem in rendering and published tighter draft regulations. That is in the public record. Unfortunately, the new Conservative Government, following their usual practice of rewarding their friends including those in the rendering industry, scrapped those regulations. The rendering industry honestly and unashamedly acknowledged the generosity. The chairman of the United Kingdom Renderers said:
  "The original proposals were very expensive, but there was a distinct change of heart when the Conservatives came into office. They were happy to drop the idea of a code and settle for random testing."
  Mr. Field, an executive member, went a stage further and, referring to the different technology permitted by the weakened regulations, said:
  "This was partly as a result of changes in animal feed techniques but the basic motive was profit."
  The Government's regulations allowed that. This Conservative Administration are directly responsible for the disease appearing in the United Kingdom.
  Faced with a new problem, the Government, understandably, were bemused. For 18 months following the confirmation of the disease by their own vets, they did precisely nothing.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: No.
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman scoffs. If he can tell me what the Government did in the first 18 months, I shall willingly concede the point.
  Mr. Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the diagnosis made by the Ministry vets was retrospective—re-examining the information on cases which had taken place over the preceding 18 months? That is how they knew about it.
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right that in 1985 the disease was first discovered by a Kent vet and that in November 1986 it was finally confirmed by the Ministry's vets. In 1988 the Government wisely appointed a committee under Professor Southwood to look into the problem. It met on 20 June 1988 and acted with commendable speed. The gentlemen were well aware of the seriousness of the problem. The very next day they sent their recommendations to the Minister, but it was not until February 1989 that the Southwood report was published.
  Professor Southwood claims that some of the crucial research suffered a delay of nine months. He specifically referred to the possibility of the disease passing from mother to calf, which is the critical factor. He said:
  "We recommended that such an experiment be started almost as soon as we met, but it did not get under way until the report was published 9 months later."
  Mr. Hague: Has the hon. Gentleman noted in the general conclusions of the report the words:
  "We greatly welcome the speed with which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has brought forward regulations based on the veterinary evidence and on our recommendations?"
  Dr. Clark: Yes, I have read the report and I commend the hon. Gentleman on his assiduity in reading it. It may be that Professor Smallwood—[Laughter.] When I said "Small", I was thinking of some Tory Members. Professor Southwood's mind may not be like a stagnant pool; it may change. The hon. Gentleman rightly quoted Professor Southwood's words, but only yesterday he said the words that I have just quoted. Clearly, Professor Southwood, with the benefit of hindsight, has changed his mind and been honest enough to say so.
  Professor Southwood had a difficult task. With the slashing cuts in research staff which the Government made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may smirk, but thousands of research scientists in agriculture and food have been made redundant by the Government. The state veterinary service has 27 per cent. fewer vets today than when the Government took office. As a result there was a dearth of information and expertise. It is not surprising, therefore, that the conclusions in the report appear fragile today.
  As the Minister repeatedly tells us, the Government's policy is based on Professor Southwood's theories, which must be seriously questioned. In essence, the Government's policy is simply that mad cow disease will in time go away. That is not a policy, but a hope and a prayer. The Government's policy is based on the premise that once the practice of feeding cattle the remains of other ruminants has been stopped and the lengthy incubation period expires, the disease will peter out. They even claim to know when that will be. They give a precise date of 1996. Some of us rather doubt that.
  The Government seem to have underestimated the extent of the problem. They have nailed their colours to the Southwood figure that the number of BSE cases would be
  "of the order of 350–400 per month."
  That figure has been exceeded easily. For the past two months for which figures of confirmed cases are available, there were on average 900 a month. Clearly, the Government have got their figures wrong. In addition, the Government have accepted Southwood's argument that the cumulative total of mad cows would be between 17,000

  79
  and 20,000. That, too, must be seriously questioned because we already have reports of more than 13,000 confirmed cases.
  The basic question mark in the Government's strategy is against the assumption that the disease is not transmissible from cow to calf. If that is found not to be correct, their whole strategy fails. There are no contingency plans whatever. Yet if we examine the case calmly, we find that the Government's logic is faulty. They argue that the disease cannot be transmitted to humans on the basis that scrapie has been known for more than 200 years and, as there has been no proven transmission from sheep to humans, it is unlikely that the disease will jump from cows to humans. I can understand the reasoning behind that and I sincerely hope that they are correct, as does every Labour Member, but they have been selective in their comparison with scrapie. They ignore the fact that scrapie has passed from sheep to lambs. If BSE is similar to scrapie, as the Minister argues, there must be a real possibility that BSE will be passed from cow to calf. If that is so, the Government's strategy is absolutely flawed.
  Mr. Michael Lord: The hon. Gentleman started by saying that the prime cause of the problem was alterations to the code of practice in the rendering industry. He will be aware that this is a complex scientific, biological matter and I hope that he will explain in detail exactly how those changes in the code of practice led to the present situation.
  Dr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman did not understand what I said I suggest that he reads the report of my speech because I do not want to detain the House at great length now. He rightly raised that issue in a previous debate when I dealt with it adequately.
  Mr. Lord rose——
  Dr. Clark: I will not give way as that is unfair to other Members who might want to speak.
  Mr. Lord: It is absolutely crucial to the debate.
  Dr. Clark: I shall not give way.
  Mr. Lord rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has already said that he will not give way.
  Dr. Clark: It is interesting to note that once the argument gets going Conservative Members find it difficult and try to deflect it.
  There is an increasing belief among veterinarians that BSE can be passed from cow to calf.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What evidence?
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady is a practising farmer, is knowledgeable and attends all the debates on agriculture. She has asked a pertinent question and I shall name some of the vets and other medical authorities to satisfy her.
  The consultant virologist, Dr. Richard Tedder, at the Middlesex school of medicine, an excellent school, is reported to believe:
  "It is reasonable to assume that BSE could be passed on"
  80
  from cow to calf. A similar view is held by Roger Eddy, former chairman of the British Veterinary Association's farm animal committee. He also said that trials would find that calves can pick up BSE from their mothers. He clearly asserts—I hope that the hon. Member for Lancaster is listening carefully——
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am writing it down.
  Dr. Clark: In that case I shall speak slowly. Roger Eddy asserts:
  "My belief is that vertical transmission will occur."
  Even the Government's chief veterinary officer, Keith Meldrum, distanced himself from the Minister when he said:
  "It would not surprise me to find that maternal transmission did occur"
  He has also taken a contrary view to the Minister about the dangers of the disease to human health:
  "I cannot say that there is no risk to man from BSE. It is too early. We have only had this disease in the country for three years and the incubation period in man in cases of encephalopathies is very long indeed."
  If the opinions of those vets are correct—they are just as much expert as other veterinarians—the Government's one-thread approach looks extremely flimsy. If that thread breaks we shall face calamitous consequences for the farmer and the consumer. It is not the fault of the farmers that we have BSE. They did not have any foodstuff that was labelled, nor did they provide the contaminated feedstuff.
  If the disease spreads unchecked, we may eventually have to embark on a major eradication scheme that would decimate the British cattle herd. Farmers understand that. That scheme would cost taxpayers billions of pounds and lead to a shortage of beef with worsening effects on our balance of payments, which is already bad enough. Many British farmers would never recover. This is truly a case of being penny wise and pound foolish.
  If the Government's strategy fails, we shall be forced to embark on an eradication scheme not only for the health of our herd, but for the simple reason that other countries will put British agriculture into quarantine. Already nearly the entire world will not allow the import of British cattle. The European Community has gone further by banning all calves from BSE cows. Our European partners are not prepared to take any risks—and who can blame them? The Germans have gone even further by banning all British beef with bones. They have not done so for trade reasons, as the Minister said, but on the advice of their scientists. I remember the Minister coming to the House to say that he would take the Germans to the European Court and do this and that, but, of course, he did nothing.
  The Government should wake up to the fears expressed and protect the consumer and the farmers who are in a mess through no fault of their own. I shall suggest a coherent programme to the Government—as I promised the hon. Member for Lancashire, West.
  Mr. David Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: No. I promised to be brief, so I must continue.
  The first thing that the Minister should do is slaughter all the calves of cows with BSE. That would limit the effect of vertical transmission. That is a sound insurance policy supported by many vets, the Women's Farming Union and, in effect, by the National Farmers Union. Secondly,

  81
  in view of the evidence that BSE has been transmitted to cats and possibly, although I hope not, to dogs, he should prohibit the use of cattle offal in pet food. The pet food manufacturers operate a voluntary ban and therefore one would have thought that they would support a statutory one, but no. When those manufacturers discussed it with me they were most alarmed at the prospect of a statutory ban. Many people will conclude that their refusal to endorse such a plan means that the voluntary ban is little more than a token gesture for many of them. Thirdly, the Government should stop feeding cattle offal to pigs and chickens.
  Fourthly, the Government should make available to all bona fide scientists samples of infected animals wherever possible. No one has a monopoly of scientific knowledge about the new disease—the wider the scientific investigation the better. I regret that the Minister has so far blocked that initiative and I hope that he will change his mind today. Fifthly, the Minister should be more frank with the House and the public. On Thursday, when we finally dragged him to the Dispatch Box, his behaviour was abysmal—[Interruption.] He promised to place a full statement of the Tyrrell committee in the Library. The fact that he produced only a 25-line Government minute is little short of disgraceful and does nothing to build confidence among farmers, scientists and the public.
  Sixthly, the Minister should instigate a tagging system for all calves along the lines of the system currently operating in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to advise farmers that they should heed the law and ensure that their movement books are up to date as that would be a precursor to any scheme for checking the movement of cattle.
  My final suggestion is perhaps where we should begin. Why will not the Minister follow the specific recommendations of the Tyrrell committee for the random sampling of routinely slaughtered cattle so that we can judge the extent of the disease within the herd? The Minister has said that he has not done so because it is not a priority and he said that he always follows scientific advice. However, we know that the Minister picks that scientific advice which is convenient to him. I recommend the advice given to him by the Richmond committee to ban the sale of green top milk
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Come on.
  Dr. Clark: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment; I promise.
  The Minister was advised to ban green top milk, but he ignored the scientific evidence in favour of the consumer.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Having done his best for the past few minutes to destroy the beef industry, the hon. Gentleman is trying to destroy the green top milk producers, who proliferate in my constituency and parts of Yorkshire and whose milk is found to be extremely helpful, particularly for some skin conditions. It tastes superb, is very good and all the customers want it. Now the hon. Gentleman is trying to do that in, as well as the beef industry.
  Dr. Clark: I think that the hon. Lady, in her enthusiasm for green top milk, which she never hides, did not quite listen to what I said. I was not arguing the merits or demerits of green top milk. What I was actually saying
  82
  —I hope that the hon. Lady will listen—was that the Minister's scientists had recommended the abolition of green top milk, but on that occasion, rightly or wrongly, the Minister decided to reject the scientists' advice.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Quite right.
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady says, "Quite right," but the point I am making is that the Minister picks and chooses his scientific advice.
  We all know the real reason why the Minister is reluctant to do random testing. It is simple: he and the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), have insisted time and time again that no BSE cattle have entered the food chain. That was the famous belt-and-braces approach of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, of which he is so proud and about which he will tell us more this evening. Therefore, if it were found that BSE cattle had slipped through the net—as they have—the only honourable thing for the hon. Member and the right hon. Member to do would be to resign.
  The Minister should desist from putting his own political career before the interests of the farmer and the consumer. The disease has the potential of a doomsday scenario. The British need, and have the right to expect, Government protection. They are certainly not getting it from this Government.
  7.43 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'supports the Government's determination to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and commends Her Majesty's Government for basing its policy and actions to secure the safety of food on the best scientific advice and for the prompt implementation of the recommendations of its independent expert committees as the best means of safeguarding public and animal health.'.
  I welcome this opportunity to put forward yet again the Government's clear position on BSE. First, the absolute priority for the Government is public health and the safety of the consumer. That must mean, first, that we take the best available advice; secondly, that we implement that advice completely and as quickly as possible; and thirdly, that we ensure that the public is fully informed of the detailed information that comes to us. It is for these reasons that I can repeat with confidence the chief medical officer's statement that there is no scientific justification for not eating British beef.
  Therefore, the first question the House must address is whether the Government have any alternative but to accept the advice of the experts. I do not believe that any Minister could sustain a policy based upon setting aside the recommendations of our most eminent scientists and medics. So our policy must be based absolutely four square on that. But the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has claimed that we have done "nowt". Let us go through the facts.
  Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will have noticed that I put a reasonable question to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—would he, in the circumstances, ban British beef for sale to the public? Quite clearly, he did not answer the question. The clear implication of ducking That question is that he agrees with my right hon. Friend that British beef is safe for the public to consume.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. I have noted down the seven answers given, and they did not include the proposal that we should ban British beef.
  BSE was first identified in November 1986, thanks to the alertness and skill of the staff at the Ministry's veterinary investigation centres and the central veterinary laboratory. That was the point at which the hon. Member for South Shields suggested that we do nothing. I hope that he will listen carefully to what I have to say. Because so little was known about the disease at that early stage, a number of research projects were immediately initiated, including work to determine its course and clinical picture, and to develop and refine techniques necessary to obtain a definitive diagnosis. Such knowledge is an essential prerequisite to determining what action is appropriate to deal with any disease.
  What the hon. Gentleman suggests the Government should have done was precisely what he accused us of doing—running around, hoping for something to turn up, without knowing what we were supposed to be looking for. Instead, we did what any sensible Government would do: we immediately set up the research to enable us to act. A detailed study had been started as soon as the disease had been identified to determine its cause. Initially, a large number of possibilities had to be considered, including the use of pharmaceutical products, vaccines, pesticides, herbicides, and whether other livestock such as sheep were kept on the farm.
  Further excellent work at the central veterinary laboratory enabled that list to be narrowed down to protein feed derived from sheep infected with scrapie. As soon as that was apparent, a ban was introduced, from July 1988, on the use of ruminant-based protein in ruminant ration. Therefore, it is quite clear that, far from doing nothing, the Government did the two precise things necessary before they could take action. When they had the results, they took action immediately.
  From the outset, field investigations and laboratory work were being undertaken to develop a clear understanding and knowledge of the clinical picture and diagnostic techniques. It is all right for the hon. Member for South Shields now to say that he knew all about it, but he did not then. We were finding out all about it so that we could take the action we did.
  There is no point in requiring notification if one cannot fully describe the clinical symptoms that enable vets in the field to be able to identify a particular disease. In the same way, until the diagnostic techniques were well developed, it would not have been possible to confirm whether or not an animal had the disease. When a clear picture emerged, the disease was made notifiable—June 1988. Yet again, we acted immediately. We got the results and acted on them.
  While that work was being completed, in April 1988, my Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, established a group of eminent scientific and medical experts, under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Southwood, professor of zoology at Oxford university. Their task was to advise the Government on all aspects of BSE, including any human health implications. Two months later, on 22 June that year, interim advice was received that, as a precautionary measure, all affected cattle should be slaughtered and destroyed.
  Mr. John Garrett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Gummer: If I may finish the paragraph, I shall be happy to do so.
  We accepted that advice on 7 July. All the necessary legislation and operational arrangements were agreed and drawn up within a month, and the slaughter with compensation scheme was introduced on 8 August. All the animals slaughtered are destroyed by burial or incineration, so that no part of them can enter the food chain.
  Mr. Garrett: On a genuine point of reassurance, is the Minister happy with the way carcases are disposed of, with the heads incinerated but the spinal columns left in them? I understand that there is scientific opinion to say that the spinal column should be removed before burial.
  The right hon. Gentleman will know that in Norfolk there is some anxiety about the dumping of no fewer than 100 carcases in a dump that is not very far from the river that supplies Norwich's household water.
  Mr. Gummer: I have looked into the issue because the matter was raised with me; it is a local authority—authorised tip for various toxic substances and the like. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the tip, I shall re-examine it, but the local authority's view is that it is perfectly suitable for these purposes.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I should like to continue, because I have something to say about these matters later in which the hon. Gentleman might be interested——
  Mr. Home Robertson rose——
  Mr. Gummer: No, I want to continue.
  Nearly two years ago, we acted effectively and decisively on the very best scientific advice to stop the likely source of the disease and to take affected animals out of the food chain——
  Mr. Home Robertson rose——
  Mr. Gummer: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Southwood report was published on 27 February 1989. It pointed out that scrapie, the related disease in sheep, had been present in the national flock for more than 200 years and that there had been no evidence of transmission to man. The report also concluded from present evidence that it was likely that cattle would prove to be a dead-end host for the disease agent.
  As to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we have acted slowly or ineffectively, I hope that he will recall that the working party greatly welcomed the speed with which the Government acted on the animal feed ban and to implement the working party's recommendations. The hon. Gentleman therefore cannot sustain any allegation that we acted improperly or in a dilatory way without coming into clear conflict with the evidence of the Southwood working party.
  The Government did not stop there. First, they agreed and implemented all the Southwood recommendations. Everything that this most eminent group of scientists asked us to do we did—and more. We did not do nowt; we did what the group asked us to do and more. Southwood did not recommend that the offal ban was necessary, but the Southwood report concluded that, if there were to be any BSE agent harboured in animals not previously known to be affected, it would be in the specified offal. We

  85
  have therefore taken out all the specified offal from all adult cattle reaching the slaughterhouse, so as to make doubly sure that consumers are protected. So once again the Government have acted to implement all that, and more than, the experts recommended.
  One of the most important Southwood recommendations was the establishment of a consultative committee on research, under the chairmanship of Dr. David Tyrrell—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Shields may be talking now, but he said that the Government had done nowt. I am going through what the Government did point by point so that the public can see that we acted correctly and speedily on all of them——
  Mr. Home Robertson rose——
  Mr. Gummer: I am going through point by point; when I have got through them all, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  This group of experts was set up to advise my Department and the Department of Health on research work in progress or proposed in relation to BSE and the other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, on any additional work required, and on the priorities for further research. In fact, a major research effort had been under way since the disease was first identified. More than £2 million has already been spent, and a further £12 million has been allocated over the next three years.
  Dr. Tyrrell identified three categories of research: first, research of top priority. All that is under way. Secondly, he identified research of medium priority; all that is under way, too. We are now working our way through the areas of lowest priority. Some of them are under way, but some have not yet reached the stage of working out protocols.
  Of course, the hon. Member for South Shields has picked on one of the lowest priority points and suggested that it is the most important of all. Odd that it was in the list of lowest priority. Odd, too, that the Tyrrell committee has said that it does not believe that action on this proposal would be sensible at this time, because it would not be a sensible use of these facilities and resources. It is odd policy to tell me that the thing of which I am most guilty is not acting on one of the elements in the list of lowest priorities—the very aspect that the Tyrrell committee has suggested should be left on one side for the time being.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I should very much like to finish one more paragraph, and then I shall have finished my list.
  The House will understand that I am keen on the research part of the process, because, if we could find a diagnostic test, we could rid the country of BSE that much more quickly. If I found additional aspects of research that we were not doing but which would make a genuine contribution, I would have them done. If the hon. Member for South Shields suggests that we should not breed from calves of BSE-infected animals, I must tell him that I have asked the Tyrrell committee to tell me what would be best.
  The Tyrrell committee produced a report for me—not a very long report, but it is in the Library. As I told the hon. Gentleman, for he wrote me a letter on the subject, I expect that Dr. Tyrrell will be giving me a longer report some time soon, and I shall place it in the Library as well—just as I place all information that is given to me and on which these decisions are made.
  Mr. Eric Martlew rose——
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for South Shields does his case no good by pretending that the material is not made available——
  Dr. David Clark: My charge against the Minister, as he acknowledged, is that he has not made the Tyrrell report on this subject available, although he promised to do so. Is he telling the House that this 25-line document is the Tyrrell report? If it is, can he explain why it begins:
  "Spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee under Dr. David Tyrrell says"?
  I would have read that as the Government's interpretation of the Tyrrell report. It is a travesty of the truth to suggest that it is the report itself.
  Mr. Gummer: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the facts. Dr. Tyrrell reports to me. I then publicly state exactly what he has told me—[Interruption.] I do think it very important, as we are discussing a statement by a most eminent chairman of a working party——
  Mr. Martlew rose——
  Mr. Gummer: No, I shall finish what I have to say first. Dr. Tyrrell has reported to me; I have published the report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it?"] In the Library, and I am holding a copy of it now—[Laughter.] I hope that Opposition Members will listen carefully, because there is a whole series of other circumstances in which I am asking for further information, and I expect the working party to present its conclusions in this way. That is what I have published, and any further statements by Dr. Tyrrell will also be published.
  The Opposition cannot have it both ways: if we are going to make a document public, we make it public even if it is very short.
  Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister saying that this is the Tyrrell report, or is he saying that this is his interpretation of the report? It is odd for the Minister to say, "Dr. Tyrrell says …" If it were the Tyrrell report it would start by saying "My committee says …" I suggest that we are getting the Minister's interpretation of that report.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may submit that but he is utterly, totally and categorically wrong. This is Dr. Tyrrell as chairman of the committee giving me his advice, which is what he was asked for. I have published that advice. Dr. Tyrrell will expand on it, and I shall publish the expanded advice. He will advise me on a wide range of other matters, and I shall publish his advice. The hon. Gentleman is doing the House a grave disservice by trying to hit Dr. Tyrrell in this way.
  Mr. Home Robertson rose——
  Mr. Gummer: I will not give way. I will complete what I have to say about the Tyrrell statement and then give way.
  It is clear that the Opposition charge that we have done nowt is wholly and utterly unfounded. The hon. Member for South Shields is attempting to suggest that which he knows to be untrue and is continuing the campaign which is based, I am sad to say, on an attempt to invent things that are not only far from the truth but have been proved out of his own mouth to be wrong.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. Brevity in reports is generally welcome, but this may be the exception. Diagnosis is crucial. The Minister said that all BSE-affected cattle were being destroyed, but that is just not possible. He cannot say that, because the only way to diagnose which cattle are affected with BSE is to examine the brains of the cattle after slaughter. Why is the right hon. Gentleman still refusing to take samples from the brains of cattle slaughtered at slaughterhouses in order to establish whether what he says is true?
  Mr. Gummer: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands the purpose of that piece of research. It does not do that at all. It is suggested that some years are spent on research into what was in the brain to see whether one could find the existence of sub-clinical circumstance giving rise to BSE. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an expert on a wide range of matters. He should take it from me that the most eminent experts in the field have said that this is a low-priority matter and have asked me not to take this line of research because at the moment there are other more important things to be done. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants to put his personal view ahead of the clear advice of the committee.
  Mr. Harry Cohen rose——
  Mr. Gummer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to wait, because he will have an opportunity to intervene at a more appropriate time.
  All the results of the research will be made publicly available because, throughout the debate, I have made it clear that the information and knowledge available to us will be made public. I intend to continue on precisely that course. Any suggestion by the Opposition that anything is hidden or locked up is entirely without foundation. I shall give two examples. Although there is no evidence of any link between spongiform encephalopathies in cats and BSE, I insisted that information regarding the Bristol cat recently diagnosed with this disease be made public.
  The hon. Member for South Shields should look again at his allegation that I have prevented scientists from speaking to the press. That allegation was all over the press, and the hon. Gentleman confirmed that he put it there. It is utterly and completely untrue and I am sure that he will wish to apologise when I have completed my speech. The only advice to Government scientists which my Department has recently reiterated are departmental guidelines, which were prepared not by me or my predecessor or his predecessor but were, albeit in a more complicated form, guidelines inherited from the previous Labour Government. There has been no change in the guidance that, when a scientist or veterinary surgeon is asked for an interview by the press, he should inform the press office so that we know that the facts are there. That is what the Labour Government's guidance contained, and we have not changed it.
  The hon. Member for South Shields did himself a grave disservice by suggesting that I was in any way trying to stop anyone saying anything that he would previously have been able to say. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his allegation, which has caused considerable concern to the scientists in my Department, who would not work on the basis that the hon. Gentleman has said that I suggested. If the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw,
  88
  he underlines the fact that almost everything he says merely springs from his own fantasy and is not the fact of the matter.
  Dr. David Clark: May I clarify the matter? I said that Government scientists have been told not to speak to Members of Parliament or the press on this issue. The person in question, whom I have in mind, was telephoned in the middle of the night and told that. If the Minister is prepared to get a letter from the Head of the Government, the Prime Minister, assuring me that that individual will not be sacked as he was threatened, will not be reprimanded and will not have his career jeopardised, I will talk to that person to see whether he is prepared to let me name him. When we are dealing with a Government who, in their own words, are economical with the truth, I must have that from the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Gummer: There is no change whatever in what I said earlier and nobody, but nobody, would have his career jeopardised in that way. The hon. Gentleman has failed to produce his evidence and has failed to withdraw. He has been shown to be a sham and his words on everything else can be judged on that.
  The House would expect me to look closely at the effects of this discussion on encephalopathies. There is no doubt that it would focus attention on this class of disease. That is bound to be true of an issue that is constantly talked about, and it means that people will look even more closely at the matter. It was for that reason that the postmortem on the Bristol cat took place. Similarly, we have now confirmed the Northern Ireland case. The specific advice of the Southwood committee was that we should be particularly alert to the possible occurrence of encephalopathies in household pets. The problem facing us is that such illnesses may have no connection at all with BSE, and, indeed, may have been present for a long time. Therefore, we have a duty to the public to do two things. First, we have to be entirely open about the results of any tests on suspect animals; and secondly, we have to be very careful about jumping to premature conclusions.
  This focus of attention has resulted in two or possibly three identified cases of encephalopathy in cats. Of course it would be quite wrong for us not to be very concerned about that evidence, but that should not blind us to the arguments clearly presented in last week's New Scientist leader. I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields will read that leader and take it to heart. I hope that he will take it more to heart than he has taken note of the fact that his outrageous allegations yesterday have been shown to be wrong.
  The House will recognise that I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the reasons why his comments are so wide of the mark not just to get the record straight or to score points at the expense of the shadow agriculture spokesman but because, in matters of this seriousness, the crucial issue is public health. Party and personal advantage must not be allowed to interfere.
  I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have sought to undermine the views of the experts. That is damaging, because it gives the public the impression that there is a major disagreement between scientists on this issue. The men and women who are experts in these matters gave clear advice to the chief medical officer, my Department and the Department of Health, and it is on that basis that I am able to repeat the chief medical officer's advice that

  89
  eating British beef is safe. Indeed, it appears to be on that evidence that the hon. Gentleman thinks that eating British beef is safe. Therefore, I am surprised that he has not asked those local authorities that have stopped children in their schools eating British beef to start to serve beef once again.
  The hon. Member for South Shields has made a number of suggestions. His first was that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be renamed the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and that there should be created an independent food administration making its own independent statements. If we apply that to BSE, it is difficult to see how this differs from Southwood and 'Tyrrell giving independent advice, except that that independent advice is accepted by the Government but not by the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman does not want us to stick to what the experts say: he wants us to replace this with his own political opinions. His proposal smacks of that.
  The hon. Gentleman suggests that we must not breed from the cows that have BSE and claims that that would speed eradication. I ask him to read again what Tyrrell says. He has specifically warned us that to do that would not necessarily speed up the removal of BSE but might in certain circumstances have the opposite effect. He has made a number of other proposals, all of which have been rejected by the scientists to whom we have turned. In an odd phrase, he spoke of the "fragile conclusions" of Southwood. He wishes to replace the conclusions of Southwood by a series of his own personal views. No Government could deal on that basis and no Government could take his line.
  Mr. Lord: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I must come to the end of what I have to say.
  The same thing happened when the hon. Member for South Shields made his allegation on rendering. He was not prepared to share with the House the detailed explanation of how he ties up any changes in Government decisions with his views on the effects of rendering on BSE. There is no doubt that had he argued his case through, point by point, it would be seen as hollow in this House as it is so seen everywhere outside it, except in Labour party circles.
  All that the hon. Gentleman is left with of all his suggestions is one single change—the change of title from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. That is at best cosmetic and at worst an attempt unworthily to evade this serious issue.
  I do not want any hon. Member to feel that, once the experts have pronounced, we are not willing to go back to them again. The Government have acted throughout on what the experts have recommended. We have acted immediately, we have acted as they have recommended, and we have acted to do all and more that they have required. We are willing to go back to them again and ask them again. The House will remember that, even though my expert advice had not recommended that there should be a ban on breeding from the progeny of BSE-infected animals, I asked the Tyrrell committee to consider this again in the light of all the evidence. I have placed copies of its advice in the Library, and I have said that I will place copies of any further advice there as well.
  90
  Similarly, two months ago I asked for expert veterinary advice on the removal of brains in slaughterhouses. It has now come. This broadly supported current practices, but I am asking the Tyrrell committee to consider this, and any other aspects of slaughterhouse practices that it feels may be relevant to the problem. I reiterate what I have sad often before: that I shall always be willing to refer the issues which arise in this matter to experts, and will make their advice public.
  The real issue here is that the public want to be assured that the Government have acted on the best available advice. They have that assurance. They want to be assured that the Government implement that advice in its entirety. They have that assurance. They want to be assured that the Government have taken these measures with the fullest practical speed. They have that assurance. They want to be assured that the Government are putting all the necessary resources into research. They have that assurance. Above all, the public want to know that the Government put public safety first. They have that assurance.
  This debate gives us the chance to show that the Government have taken the full range of measures proposed in the best scientific and medical advice. Faced with a disease of this kind, we must expect that people can easily be worried and realise that their anxieties are difficult to dispel. That is why it is so important for those who have different views not to promote anxiety, but to put forward their views so that they may be judged by their expert peers. I am always willing to ask the experts to consider proposals that are put to me.
  The hon. Gentleman's points have been so considered and have been turned down. If any have not been so considered, I will ensure that they are. I hope that those who so often speak on television will come to us first with their arguments and facts so that they may be considered by those best able to assess them—the experts in the fiend and not politicians, who are merely amateurs.
  There is no evidence that the BSE agent is harmful to man. Nevertheless, the Government have taken four major measures to remove BSE-infected animals from the human food chain. They have acted to remove the specified offals from all adult cattle. They have cut off what is considered to be the source of the infection. We are investing large sums in research, and will continue to do so. This has been done on the advice of the scientific and medical experts. Therefore, unlike the Opposition, we can say with confidence that beef can be eaten safely by everyone, both adults and children. The House can give us its confidence, because what we do will be based on scientific advice, not on the theories of Labour party politicians.
  Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister repeatedly refused to give way to Opposition Back-Benchers. As to bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cats, the right hon. Gentleman said——
  Hon. Members: That is not a point of order.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It is for me to decide whether the hon. Gentleman is in order.
  Mr. Cohen: I am raising a point of order. The Minister said that he had received advice from the Southwood committee that special consideration should be given to

  91
  BSE in cats, but the right hon. Gentleman did not reveal the date on which he was given that advice, which is crucial——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I know now that the hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of order but a matter for debate. I call Mr. Alan W. Williams.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to follow that extraordinary bullish and brash speech from the Minister. I want to correct the right hon. Gentleman on two or three points.
  The chief medical officer did not say that British beef is safe to eat. He said—and the Minister quoted him accurately the first time—that there is no scientific justification for not eating British beef. That is a very clear double negative. The chief medical officer did not say British beef is safe to eat because one cannot prove that it is.
  Mr. Gummer: The chief medical officer went on to say:
  "I therefore have no hesitation in saying that beef can be eaten safely by everyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital."
  I do not see how that does not mean that beef is safe to eat.
  Mr. Williams: I shall return to the point that no scientist in Britain today, no matter how distinguished—including the chief medical officer—can say with certainty that all British beef is safe to eat.
  The Southwood committee estimated that the epidemic would peak at 350 to 400 incidents per month—and that figure was quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). Already, the death rate is 350 to 450 cows per week, which is four times Southwood's projected figure—and the rate is doubling every six months. Despite the Minister's extraordinary complacency, the figure is multiplying exponentially. If the plateau had been reached, there could possibly be room for complacency, but in reality BSE is increasing way out of control.
  Given the best scientific advice available at the time, Southwood predicted that cattle were likely to be the dead end host, but evidently that is not the case. BSE in cattle can be passed to mice, mink, deer, and possibly cats. It is very possible that scrapie in sheep evolves, mutates and changes when transmitted to cattle—and that the resultant strain, which manifests itself as BSE, could be many times more virulent and pathogenic than the scrapie from which it originated. In that respect, Southwood erred far too much on the side of optimism, and failed to make the more pessimistic assumptions that it should have made.
  There are huge areas of ignorance in respect of BSE. It would benefit the debate if the Minister did not always display ebullient confidence and knock every argument to the floor—even if that is only in his own mind, because the consumer is far more discriminating and can see through the right hon. Gentleman's bullish arrogance. In any scientific inquiry, there needs to be more humility in the search for the truth. The fact remains that the scientists concerned, eminent though they may be, do not yet understand the key features of the disease. They do not know how widespread it is or how to diagnose it. With
  92
  both scrapie and BSE, one can only reach a diagnosis by killing the suspect animal and examining its brain. It is incredible that such a viral particle or infective agent should be so hard to detect by normal diagnostic techniques.
  We do not understand either how the disease is transmitted, or how scrapie became BSE. We do not know how other animals become infected by BSE. Most important of all, we cannot be certain that BSE does not affect human beings—no matter what may be said by Sir Donald Acheson, the Minister, or anyone else. It will take at least one decade before we can be sure whether BSE has any effect on human beings. To be as complacent as the Minister has shown himself to be, not only over the past few days but the past few years, is just as dangerous as scaremongering. There should be more balance in the debate, and greater consideration of both sides of the argument.
  BSE is to be the subject of a "Horizon" programme on BBC2 tonight. The blurb for that programme in today's issue of The Independent says that
  "scientists reveal that neither the facts nor the risks are fully understood."
  That is the state of our knowledge. The Minister may not acknowledge all the uncertainties, but the president of the National Farmers Union does. Sir Simon Gourlay is also quoted in The Independent today as saying:
  "People recognise when there are voids in information. At the moment there is little confidence in official statements and that is why there is mayhem … there is a fear of the unknown."
  Sir Simon Gourlay has the modesty to accept the crisis of confidence that exists currently because of a fear of the unknown—but the Minister shows no such doubts. The debate would benefit also if the Minister and his colleagues, as well as MAFF, exhibited a little more humility and showed themselves willing to entertain some of the doubts shared both by the general public and leading scientists.
  The effects of BSE are potentially so catastrophic that we should be adopting precautionary principles at every stage. Humans can recover from salmonella poisoning, but BSE is potentially an irreversible killer. It must be remembered that 100 years ago livestock was killed and consumed locally, but in today's food processing industry just one infected cow could contaminate 100 or 1,000 products and people.
  The issue has gained extra momentum over the past two weeks because it has been found that cats have possibly died from contracting BSE. Those deaths might strike the House as trivial, and right hon. and hon. Members may question why cat deaths in Bristol, Belfast and Birmingham made the front pages of tabloid newspapers last week. However, if one considers the matter biologically, as carnivores, cats have digestive systems that are far more similar to those of human beings than cows. If the BSE particle or virus can survive the robust digestive system of a cat, containing as it does acids and enzymes to break down complex proteins, and damage its brain, at a molecular level it is most disturbing and significant that BSE can kill carnivores.
  The more that BSE jumps species, in the way that scrapie jumps species, the more concerned every one of us should be. The two or three cat deaths that we have heard about could be just the beginning of an epidemic. Generally, when cats die no post-mortem is held.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the chief medical officer at the Department of Health is wrong to assert that there is no risk to humans from eating beef?
  Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I said that no scientist can say that. The Southwood committee, which has produced perhaps the most authoritative document, said that the chance is extremely remote. I hope and pray that it cannot be transmitted to humans, but no scientist can say one way or the other. It will be at least a decade before we can give a firm no to that question.
  In the meantime, following the precautionary principle, we should be doing all that we can to ensure that BSE-infected meat cannot enter the food chain. That is a reasonable request, which the NFU and the consumer will back. We should start the mass slaughter of the offspring of BSE-infected animals.
  Scrapie passes from ewe to lamb. The AIDS virus passes from mother to foetus. The further the virus has progressed, the more likely it is that the mother will transmit it to the foetus, whereas if the mother is HIV positive, the chances of it being passed are perhaps 10 or 20 per cent. The further developed the virus is, the higher the probability.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): Would the hon. Gentleman persist with the policy of the mass slaughter of calves although the expert evidence suggests that it should not be done?
  Mr. Williams: As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, I do not see all the experts lining up on the Government side. A couple of weeks ago, the Government's chief veterinary officer, Keith Meldrum, said that in the meantime he supported veterinary advice to farmers not to breed from the offspring of infected cattle. He has strong doubts about vertical transmission. We should be adopting the precautionary principle. Wherever it is possible that meat may be infected by BSE, we should be taking it out of the food chain. It is probable that the calves of BSE-infected cattle carry BSE. The NFU and consumers consider that the slaughter of calves should be a matter of urgency. The Government should start to take swift action.
  There should be random sampling in slaughterhouses of dead cows to ascertain the true incidence of BSE. We have figures only for those cows that showed clinical symptoms before they were slaughtered. There must be random inspection of the heads of all cows that are slaughtered.
  There should be pilot studies in farms that have had multiple outbreaks of BSE. Many farms have had two, three or more cows suffering from BSE. The Government should undertake pilot studies of the mass slaughter of the herd to see how many have sub-clinical symptoms of BSE.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am finding it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman. He was saying that we should proceed only on the certainties. He has made a substantial number of allegations, such as an epidemic of mad cats, without giving substance, belief or fact. Why does he believe that we should substitute his opinions or beliefs for the scientific facts that have been put forward by eminent scientists who say that we do not need a mass
  94
  slaughter policy? Is he going along with Professor Richard Lacey, who has argued that 6 million cattle should be slaughtered?
  Mr. Williams: No. I said that we should not work on the basis of certainties because there are no certainties. We must adopt the precautionary principle. If there is a chance of meat being infected, we should slaughter the calves of infected cows. That view is held not only by the Opposition but by the NFU and individual farmers in my constituency to whom I have spoken. In our part of the country, which is also represented by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), Dyfed has the highest incidence in Wales and, with the south west, probably the highest incidence in Britain.
  It is appalling that offal from cows that may have sub-clinical BSE is still being fed to pigs and poultry. There is a danger of multiplying the disease and that it could jump species. We need to look carefully at the disposal of carcases. We must ensure that BSE-contaminated meat does not enter the food chain. Carcases have been buried in toxic waste tips, and I have read of headless carcases being disposed of in a refuse tip. We know that rats and birds feed from refuse tips. There is a danger of a BSE-infected animal carrying the disease to the rat and bird populations. It is absurd that we are disposing of carcases so carelessly.
  There should be high temperature incineration to ensure that we get rid of the virus completely. The outbreak of BSE, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, is not the farmers' fault. The farmers suffer, but it is not their fault. It is the product of animal feeding. Scrapie got into animal feed, which was insuffiently heated. The Government reduced the temperature from 130 deg C, which previously killed scrapie, to 105 deg C and has allowed it to develop into BSE.
  Farmers should be compensated; 100 per cent. compensation was made a year or two after the campaign on scrapie that was run by the Opposition and others, but when it comes to a slaughter policy for calves there should be 100 per cent. compensation.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields that potentially this is the greatest crisis that has faced agriculture this century. If the Government do not act much more decisively and quickly, instead of doing too little too late, it will become a crisis of epidemic proportions. When we are dealing with human health, it is wiser to err on the side of overkill than to tread timidly a year or two too late, as the Government are doing.
  In the interests of the beef producer and the consumer, I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the points that have been made by Labour Members in the debate.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has done his best to undermine the confidence of the industry and the consumer in the expert advisers to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the farming industry. I am sorry that he used his medical and scientific knowledge in that way. If the hon. Gentleman wants to express those views, he should take them to the committee that has been set up by my right hon. Friend the Minister

  95
  and to those who are his peers in this discipline. The hon. Gentleman should not make his fears public. I am sorry that he made that speech.
  I should like to say a few words on behalf of those in the livestock husbandry industry who have been worried about BSE for many months. They have suffered greatly in recent months because of lead contamination and the near catastrophe that resulted. They foresaw the serious scares -not backed by scientific evidence—that might be engendered about the effect of BSE on domestic meat consumption. They implored those of us who represent the south-west of England to express their fears to the Ministry and demand the clearest possible scientific research into this unpleasant disease as soon as possible so that British beef is cleared as safe for consumption at home and abroad.
  Over the past year, many of us have implored the Department to do all that it can to come up with the answer. My right hon. Friend the Minister has explained what the answer was. The advice so far is begining to give confidence back to the beef producers. I hope that the House will say nothing more tonight to undermine that confidence.
  I have seldom heard as disgraceful an attack on agriculture, undermining the confidence of the consumer, as that from the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). In the few years in which I have been a Member, I do not think that I have ever heard quite such an irresponsible attack made from the Front Bench on either side of the House. I deplore it and shall do my utmost to ensure that those who husband the beef industry in my part of the country know about it. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. He should be trying to restore confidence that our best scientists will find the cause of this disease—as I believe they will-and confidence in the results so far, which show that there is no evidence that beef is dangerous to humans. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have served his party better if he had done that without trying to attack my right hon. Friend in a silly, personal, political way. It was one of the most disgraceful attacks that I have ever heard since becoming a Member.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I have listened to the debate with considerable interest. The Minister put up a good, robust defence of his position. I could not agree with everything he said, but he made a much better job of it than the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) did in attacking him. The Minister's comments were helpful in that the industry and consumers were looking for some of the reassurances that he gave. We must be aware of the risks that may or may not be caused to beef because of the disease. There is no evidence that the disease can be transferred to humans, but we can never be certain.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I shall give way later, but it is important that this point is clear in the minds of the industry and consumers. The Government's position and mine is that the disease's potential cannot be ruled out altogether. There is no reason to believe that the disease is present
  96
  other than in the specified offal. It is important for people to be clear on that point, because it means that it is all right to eat meat that has not been contaminated in any way with that offal. Indeed, I ate some at the weekend. However, I shall refer to loopholes in terms of contamination and the effort to eliminate the disease.
  Mr. Hanley: As a Liberal Democrat council has banned the consumption of beef in schools in Richmond upon Thames, does the hon. Gentleman regard that as responsible or irresponsible given that, as he said, there is no scientific evidence to support that approach? This action has caused much fear among people who say, "If our councillors ban beef, it must be bad."
  Mr. Taylor: Emphasising it is unhelpful, but various councils have taken various actions. I happen to have spoken to councillors in Richmond upon Thames about what they have done. Their action has been similar to that in my county, although they took a different route because of different circumstances. Because parents made the request, the authorities have ensured that all children have the option of not eating beef, and only where that alternative is not provided have they stopped serving beef.
  In terms of public concern, that is not unreasonable. Some parents would not be reassured if they felt that their children had no option but to eat beef. They would feel that their children were being forced to eat something that the parents would prefer they did not eat. I do not criticise that attitude. But it would only be unreasonable had councillors said that beef was unsafe and should never be available to children.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) made a perfectly proper intervention, but councillors of all political colours have made a decision on the facts as they understand them. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a party political matter? The key point is to ensure that the evidence is known to the people making the decisions and that they make, democratically, the best decisions. We all aim to achieve the right results for everyone in all council areas.
  Mr. Taylor: I should like to make progress, moving away from that incidental issue and commenting on what Ministers should do.
  The Government have consistently refused calls by the National Farmers Union and others, including me, to label foodstuffs. They are still refusing, although the European Community may force compliance to some degree by 1992, but even then there is no requirement to state the percentage of ingredients. Given what appears to have happened because of the inclusion of offal, it is understandable that farmers should feel strongly about what they are being given to feed their livestock—feeding stuffs about which they have no knowledge and over which they have no control. In an article in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, the Gloucestershire trading standards officer said:
  "We probably carry out more tests on feeding stuffs than any other county and we find more errors with them than with anything else we check. We find something wrong in about 1 in 8 samples. On a national scale it indicates a big problem. In one sample of calf food, we found string, buttons from overalls and little lumps of metal."
  Apart from those farmers who grow food for their cows, farmers could not be sure of what was going into the

  97
  feeding stuffs. I have received letters however from farmers pointing out that not all had fed this stuff to their animals, and whose livestock are not therefore at risk. While specified offals have been banned from feedstuffs for cows, a problem remains for farmers in respect of other species, such as pigs. The Minister may say that the risk is acceptable but farmers may nevertheless prefer not to take it, and they cannot be altogether sure what they are feeding to their animals.
  We tabled an amendment to the Food Safety Bill to require the labelling of animal feedstuffs and the banning of the inclusion of potentially hazardous contents in feedstuffs for all species. That is not unreasonable. I am told that it is perfectly possible to achieve that using modern computer techniques; certainly, the NFU believes that it is possible. I hope that the Minister will use the opportunity presented by the concern over BSE to act on that amendment. I do not understand why he will not. Such an amendment would greatly reassure both consumers and industry, so I hope that he will reconsider.
  We must also consider the use of suspect offals at all in feedstuffs for pigs and poultry. The Government say that they have not had scientific advice to the effect that that should be banned. I accept that, but there is no doubt that it would reassure customers and the industry—which has expressed its concern, I am sure, to other hon. Members as well as myself—if those specified offals were banned. That would give us a cast-iron guarantee. The scientific advice is that there is no evidence that there is a risk, but we must remember that we were originally told that the disease could not be transferred to other species such as cats. But that now appears to have happened. Such a move would make sense in terms of the current public concern. If we are to help the industry and protect the consumer, we should try to meet those concerns.
  As recently as 14 May, Ministers refused to give a cast-iron guarantee that pigs and poultry could not be affected. In a written answer on 28 March, the Minister listed eight research projects dealing with this very matter. The fact that there are eight research projects does not necessarily point to a definite risk, but it suggests that scientists and the Minister believe that the matter is worthy of further investigation. If that is so, to reassure the public, we should play safe and ban the use of specified offal in feedstuffs for all species.
  We must also consider pet food. Two, or perhaps three, cats appear to have been infected with a feline version of the disease. Yet on 29 March the Minister said in the Standing Committee considering the Food Safety Bill that there was no evidence of naturally occurring spongiform encephalopathy in cats and dogs. He therefore proposed to do nothing. In response to the amendment that I had tabled to ban the use of specified offal in pet foods, the Minister said:
  "I do not want to get into the position where I as a politician, go into a crazy panic over pet food, when all the evidence is against there being any risk whatever of the disease jumping species to cats and dogs. I could ban the pet food for no good reason and the scientists could a year later say that I was wrong—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 29 March 1990; c. 125.]
  That was fair enough. But, unfortunately for the Minister, only a month or two later, people are telling him, "You got it wrong; you should have banned the use of specified offals in pet food." In other words, he would have done better to play safe, as I argued at the time, and that option is still open to him.
  98
  Before the present difficulties arose, and while the Food Safety Bill was in Committee, I wrote to the pet food manufacturers to ask whether they were operating the voluntary ban of which we had been told. They responded to the effect that they were. Some 5 per cent. of the pet food manufacturers are not covered by the manufacturers' association, but given that the manufacturers say that they are operating a voluntary ban—indeed, they argued that they were operating it before the present ban was introduced in respect of food for human consumption—why do not the Government close the loophole and make illegal the use of specified offals in pet food? We know that a problem has arisen. Why do we not take the action which manufacturers appear to accept—but which as yet we have no guarantee that they are implementing? The Minister said earlier that the manufacturers had been warned that they should watch developments in respect of cats and dogs. It therefore surprises me that when I raised the matter in Committee the Government said that there was no evidence whatever to suggest that they should take such action. That does not seem to make sense.
  We then have to deal with the protection of cattle. The Minister has consistently refused to accept that there is any justification for slaughtering the offspring of BSE-infected cattle. When I asked him about it on 15 March, he replied:
  "We have no plans to do so.—[Official Report, 15 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 324.]
  Tonight he has told us why he made that decision. He cited the Tyrrell report. I accept that Tyrrell did not recommend that the offspring of BSE-infected cattle should be slaughtered. But the report said:
  "Infection from cow to calf is a possibility that cannot be excluded at present."
  On Report, I tabled an amendment to the Food Safety Bill that would ensure that farmers were fully compensated for the slaughter of those calves. I do not necessarily argue that we should go that far. I listened with interest to what the Minister said, and he may be right. I do not claim to have the necessary expertise to say one way or the other, but I know how the public and the industry are reacting and I do not think that they would be dismayed if the Minister took such a course, which might help to resolve the present crisis of confidence in the beef industry. But if the Government are not prepared to do that—and given that Tyrrell specifically said that we could not rule out a potential risk—why do not they ensure that there is at least a comprehensive tagging and registration scheme so that we know what is happening to the offspring? At the moment, we may believe that there is no reason for slaughter but, according to Tyrrell, we cannot rule out the possibility that that need will arise. We heard tonight that the Government's chief veterinary officer had said:
  "It would not surprise me to find that maternal transmission can occur."
  A minimum requirement to register seems to me eminently sensible.
  When the problem first arose, the Minister said:
  "Nobody takes this disease more seriously than I do, but there is no justification for further action."
  Perhaps there was no justification, but given the present crisis of confidence for industry and consumer, the Minister should be seen to act to close every loophole, and that is one of the loopholes.
  Following the progress of food from farm to plate, we go next to the abattoir. The Minister has at last told us the result of his further consultations about abattoir procedures. He will recall that, early this year,

  99
  environmental health officers expressed serious concerns—expressed first in my constituency and subsequently taken up by their organisation—about the way in which some abattoirs operated. In effect, the abattoirs were, and are, attempting to get round the Minister's regulations banning specified offals. To realise the full value of the heads, they are split open with band saws. Inevitably, some splatter results and there is a risk of cross-contamination.
  The heads are split and the broken brain removed so that the full value of the total carcase can be realised. That makes relatively little financial difference to the farmer, but in an abattoir where huge numbers of heads are processed the practice of splitting heads in that way is significant for profit margins. Clearly, that practice avoided the spirit of the Minister's advice. After I met the Minister and discussed the problem with him, he said that he would seek further advice. I was told that he would meet me in two weeks and tell me what advice he had been given. Well, some two months on, the results of the advice were announced today.
  If cooking cannot kill the disease, anyone with common sense will appreciate that washing the meat if splatter occurs is no guarantee of safety. Perhaps the most important point is that washing down will not reassure the public if it does not reassure environmental health officers. I am pleased that the Minister has referred that point to the Tyrrell committee. However, I suspect that the committee will say that there is no scientific evidence to justify stopping that head-splitting process. Perhaps that would be an example of advisers advising, but Ministers must decide to ensure that even the most unlikely loophole is stopped. I am referring only to the specified offals and the risk of cross-contamination of what I said at the beginning of my speech is otherwise perfectly good meat.
  Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about what I have done. I hope that he recognises that the matter has gone to the Tyrrell committee because our expert advice is that what we are doing is in general perfectly acceptable. However, I do not want there to be a scintilla of doubt.
  The Tyrrell committee has made it clear that it should make its judgments according to the worst possible scenario. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) suggested that everyone was acting as though maternal transmission was impossible. Far from it. We always consider the worst possible scenario because that is the only way in which we can make judgments of this kind and that is what the Tyrrell committee is meant to do. Once we have asked such a committee to make its judgments on the worst possible scenario, we must accept those judgments and not second-guess them. If we second-guess them, we tell the public that we do not trust the people whom we have brought together to provide advice. We must be careful about suggesting that we should always act because we believe that the public will thereby be supportive. That is why I said clearly that I stick by the advice which is based on the worst possible scenario.
  Mr. Taylor: As I have described, in abattoirs a band saw splits the head and enters brain material. Some of that splatters out and some remains on the band saw which is then used on other parts of other carcases. The advice is that the band saw and the area round the process should
  100
  be washed down after each head splitting. I do not believe that that happens. No one could believe that a proper and thorough washing down would occur after that process. Therefore, the scientific advice does not match up to common sense.
  I learnt only today that a Scottish abattoir has a new technique for coping with heads. In that abattoir a stainless steel nozzle is attached to the end of a hose line. An extension from that fits exactly into the hole made by the stun bolt. Water is then forced into the skull at high pressure and the brain is forced out through the neck cavity at high speed in a gush. The matter goes everywhere. I do not believe that washing down takes place after each such action. A similar problem occurs with mechanically recovered meat.
  Finally, I have a warning on which I hope the Minister will act. Also, the public should be aware of this point about the British beef industry. The Minister confirmed to me in a letter that there have been some cases of BSE in the Irish Republic. It is a very small number, but there have been cases. Therefore, beef is imported without any controls on specified offals that may be a risk. Will the Minister reconsider his inaction on this and act to ban the specified offals from meat imports?
  I also suggest that it is not impossible—I am sure that the Minister shares my concern over this matter—that there is BSE infection in other countries in Europe, but that has not been reported. We have a well-controlled industry in this country and an awful lot of precautions are taken. It would be wrong for people to believe that British beef is more dangerous than any other beef. Because of the lack of controls and the situation in the Irish Republic, arguably imported beef is more at risk from cross-infection. However, that should not be a reason for the Minister to be complacent.
  I have raised a number of specific suggestions about things that the Minister could do to reassure the industry and the consumer and I hope that he will act on that advice.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: A great number of people in this country, particularly people in the food and farming industry, must wish that we were not having this debate. Right hon. and hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies might share that view. Although I do not wish to dismiss the seriousness of BSE, least said, soonest mended. I appreciate that that advice is unlikely to be taken by Opposition parties. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on his latter sentence. He went to great lengths to explain that there is nothing wrong with British beef. I entirely endorse his remark that British beef is arguably still the best beef in the world.
  Opposition parties wish to score political points. They are not concerned about the damage that they might inflict upon the innocent victims of their scaremongering. BSE is not contagious. What is contagious is the panic that national and local politicians create in the minds of the general public about the food that they eat. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spoke about the calamitous effects on farmers and consumers. This is not a political issue. Whatever political case Opposition parties may think exist, they make their case badly and without any consideration of the continued damage to public

  101
  confidence, or of the commercial damage to the food and farming industry and, in particular, the men and women whose livelihoods depend upon that industry. Opposition parties know only too well that this is essentially an animal health issue. It is not even a human health issue. The irresponsibility of Opposition parties is matched only by the blatant scaremongering of those who started this hare running.
  Opposition Members protest that they are concerned about the farming industry and consumers, but they, together with the media, know that food scares are good copy because food is directly related to everyday life. It affects every person in the land, and it is a matter to which every member of the public can relate. That is why whenever something is supposed to be wrong with food it can almost be guaranteed to get headlines.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman listened carefully to the opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), but in case he did not I assure him that we have no interest in a food scare or in encouraging any food scare. We are concerned to restore confidence in the British beef industry. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to read in Hansard tomorrow the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and my own speech. The hon. Gentleman will not find one sentence that damages the beef industry.
  Mr. Gill: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) makes my point for me. Words will not alter very much, but the more we politicians go banging on about the issue and making sure that it gets headlines in the newspapers and appears in every news bulletin day in and day out, the more the industry is prejudiced. Of greater concern is that fear and uncertainty is prolonged among the general public. I deprecate the irresponsible way in which the Opposition play on innocent people's fears. I deplore their rejection of evidence simply because it does not suit their own bias.
  Mr. Barry Field rose——
  Mr. Gill: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
  That attitude is not untypical of the Labour party, which cannot make its case without recourse to scaremongering.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams rose——
  Mr. Gill: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and then I shall gladly give way to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).
  Mr. Field: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the canteen on Thursday evening two very large trays of steak pie were completely sold out because Opposition Members were purchasing it? I got the last portion and jolly tasty it was, too—and it was British beef.
  Mr. Gill: I am most encouraged by what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that all responsible hon. Members know—and will demonstrate on every possible occasion—that there is no possible threat to one's health from eating British beef.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but must advise him that I shall
  102
  not be as helpful to him as was the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). The hon. Gentleman referred to the propriety of holding a debate on the subject of BSE. Would he prefer the Opposition to sit still, to talk about all the other issues, but not to mention BSE? Would he prefer the Opposition to allow the Government simply to carry on with their work behind the scenes and allow the number of BSE cases to double every six months and quadruple every year, as is happening now?
  Mr. Gill: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statesmanlike remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) who pointed out that there are better vehicles for exercising concern and better forums for expressing the detailed and technical aspects of this matter than a debate on the Floor of the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that events in the Chamber are now recorded on television for all the world to see. If would be far more responsible if the Opposition awaited the findings of the Select Committee on Agriculture which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, will investigate this matter and take evidence from whoever seeks to give evidence to it—the hon. Gentleman himself may seek to do so—and will then report back to the House with its findings. I am sure that the general public would be much more satisfied and would have their minds put more at rest if that inquiry were allowed to proceed in a rational and calm manner.
  The hon. Member for South Shields accused my right hon. Friend the Minister of doing too little, too late. When the hon. Gentleman makes such comments Conservative Members wonder what he would have done differently. Would he have taken advice from different sources? Would he have rejected the advice of Tyrrell and Southwood and relied more on the advice proffered by Professor Lacey, which might be more in tune with his own political prejudices?
  It is important that all hon. Members retain an open mind on this subject, pending the results of the Select Committee inquiry. I very much welcome the inquiry, because the food and farming industry has absolutely nothing to hide. I am confident that that industry will adopt any reasonable measures that are suggested as a result of the inquiry. As a member of the Select Committee, I shall be especially interested to hear the evidence of some well-known publicity-seeking sensationalists. In the meantime, I have absolutely no hesitation in stating that British beef is perfectly safe to eat and that the overwhelming weight of evidence supports that view.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Let me say at the outset that I am still eating beef—at least as far as my cholesterol level will allow. However, I am not eating products that contain mechanically recovered meat or any of the more exotic parts of the animal that masquerade as beef and that can be used at present. The few bits of the animal that are not used, or are obtained from unfit animals, are then used as animal feed to turn cows into carnivores and chickens into cannibals.
  However, as I said, I am still eating red meat beef because, after reading at least some of the evidence. I can assess that evidence for myself. However, most people cannot and require the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Health to assess the risk for them and to take every reasonable precaution.

  103
  As a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture, I will not prejudge its deliberations, but from the evidence that I have examined it is already obvious to me—as an interested individual—that the Ministry has not acted with wholehearted interest or with the necessary speed to protect either the farming industry or the consumer.
  Mr. Martlew: Is it not true that the work of the Select Committee—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and I are both members—has been badly damaged by the speech by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)? The hon. Gentleman, along with another hon. Member who spoke last Thursday, seems to have already made up his mind about the conclusions of the report. He has concluded that British beef is safe, and that the scare is all the fault of a bogus professor and a dead cat. Surely we must be more careful about what we say if we are to be regarded as independent judges.
  Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right, and I shall try to be open minded. However, I have read much of the evidence that has already been given to the Committee, and I am convinced that so far the Ministry has not acted correctly.
  On the evidence of the Ministry's own experts, the epidemic in the cattle population was caused by the bending of rules governing heat-treating of offal, sanctioned by the Government. For two years after its recognition, Ministry vets were told not to refer to the disease as "scrapie-like". On top of that, there is the compensation fiasco. What can the Ministry have been thinking of—apart from saving money—by offering 50 per cent. compensation? Bowing to pressure, the Ministry increased that to 100 per cent., and the weekly average of reported cases jumped from 278 to 460—hardly a gradual increase.
  If those incidents are coupled with the bungling of the on-going salmonella food-poisoning epidemic, the listeria problem and the fears about microwave cookers, it is hardly surprising that the public do not believe the Minister or his Under-Secretary when they claim that there is no risk to humans. The public—who have not read the report by Sir Richard Southwood—can appreciate, even if the Minister cannot, the finding of the report, which says that human transmission cannot be ruled out. That is a risk, however small.
  I am not a specialist in neuropathology, but the risk to humans depends on its transmissibility. We are told that scrapie has not caused a human disease, despite existing in Britain for 250 years. However, the human form of the disease—Creuzfeld-Jakob disease—was described only in 1923, and was not recognised as a transmissible disease until 1960. Possibly more worrying is the laboratory evidence, which shows that, although scrapie will not infect rabbits directly, it will infect them after infecting hamsters. That is a well-known phenomenon in micribiology. That could increase the risk, whatever it may be. No one—not even the Minister or his experts—can assess the risk; it is unassessable.
  Even if the disease passes from cows to humans, we are still not facing a human epidemic. At worst, we are probably facing an increase from about 30 to 100 or so cases a year. That is because many factors involved are in the incidence of this type of disease; whether we call it a
  104
  slow virus or a prion. No one knows exactly what it consists of, how it can be transmitted or how it can be detected.
  It is known, however, that there are genetic and transmission factors, and there appears to be a dose-related factor, although until reseach is done on the epidemiology of Creuzfeld-Jakob disease we cannot be sure. The Minister should ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health to make Creuzfeld-Jakob disease notifiable, as medical opinion considers the disease to be under-reported, and there is also a possible confusion with Alzheimer's disease. The incidence of CJD must be quantified; otherwise, how can we know what—if any—increase will occur from any type of BSE-related incident?
  What should we do to restore confidence? We must examine abattoir practice. We must not use the brains of cattle for any purposes. All cattle brains should be destroyed by burning within the head. We must stop offals such as brain, spleen and lymph glands being used in any animal food. We have already had a sequal to "Mad Max I"; how many more of Britain's 7 million cats must suffer and die? On 24 April the Minister said that there was no evidence of naturally occurring encephalopathies in cats and dogs. That is almost certainly true, but there have been two unnatural cases recently. It could be another case of cross-species transmission. We do not know. We face not a doomsday scenario, but a risk. It does nothing for the Government's credibility publicly to deny any risk when their experts say that there is one, albeit a small one.
  BSE could be transmitted to humans. The Southwood report and the chief veterinary officer have said so. Regardless of all the discussion about risk, one fact is certain and has nothing to do with the Opposition calling the debate. It is that public confidence in beef has plummeted. That will affect farmers throughout the country, especially those in my area, who are not the richest. In 1984 they got £1·98 a kilo whereas last week a farmer was offered £1·84. Even for sheep, which are not affected by the problem, my farmers are getting £2·62, which is exactly the same as in 1984. Coupled with high interest rates and the poll tax, this is a potential disaster for farming.
  Confidence must be restored. It will not be fully restored until we have a food standards agency which is genuinely independent of both Government and the food industry. Meantime, I hope that the deliberations of the Select Committee will be accepted as objective. To restore confidence to the market and to prevent farmers from suffering from a problem which is not of their own making, the Government should err on the side of caution. They should not hide behind expert advice. Advisers advise, but Ministers decide. They should immediately stop offal feeding to all animals; they should instigate random testing at abattoirs; they should prevent the possibility of vertical transmission in cattle by culling calves and infected cattle with full compensation and they should increase reseach on transmission.
  I will continue to eat whole red beef, but I am not confident of some beef products. Consumers will not be confident until the Minister takes on board all the measures that we have outlined and changes many of the food processors' practices to the benefit of consumers and producers.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I must declare an interest as a layman on the Agricultural and Food Research Council. I keep a close eye on its research. I am grateful to the Government for their contribution of £12 million to it and to medical research which is essential. I also declare my interest as a beef farmer.
  The Minister, properly, concentrated on consumers. He has often said that he puts consumers first. Farmers must also do so. However, this morning I had to stop my cattle going to market because of this ridiculous scare, so I think that it is fair to flag up the damage that these stories can do to legitimate businesses and a major British industry.
  The Minister made a convincing case for the Government's action on the scientific advice that they receive. In so far as any of the Opposition's case remains, it centres on the alleged delay in implementation. The Minister explained why it took place, but having read round the subject I wish to make one or two points. In doing so I follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), not in his conclusions but in some of his analysis.
  First, this is a brand new disease or possible complex of diseases. We have known about scrapie for some time—I have had one isolated case on my farm—but this is the first time that such a disease has cropped up in cattle and we do not even know what to call it. Is it a prion or a slow virus? We need to research that. Secondly, the period of incubation is questionable and there is no possibility of diagnosis in a live animal. If we had that possibility, life would be a great deal easier. Thirdly, it is clear by analogy that the disease is not highly infectious because mostly there have been one or two cases in a herd. Similarly, although scrapie in sheep is more concentrated in some breeds than others, cases are sporadic and intermittent. Fourthly, there seems to be little evidence of transmission across species, except in rather artificial conditions, such as some which have been mentioned.
  The complexity of the difficulties now faced by the Minister are also revealed by the fact that BSE has given rise to the rediagnosis of a series of events that had simply been left to go on the nod in the past. I understand that the Americans are re-examining 80 cases of bovine rabies and I would not be at all surprised to find cases of BSE on the continent that are now dismissed as rabies. There may well be other examples of BSE in Britain—we have already had it diagnosed in a cat—that were not diagnosed in the past because no one thought to investigate that possible diagnosis.
  The Minister must not only protect the public, but he must not go off at half-cock before the necessary information and advice is available to him. Hon. Members will be aware that certain debates are going on now concerning the Food Safety Bill and it is proposed that further compensation should be provided if local authorities seize food without justification. One can imagine the situation in which the Minister could find himself if he closed down the livestock industry—that appears to be the logic behind some Opposition speeches—without proper justification. That decision would never stand up in court and the compensation would be immense.
  It has been difficult for the Minister to feel his way forward. but he has struck the right balance. There are certain points that I should like him to bear in mind. First,
  106
  we know that enforcement is always difficult and we must ensure that regulations and advice are heeded. The enforceability of a full notification and tracing process for calves of infected animals after some years have elapsed and those calves have moved to different herds is a daunting task for my right hon. Friend even if he were advised to undertake it.
  Secondly, there is a major need for greater public education not least because education committees, including, I am ashamed to say, my county's, have decided to proceed often on political rather than scientific grounds. They have second-guessed the advice, that the Minister has received. If those committees have better advice, by all means submit it to my right hon. Friend, but so far their approach has not been scientific.
  I was slightly surprised to see a reference to the danger of eating meat pies by no less a distinguished person than the medical correspondent of The Times.He referred to that danger because brain and spinal tissue are used in those pies. That is a surprising comment in view of the safeguards that the Minister has imposed.
  My third point relates specifically to my constituency and the tip site at Welford, which has now been closed. Carcases have been buried at that site, but I strongly prefer incineration, which is more positive and final.
  My right hon. Friend should also consider the possibility of epidemiological studies of ordinary carcases and brains taken from the slaughterhouses. Although that is a one-star priority, the fact that one would be dealing with such large numbers means that there would be no bias in the sample and a small number would provide a good statistical reading that one could use with confidence.
  The Government have expressed their readiness to keep reminding the public of what they are doing, to publish the information that they have and to consider new information when it becomes available—in that they have met my request. There is an equal duty on the Opposition not to stir things up with inappropriate scares. If the issues are real, they should be brought forward, but Opposition Members should avoid using words such as "could", "might", or "no absolute assurance" because they are not synonymous with a realistic and balanced approach to the problem.
  With the possible exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), no one else in the Chamber will remember the foot and mouth epidemic of 1967, which devastated the dairying areas of the north-west. I was then a junior researcher for the Conservative party and there was then a great deal of pressure on Conservative Members, then the Opposition, to attack the Government. Those pressures were firmly and rigorously resisted, and rightly so. No party that aspires to be in Government should stir up criticism in that way. The Government have acted responsibly in this matter. They have taken the best advice, which is good enough for me and, I hope, the House.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I recollect that Mr. Fred Peart, as he then was, was seriously criticised in 1967. The recollection of some of us is not what the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said.
  I have three questions. First, is it or is it not true that the cuts in the Agricultural and Food Research Council have been something of a hindrance in the present crisis?

  107
  Secondly, are the Government going to bring forward legislation fairly soon involving the changes in abattoirs? The Minister referred to the New Scientist. There is a powerful six-page article on the issue of stunning and what that can do to meat. In 15 seconds I cannot go into it, but I ask that question. Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has had some difficulty with his information, which I believe is absolutely valid. What are the instructions given to people working in Government employment in relation to making statements? That is something that should be coolly contemplated.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: I am disappointed that the hon. Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), who have been in the Chamber throughout the evening, have not had the opportunity to speak. I know that they have both followed the debate closely, but that is the way the cookie crumbles.
  The latter point of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) was answered fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who made clear the attitude of the then Opposition in 1967. The hon. Members for Daventry and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) criticised the Opposition for tabling the motion. They seemed to imply, as my hon. Friend the the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) made clear, that we had no right to table a motion criticising the Government. I reject that view because I resent it. The Opposition have every right to table such a motion. I would suggest to anyone——
  Mr. Gill rose——
  Mr. Davies: I shall not give way because time is short and the hon. Gentleman has made his case. I must now make mine.
  We tabled our motion, which was critical of the Government. No Opposition Member has said anything to impugn the integrity of the beef industry or cast any doubt on the wisdom of eating beef. If that is construed as an attack on the beef industry, I am sorry. But our motion specifically attacks the Government's handling of the present problem of BSE, which is the issue that I want to address.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow asked why we should debate this matter this evening. I received a parliamentary answer today stating that, during the past four weeks, 1,148 cases of BSE have been confirmed. Every county in England and Wales during the past four weeks has had confirmed cases of BSE. That alone is a good reason to debate the issue this evening. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at the press last week he would have seen that there is major public concern. It is right that if every newspaper in the country draws attention to what is clearly a major problem and local authorities throughout the land—Conservative, Labour, Liberal and hung—decide that there is sufficient concern——
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
  Mr. Davies: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. She has been in and out all evening, and if she cannot listen to the debate, I am sorry.
  108
  Authorities across the political spectrum have decided, rightly or wrongly, that they want to ban beef in their schools. That is a matter of concern to me and, I know, to my hon. Friends, and that is why we tabled the motion.
  I do not know what was the experience of the hon. Members for Daventry and for Ludlow during the weekend, but I know that they both have close interests with the farming industry and are both, I believe, former members of the National Farmers Union. I talked to several farmers in my constituency at the weekend. They all recognised that the major problem they currently face—admittedly, they were involved in dairy and stock rearing—is BSE. They want action and are not satisfied with the description that we have so far received from the Minister. The widespread opinion outside the House is a good reason why we should debate this matter and examine the Government's record.
  Let us look at the case that the Minister made out when opening the debate. His case hinged on the idea that the Government are committed to acting on—and only on—that which has been scientifically proven. I happen to think that that is a faulty approach. Of course, the Government must listen and accept scientific evidence and advice, but their responsbility is to interpret that advice and then to apply it in practice at the political level, just as they did in the case of green top milk. The Government must understand that the public will make their own assessment of the risks involved with BSE, and if the public perception is that the safeguards implemented by the Government are insufficient they will take their own action—as they have.
  The Government cannot determine policy in a vacuum. The likely public reaction to their initiatives, such as they are, must inform Government policy. A wilful disregard of the developing public mood in relation to food safety, in concert with the ritualistic recital of the words "scientific evidence", is bound to inflame, rather than calm, public concern hence the report in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday that six out of 10 people questioned now believe that the Government are withholding information on BSE.
  The Government's reference to scientific evidence is itself disingenuous. Lack of hard scientific evidence that BSE poses a threat is not the same as saying that we have scientific evidence that it is not a threat. It may be instructive for those who listen to the words of scientists and advisers to hear what is said in the article in The Independent of Thursday 17 May:
  "A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal concluded: 'Repeated claims that British beef is entirely safe to eat are very probably true; but such claims are scarcely scientific when the question has not been tested and is, perhaps, untestable.'
  The editorial was written by Professor Bryan Matthews, who is one of the country's leading experts on the human disease Creuzfeld-Jakob Disease, which shows some similarity to BSE."
  That is not a source to be dismissed lightly.
  The Minister would have us believe that because we do not know that BSE affects humans, or that it is vertically transmitted, or that it is present in calves of less than six months of age, BSE cannot affect humans, cannot be vertically transmitted and cannot be present in calves of less than six months. That approach is dishonest.
  In the absence of firm scientific proof, the Government must make an assessment of what could possibly happen. I am grateful that the Minister, when intervening in the

  109
  speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), made the welcome statement that he was prepared to consider the worst scenario. That is the first time he has made that admission inpublic——
  Mr. Gummer indicated dissent
  Mr. Davies: The Minister might have said it in private, but I welcome the fact that he has gone on public record with it this evening. Evidence of the action that he has taken to date shows that he has not adopted that line hitherto.
  The Government must assess what could possibly happen and frame a reasonable political response. Their failure to do so in the past 10 years has been the principal cause of the current crisis in public confidence in our beef industry. For example, in the early 1960s it was a scientifically established fact that scrapie was transmissible, and it was known that that took place by ingestion. There was, however, no scientific proof that cattle could catch the bovine equivalent of scrapie. That position was exactly analogous to that which applies to humans now. The lack of scientific evidence did not prevent the feeding of scrapie-infected remains to cattle, causing the emergence of BSE.
  It is because the public are worried that the lack of scientific evidence will not prevent the same thing happening to humans that we have this crisis on our hands. After all, why should the public accept Government assurances that all is well? Had the Government been asked in the early 1980s about the practice of feeding vegetarian cattle on sheep, no doubt they would have said that it was perfectly acceptable. It turned out not to be, but because of the lack of scientific evidence at the time they kept on allowing dead sheep to be fed to vegetarian cattle.
  The Minister spoke recently about what is and what is not natural in terms of diet. I am not sure about the credibility of a man who invokes biblical authority one week and requires binding scientific proof the next. The Minister has said that if God had meant man to be a vegetarian he would have given him three stomachs like a cow. The theology is dubious and the biology is worse because a cow has four stomachs. Because the Minister did not have scientific evidence—not biblical guidance—that this was dangerous, he continued to allow what is, by his own standards, the very unnatural practice of feeding dead cows to vegetarian cattle.
  It is little wonder that no one now takes the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seriously. At every point of the developing saga the Ministry has been found wanting. The Ministry knew 20 years ago that scrapie was transmissible by ingestion to other species but it did nothing. It knew in 1985 that cattle were being stricken and it covered that up. It knew in 1987 about a scientific paper intended to refer to a scrapie-like disease in cattle and censored it. It must have suspected in 1987 that contaminated feed was the problem and it did nothing until August 1988. The Ministry must have realised early on the potential risk to humans. The Southwood committee confirmed it in February 1989, but the very offals which were the reservoir of infection were not banned until November 1989.
  After 1988 when the disease was made notifiable the Ministry must have known that infected animals were being slaughtered for human consumption. On the
  110
  Minister's own figures, 200 infected animals were plucked from slaughterhouses. If 200 were plucked out, how many went through? Farmers, veterinary surgeons and public health inspectors told the Government what was happening, but we had to wait until February this year when the Minister swapped the pulpit for the soap box. He went to the National Farmers Union conference and, to curry favour with the NFU and because he had precious little else to say, he increased the level of compensation by 200 per cent. He knows that he should have taken that measure at the outset because it would have stopped infected cattle entering the human food chain.
  The Minister has shown similar scant regard for the health of workers in the industry. He still has not revised the practices for the handling of potentially infected bovine remains in slaughterhouses. The Government's action on health and safety guidelines and the monitori rig of the guidelines on the human equivalent, Creuzfeld-Jakob dementia, which came last month, three or four years after the Government knew about the start of the problem, were, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, too little too late.
  The Minister may argue that that is wisdom with the benefit of hindsight. However, it represents the difference between what the Government have done and what Labour would do. The difference is between the minimum that the Government think they can get away with and that which we know is necessary to achieve and maintain minimum standards. The Minister has a steep hill to climb, and although I do not expect him to apologise for his past mistakes, we do expect him to take positive action to improve the outlook.
  Why will not the Minister accept random sampling? The hon. Member for Daventry, who is an expert, and the hon. Member for Warrington, South, if he had spoken, would have joined us in calling for random sampling. The Minister has not given an answer to that and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will answer the question why does not the Minister require compulsory ante-mortem veterinary inspection of all bovines? He will be required to do that under EEC rules by January 1991 anyway. Why does he not bring it forward six months? If the Minister wants to restore public confidence in the beef industry, he should order that from tomorrow all cattle must be examined before slaughter. The Minister will not do that because he realises that there have been deficiencies in his policy for the past couple of years.
  Why will not the Minister ban the use of specified offals in pet food and pig and poultry supplements? His explanation to date is that there is no example of scrapie having infected carnivorous animals. We are told that the Bible tells us that carnivores are naturally equipped to deal with scrapie. What about the cat that has scrapie? That is a carnivore. How can the Minister tell us that a cat can catch it but a pig or a chicken cannot. They are consuming what the Minister knows to be contaminated foodstuffs. If he wants to restore confidence in the British beef industry, he should now be taking such decisions.
  Many hon. Members have spoken about monitoring the offspring of infected cattle. This crucial subject last week had the support of the president of the NFU and still has the continuing support of the Women's Farming Union. If BSE is the cattle equivalent of scrapie, all the characteristics in cattle will be the same as those in sheep

  111
  with scrapie, and BSE will be vertically transmissible. The Minister must accept that there is a strong possibility that it is vertically transmissible.
  Any Minister who knew of this matter when he knew of the problem of BSE two or three years ago would have said, as a matter of first policy, that if there is a possibility of BSE being vertically transmissible, although the Ministry would not go the whole way and slaughter every calf, it should at least start recording the movement of calves. Then, if it were so proved, the Ministry would know where the calves are and have the records to deal with the problem. As the Minister admitted to me on Friday last week, not only does he not know where they are; he does not know how many calves alive today were born from BSE-infected cattle. That is a shoddy record, and that is why we tabled the motion.
  9.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr David Maclean): This has been an interesting debate, not least because it has exposed those on the Opposition Benches who will seek to exploit public fear for political aims. The intemperate outburst that we heard at the end was a clear demonstration of that.
  The debate has put the labour party on the spot. First, it has had to justify having the debate at all. No wonder so many Labour Back Benchers are questioning the judgment of the leader of the Labour party when he takes up one half of his precious Supply day for a debate on Ravenscraig and the other he devotes to this subject when the questions about it were fully answered last Thursday in the detailed statement on it by my right hon. Friend the Minister, numerous press releases and over 30 learned reports and publications, all in the public domain. The people of Scotland will not understand a Labour party that prefers to damage the Scotch beef industry rather than argue for jobs at Ravenscraig.
  The Labour party must also justify, although it has not, its refusal to rely on the expert scientific advice of the Government's top independent scientific advisers. We have based our policy on that advice, and in its motion condemning the Government, it is condemning that advice. The Labour party has said that it knows better and would have done it differently, but on which scientific advice would it rely? It has produced not one shred of evidence or argument to show that there is better scientific advice that we have not used.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has not Professor Lacey of Leeds grossly harmed the egg industry by an irresponsible campaign, and is he not now claiming to be an expert on this subject? Has Professor Lacey produced any in-depth scientific papers that have been subjected to the peer scrutiny that they so urgently require?
  Mr. Maclean: I am not aware of any on this subject, but it is over a week since I called on Professor Lacey to say whether he has any evidence that he wishes to submit to our experts, or any advice on certain subjects about which he knows better. We have an open mind on this, and we keep all aspects of BSE policy under review. If anyone comes to us with any research, we will immediately pass it to Dr. Tyrrell and his experts for their advice. The
  112
  Opposition rely on Dr. Lacey and the media, who, as I understand it, have done no research. We shall rely on Dr. Tyrrell and his experts, who have.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) dismissed the views of the chief medical officer. No doubt Sir Donald Acheson is now persona non grata among the Opposition because he committed the fatal mistake of saying:
  "I therefore have no hesitation in saying that British beef can be eaten safely by everyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital."
  That is why Opposition Members would not mention Sir Donald in tonight's debate.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen said that the incidence of the disease is higher than Southwood predicted, but failed to point out that the disease is following the path predicted by Southwood. The hon. Gentleman and others make the assumption that BSE has jumped species. That is the kind of scaremongering that my hon. Friends mean when they accuse the Opposition of scaremongering. According to the Opposition, if a form of encephalopathy is found in a cat, automatically it must be BSE. The hon. Member for Carmarthen called for the mass slaughter of cows, even though the expert evidence is against it. The hon. Gentleman dodged that point. The chief veterinary officer does not support the mass extermination of cows.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen also made the allegation that the temperature at which carcases are rendered has been lowered. I refer him to the Southwood report, which details in its final pages the various rendering processes that are available and reveals that the temperature for rendering has not been lowered.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) was right to remind the Opposition that they should give any evidence they have to the Tyrrell committee. He was right also to accuse the Opposition of being irresponsible.
  I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who agrees with our statement that the risk to humans is distant. I support his closing remark, that British beef is safe. He asked me about the labelling of feeding stuffs. As I said in the House last Thursday, the draft EEC directive on the labelling of feeding stuffs was agreed last January. The Government have not refused to introduce the regulations, but want to implement them in concert with our European partners. We are working on the detail of the regulations now. They will be a matter not for the Food Safety Bill but for the feeding stuffs regulations.
  The hon. Member for Truro accepts the scientific advice generally, but asks us to ignore it in respect of pigs and poultry. The hon. Gentleman accepts advice to undertake research into one area, but rejects advice that other research should not be extended or begun.
  Opposition Members make the assumption that cats have contracted BSE from pet food. I repeat: we have followed the best advice, but if further advice or information is available, I am sure that Dr. Tyrrell will bring it to our attention. I am glad that the hon. Member for Truro distanced himself from the mass slaughtering claims. We keep records of calves, and we will ensure that records of diseased animals will be kept for many years. We have acknowledged the possibility of maternal

  113
  transmission, and do not work on the assumption that it will never occur. If it does, we have the safeguards in place to deal with it.
  Heads are removed from animal carcases before the splitting of them for the extraction of head meat. Again, because we have an open mind, we will happily take any further advice that Tyrrell may give. It is right to keep an open mind when it comes to dealing with head splitting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was also right to criticise the Opposition for creating newspaper headlines that, inadvertently or otherwise, cause food scares. The Opposition claim that they are not doing that deliberately, in which case I accuse them of a worse crime—that of total ignorance. My hon. Friend is right to insist that decisions are made on soundly based advice, which is our policy and that of our predecessors. A former Agriculture Minister urged to eliminate TB said, in the European context:
  "We also wanted to ensure that the proposed Community action against swine fever was soundly based and that we should not have to introduce methods for eradicating bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis which were different from those we already use, other than for sound scientific reasons."—[Official Report, 11 May 1977; Vol. 931, col. 1502.]
  Who said that? They are the words of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) when he was an agriculture spokesman in the last Labour Government. All we are seeking is to ensure that our policy also is soundly based.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will agree that we can assure the public that British beef can be eaten with confidence.
  Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely. I can give that assurance. My right hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Member for Truro and the chief medical officer have given that assurance.
  The Government's policy is based on the best scientific advice available. Our safety precautions are like my famous belt and two pairs of braces. First, we destroy all the cows with BSE and do spot checks in markets and abattoirs. The ultimate precaution is that we cut out the brain, spinal cord and other specified offal from every cow in the slaugtherhouse to be ultra-safe. That is going further than the experts recommended. That is a belt-and-two-pairs-of-braces approach, and that is why we can say that British beef is safe.
  The Opposition like to give the impression of an epidemic of unprecedented proportions ravaging through the land. Since the disease started, we have killed more than 13,000 cows in three years. When we were in the middle of the brucellosis eradication scheme and the TB eradication scheme, we were killing 30,000 and 50,000 animals each year. The extent of the disease should be kept in proportion.
  The Opposition say, "Too little, too late." That is their usual line. If they continue to maintain it, they must explain why they would fly in the face of the expert advice of Professor Southwood and his committee and Dr. Tyrrell and his committee. I notice that they have precious little to say about the pronouncement by the chief medical officer that British beef is safe. They will not talk about it, because the CMO has shot their fox. They are not sure whether to imply that beef is not safe in the hope that it will gain them votes, or to say that we should do more to stop the panic that they stirred up in the first place in the hope that that will gain them votes.
  114
  The Opposition have been tabling questions trying to create a scare about pigs with bad legs in Yorkshire. They claim that we were secretive. The reason why they knew about the pigs was that they obtained the information from the press, which in turn obtained it from us. The press showed interest days before they started tabling questions. Giving information to the press is a mighty funny way to keep a secret.
  Here are 27 reports, listed by the Southwood committee, on BSE; here is the Tyrrell report; and here are the countless press releases and statistics on BSE that we have issued. Hansard records the hundreds of written answers that I have given.
  The present scare took off not because of any new BSE risk or because health was in jeopardy but because we published information on a cat with encephalopathy. We have nothing to hide and the public have nothing to fear, but they must reach their own judgment on the evidence.
  Everything that should have been done has been done. Everything that can be done is being done. If we find that something should be done, it will be done, as throughout this saga, on the basis of the best scientific advice available. We will not take action based on emotion, political expediency or guesswork. This disease is too important to be treated in such a silly way as the Labour party would have us do. Its behaviour throughout, as it has tried to stir up one food scare after another, and its misjudgment in having the debate today show that it is not fit for government, and its refusal to back the judgment of Professor Southwood, Dr. Tyrrell and their independent experts exposes the shallowness of its thoughts. Worst of all, by ignoring the words of Sir Donald Acheson, the chief medical officer, who said
  "I therefore have no hesitation in saying that beef can be eaten safely by everyone",
  the Labour party has condemned itself as a party of cynical opportunists, twisting and turning with every move of the opinion polls. How many votes does the Labour party expect to get out of this sordid little episode?
  The Government, on the other hand, have taken the honourable position throughout to safeguard public health. Despite the clear evidence of top independent experts that the risk to humans is remote, and despite the historical evidence of the past 250 years of no danger to humans from scrapie in sheep, the Government have not taken any chances. That is why I urge the House to vote against the Opposition's motion and to back the Government.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 316.

  Division No. 218]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Blair, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Paul

  Alton, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Buchan, Norman

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Buckley, George J.

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beckett, Margaret

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cartwright, John

  115

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McAllion, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Clay, Bob

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McFall, John

  Cohen, Harry

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Coleman, Donald

  McLeish, Henry

  Corbett, Robin

  McWilliam, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Madden, Max

  Cousins, Jim

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cox, Tom

  Marek, Dr John

  Crowther, Stan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cryer, Bob

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Martlew, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Maxton, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Meacher, Michael

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Meale, Alan

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dewar, Donald

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dixon, Don

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dobson, Frank

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Eastham, Ken

  Murphy, Paul

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Nellist, Dave

  Faulds, Andrew

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Patchett, Terry

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

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Fisher, Mark

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Flannery, Martin

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Reid, Dr John

  Foster, Derek

  Richardson, Jo

  Foulkes, George

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Fraser, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Fyfe, Maria

  Rooker, Jeff

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  George, Bruce

  Rowlands, Ted

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Gould, Bryan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Graham, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Short, Clare

  Grocott, Bruce

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hardy, Peter

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Soley, Clive

  Henderson, Doug

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Home Robertson, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Vaz, Keith

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Walley, Joan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Illsley, Eric

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Ingram, Adam

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Janner, Greville

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Winnick, David

  Lambie, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Lewis, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Loyden, Eddie

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Atkins, Robert

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amos, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Beith, A. J.

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ashby, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  116

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gow, Ian

  Boswell, Tim

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowis, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Grylls, Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hague, William

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hannam, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hargreaves, Ken(Hyndburn)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harris, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butcher, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Butler, Chris

  Hayward, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hill, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

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

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Chope, Christopher

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Churchill, Mr

  Howells, Geraint

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

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Irvine, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Janman, Tim

  Cran, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Critchley, Julian

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Devlin, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, James

  Dicks, Terry

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knox, David

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Fallon, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lightbown, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Livsey, Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Franks, Cecil

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fry, Peter

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gardiner, George

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gill, Christopher

  Maclean, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  117

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Sims, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Madel, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Speed, Keith

  Mans, Keith

  Speller, Tony

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Marlow, Tony

  Squire, Robin

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mates, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Steen, Anthony

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stern, Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Mills, Iain

  Stokes, Sir John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Nelson, Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thorne, Neil

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tracey, Richard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Paice, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Patnick, Irvine

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walden, George

  Portillo, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Price, Sir David

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Raffan, Keith

  Wallace, James

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Redwood, John

  Ward, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Watts, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wells, Bowen

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Whitney, Ray

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wilkinson, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Ryder, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Shelton, Sir William

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Shersby, Michael

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 92.

  Division No. 219]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Franks, Cecil

  Alexander, Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  French, Douglas

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Amess, David

  Gardiner, George

  Amos, Alan

  Gill, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, James

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Ashby, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Atkins, Robert

  Gorst, John

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Gow, Ian

  Baldry, Tony

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Beggs, Roy

  Gregory, Conal

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ground, Patrick

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hague, William

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hannam, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Boswell, Tim

  Harris, David

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bowis, John

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hayes, Jerry

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hayward, Robert

  Brazier, Julian

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Bright, Graham

  Hill, James

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Burns, Simon

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butcher, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Butler, Chris

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Butterfill, John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Howells, Geraint

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Cash, William

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Jack, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Janman, Tim

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jessel, Toby

  Chope, Christopher

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Churchill, Mr

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Key, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kilfedder, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Couchman, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Cran, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

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

  Knowles, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knox, David

  Day, Stephen

  Lang, Ian

  Devlin, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Dunn, Bob

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evennett, David

  Lightbown, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Livsey, Richard

  Favell, Tony

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lord, Michael

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maclean, David

  Forth, Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  119

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Speller, Tony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mans, Keith

  Squire, Robin

  Maples, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stern, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Mills, Iain

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Sumberg, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Summerson, Hugo

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Nelson, Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thorne, Neil

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Paice, James

  Tracey, Richard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tredinnick, David

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Trippier, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Trotter, Neville

  Pawsey, James

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Viggers, Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Price, Sir David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Raffan, Keith

  Walden, George

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Redwood, John

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Ward, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Watts, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Whitney, Ray

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wilkinson, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarf)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Shelton, Sir William

  Yeo, Tim

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  120

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Home Robertson, John

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Allen, Graham

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Alton, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Illsley, Eric

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Barron, Kevin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Bidwell, Sydney

  McFall, John

  Blair, Tony

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Boateng, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Bradley, Keith

  Madden, Max

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Marek, Dr John

  Buchan, Norman

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Martlew, Eric

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Maxton, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Meale, Alan

  Cohen, Harry

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cousins, Jim

  Mullin, Chris

  Cox, Tom

  Murphy, Paul

  Cryer, Bob

  Nellist, Dave

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Patchett, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

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

  Reid, Dr John

  Dewar, Donald

  Rogers, Allan

  Dixon, Don

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Eastham, Ken

  Short, Clare

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

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

  Foster, Derek

  Soley, Clive

  Foulkes, George

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fraser, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Strang, Gavin

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Vaz, Keith

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Graham, Thomas

  Winnick, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hardy, Peter

  Mr. Andrew Welsh and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.

  Haynes, Frank

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House supports the Government's determination to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and commends Her Majesty's Government for basing its policy and actions to secure the safety of food on the best scientific advice and for the prompt implementation of the recommendations of its independent expert committees as the best means of safeguarding public and animal health.

  Social Charter
  [Relevant document: Un-numbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 24 November 1989 on a Community charter of fundamental rights.]
  10.26 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9978/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 15th March 1990 relating to Commission action programme relating to the implementation of the Social Charter, and endorses the Government's view that a key factor in ensuring that the achievement of the single market has a social dimension is to continue efforts to stimulate job creation and bring down unemployment.
  Tonight's debate focuses on the European Commission's proposal for an action programme to implement the social charter. However, the issues go wider than that. The debate raises the question of the sort of Europe that we are seeking to build, and how we can ensure that that Europe can best serve the interests of its people. The debate is an opportunity to set out the United Kingdom's position on the social action programme in the context of the challenges faced by Britain and her Community partners.
  A key challenge that faces the Community is the growth of international competition. Europe is a trading community: it simply cannot survive through protectionism or state subsidy. The Community must compete with Japan, north America and the fast-growing economies of the far east. At the same time, it must be attractive as a market for inward investment. In Europe, we also face the challenges of major demographic and technological change. The Community must respond to all those challenges, and the single European market in 1992 is our major response. It holds out the prospect of new prosperity for the people of the Community.
  At the Madrid European Council in June last year, all Community countries agreed that achieving the single market offered the best prospect for improving living standards and working conditions and creating new jobs within the Community. However, there are some differences of view within the Community—and within individual countries—when it comes to the so-called "social dimension". Some fear that more intense competition will lead to pressure on businesses to reduce standards in terms and conditions of employment, and therefore conclude that the Community needs a wide-ranging programme of regulation on employment and social issues. In response, the Commission has produced the social charter and the social action programme to implement the "social dimension". The British Government—like Europe's employers—take a different view. We believe that the first requirement for the "social dimension" is for action at Community level to increase the prospects for existing jobs and for the creation of new ones.
  Community countries agreed at the European Council last June that the creation of jobs for the people of Europe is our top priority. It is not hard to understand why the Council decided that: about 14 million people are still unemployed in the European Community, including more than 7 million who have been unemployed for a year or
  122
  more. That is the crucial issue in the "social dimension", because throughout the Community it is the unemployed whose living standards are the lowest. That view is firmly borne out by the United Kingdom experience.
  By following a policy of deregulation, devolution and decentralisation, Britain has set one of the best records on jobs in the Community. Employment is at record levels; we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Community; and we have succeeded in cutting long-term unemployment by about half compared with the total two years ago. It is because of our record on creating jobs that we oppose measures from the Community that might increase costs, create barriers to employment and prevent jobs from being created.
  That is why we believe that the social charter is unnecessary and that the social action programme to implement it could imperil the success of the single market—the engine of job creation—with restrictive and unnecessary regulations that are in nobody's interests, least of all the 14 million unemployed people in the Community.
  The real social dimension is not about regulation, but about raising people's living standards and levels of prosperity through job creation throughout the Community.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Surely the social dimension has everything to do with regulation. If there is to be a single market—the Government wholeheartedly concur with it—who will regulate it? The labour market is part of the social dimension. If we are talking about a labour market, surely the Minister should talk about the regulation of the social market, which in our terms is industrial relations legislation. Although I agree that the level of employment is a significant social factor, is not the regulation of the social market of great importance to a single market economy?
  Mr. Eggar: In view of the hon. Gentleman's beliefs, surely he accepts that where there must be regulation, for example in industrial relations, it is right to regulate at national rather than Community level. The Community has a role in other areas, an obvious one of which is health and safety. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not demur from that. Given the freedom of workers in the Community to work in any country, they should expect the same standards as exist in their country to apply wherever they work. Clearly, that is an area of competence which is rightly the Commission's.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Where do migrant workers stand with regard to freedom to move from one Community country to another? Will they have the same right to move or will Turkish gastarbeiter be confined to the Federal Republic of Germany and north African workers to France? As many of them will have spent many years in Germany or France, will they have the same right to move freely within the Community?
  Mr. Eggar: The answer is that we do not know because we have not yet seen the directives of the Commission. We must wait for them. At the moment that matter is left to national Governments. We strongly believe in the idea of subsidiarity—not doing things at the Community level that are best done at national level. We will almost inevitably argue that the matter should be left to national

  123
  Governments. However, we are not making up our mind now in advance of seeing the specific directives. I am sure that the House and the Select Committee on European Legislation, chaired by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), will examine them.
  When viewed against the criteria that I have outlined the Commission's social action programme is worrying. It represents the Commission's view of the proposals needed to implement the social charter. The programme does not include the proposals themselves, nor much detail as to what the individual proposals are likely to include.
  About 47 proposals are to be considered, alongside existing Community business, in the next two years. The House will understand that that is a formidable legislative agenda. We will consider on their merits all the proposals that come forward and apply to them the test of the three criteria that were agreed at the Madrid Council. Will the proposal encourage the creation of jobs for the people of Europe? If it will, is action at Community level the right level at which to take it? If it is, does the proposal respect the different national traditions and practices? To that we want to add whether the proposal, if passed, is likely to be properly and effectively implemented.
  As currently presented and judged against those criteria, we believe that we will have few problems with more than a third of the 47 proposals. That third includes proposals on such things as health and safety, equal opportunities and freedom of movement. We believe that those issues are appropriate for European-wide standard setting and are likely to be consistent with the criteria that I outlined earlier. Insufficient information is currently available on a further third of the proposals on which to form a view, but we believe that we are likely to have some difficulties with the remainder.
  I should like to illustrate some of the difficulties that we shall probably face. The House might like to know that the Community is considering statutory weekly and daily rest periods and perhaps a ban on night work. We wonder whether the full implications of that have been seriously considered by the Commission. Workers may not be able to work overtime, even if it is available and they want to work it. When factory workers have worked out the implications of that on the productivity deals that they have negotiated will they be willing to see those deals effectively ripped up and the financial benefits denied to them? Those are the types of issue that might have to be addressed as a result of the proposals that we expect from the Commission.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: That is the line of argument advanced by the defender of the great British paper boy. The idea is to invent something ludicrous and insist that it is up to the Community to disprove it. The Minister has suggested that night work might be banned by the Community, but that appears nowhere in any Community document, nor is it supported by any reference to speeches emanating from Europe. Where did the Minister get that example from? Did he just make it up?
  Mr. Eggar: I did not just make it up—the hon. Gentleman should know me better than that.
  Proposals are coming forward from the Commission that deal with the regulation of night work. The effect of
  124
  those regulations may be to make it impossible to have people working at night. That is extremely serious for companies that rely on continuous working, and has all sorts of implications for industry that needs safety cover. The hon. Gentleman is putting his head in the sand if he does not understand the likely implications of the proposals that might be put forward by the Commission.
  Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend will know about the grave concern at the implications of the social charter and the action programme. As a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation I recently had the opportunity to go to Brussels and hear Mrs. Vasso Papandreou on this very subject. She is a determined lady and clearly has every intention of putting through her proposals.
  In relation to the latter category—the one third of difficult matters—to which my hon. Friend referred, there are two separate questions. The first is the issue of competence and whether the Community has the power to be able to introduce these issues, which we can shunt off to the courts, although I would exercise the right of veto and have nothing to do with them. It is about time we started talking tough on that issue. I am looking to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who knows what I mean.
  Secondly, subsidiarity is a double-edged sword. I invite the Minister to consider the following question. If the definition—to which he rightly applied his question—is that that which is best done at local level should be done there, and that which is best done at the higher level should be done there, and the Commission has decided that it is going to abrogate to itself the higher level because it thinks that is best, how does his argument equate with the timetable for the inter-governmental conference when questions related to subsidiarity will be determined? Can he give any idea of the timetable that will be followed so that we know where we are before we go any further with this programme?
  Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend raised a number of complex and inter-related questions.
  Mr. Cash: They were simple.
  Mr. Eggar: If they were so simple, my hon. Friend took quite a long time to explain a few simple propositions.
  These are difficult issues that must be considered in the light of the specific proposals from the Commission, and we shall have to make up our minds how to tackle each directive and proposal as it comes forward. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I am sorry that I cannot give him a fuller answer.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: To clarify the issue, which is obviously becoming complex, will the Minister answer the following question: if the Community puts forward a proposal to ban night or day work, or anything else, and it is passed with a majority, do we simply have to implement that decision whether or not Parliament likes it or the Government think that it is rubbish? Is that true or not?
  Mr. Eggar: I wish that matters were as simple as my hon. Friend postulates. Of course, we shall have to look at the proposals in each directive. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that one of the questions we shall consider is the system of voting that applies—whether

  125
  there is unanimity and which article it comes under. In the light of that we would argue the merits of the case. But if we believed that the proposal from the Commission was covered by the wrong article and, therefore, a different voting system—a qualified majority rather than unanimity—we would never exclude the possibility of taking the matter to the European Court, with all the implications that that has. My hon. Friend will not be at all surprised to hear me say that.
  The Commission may also bring forward a proposal to regulate part-time and temporary work, which it apparently regards as atypical work. Perhaps the Commission is unaware that 6 million people in Britain work part time, and that 90 per cent. of them do so because they want to, not because they have to. We must question the motivation behind the Commission's attempt to introduce a proposal that might reduce the number of part-time jobs in the British economy.
  We want to help to build a forward and outward-looking Community which can seize new opportunities and meet new challenges. We are not opposed to regulation in itself but we are strongly opposed to unnecessary regulation that burdens businesses and therefore destroys jobs. Regulation is not what the social dimension is about. The social dimension must not be about protecting traditional working patterns at the expense of jobs for unemployed people. The social dimension that we need in the Community is one that will encourage enterprise and opportunity for people to make choices about their own working lives. If we burden the Community's industry with new and unnecessary regulation in the name of the social dimension, we shall negate the single market and, in so doing, undermine job creation and hence the living standards of all our citizens.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Once again we have heard an analysis from the Department of Employment school of fantasy of all that is ill in the European Community—particularly the Minister's absurd suggestion that the Community might ban night work at some stage. I suspect that that may come as a surprise to people working in the medical services throughout Europe who are, by definition almost, engaged in night work. It is inconceivable that people in Europe will want to do without night nurses or doctors——
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Or bobbies.
  Mr. Lloyd: Or bobbies, as my hon. Friend——
  Mr. Skinner: To check up on the Minister at night.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend——
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that a proposal that may well emerge from the Commission is that everyone be entitled to 12 hours rest a day and at least 36 hours rest a week, in an uninterrupted mode. Cannot he conceive of circumstances in which that might make it impossible to have night cover in hospitals?
  Mr. Lloyd: If the Minister seriously suggests that there might be pressure that would threaten night work in hospitals, he is living in a peculiar world inhabited only by the small group of people who voted against the social charter—the British Conservative group and the French communists, a fairly unique combination.
  Mr. Eggar: Stop wriggling.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am not wriggling; I am happy to debate night work with the Minister through the night, here or in the many places in which night work will continue in future.
  It was a sign of ministerial desperation that the Minister should once again pick on the trivial. This is the same Minister who gave us the spectre of the disappearing paper boys. Even the Minister would concede that not only was that nonsense then but that it is nonsense now. There was never anything serious in that, just as there was nothing serious in what the Minister said in the debate. His speech consisted of the usual tired old slogans, such as the Government are in control of unemployment. We learnt on Thursday that unemployment has increased. Would the Minister care to intervene again and tell the House when he next expects unemployment not to go up? Obviously he does not feel confident enough to speak about that. Will it be next month or the month after, or will it be next year? Does he have any views at all on when unemployment in Britain will begin to fall again? He does not think that that is important.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course I will, if the hon. Gentleman proposes to answer that question.
  Mr. Butterfill: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when under a Labour Government we had 43 months of an uninterrupted fall in unemployment?
  Mr. Lloyd: I would take that question seriously if the hon. Gentleman could give me a clear indication of when unemployment will fall to the level at which it stood when the Government came to office. That is a much more serious question because unemployment in Britain is still far above the level at which it stood when the Prime Minister came to Downing street.
  Mr. Butterfill rose——
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman has yet to make a serious point.
  The Opposition have a much more serious but much more relaxed view of the action programme. Nobody could seriously say that of itself the action programme is anything other than a greatly watered down version of the original social charter. I am sure Conservative Members will want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for that because she made determined efforts to ensure that there is no semblance of a social framework within which people in Britain or in the wider Community can work. The cost of that will not be suffered by ex Cabinet Ministers, present Ministers or Conservative Members until they become unemployed at the next general election. It is suffered by ordinary people throughout Europe. The cost will be borne not just by the 14 million unemployed people that the Minister mentioned, but by the millions who will have to endure deplorable working conditions that are imposed throughout Europe and in Britain by the Government.
  The Minister says that the Government are seriously pursuing the benefits of the single market. Let us examine the impact of the single market. Louvain university recently carried out a study into regions of traditional industry. The two in Britain that were examined were south Yorkshire and Strathclyde and the study concluded

  127
  that the future in the single market for both regions was extremely grim unless there was some countervailing move by the Government. There was no suggestion that of itself the single market would produce a magic overnight dividend. The study said that unregulated competitive pressures in the market would be greatly to the disadvantage of those traditional regions. The Minister frowns. I am surprised that he does not know about this study.
  Another study by Professor Amin Rajan was published by the Industrial Society. It suggests that the United Kingdom would have to bear the loss of about 200,000 jobs in the single market unless action was taken to stem that. That is out of a total of 500,000 jobs that would be lost throughout the Community. That is the potential of the single market and it will be realised unless there is some countervailing action by Governments and action by the Community.
  Let us look at the rise of the European company, in which I presently have a constituency interest. The Minister said that such matters are best left to national Governments and I think that he mentioned collective bargaining.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall do so in a moment.
  Perhaps Conservative Members have already dismissed the rise of European companies. I mentioned today an announcement made by a company that operates in my constituency, GEC-Alsthom, which has declared 180 redundancies. At least some of those have come about since the merger of GEC with the French company Alsthom. The joint company has decided to transfer some activities from Trafford Park in Manchester to France. The result, of course, is job losses.
  At least one of the reasons why that could happen is that France has statutory rights to information and consultation that do not exist here. The first that the work force in my constituency knew about this was today, when the company announced its decision to the world. The fact that our workers do not have the protection of a right to information or consultation puts them at a serious disadvantage in the competitive decisions being made by the new Euro-companies.
  We need a framework of European action, not to supplant national legislation or collective bargaining, but to recognise that, at the level of the Euro-company, national legislation and collective bargaining simply will not control what happens. In the context of GEC, collective bargaining proved irrelevant.
  Mr. Hind: In what way would the social charter, and the directives that will follow it, stop the loss of jobs foreseen in the Louvain study, as a consequence of the implementation of the single market in 1992? Surely all that the social charter will do is to increase the costs of industry and make competitive factors much more important, so the desire to get rid of jobs will be greater rather than less.
  Mr. Lloyd: This is what the Government frequently refer to as the level playing field. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should compete with
  128
  Portugal, with a minimum working age of 14, or Greece, with a minimum working age of 12? He should understand why I feel that we cannot compete on those terms. In the example that I gave in my constituency, the company did not have to give information because legislation does not force it to do so on a European-wide basis, and such legislation would have made a difference to the loss of 180 jobs in my constituency.
  The European Community has already had an impact on domestic legislation. The Government have been forced through the European Court on a number of occasions—for example, on legislation enforcing sexual equality, particularly at work. The Equal Pay Act 1970 was amended by the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983 to introduce the concept of equal pay for equal work, because of such a move. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was also amended as a result of the European Court ruling. With a Conservative Government who are determined to push back the rights of workers in Britain, it is important that we have some framework to offer more than they are prepared to offer.
  For example, the document says:
  "The fact remains however that the difficulties encountered on the labour market have led to the development of wages practices which no longer afford those concerned a decent standard of living."
  That is addressed to Britain. One in five people in the north-west are low paid by any definition, and in my area of Greater Manchester, two in five are low paid, and the bulk of the low paid are women. The Government have no intention of doing anything about low pay. It is still something of a mystery to me why they did not abolish the wages councils—we all know that that is their real intent, and the Minister has not made any secret about it.
  The action programme will give a framework within which a Labour Government can bring in a minimum wage, and we must applaud that.
  Mr. Skinner: We can do that anyway.
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course, there is nothing to stop a Labour Government from introducing it when they come to power, but for the next two years it is unlikely that there will be one. The Government say that they do not operate in accordance with Europe, but I have already shown how equal pay and sex discrimination legislation have been amended, unwillingly, by the Government because European legislation guarantees those minimum rights for British workers and British women at work.
  If a Labour Government were in power, those provisions would have been introduced, in accordance with the original legislation that we implemented. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is nothing in the measure that would stop a Labour Government going further, but there is nothing to prevent the present Government from further worsening working conditions.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: Not on this point.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman ought to give way.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman does not need to lecture me on whether I should give way.
  The Government are being hypocritical if they say that they take no interest in what is happening in the rest of Europe. The action programme makes particular references to training, for example. It is interesting that the

  129
  Minister did not mention that aspect, because only four to six weeks ago training was all the rage among Government Ministers. The Secretary of State for Employment was up and down like a yo-yo at press conferences and on television, extolling the virtues of the Government's training policies. The reality is that they have lost their way—so much so, we are beginning to witness again all the usual short-term phenomena and their effects on the economy, including undertraining of the British worker.
  Recently, the Under-Secretary gave a parliamentary answer on average expenditure by employers on vocational training. Britain is supposed to lead the world in insurance, but it is worrying that that industry spends less on training its employees than France, Germany, and Denmark, the same as Portugal, and less than Belgium. The Minister makes no mention of what the Government will do to outdistance the rest of Europe.
  The same Government are nevertheless prepared to take from the European social fund £111 million this year, to fund the YTS scheme. The Minister looks puzzled—perhaps he did not know about that. A considerable percentage of the money that funds the YTS comes from Europe. The Government unashamedly take that money, yet will not acknowledge that British training lags way behind the rest of the EEC. That is why a framework is needed to impose standards that do not currently exist.
  When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will say whether he believes that the paper boy is still under threat, and that Britain is still threatened by other European countries prepared to employ youngsters who are little more than children and thus undercut British employers. I mentioned the 12-year-olds at work in Greece, and the 14-year-olds employed in Portugal, but the Minister does not want legislation to control minimum ages.
  On both moral and economic grounds, it would be the height of foolishness for Britain not to support a European standard. The Minister says that Britain has no problems in that respect, but a number of proposals will be coming from the Community this year. He referred to atypical employment, and that word is used by the EEC. We have seen a massive growth in part-time working in Britain, and one consequence of that has been massive deregulation of the labour market. Workers who would have enjoyed employment protection had they been in full-time jobs do not receive it as part-time workers.
  A Labour Government will introduce legislation on standards for part-time and home workers, who currently have only the most tenuous relationship with the labour market.
  Mr. Eggar: Ah.
  Mr. Lloyd: The Minister says, "Ah." That is most curious. Let us examine the nine out of 10 people who he says prefer part-time work. We are not opposed to part-time working and to people obtaining the kind of employment that suits their circumstances. Nevertheless,
  130
  the nine out of 10 people who prefer part-time work would also like the security of pay rates and conditions that approximate to those enjoyed by full-time workers, and the kind of job security that does not currently exist.
  The idea that the Minister is trying to peddle that part-time work in Thatcher's Britain offers security, decency or permanency is so ridiculous that it warrants no more than mockery. If he believes that, he should visit with me some of the sweat shops in London, or of any other major city, and ask part-time workers whether they prefer part-time work without any social conditions to prop up their employment rights.
  Will the Government oppose the directives on working time, on atypical work, on proof of employment contracts or on pregnant women? Will they use the veto? The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) posed that question and it is incumbent on the Minister to answer it. Whatever our different views, the House should know where the Government stand.
  The Minister will say that it is too early to say. He said that he opposes some of the directives. If his worst fears come to fruition, will the Government oppose those directives? Will they oppose the third action programme for women? I noticed with interest that when the Minister was talking of the conditions for acceptance, he mentioned the need for subsidiarity and for maintaining national cultures. The recommendations on child care would fit all those criteria. Will the Government welcome the recommendation that is likely to be made by the Community on child care, or will they go further and implement it and begin to build the care facilities for women who want to work but cannot do so because of the lack of facilities? That is important for millions of people, in whom the Minister claims to have some interest.
  I mentioned the need for and right to information and for consultation to prevent a situation such as that in my constituency, where 180 of my constituents and those of my geographical neighbours will lose their jobs. They did not know what would happen to them, although they have what would be regarded as a traditionally strong union, the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. Despite that protection, their jobs will he lost. Will the Minister ensure that they have information to enable them to fight, through collective bargaining and the principle of negotiation, without two hands tied behind their back?
  Those are the important features of the action programme. It is no panacea. It does not promise to cure our industrial and economic woes overnight, but it provides a minimum level of protection which is not provided by the Government but which any worthwhile Government would go beyond. A Labour Government will most certainly go beyond it, but if the Minister does not provide people with the minimum level of protection, all his cant about seeking to reduce unemployment and to protect people through the single market will lead lo tragedy for millions in the north and throughout Britain.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. William Cash: The first point that I want to make is in respect of the timing of the debate. Fortunately, the Government have released their response to the report of the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of European Legislation. Without going into it, I simply want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is available in the Vote Office. It is a major step forward, because not only will we have the opportunity to consider European legislation and developments well in advance of debates but Special Standing Committees are to be set up to consider measures such as this, which we are discussing at a late hour in an almost empty House. There are other points in the Government's response that I applaud, but it is not necessary for me to go into them now.
  During my altercation with my hon. Friend the Minister, we discussed whether this was a complex or a simple issue. It is complicated to deal with 47 directives and action programmes and the broad principles of the social charter, but it is hoped, and expected, that they will be considered properly by people who are versed in them because of their experience on Special Standing Committees. I hope that, at the inter-governmental conference, we will not sell the pass on the vague notion of subsidiarity, which I view with apprehension. As a political concept, it has advantages, but there will be considerable difficulties if, as a legal definition, it is incorporated in treaty amendments.
  The explanatory memorandum dated 29 November was followed by a supplementary memorandum dated 6 January. Following the report on 28 March of the Select Committee on European Legislation, we have had to wait until 21 May before being able to debate it. I hope that the Government's proposals will deal with this serious problem.
  Mr. Skinner: It is down to the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman says that it is down to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. The questions must be tackled, and we must pay tribute, albeit belatedly, to the Government for the fact that the procedures will be put in motion.
  The substantive issues involved in the directives are more important matters. I say without the slightest criticism of my hon. Friend the Minister that, whatever one's view on them, it is not possible in the short time available to deal with the 47 action programmes, any one of which could be put in a Bill or semi-Bill and might easily take up one, two or even three months. To expect us to consider these matters not just at a late hour but in a relatively short time is an insult to the British Parliament.
  I do not intend to criticise the Government—these faults are inherent in the system. We should seriously consider inverting our procedures to have regard to the pyramid of legislation that invades us because of our voluntary consent through the European Communities Act 1972 and to give a due proportion of time to matters that are important to my constituents and, as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said, to his constituents. I, too, have constituents who are employed by GEC-Alsthom and I share many of his worries, for the same reasons.
  132
  Macro issues arise with regard to the rump of the one third of these extremely difficult aspects with which we must deal. The minimum wages proposal is, as much as anything, one that has come from the German Government. If we are to be realistic and consider the issues of political, economic and monetary union and everything that goes with it, we must be aware that the Germans have recently increased their investment in the United Kingdom by 200 per cent., that they will not change their company structure and that they have control over the secretariats and standards of the Community.
  That is no criticism of the Germans, but we must wake up and realise what is happening. Let me concentrate for a moment on one issue—minimum wages. The workers in Dusseldorf will insist on having a minimum wage set at their level. Those in Spain who are employed by Volkswagen's subsidiary, Seat, are having kittens at the moment because they know that the whole system is being orchestrated to provide an in-built advantage to Volkswagen's employees in Dusseldorf. The same will apply throughout the Community.
  It is not my purpose to make a speech about all these questions tonight. Incidentally, I shall have the opportunity to debate them with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) at the Oxford union tomorrow night. Having said that, I think that we should be very wary of all the present proposals, of the proposal for a central bank and of the way in which the Franco-German axis is operating, which is implicit in the document, not because we do not want to remain in the Community but because, in fundamental questions such as those arising from the social charter—with some parts of which I agree but most of which I regard as unnecessary and avoidable—we must be sure that we do not end up surrendering to the interests of a Franco-German axis which exists for the benefit of a small proportion of the Community, rather than the Community as a whole. That is not what the European Community is all about; it is not communautaire.
  I hope that, when the time comes, the Secretary of State and the Minister will regard some of these matters as of vital interest and, if necessary, exercise the veto on them rather than shunting them off to the European Court of Justice.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: We cannot exercise the veto.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend says that we cannot exercise the veto. We could debate that. I think that it is still possible and that the arrangements stand.
  We must make quite certain that the rest of the Community understands that the EC is a community and that it does not exist merely for the benefit of one or two of its members.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I find myself in difficulty because I disagree profoundly with the two Front-Bench spokesmen. I want to tell the House why. I find the Minister's position—standing up, it seems, for Britain's interests against the proposals of the social charter—not very credible, coming, as it does, from a a party that took us into the Community, and into the single market,

  133
  without consulting the electorate. One element that has not been discussed by any hon. Member is the impact of all this on the elector's role, which is what concerns me.
  I can understand the Cabinet's nightmare. Cabinet Ministers think that the social charter is a reincarnation of Frank Cousins and the Ministry of Technology, Barbara Castle and the Department of Employment and Productivity and George Brown and the Department of Economic Affairs put together, suddenly looming at them in the form of that radical Socialist, Jacques Delors, and they are fending it off. On the other hand, what they want to do—it is the precondition of their acceptance of entry into the ERM—is to hand this country over to market forces. They want everything to be determined by market forces, which are not accountable to the electorate either.
  I presume that when the Minister said that we had to consider competition with other countries, he was thinking that if the Pacific rim countries can challenge us with cheaper goods because they pay lower wages, we shall have to bring our wages down to that level to survive. I do not agree with that. It is profoundly wrong.
  I am afraid, however, that I did not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) either. He spoke for a party which, I gather from press reports, is on the point of endorsing the social charter—subject to our discussions on Wednesday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I will be present to put a contrary view. But if one of us is in the lavatory, the other will have no seconder. We will have to keep together throughout the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford ignored the fact that, once a law or directive is agreed in Brussels by one Government, it is irreversible. Our electorate should be told the truth: whoever they vote for in the next general election, our Government will not be able to change that Brussels legislation.
  Although I am not a labour law historian, I know that the Taff Vale judgment penalised the railwaymen in 1906. That legislation was repealed by the Liberals. After the general strike, the Conservatives introduced the trades disputes legislation and that was repealed by a Labour Government. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) introduced the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and the Labour Government repealed it.
  However, I must warn my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford that legislation from Brussels cannot be repealed. It is open to either a Labour Government or a Conservative Government to agree to directives at a Council of Ministers that tie any other Government for ever because Community legislation cannot be reversed. Admittedly it may be easier to influence that legislation with majority voting than with the unanimity rule. Under the latter, if one country stands out, a directive cannot be introduced. However, that works the other way round—it cannot be repealed without everyone agreeing. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred to Franco-German interests in high wages. Those countries would be unlikely to repeal something that might assist employment in a place like Manchester.
  We should be considering a range of issues. The provisions in the social charter contain many things that look attractive on paper. However, if they were implemented at the Brussels level, even with the principle of subsidiarity, masses of legislation would go through this House without our debating it.
  Perhaps the Minister has discovered something about his civil servants that my civil servants were quick to
  134
  discover. They discovered that they did not have to bother with a Bill in the Queen's Speech when the legislation could be slipped in through Brussels. I remember a sensible proposal to standardise gas pipelines. Normally, such legislation would appear in a Bill. The Minister knows what it is like: Ministers queue up at the Queen's Speech committee or the legislation committee or whatever it is called under this Government and there is great pressure. Civil servants can bypass that process. They say, "Don't bother, Minister. We will have a word with COREPER and get it back as a directive. You just have to go to Brussels and agree to the proposal." The whole parliamentary process is then bypassed. That is the danger.
  Democracy always hangs on a thread of public confidence. If I have to go to Chesterfield during the next general election and tell people that no matter who they vote for, we cannot deal with any matter that has been predetermined by previous Governments, are they going to bother to vote? If they vote thinking that we can change such legislation and we cannot, what will they say?
  I loathe the word subsidiarity. However, subsidiarity should mean that everything should be considered at the lowest level, that is by the electors. It is not Parliament, but Ministers of any Goverment taking away the electors' powers. I was president of the Energy Council of Ministers during our presidency. I exercised the royal prerogative. In those circumstances, Ministers do not care about the House of Commons. We sit in solemn impotence. Even if few modifications were required, if Conservative or Labour Ministers had carried through such legislation at the Community level the House would be legally and constitutionally impotent.
  The House must consider that problem. I have always believed that we are servants of the electorate and that sovereignty belongs to the people. They lend it to us in five-year terms. In the end, as stewards, we have to hand it back. We cannot tell them at the end that we gave it away to Jacques Delors. They would regard that as a breach of the Rousseau social contract. We are only the custodians of that power; we are not in a position in law, morality or constitutional practice to hand it to anybody else.
  Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: I do not wish to detain the House because other hon. Members wish to speak, but this point really must be made. In a strange way, it unites hon. Members who differ fundamentally about how power should be exercised by the House. I disagree strongly. I am not a nationalist. I am not in favour of whipping up feeling against the Franco-German axis—that would be a great mistake. We live in a world in which we must harmonise by consent. I do not share any of the political objectives of the hon. Member for Stafford, but perhaps I share with him the determination that the right to make that decision is taken by electors, not by Ministers in the name of the Crown in pursuit of objectives that have never been fully disclosed to the British people.
  I have five questions that I ask people who have power, and I recommend them to the House. If I see someone who is powerful, be it a traffic warden, Rupert Murdoch, the head of a trade union or a Member of Parliament, I ask myself these five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? How can we get rid of

  135
  you?" That last question is crucial. We cannot get rid of Jacques Delors; we cannot get rid of the Commission. We can get rid of a Government; but we cannot get rid of European legislation that a Government have entrenched during their period in office—be they a Labour Government with the Tories coming or the other way around.
  I know that the House is empty, that it is late at night and that we are not having a vote. We have all the conditions for public neglect. The Galleries are not as full as hon. Members would like. However, the issue is fundamental. If we get it wrong we shall destroy parliamentary democracy in Britain. It is a time bomb ticking away under us. Perhaps the fuse is still long. When the British people discover that, whomever they vote for, they cannot change the laws under which the Government have governed, this House will collapse as a valid part of a democratic constitution. That is the argument that we should be having. When we have established it in the democratic way, we can resume the argument about how we should recommend the people to use the power that remains in their hands.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: It is probably worth remembering that the proposals in the draft charter go way beyond anything that is contained in the treaty of Rome or the Single European Act and that what is being proposed is totally novel and would extend the jurisdiction of the Community into matters that we never previously approved in this House or elsewhere in the Community. That may be good and there may be things in the charter that all of us would want. My hon. Friend the Minister of State stated that many things would be welcome. Equally, he said, and I agree, that there are other matters that would be profoundly unwelcome.
  It was very helpful when the French presidency responded by saying that it felt that, in considering this matter further, there was a need to give greater consideration to the principle of subsidiarity. That is an important principle and I support it because, if the Community is to go forward harmoniously, it is important for us to decide which matters are important to be decided centrally as a group and which should be the preserve of national Parliaments. If we follow the principle of subsidiarity in doing those things locally which can best be done locally, we are not likely to have the conflicts that some hon. Members are worried may occur in the Community. We need to know what is acceptable and what is not.
  What is clearly acceptable is health and safety at work. The British Government have quite a lot to teach other member countries. Our record on safety at work is very much better than those of most other Community Governments. It would therefore be to the benefit of all of us if those areas could be extended.
  Equally, the mutual recognition of qualifications, which assists people to move across frontiers and to work in other Community countries, seems desirable. Once people move to other countries, it is, of course, important that they understand that they will be protected by health and safety at work measures which, before they go, they know will give them the same protection as that to which
  136
  they are entitled at home. The big difference is that, although a person who is going to work abroad will probably find out how many hours he must work, his pay and the general conditions of his employment before he goes, he may not understand the health and safety at work conditions because they may vary widely between Community countries.
  Health and safety provisions are therefore both sensible and desirable. What is not sensible and desirable is to build on that a whole series of corporate interventionist measures, such as are beloved of the Labour party and which used to be so beloved of many other Socialists in the European Community, although they seem to be less fashionable now in some quarters. Understandably, they are beloved of Madam Papandreou, the Commissioner. One can see that they fall within her general social philosophy. However, those measures seem to me to be profoundly damaging, not just to the British economy, but to the economies of many—in fact, most—of the other European Community countries.
  Minimum wages are a good example and I entirely agree with what my hon. Friends have said about that matter. Fixed working hours are another example. They may or may not be attractive. Minimum rest periods could well be attractive to certain Members of this honourable House. One can well understand that the prospect of not having to sit all night could command considerable support in the Chamber. The notion of a statutory role for trade unions might not get such unanimous support on both sides of the Chamber—nor, I imagine, would the statutory compensation and worker participation proposals, with their shades of Vredeling. We thought that we had won the battle over Mr. Vredeling and his proposals, but no, back they come via Madam Papandreou. It is the same all over again.
  I am concerned that the Commission is intent on bulldozing these matters through in an entirely unsatisfactory way. Perhaps the most worrying thing is that we do not yet know what articles of the charter it intends to use. We might be less worried if we were absolutely certain that there would have to be unanimity in the Council on all these matters, but I understand—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm this—that there is a suggestion that Madam Papandreou believes that many of these measures can be got through under the guise of health and safety measures. That would mean qualified majority voting on issues that go way beyond what most of us believe the treaties comprise.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend will also confirm my understanding that the Commission has already received legal advice that its proposals are outside the law and contrary to existing treaties but that, notwithstanding that, it still intends to go forward on that basis, forcing us and anybody who disagrees to go to the European Court. If that is true, it is an extremely worrying development and is yet another example of Commission empire-building, against which all of us must be permanently on our guard.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: When I entered the Chamber this evening, it was my intention to listen, so my contribution will be short. Nevertheless, I hope that it will provide more perspectives on the significance and importance of the document that we are considering. Of

  137
  course, it is a communication and individual items and proposals will appear later. However, the total shape must be recognised for what it is.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) advanced some constitutional issues on which I shall not comment, except to say that I have not heard them negatived anywhere. I should be interested to know whether any member of any party—certainly any member of the current Parliament—would give a negative response to his main thesis.
  I should like first to comment on a subject on which the Select Committee on European Legislation has also commented, albeit indirectly: subsidiarity. Both the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and the Minister referred to it tonight. According to evidence given to the Committee by its legal adviser, Mr. Speaker's counsel, subsidiarity is not a hard rock but an area of shifting sands, and a dialogue between the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and the Minister—which has only just been published—demonstrates that.
  The evidence that I gave, on behalf of that Committee, to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs about the operation of the Single European Act contains a lengthy memorandum about subsidiarity submitted by Mr. Speaker's counsel. I commend it to the Minister, and to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West: they will find if they read it that the only certainty about subsidiarity is that it is uncertain.
  The issue arises in relation to conditions of work, a subject that forms part of the social charter. I am sorry that no hon. Member has mentioned an important point that was made by the Select Committee on European Legislation in HC11, Volume 7:
  "The Committee recalls…that its Legal Adviser's note, annexed to its Twenty-sixth Report of Session 2 1988–89 gave fair warning that the proposed role of the Community in this sector would probably extend well beyond the subject area delineated by the Government. It also notes that the Select Committee on the European Communities of the House of Lords has made a similar assessment."
  In other words, the treaty—and the use likely to be made of that factor by the Commission and the Council—will go some distance. If the principle of subsidiarity in that respect were prayed in aid, I have no doubt that the matter would go to the court—the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West mentioned this—and that the powers of the Commission to propose, and of the Council to legislate, would be decided there. That would be the final word—which ties up with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has been telling us.
  The report also states:
  "Indeed, the Government's explanatory memorandum goes some way to recognise this likelihood in its admission that 'taken together the proposals in the action programme could have a major impact on United Kingdom Law. Significant changes in employment and social security law could be required'"—
  I emphasise the word "required"—
  "probably by means of primary legislation'."
  In other words, there would be a proposal to change the law relating to social security in regard to employment, and we would be forced by our treaty obligation to pass the necessary primary legislation.
  It must be specified who will make the requirement, and on whose authority. Under the treaty, there is no single article under which qualified majority voting would give such a requirement—although the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West has mentioned what Mrs.
  138
  Papandreou is reckoned to be thinking. That refers to article 118A, which nevertheless has quite a few holes in it with regard to implemenation.
  Article 100, which requires unanimity, can be used for any matter that contributes to the completion of the Common Market for which the powers are not already in the treaty. Article 235 again requires unanimity and can be used for any purpose not contained in the treaty. There may be some controversy over article 100A, which can be used for legislation to create the single market in 1992. At present it excludes matters relating to conditions of employment. At first sight, therefore, unanimity on most of those matters is maintained.
  That is the position now, but discussions are going on which will culminate in intergovernmental conferences towards the end of the year and some revisions of the treaty. What national Governments will say about such revisions, which fortunately must be unanimous, remains to be seen. There is a decent argument for saying that, as there is to be a single market, the requirement for a single set of laws on industrial relations and collective bargaining should be put in place by the same method. Some may hold to that and others not, but it appears to be a possibility.
  Almost at the opposite end of the scale to those big issues are public holidays. Will holidays literally meaning holy days, and Sunday observance, legislation on which has proved highly contentious in the House, come within the ambit of such legislation? I do not know the answer, but I put it forward as one of the intriguing possibilities, with which one may agree or disagree, which one day may confront us as part of the package labelled the social dimension.
  11.42 pm
  Mr. James Paice: Many of the important points have been made, but I wish to endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Friends have said about health and safety proposals which should be dealt with on a pan-EEC basis. There are many reasons for that, but the one not yet given is competition. It is generally recognised that health and safety cost money and reduce output on many types of equipment because of working practices. Unless such regulations are common throughout the Community, competition will not be on an equal footing.
  I emphasise the importance of enforcement and monitoring, particularly of health and safety measures, although they apply to many of the other proposals. We have a mix of countries with the Community, many of which have a dubious reputation on abiding by the regulations and directives issued by the Commission and approved by the various Councils of Ministers. It is commonly accepted that the French will happily agree to whatever seems politically right at the time, but subsequently may be lax on enforcement. When it comes to the Italians, anything to do with the work force is impossible to enforce because of the massive black economy, which is wholly outwith regulations. We must ensure that what is approved as a result of the action plan and the social charter leads to effective enforcement and monitoring throughout the Community, otherwise everything will be nothing less than a joke.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and the hon. Member for Newham, South

  139
  (Mr. Spearing) said that we should question which articles of the treaty of Rome should be used. I remind those hon. Gentlemen of the occasion when Madam Papandreou attended a meeting of the Select Committee on Employment, of which I was then a member. She made it abundantly clear that she intended to use article 118A, the health and safety provision, as the means to force through every aspect of the social charter in the spurious belief that one could construe anything to do with work as being to do with effective health and safety. That is wrong and I urge the Minister to make it clear that we will resist that abuse of the treaty of Rome by the Commission. I do not say that out of some innate opposition to the treaty or to the Community but because I care about the future of the Community. I should hate to see it and its institutions brought into disrepute by such blatant abuse on the part of the Commission.
  The Minister has already pointed out the proposal relating to atypical forms of employment, not just part-time employment but anything other than full-time, open-ended contracts. What has happened to individual choice and responsibility? There are also proposals for a Community instrument relating to public works contracts and the introduction of a labour clause. The House debated the need for such a thing in Britain, but we have long since learnt our lesson about that. There is also a proposal for a Community instrument on consultation with industry—the old chestnut about industrial relations and workers on the board. It cannot be right for the Community to dictate the lines of such policies; it is right for business to make those decisions.
  Will the proposals in the action plan achieve that which they are intended to achieve? Will they lead to more jobs and better pay and conditions for the work force? In many cases the answer will be no. Too much regulation effectively destroys competition. The single market is all about competition, but there is a direct conflict between that and the action plan. If we want the competition achieved by the single market, we cannot destroy the competitive side of the labour market with over-regulation.
  A month ago I was fortunate enough to be in New Zealand where the Labour Government have completely deregulated industry. They have removed subsidies and moved out of the regulation business. They have not achieved the wonderful results enjoyed in the United Kingdom because they have not touched the labour market. It is still heavily regulated—even more so than our own under the previous Labour Government. The fundamental lesson that we must all learn is that too much regulation achieves negative results.
  When will those who believe in socialist policies recognise that there is an inverse correlation between security and opportunity? The more one increases security, the more one damages opportunity. That is the case in housing and in the labour market but the Labour party fails to recognise that.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has made a number of important points and it is clear that he understands the depth of feeling in the House about some of the proposals. I urge him to make absolutely sure that the benefits which
  140
  will accrue to British industry from the single market are not destroyed by the anti-competitive nature of some of the proposals.
  11.49 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is an outrage to our democracy that we are debating 47 important measures at this time of night, with a handful of Members, when we clearly have no control over what happens. We are debating important labour regulations, including the introduction of the labour contract on public works and even matters such as the recommendation of the code of good conduct and the protection of pregnancy and maternity.
  Despite all this, although no one, apart from those on the Labour Front Bench, have had a good word to say about what is happening, I think that the Minister's speech tonight was one of the most important that we have heard for a long time. He clearly said that, in his and the Government's view, many of the measures will hamper job creation, hinder competition, damage competitiveness in world markets and put at risk all the benefits of the single market. The Government have said clearly that what is proposed in a good number of measures is damaging and dangerous.
  The Government must ask, as they should have done a long time ago, what on earth they can do about it. The Goverment have said that we can challenge the vires. If article 100A or 118A is suggested when they should not be used, we must complain about it. But how does one complain? The Minister must be aware that the first time a directive comes before the Council, unless everyone disagrees, nothing can be done about it.
  The Minister said that the Government were also planning to go to the European Court. He must be aware that in almost every instance where the powers of the Community's institutions have come up before the court, the court has found in their favour. Therefore, as the Government are now openly admitting—I was delighted at the Minister's splendid speech—what is proposed is damaging and could undermine the Conservative Government's policies and democracy. We must make up our minds soon about what to do. If the powers of selecting the treaty base are being abused, and the measures are damaging, what on earth do we do?
  I believe that going to the court is a waste of time, and the Government know that. The idea of challenging the vires is pointless, and the Govenment know that. We shall have to take more seriously the idea of a twin-track Europe, and this is where we must start.
  11.53 pm
  Mr. Eggar: We have had an excellent debate, as these late night, one-and-a-half hour EC debates so often are. We have covered a broad canvas, and I apologise to hon. Members because I probably will not be able to deal with the issues in the depth that they deserve. I am sure that we shall return to the so-called dimension and its implementation often in the future.
  There are 40 to 50 directives or regulations that I suspect we shall consider during the next two years. Many of the issues will come up for consideration again. I hope that, before we consider them again, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will do his work better. The directive on collective redundancies was passed by the Commission,

  141
  and has been implemented by the House. It applies as much in this country as it does in others in the Community. But we can return to that on future occasions.
  I stress again to the House that the key priority for us when we come to consider the various measures put forward under the so-called social dimension will be the ability or otherwise of those measures to add to job creation in the Community. That is not the view of just the United Kingdom Government. No less a person than the President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, made exactly the same point in a speech to the European Parliament this January when he said:
  "It is no longer possible to believe that anything can be achieved on the social front without action on the economic front."
  We have heard a great deal this evening from the hon. Member for Stretford about his party's new-found enthusiasm for the European Community. That was challenged by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and, as usual, from a sedentary position, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Let us be quite clear about what the Labour party spokesmen are saying. They have not lost their enthusiasm for unnecessary regulation, bureaucracy and red tape; they have simply said that, as they cannot get it by Whitehall, they want it imposed by Brussels.
  The Opposition consistently say that they believe that the ordinary British employer and employee do not know how to conduct social matters. The only people, they say, who know how to conduct them are the bureaucrats in Brussels or Whitehall. If the hon. Member for Stretford and his hon. Friends—apart from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—get their way, the Labour party's new position on social policy will be to support qualified majority voting in the Community on all social issues.
  I must ask the hon. Gentleman a few questions that flow from this new position. Do the Opposition want legally enforceable collective agreements, such as are the norm almost everywhere else in Europe? Do they want to deprive all civil servants, teachers and postal workers of the right to strike, as happens in Germany? Do they support and admire the Italian legislation that allows the police to force strikers to go back to work? Perhaps they are eager to import the requirement for a period of notice before a strike, as demanded by the law in Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and France.
  The fundamental question goes even further. The Labour party was founded, perfectly honourably, to represent the interests of the trade unions in the British Parliament. Is it now the party's position that in future all the major issues that are relevant to the working conditions of British employees should be decided in Brussels? That is implied in the Labour party's support for qualified majority voting——
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9978–89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 15th March 1990 relating to Commission action programme relating to the implementation of the Social Charter; and endorses the Government's view that a key
  142
  factor in ensuring that the achievement of the single market has a social dimension is to continue efforts to stimulate job creation and bring down unemployment.

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

      PLANT HEALTH AND MARKETING STANDARDS
      That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5486/87, 5803/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 17th April 1989 and 7th March 1990, 4023/90 and 4024/90, relating to plant health and 4020/90, 4021/90 and 4022/90, relating to marketing of certain plants and plant propagating material; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure effective measures against the spread of serious plant pests and diseases to the United Kingdom—[Mr. Sackville.]
      Question agreed to.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

      LONDON DOCKLANDS
      That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1989, dated 7th June, 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]
      The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 25.

      Division No. 220]

      [11.57 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Day, Stephen

      Alexander, Richard

      Devlin, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Amess, David

      Dunn, Bob

      Amos, Alan

      Durant, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Eggar, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Fallon, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Baldry, Tony

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Freeman, Roger

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      French, Douglas

      Boswell, Tim

      Gale, Roger

      Bowis, John

      Gardiner, George

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Brazier, Julian

      Gill, Christopher

      Bright, Graham

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Burns, Simon

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butcher, John

      Hague, William

      Butler, Chris

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Butterfill, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hannam, John

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Harris, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Cash, William

      Hayes, Jerry

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hayward, Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Hill, James

      Colvin, Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

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

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Couchman, James

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cran, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      143

      Irvine, Michael

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jack, Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Janman, Tim

      Ryder, Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knapman, Roger

      Shersby, Michael

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Knowles, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knox, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Steen, Anthony

      Lightbown, David

      Stern, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Maclean, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mellor, David

      Thorne, Neil

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mills, Iain

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Trippier, David

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Trotter, Neville

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Viggers, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Neubert, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Watts, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Norris, Steve

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Paice, James

      Wood, Timothy

      Patnick, Irvine

      Yeo, Tim

      Pawsey, James

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Raffan, Keith

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Redwood, John

      Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      NOES

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      McWilliam, John

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Michael, Alun

      Beggs, Roy

      Nellist, Dave

      Beith, A. J.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Dixon, Don

      Wallace, James

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Haynes, Frank

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Mr. Harry Cohen and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

      Livsey, Richard

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

      DRUG TRAFFICKING
      That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.—[ Mr. Fallon.]

    WELSH AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That Dr. Kim Howells be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee, and Mr. John P. Smith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Executive Agencies (Department of Employment)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  12.8 am
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss executive agencies in the Department of Employment, because this evening we have debated parliamentary sovereignty, democracy and accountability, and executive agencies raise a number of similar issues in the mother of Parliaments. I shall briefly spell out some of my general concerns about the agencies and the problems of parliamentary accountability and then describe in a little more detail some of the major concerns that trouble me and my hon. Friends.
  It is too easy to talk in abstract terms about accountability within this House. Executive agency status—the most recent development in the Department of Employment—raises significant parliamentary and constitutional questions. Despite discussions in the House over the past 20 or 30 years on the hiving off of Government Departments or parts of them, the Department of Employment has probably seen more changes than any other. Although the issue of executive agencies is not topical at present, it bears examination because of current activities.
  My concern is not about the substantive issues, whether or not there should be executive agencies, or their particular merits or demerits. Nor do I want to discuss the details of how their financial aspects are scrutinised. Nor will my remarks relate to the wider implications of privatisation, hiving off, and creating new agencies within the totality of Government policy.
  My central concerns are these. Recent developments in the Department, especially executive agency status, pose serious threats to Parliament's ability to obtain the information necessary to ensure proper public debate of specific issues. Also, I want to ensure that Parliament can effectively oversee the Department's work, especially in relation to the labour market, which is crucial to economic employment, and the client. Government documents make extensive mention of client service. Finally, proper scrutiny of public expenditure is also threatened.
  It is important to highlight the context within which the Department became an executive agency. One is talking about thousands of staff and an enormous number of clients being dealt with every day. One is talking also about £1 billion of expenditure. It is a substantial part of both the civil service and the employment group.
  Inadequate consideration has been given to parliamentary accountability. In a day and age when the Executive has increased power to do as it wishes within Parliament, there is also growing pressure on the parliamentary timetable—which often does not permit debates on issues of major significance. I hazard a guess that, after 11 years of the present Govenment, the Executive at times shows more than just a hint of contempt for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
  This is a time when that accountability should be strengthened, not weakened. My contention is that the activities currently being undertaken by the Department in line with Government policy could lead to a further weakening of parliamentary accountability. I feel sure that

  145
  right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House agree that that has been an important part of this Chamber and of Parliament, and I hope that the Minister will address it.
  The Department is currently dealing with a range of extremely sensitive and, in my view, provocative issues. There is always the danger that behind the establishment of executive agencies which are clothed in value for money, efficiency, targeting, output and performance, there is more than a hint that the Department—the Minister grimaces—is obscuring, or failing to reveal, information that should normally be put before Parliament because of the sensitivity of certain policy changes.
  I cannot let the opportunity pass without talking about the crisis in training, which the Minister of State will consider in detail following the establishment of the training and enterprise councils. The Secretary of State is a little concerned about their budget, but the Minister will do an honourable job in ensuring they have more cash to spend, because a shortage of cash lies at the root of their problems. There is wide concern about the role of the executive agency that is symptomatic of wider trends in the past, especially in relation to the Department of Employment.
  I said earlier that the hiving off of Departments and sections is not new. The Fulton committee was set up in 1966 and reported in 1968. Since then, a range of issues and ideas have been debated and discussed a bit more vigorously under this Government than under previous Governments. The "next steps" report was issued prior to the 1987 election and is being implemented by the Government. Even when the Fulton report was published in June 1968, paragraph 145 referred to the point that we are discussing:
  "To function efficiently, large organisations, including government departments, need a structure in which units and individual members have authority that is clearly defined and responsibilities for which they can be held accountable."
  There is a complex relationship between the Minister and the executive agency and between the Minister and Parliament. That is the important part of the triangle, which seems to be lacking in the consideration of the Government and the employment group. The initial concern that was flagged in discussions in the 1960s permeated much of the thinking in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
  We must now look more clearly at the implications of the Government's attempts to change dramatically the nature of the civil service. I referred earlier to the abstract nature of the service. Parliamentarians like to discuss accountability, often in a vacuum. We need something tangible on which to hang the considerations that I have outlined tonight.
  The Department of Employment provides an example of what has been happening and what is likely to happen. The past decade has seen the setting up of the Manpower Services Commission, which was futher developed into the Training Commission and is now the Training Agency. The Health and Safety Executive was established, as was the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. In embryonic form, we can see developments similar to the executive agency, although they have distinctive characteristics.
  The Department of Employment started early in having organisations one step removed from Parliament. The executive agency is a logical step forward, although a
  146
  much more major and significant step than any of those that I have described. I think that is crucial, because the process has been continuing and because it has accelerated in the past, that we have reached a stage where the point of accountability becomes much more significant.
  What about the practical issues that face the Department? I should briefly like to highlight some of the practical concerns that I have, starting with the executive agency which was established on 2 April. Curiously, on the simple point about asking parliamentary questions, we found that questions were, in the first stage, answered by the Minister, who said that they would be referred to Mr. Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive. In turn, Members received a reply from Mr. Fogden.
  The confusion lying behind this process reinforces my concern that, although the issue of the substantive policy detail has been reasonably worked through within the Department of Employment, parliamentary accountability has been an afterthought. This was highlighted in the sequence of events. "Employment Service: A framework Document for the Agency" was issued for discussion. Paragraph 4.3 stated:
  "The Secretary of State will continue to answer questions from Members of Parliament on matters concerning the Agency, but will encourage them to contact the Chief Executive or other appropriate Agency managers direct on individual cases or operational issues".
  On 8 November, speaking before the Select Committee on Employment, Mr. Mike Fogden was asked:
  "When you become an executive agency on 2 April, how will this limit the ability of MPs to ask questions about the operation or your service?"
  Mr. Fogden replied:
  "In no way at all."
  On 8 January 1990, in the debate on the Government Trading Bill, the Minister argued that Members
  "will get a quicker response and be likely to resolve any follow-up points more quickly and to their satisfaction by going direct to the agency".—[Official Report, 8 January 1990; Vol. 164, c. 774.]
  That was a reference to the accountability of Ministers. On 30 March, the Minister of State wrote to all Members, saying:
  "Ministers determine the policy objectives of the Employment Service. We remain answerable to Parliament for the Agency's activities. We will continue to answer questions on the policy aspects of the Agency's work".
  We cannot get a higher authority than the Prime Minister who, responding to a question by one of my hon. Friends, said:
  "Ministers remain fully accountable to Parliament for all the work of their Departments. However, hon. Members may often wish in the first instance to deal directly with agency chief executives … and I would encourage them to do so."—[Official Report, 15 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 375.]
  When the agency was established on 2 April, there were no hints that constituency business would go direct to it. The crucial issue of parliamentary questions has not been highlighted, and there has been departmental incompetence.
  If a Member tables a parliamentary question, the Minister responds by saying that the request has been given to the executive agency, which writes to the Member. That Member receives the answer, but what about the other Members who do not see the now personal reply, and what about the House of Commons Library, which is a tremendous source of information for many bodies, especially hon. Members? It is in a state of confusion because it does not know whether it is receiving parliamentary replies.

  147
  The matter has perhaps not been fully thought through. If it has, and we have reached this stage, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way it has been handled by Ministers and the Department of Employment. If the executive agency difficulties were the only ones, they could be tackled almost immediately because of the fairly practical problems, but what about TECs in terms of parliamentary accountability?
  On Tuesday 8 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland about his practice of making information on local enterprise companies available. The Minister of State, Scottish Office replied:
  "Final decisions have yet to be taken on the range of information about training programmes which local enterprise companies will be required to collect."
  It is useful to remember that the LECs in Scotland will be the sisters of the TECs in England and Wales. The Minister of State continued in his reply:
  "When these decisions have been taken I shall write to the hon. Member with a detailed list of information … My right hon. and learned Friend will make such information available to hon. Members provided that it is not commercial in confidence or personal information about individual trainees."—[Official Report, 8 May 1990; Vol. 172 c. 67.]
  That means that commercial information is now being examined and discussed privately with TEC and LEC chairmen but is not coming before the House for discussion. Again, we shall have to await a ministerial judgment on whether hon. Members should have access to the information. That illustrates a gross contempt for the whole issue of accountability, and suggests something even more sinister. An hon. Member requiring information about a TEC or LEC may have to write to its chairman; if he requires information about 80 TECs, he may have to write to 80 chairmen. I hope that the Minister will reassure me on that in his reply.
  My final question concerns non-statutory training organisations. We have had representations from the engineering industry training board about the lack of information and accountability in the hiving off of what were previously the training boards.
  There are grounds for concern. I have targeted the key practical issue of how parliamentary questions concerning the executive agencies are answered, but it is time that the Minister answered our questions. I hope that the Minister will scrap the present method of responding to parliamentary questions for the executive agencies. There is nothing binding him to the present inefficient and bureaucratic method, given that the Department is still responsible, through the Minister, for the replies.
  I hope, too, that we shall have an early statement on the Floor of the House in reply to our questions on the future of the executive agencies and their accountability, the future of TECs, the future of the non-statutory training organisations and a host of issues concerning the proper scrutiny of the executive. I am afraid that, at present, many hon. Members are worried by what is happening, and I hope that the Minister will take seriously the points that have been made.
  12.27 am
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) speaking from the Back
  148
  Benches for a change. I thank him genuinely for the spirit in which he opened the debate. I know that he has had problems with responses to parliamentary questions intended for my Department and I am extremely grateful to him for the constructive way in which he raised those problems with me. I have no hesitation in saying that we have learnt lessons from our discussions with him and I am sure that that is in his interest as much as it in ours. That is the right way in which to take these matters forward. In the limited time available to me, I shall try to respond to his questions. If he feels that some matters need further discussion, I shall be happy to discuss them at a time that is convenient to him.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the employment service is only one of a number of agencies that have been established under the "next steps" initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in February 1988. The aim of the initiative is well known: it is to improve the delivery of Government services to the customer and to increase value for money for the taxpayer, as well as achieving greater openness and accountability in government. The employment service is the largest agency so far and one whose activities are understandably of great concern and interest to right hon. and hon. Members.
  It is not surprising, therefore, that the arrangements for dealing with questions and correspondence for the employment service are a matter of interest. But it should be borne in mind that "next steps" agencies are now established across the whole civil service. There are 31 such agencies covering about 70,000 staff, and many more are on the way. The arrangements that we have adopted for the employment service are in line with the Government's approach for agencies and they are intended to be helpful to the House in pursuing its concerns.
  The Government have kept the House informed about their approach in a number of ways. The Government have explained that we are enhancing the arrangements for accountability in important ways, for example, through the publication of a framework document, the publication of agencies' objectives, and annual reports of their activities. We have also emphasised many times that Ministers remain fully accountable to Parliament for all the work of their Departments, including agencies.
  However, we have set out our view that chief executives, who are accountable for the day-to-day operations of their agencies, are the best people to approach on matters for which they have delegated authority. Because of that, we have encouraged right hon. and hon. Members to deal direct with agency chief executives over inquiries about operational issues. That will include many of the matters raised with them by their constituents.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, who has responsibility for the civil service, explained this approach to the House in January during the Second Reading of the Government Trading Bill. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the issue in a written reply and encouraged right hon. and hon. Members to approach agency chief executives on operational issues because they are best placed to respond promptly and effectively.
  I should also remind the hon. Member for Fife, Central, and the House, that in many ways this is not a new or unusual procedure. On many occasions in the past Ministers have answered to the House for general policy and expenditure about a programme or service, while an

  149
  executive body has had primary responsibility for its delivery. In such cases, it is not at all unusual for right hon. and hon. Members to deal with the executive head over operational and constituency matters.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to remind the House of the arrangements for accountability in the employment service. We thought long and hard about this matter, and are determined to ensure that the new arrangements are fully effective. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that I wrote to them on the launch of the agency, enclosing a booklet entitled "The Employment Service: The Handling of MPs Inquiries and Parliamentary Questions". That booklet was drawn up by the employment service, and approved by Ministers. It sets out the way in which hon. Members' inquiries and parliamentary questions would now be handled. I am happy to recall for the House the main elements of the system.
  The main change in accountability arrangements has been in the way in which correspondence from Members is handled. In line with the general approach that I have already outlined, hon. Members are now encouraged to take up queries and complaints on operational matters with the agency chief executive. Under the new arrangements for correspondence, hon. Members will find that they will get a quicker response to their inquiries and to any follow-up points that they may wish to pursue. That is certainly one of the strongest elements of the "next steps" approach and I would like to think that when hon. Members have become accustomed to this system they will prefer to approach the agency's local managers or chief executive rather than come direct to Ministers on operational matters.
  As parliamentary questions caused concern to the hon. Member for Fife, Central, perhaps I could explain how the new system will operate. When a question is tabled, the Minister decides whether it is a strategic, resource or operational matter. The decision is then taken by Ministers whether the parliamentary question will be answered by Ministers substantively or referred to the agency for reply.
  If Ministers decide that the question is suitable for a response by the chief executive, a reply is sent to the right hon. or hon. Member explaining what has been done. The agency chief executive then aims to send a full reply as soon as possible. Very often that will occur on the same day as the reply from the Minister. As the hon. Gentleman now knows, the chief executive will offer to place a copy of the reply in the Library if the hon. Member so wishes.
  Mr. McLeish: Why has that not happened?
  Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman says that that has not yet been done, I am surprised. However, I assure him that my Department's policy is that the hon. Member concerned will be asked specifically whether he wishes a copy of the reply to be placed in the Library. We have adopted that practice because we recognise that many matters of a constituency or personal nature will be of interest only to specific Members and therefore the procedure should not be automatic.
  I hope that hon. Members can appreciate how much more quickly they can get operational information from the chief executive rather than through approaching Ministers via the House. The system is designed to ensure that hon. Members deal direct with the person—be it a
  150
  Minister on policy matters, the chief executive, or the local manager—who is best placed to answer on the matter in hand that concerns the hon. Member. Above all, Ministers will continue to be responsible to Parliament for the employment service and will answer to hon. Members on any issue in debates relating to the employment service.
  Ministers will also continue to reply to correspondence from hon. Members on strategic policy and overall resource allocation. Furthermore, we undertake to answer letters from any hon. Member who feels that he or she has not had a satisfactory answer from the employment service on operational issues.
  The employment service will continue to be subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The permanent secretary will consult the chief executive about replies to complaints going through the Parliamentary Commissioner.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the arrangements that have been put in place for handling hon. Members' inquiries and parliamentary questions about TECs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State wrote to hon. Members on 2 April, enclosing a booklet explaining that in detail.
  TECs, of course, are not "next steps" agencies, but private companies operating under contract to deliver the Government's training and enterprise programmes. Thus Ministers are able to set them clear objectives and targets while allowing them considerable flexibility in how they achieve those objectives and targets—for example, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, in choice of training providers. That will enable TECs to provide programmes in the most cost-effective manner and to tailor them to meet local needs. I am sure that the House welcomes that development.
  Ministers will continue to answer to the House on overall training and enterprise policies, for the public funds made available to TECs, and, of course, for the contracts that govern the relationship between the Government and TECs.
  The main change in accountability arrangements is that all correspondence sent to Ministers on matters that fall within the flexibilities allowed for TECs will be referred to them to answer. TECs are private companies, and it is right that they should answer on the matters that are under their discretion.
  I stress to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we are always available and willing to explain how the Employment Department group operates. To that end, I shall shortly be contacting hon. Members inviting them to a series of presentations and discussions on the workings of the Employment Department. We hope that those presentations will help right hon. and hon. Members better to appreciate the implications of the changes that we are setting in hand. We shall be asking local managers to explain how hon. Members can tap into their local Employment Department group network for advice and help for their constituents. We shall also be making available individual briefing packs containing information about the Department, its activities and contact points in hon. Members' own constituencies.
  I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take this opportunity to become better acquainted with the "delivery end" of the Department of Employment. We are determined to improve the quality of service that we offer, not only to our many clients but to hon. Members who

  151
  want to appreciate the way in which we are delivering services and what we can do to help them and their constituents.
  I hope that I have been able to explain clearly to the House what the new arrangements are. All the
  152
  developments are part of a move towards increased effectiveness and ensuring continued accountability to this House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Pensioners (Travel Subsidy)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to introduce a greater subsidy on internal travel for United Kingdom pensioners.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. Local authorities already have powers to provide for reduced fares or free travel for pensioners on local public transport services.

  London Assessment Studies
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish his Department's analysis of the public consultation response to the stage 2 options of the London assessment studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  The analysis has now been published. Copies are being placed in the Library.

  Radiation
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has regarding the effect of gamma and neutron radiation upon food stocks on board Pacific nuclear transport vessels carrying spent nuclear fuel.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Food is stored in the accommodation area situated at the stern of the ship, distant from the cargo. The design of these ships is such that there is no measurable difference in radiation from background levels where the food is stored.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will commission a study into the short, medium and long-term health effects of gamma and neutron radiation upon seafarers working on United Kingdom registered ships carrying spent nuclear fuel;

  (2) if he will commission a study of the potential adverse health effects of being crew members on board ships carrying spent nuclear fuel.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department commissioned the National Radiological Protection Board to study the radiation doses arising from the sea transport of radioactive materials, including spent fuel. The study was completed in 1988, and the main results presented during an international symposium on the packaging and transportation of radioactive materials held last year. These showed that the doses to which seafarers were exposed were well below recommended limits.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the emergency planning arrangements for ship-to-shore-to-ship communications in the event of a ship 2
  carrying spent nuclear fuel to the United Kingdom being involved in a serious incident involving the release of significant radiation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Adequate arrangements already exist for distress communications within the United Kingdom search and rescue region, for ship-to-shore-to-ship communication. We keep in close touch with BNFL's emergency planning arrangements and I have no reason to doubt the adequacy of the modern systems that would be used to communicate with any ship involved in a more distant incident of this kind.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the radiation protection standards for workers handling spent nuclear fuel in transport in the United States of America.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The radiation protection standards for workers worldwide are based on the recommendations of the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) publication No. 26. I understand that these apply to all classes of radiation workers in the United States of America.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the radiation protection standards for workers handling spent nuclear fuel in transport in Scotland.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Ionising Radiations Regulations and their approved code of practice apply to all workers handling radioactive materials and contain the requirements to ensure the necessary standards of safety.

  A52 (Noise)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will specify the exact place where the measuring equipment was put within the curtilage of Arnold Lodge, Belvoir road, Bottesford, when his departmental survey into noise from the A52 trunk road was carried out in May 1989.

  Mr. Atkins
  The microphone was 1·0m horizontally from the face of the building, approximately midway along the south-facing side, and 1·2m above ground level.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what specific date or dates the survey was carried out for his Department in May 1989 on noise arising from the A52 trunk road by-pass around Bottesford, Leicestershire; and what set of measuring equipment was used in each case.

  Mr. Atkins
  The noise survey was carried out between 8 and 23 May 1989. A CEL 162L environmental noise analyser was used throughout.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what means his departmental survey of noise from the A52 bypass around Bottesford differentiated between(a) noise arising from the concrete surface of the road, (b) engine noise and (c) overall air displacement by traffic movement; and what allowances were made for variations in the direction of the prevailing wind.

  Mr. Atkins
  The survey did not differentiate between engine noise, noise from the road surface and air
  3
  displacement. It measured actual noise levels. Wind conditions were monitored during the survey. Surveys were abandoned and repeated when wind conditions were outside those specified in "Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (1988)".

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his officials at the regional office in Nottingham intend to reply to the letter sent to them on 12 March by Mr. Colin Love of Arnold Lodge, Belvoir road, Bottesford, relating to the noise survey of the A52 road.

  Mr. Atkins
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) wrote to me on 28 February with a similar letter from his constituent, Mr. Love. I met my hon. Friend on 27 March to discuss noise from Bottesford bypass and agreed to write to him about whether any further action could be taken. The regional office did not reply to Mr. Love pending this exchange, but will respond shortly.

  Marine Collision and Avoidance Systems
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of funding given by his Department to the polytechnic of the south-west in each of the last five years for research into marine collision and avoidance systems.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department has not funded any research by the polytechnic of the south-west on marine collision and avoidance systems in the last five years. Research into collision avoidance costing £158,500 was, however, commissioned from another research organisation and completed in 1986. The Department is committed to a policy of funding research work through open tendering procedures.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which marine pollution control unit ships were sent to the Rosebay incident; and(a) at what time each was ordered in, (b) at what time each arrived at the scene of the spillage and (c) at what time each began clean-up operations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As part of the overall response to the spillage of oil from the Rosebay, arrangements were put in hand by the MPCU at 17.00 on 12 May to locate and charter from commercial sources the nearest specific types of vessel required to mount as soon as possible an operation to mechanically recover oil from the sea surface. Subsequently, a vessel to carry the recovery equipment, the Laila Viking, and a coastal tanker to receive recovered oil, the BP Warrior, located at Great Yarmouth and Milford Haven respectively, were taken on hire with effect from 00.01 on 13 May. A tug at Brixham, the Pendragon B, to deploy the boom associated with the recovery equipment, was taken on hire at 04.00 on 14 May.

  The three vessels, which had to work together as a team, arrived at the scene of the incident at 08.10 on 14 May, special heavy duty ship-separating fenders necessary for the operation were towed out from Kingswear and fitted in position by 19.00 on 14 May and final adjustments were then made to the system. Recovery operations began at first light on 15 May.

  Further arrangements were started at 11.35 on 14 May to contract another coastal tanker to provide reserve
  4
  storage space for recovered oil. Esso Tenby was taken on hire when she arrived on scene at 03.00 on 15 May; to date, it has not been necessary to use this vessel in operations.

  The Warren Spring laboratory research vessel, Seaspring, a small self-contained tank vessel with an MPCU oil recovery system on board, was activated at 19.38 on 13 May for inshore work. She arrived on scene from Ipswich at 07.45 on 16 May and commenced clean-up operations at 14.42 the same day.

  Motorcyclists
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce legislation to make it obligatory for motorcyclists to use headlights or running lights during daytime.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no plans at present. I do strongly advise motorcyclists to use dipped headlamps and to wear fluorescent material during the day to help make them more readily seen. This recommendation is included in the highway code.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the countries that now have legislation making obligatory the daytime use of motorcycle headlights.

  Mr. Atkins
  Comprehensive information is not readily available. However, I understand that the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, West Germany, France and New Zealand have such a requirement.

  Rail Electrification
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ascertain how much grant could be paid by the European Commission towards the electrification of the Crewe to Holyhead main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  If an application for funds were made, yes.

  Helicopters (Safety)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will introduce regulations regarding the wearing of survival suits(a) by passengers, and (b) by crew, on helicopters operating on North sea rigs and platforms;

  (2) whether he will introduce standards for survival suits to be worn by passengers in helicopters travelling to and from North sea rigs and platforms;

  (3) if he intends to introduce regulations to ensure a standard lifejacket to be worn by helicopter passengers on North sea rigs and platforms.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority.

  I am advised by the authority that provisions already exist in the Air Navigation Order for the wearing of survival suits by crew members. The authority has no jurisdiction to legislate for the wearing of suits by passengers though I understand that the suits are normally so worn.

  The carriage of lifejackets for the use of passengers is governed by the provisions contained in the Air Navigation Order and such lifejackets must meet the standards specified by the CAA.

  Heavy Lorries (Pollution Control)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response his Department is giving to the EEC proposed new emission standards for heavy lorries.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Commission has made a press announcement about the likely content of its proposals, but the final document has yet to be published.

  From what I have seen, the proposals do not seem to go far enough. The Community's long-term aim should be to set a mid-1990s diesel standard based as closely as possible on the United States 1994 standard, both in limit values and test procedure. This is the strictest of all the diesel emission standards being considered worldwide. In particular, it would require substantial reductions in the amount of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulates emitted by new vehicles.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report those airlines that have been fined under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, showing the number and total value of fines for the years for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Liability was incurred in 14,295 cases in the period from the introduction of the Act (4 March 1987) to 28 February 1990. This gave rise to charges totalling £14·295 million. The following carriers and agents incurred liability in that three-year period:

  Adria Airways

  Aer Lingus

  Aero Leasing

  Acro Transporti Italian

  Aeroflot Soviet Airlines

  African Safari Airlines

  Air 2000

  Air Algerie

  Air America

  Air Atlantis

  Air Canada

  Air Enterprise

  Air Europe

  Air France

  Air India

  Air Lanka

  Air Malta

  Air Mauritius

  Air New Zealand

  Air Seychelles

  Air UK

  Air Vendee

  Air Zimbabwe

  Air-Tours

  Aircraft Management Consortium

  Al-Anwae

  Alitalia Airlines

  American Airlines

  American Transair

  Anglo-Soviet Shipping Co. Ltd.

  Aravco Ltd.

  Arkia

  Austrian Airlines

  Austrian Charter

  Aviaco Airlines

  Aviogenex

  Balkan Bulgarian Airlines

  Bangladesh Biman

  Barrie & Nairn Ltd.

  Birgenair

  Birmingham Executive Airways

  Bogazici Airlines

  6

  Braathcns

  Brantford Int. Agencies Ltd.

  Britannia Airways

  British Air Ferries

  British Airways

  British Island Air

  British Midland

  British West Indian Air

  Brittany Air

  Brittany Ferries

  Burnett & Co. (Newcastle) Ltd.

  CAAC Main Line China

  Caledonian Airways Ltd.

  Cameroon Airlines

  Can Afrique

  Canada 3000 Airlines Ltd.

  Capital Airlines

  Captain W. F. Taylor

  Caribbean Airlines

  Cathay Pacific

  Christopher Massart-Weit

  Clay Lacy Aviation Ltd.

  Clearwater Holdings

  Conair

  Connect Air

  Consolidated Contractors

  Constantine Brantford Ltd.

  Continental Airways

  Cory Brothers

  Crownair Canada

  Cunard Line Ltd.

  Currig Line Agents

  Cutting & Co. (Humber) Ltd.

  Cyprus Air

  Czechoslovak Air

  Das Air

  DFDS Seaways

  Dalla Avco

  Dan Air

  Dantata

  Delta Air

  Denholm Ship Agency

  Egypt Air

  El-Al Israel Airlines

  Emirates

  Escombe Group

  Ethiopian Airlines

  Eurocommander SA

  Executive Aviation Services

  Falmouth Fishselling Co.

  Federal Express

  Finnair

  Forbes

  Fred Olsen Lines

  Funair

  Gambia Air Shuttle Ltd.

  Garuda Air

  GB Airways Ltd. (Gibraltar)

  Ghana Airways

  Gulf Air

  H. E. Kamal Adham

  Hamble Agency

  Handling Air

  Heinz Ltd.

  Highland Express

  Hill Dickinson & Co.

  Hispania Airlines

  Holidair

  Hoverspeed UK Ltd.

  Iberia Airlines

  Iceland Air

  International Business Air

  Interster SA

  Iran Air

  Iraqi Air

  Istanbul Airlines

  J. F. Marshall & Son Ltd.

  Japan Airlines

  John Cook & Son

  KLM

  7

  Kalair USA Corporation

  Kenya Airways

  Khalid Salem Bin Mahfooz

  Killick Martin & Co.

  Korean Airlines

  Kuwait Airlines

  Lot Polish Air

  Leafe & Hawkes Ltd.

  Lineas Aereas Canarias

  London City Airways

  London European

  Lufthansa

  Luxair Airlines

  Malaysian Airlines

  Maley Hungarian Air

  McAlpine Aviation Ltd.

  McGregor Gow & Holland Ltd.

  Messrs. Lovell, Hodder, Whitwill

  Middle East Airlines

  Midfly

  Miriao Air

  Misrair

  Mobil Oil Corporation

  Monarch Airlines

  Morline

  Mr. C. L. Szabo

  Mr. R. Hitchens

  Mr. Wojciech Kaliski

  N. Cutting Agencies Ltd.

  NLM Holland

  Nation Air

  National Iranian Tanker Corporation

  Netherlines BV

  Nigerian Airways

  Noble Air

  Norstar Shipping

  North Sea Ferries

  North West Air

  Norway Line

  Novair International Air

  Oasis Air

  Odyssey International

  Okada airlines

  Olau line Sheerness

  Olympic air

  Orion airways

  P & O

  Pakistan international air

  Pan Am

  Paramount airways

  Partnair

  Philippine airlines

  Piedmont airlines

  Pincervale Ltd.

  Pinecroft Ltd.

  Qantas air

  Regional Flug GMBH

  Resa

  Roxburgh Henderson & Co. Ltd.

  Royal air Maroc

  Royal Jordanian air

  Royal Nepal airlines

  Ryan air

  S Nayv

  SAS

  Sabena airlines

  Sally Line Ltd.

  Saudi Arabian air

  Saudi Oger services

  Scanair

  Scottish express international

  Sealink British ferries

  Sealink Dieppe ferries

  Seaport shipping

  Security Pacific national bank

  Servisair

  Singapore air

  Skylane air charter

  South African air

  Southern port services

  8

  Spanair

  Spantax SA

  Stelp & Leighton agencies Ltd.

  Sterling air

  Sudan air

  Swissair

  T & J Harrison Ltd.

  TAP

  TIA

  TWA Trans world airways

  T Ward shipping

  Talair

  Tarom Romanian airlines

  Thai international airlines

  Thames Orwell shipping

  The Brunei Darussalam High Com.

  Toros air

  Transfavia

  Transwede

  Tunis Air

  Turkish Airlines

  UK Wal Shipping

  Uganda Air Cargo

  Uganda Airways

  Uni Air

  Unifly Express

  US Air

  Varig Brazilian Airlines

  Viasa Venezuelan Air

  Viking Air Services

  Virgin Atlantic Air

  Ward Air

  West African Airways

  World Way Canada

  Worldways Canada

  Xenez Industries

  Yemen Air

  Yugoslav Airlines

  Zambian Airlines

  Zas Airline of Egypt

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the workings of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  As I said in reply to my hon. Friend's question on 26 April at column 286, there are no plans to review the workings of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. My officials have however been conducting, with British Airways, a review of the individual cases in which it incurred liability to 30 June 1989, and consideration is being given to a number of general issues raised by British Airways as a result of that review. I will write to my hon. Friend about that review, when replying to his letter of 11 April.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Airlines
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Lord President of the Council which airlines were used during the last 12 months for each parliamentary Committee on official parliamentary business; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  It is not possible to provide accurately the information requested without disproportionate cost.

  British Beef
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will consider suspending the use of certain British beef products in the House Refreshment Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Refreshment Department accepts the advice given by the independent scientists appointed by the Government and by the EC in respect of the use of British beef and beef products. It is therefore satisfied there is no need to change its policy on the supply of these items in the House.

  "Manchester Evening News"
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make inquiries as to the reason why the Manchester Evening News has again become unavailable in the Tea Room and Smoking Room.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The free copies of the Manchester Evening News supplied to the House are being received irregularly. The authorities of the House have been in touch with the publisher, who will vary the delivery arrangements in an attempt to provide an improved service.

  Workplace Nursery
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the provisional timetable for establishment of a workplace nursery for staff working in the House.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  It is not possible at this stage to indicate any provisional timetable for the establishment of a workplace nursery. The Services Committee has, however, invited the Administration Department to prepare a feasibility study which it is hoped will be considered in the autumn.

  Select Committee on Procedure
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he will publish the Government's response to the report by the Select Committee on Procedure on the scrutiny of European legislation.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Government's response to the report by the Select Committee on Procedure on the scrutiny of European legislation has today been laid before Parliament. The recommendations in the report covered a wide range of issues and the Government have accepted the majority of the Procedure Committee's recommendations. In particular:

  The Government have agreed in principle the central recommendation on the establishment of Special Standing Committees on European Community documents. These would be appointed for a whole Session. When the number of Committees has been decided, consideration will be given to the inclusion of Members who express particular interest or expertise in the subject areas covered by the relevant Committee. The Committees would also have the power to hear statements from Ministers and question them before debating the document under consideration. The Government have also accepted that there should be a significant shift of scrutiny debates away from the Floor of the House and into these new Committees.
  10
  On the timing of scrutiny debates, the Government have reaffirmed their intention to bring proposals rapidly before the Select Committee on European Legislation and arrange prompt debates where the Committee so recommends. The Government have accepted the recommendation that the six-monthly debates on the "Developments in the Community" White Papers should be made more forward-looking. The Government recognise the benefits to be gained from building up informal links with Members of the European Parliament and have asked the House of Commons Services Committee to consider some practical measures to achieve this.

  The Government believe that these changes and the other elements of their response will help to bring the scrutiny procedures up to date and allow Parliament to play its full and proper part in the consideration of Community legislation.

  The House will be given an early opportunity to express its views on the report and the Government response. Following this debate, the Government will bring forward detailed proposals, including any necessary amendments to Standing Orders with a view to operating the new arrangements from the start of next Session.

  Offices
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will purchase the office space currently available in the Sanctuary, Westminster for the use of hon. Members or their staff.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no proposals to extend the parliamentary accommodation beyond the work currently under way to redevelop the Bridge street site.

ENERGY

  Deep-mined Coal
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to the average level of Government subsidy per tonne of deep-mined coal each year since 1987 in each European Economic Community country and in the United States of America.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's answer of 23 March 1989, at columns 764–65, to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), which gave the European Commission's estimates of the subsidy per tonne in coal-producing member states for the years 1985 to 1987. The equivalent figures for 1988 have not yet been published by the Commission.

  The United States of America does not provide financial support to its coal industry.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on what dates ministerial meetings on energy efficiency, as referred to in the answer to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) of 13 November 1989,Official Report, column 95, have been held.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Meetings of Ministers with responsibility for energy use in Departments have been held on 19 October 1989, 31 January 1990 and 2 May 1990.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provisions have been made for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the newly agreed contracts to reprocess spent research reactor nuclear fuel from Berlin, Madrid and Petten, at Dounreay.

  Mr. Baldry
  In line with all overseas reprocessing contracts since 1976, these contracts will have to include options for the return of wastes arising. The Government intend that such options should be exercised and wastes returned.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what safeguards agreements will apply to the spent nuclear fuel to be imported from research reactors in Madrid, Petten in the Netherlands and the Hahn-Meitner Institute in Berlin for processing at Dounreay.

  Mr. Baldry
  All operations at Dounreay are subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK-Euratom-IAEA safeguards agreement (INFCIRC/263).

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what evaluation he has made of the recent scientific report by the International Atomic Energy Agency criticising the adequacy of the scientific work conducted by Nirex in support of its repository research programme.

  Mr. Baldry
  UK Nirex Ltd. commissioned the independent review by the International Atomic Energy Agency of the Nirex research and development programmes on deep repository post-closure safety and site assessment.

  The report of the review was received in July 1989 and has been carefully studied. The IAEA panel of experts was impressed with the quality of the programme and the vast strides it had already made. They concluded that all major topics of interest were being addressed; that gaps in knowledge had been identified; and that R and D to fill those gaps had been initiated. They noted that the work could not be completed until site specific data were available and set down a number of areas in which such data would be required. With this qualification they expressed the view that the work being done by Nirex gave promise of a highly competent professional appraisal of the suitability of either or both the proposed two sites for intermediate and low-level waste disposal.

  The research programme on which the panel was asked to comment was on-going and incomplete; in particular Nirex was well aware before it commissioned the review that site specific data would be required before the work could be taken to a conclusion. Nirex welcomed the panel's suggestions and advice and where appropriate these have been incorporated in the future research programmes.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will call for an update of the report prepared in 1980 by the safety and reliability directorate of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on the risk potential of a gas tank explosion and subsequent fire engulfing a ship docked at Barrow containing spent reactor nuclear fuel.

  Mr. Baldry
  The report referred to by the hon. Member was prepared in connection with a planning application 12
  which has since been granted. It is for those who commissioned the report to decide whether they wish to update it.

  Nuclear Material
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on how many occasions in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 to date, respectively, nuclear material has been withdrawn from safeguards under article 14 of the 1978 tripartite safeguards agreement between Euratom, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Kingdom; if the nuclear material involved in each case was plutonium, enriched uranium or natural uranium; and what was the purpose for each withdrawal.

  Mr. Baldry
  Details of withdrawals of material from safeguards under the tripartite safeguards agreement are supplied to the IAEA and Euratom on a strictly confidential basis. It would not be in the public interest to publish this information.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will require British Nuclear Fuels plc to apply the best available technology not entailing excessive cost to its operations at Sellafield, Calder Hall and Chapelcross works, Capenhurst and Springfields.

  Mr. Baldry
  British Nuclear Fuels plc already uses the best appropriate technology to conduct its operations at these establishments in a safe and economical manner.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the budget for the advertising campaign to publicise the flotation of the regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on this matter on I May 1990 at column 474.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total spent by his Department in 1989–90 on fees to organisations advising on electricity privatisation; and what is the budget for the current year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The latest forecast outturn for 1989–90 is £12·4 million. There may, however, be some end of year adjustments which remain to be taken into account. For the current year a provision of £34·5 million has been sought.

  Nuclear Electricity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the price at which Nuclear Electric is contracted to supply electricity to the public electricity suppliers for the next eight years.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a commercial matter for Nuclear Electric plc.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the unit cost of electricity produced from nuclear sources is attributable to storage and physical protection charges for plutonium and used uranium.
  13
  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for Nuclear Electric plc.

  Office of Electricity Regulation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will call for a report from the Director General of Electricity Supply as to the cost of production of the first report from OFFER, broken down into(a) printing costs, (b) design costs and (c) photography.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no plans to call for such a report from the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) when he will publish the updated cost estimates for Sizewell B which Nuclear Electric sent him on 16 May;

  (2) whether the estimates for the updated cost of Sizewell B which he has received from Nuclear Electric include provision for the costs associated with the intended follow-on pressurised water reactors.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether any new information has been received from Nuclear Electric regarding the costs of a single development of a pressurised water reactor; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish the most recent cost estimates for Sizewell B from Nuclear Electric; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Nuclear Electric plc has just sent to me its latest progress report on Sizewell B and will discuss it with my Department. The projected costs of the station are a matter for NE. It will decide what to publish when the discussions with my Department are complete.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he or another Minister in his Department last visited the Sizewell B nuclear power plant site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I visited Sizewell on 10 April.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tropical Forests Action Plan
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make it his policy to oppose the approval of the tropical forest action plan by the European Community until the comprehensive internal review has reported; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I will be discussing tropical forestry, including the tropical forestry action plan, at the European Development Council on 29 May. I shall be stressing the need for reform of the TFAP in the light of the independent review now under way. I set out my views on the TFAP in a speech to the Friends of the Earth "Rainforest Harvest Festival" on 17 May, copies of which I have placed in the Library and sent to the hon. Member.

  Third World
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to start an initiative to reduce the use of tobacco and other drugs in Third world developing countries.
  14
  Mrs. Chalker
  The health hazards of tobacco smoking are well established and the Government recognise that tobacco smoking is becoming an increasing health problem in developing countries. The reduction of tobacco consumption in developing countries is a matter for the Governments of the countries concerned. The United Kingdom, through its subscription to the WHO, is supporting that organisation's "Tobacco or Health" programme which helps countries develop tobacco control policies. In addition, the Government stand ready to draw on their wide experience of anti-smoking health education and the epidemiology of smoking-related diseases in order to advise Governments who request help to formulate their tobacco control policies.

  As the Prime Minister announced at the world ministerial drugs summit in London in April, the United Kingdom is setting up a demand reduction task force to provide expert advice to developing countries on ways of reducing the demand for drugs. It will draw in our expertise in community drug prevention initiatives, drugs education, treatment and rehabilitation.

SCOTLAND

  Fisheries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has, by region, on the employment destination of ex-employees in the Scottish fish-catching sector who have left the industry since 1985.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has no information on this.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretaryof State for Scotland whether any additional money was provided to Lothian health board in each of the last five years to fund the doctors' and nurses' review body awards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Additional money towards the pay review body awards was made available to health boards in each of the last three years.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been Lothian health board's annual budget over the last five years up to and including the year ended 31 March 1990; and by what percentage it has been over or under SHA RE parity in each of these years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Final allocation

  Distance from SHARE parity Per cent. over

  1985–86

  218·997

  2·11

  1986–87

  234·032

  1·24

  1987–88

  253·031

  0·8

  1988–89

  281·406

  0·35

  1989–90

  299·951

  0·18

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the recent survey into sight test levels commissioned by the Department of Health also covers Scotland.
  15
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes.

  General Practices (Budgetary Status)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of patients in each health board in Scotland on the lists of the 41 practices in Scotland referred to in his answer of 20 March,Official Report, column 580, to have declared an interest in applying for budgetary status.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of practices in Scotland that have so far indicated an interest in the general practitioner funding scheme has subsequently risen to 46. The information is set out in the following table.

  Health board

  Expressions of interest

  Patients covered '000s

  Ayr and Arran

  4

  48·0

  Argyll and Clyde

  4

  35·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2

  21·2

  Forth Valley

  1

  10·2

  Grampian

  14

  149·6

  Lanarkshire

  3

  32·5

  Lothian

  6

  44·0

  Greater Glasgow

  4

  31·5

  Tayside

  8

  53·1

  Fife

  1

  8·0

  TOTAL

  46

  433·7

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he is giving to local education authorities about school meals in connection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: Education authorities have been advised of the range of measures adopted by the Government to protect the public from what is a remote and theoretical risk. They can continue to offer beef in school meals with complete confidence.

  Social Work Departments
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his written answer of 14 May on his powers to intervene in the operations of regional social work departments, if he will list the statutory functions that a local authority social work department should have failed to carry out before he uses his default powers under section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973; and if he will make a statement as to the circumstances under which he would use those powers.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: Action under section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 may be taken in respect of a local authority failing to carry out any of its statutory duties. A decision would be made in each case after careful consideration of the circumstances.

  Technical Education
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the criteria for funding Robert Gordon's institute of technology under
  16
  the engineering targeting scheme; what funds were allocated by the Scottish Education Department; what are the current criteria for funding the institute; and what Scottish Education Department funding has been allocated for the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: Under the "switch to technology" initiative, additional recurrent and capital funding was provided to central institutions over a three-year period on the basis of an assessment of their proposals to increase intakes to courses in engineering and technology. During the period 1985–88, Robert Gordon's institute of technology received under the initiative additional recurrent grant of £0·731 million and additional capital funding of £2·858 million.

  All 17 grant-aided colleges now receive grant in aid towards their recurrent costs on the basis of target student numbers weighted by subject group and mode of attendance. Capital funding to meet approved building and equipment needs is allocated on the basis of an assessment of bids from the colleges. As I announced on 22 February 1990, at columns 869–70, grant in aid of £11·953 million has been allocated to the institute for the financial year 1990–91. In addition, capital funding of £0·520 million will be made available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Waddesdon Manor (Meeting)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost to public funds of the recent meeting with the President of France at Waddesdon manor, Buckinghamshire; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The estimated cost to public funds is £56,500, of which £15,600 falls to my office.

  Iraqi Arms Purchase
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration she is giving to the implications for the level of co-ordination between Customs and Excise, the Defence Export Services Secretariat and the Department of Trade and Industry of the Iraqi gun affair.

  The Prime Minister
  On the arrangements for co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and Customs and Excise in this area, I refer to the reply given on 25 April by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) at column 239.

  There is also a high level of co-ordination, both formal and informal, between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence on matters relating to export control.

  All these arrangements are kept under regular review.

  Advisers
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list in the Official Report the names and positions of her advisers who were not career civil servants; from which vote they were paid; and who made the decision on their salary level for each year since 1981.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is as follows:

  Year and Name

  1981

  17

  Professor A. Walters

  C. W. Monckton

  W. R. F. Mount

  P. Shipley

  D. C. Hobson

  O. Letwin

  D. L. Pascall

  J. Redwood

  R. Young

  C. E. Hartley-Booth

  P. T. Warry

  J. B. Wybrew

  Professor B. Griffiths

  N. R. Blackwell

  G. R. J. Guise

  Mrs. T. Gaisman

  A. J. O'Sullivan

  Mr. G. D. Bourne

  A. Dunlop

  I K. Whitehead

  G. R. J. Guise

  H. Harris-Hughes

  Mrs. A. Ponsonby

  Professor Sir Alan Walters

  R. Harris

  The advisers are paid from the Cabinet Office (OMCS) vote (class XIX, vote 1). Salary levels are negotiated with the individual by the Cabinet Office.

  Jordanian Defence Package
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister whether her office approved the mix of moneys from Midland Montagu bank and the Ministry of Defence budget to service the Jordanian defence package.

  Ship

  Type

  Port

  Arrive

  Depart

  Iowa

  Battleship

  Portsmouth

  3 July 1989

  8 July 1989

  Preble

  Destroyer

  Loch Ewe

  4 July 1989

  4 July 1989

  Providence

  Submarine

  Portsmouth

  14 July 1989

  20 July 1989

  John Hall

  Frigate

  Greenock

  17 July 1989

  23 July 1989

  Spruance

  Destroyer

  Greenock

  17 July 1989

  23 July 1989

  Pawcatuck

  Oiler

  Greenock

  17 July 1989

  23 July 1989

  Aubrey Fitch

  Frigate

  London

  22 September 1989

  4 October 1989

  William V. Pratt

  Destroyer

  Portsmouth

  22 September 1989

  26 September 1989

  Mahan

  Destroyer

  Devonport

  23 September 1989

  15 October 1989

  Rosyth

  9 November 1989

  14 November 1989

  Rosyth

  24 November 1989

  28 November 1989

  Philadelphia

  Submarine

  Portsmouth

  16 October 1989

  20 October 1989

  18
  The Prime Minister
  The financial arrangements governing defence sales of this kind are a matter of commercial confidence.

THE ARTS

  Painters and Sculptors
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has any plans to introduce a scheme by which painters and sculptors may benefit financially from the proceeds of sales of their work subsequently to the initial sales of individual pieces of work.

  Mr. Luce
  No. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in the 1986 White Paper "Intellectual Property and Innovation" that he did not intend to introduce such a scheme because it would be complex to administer and the disadvantages would outweigh any benefit to the artist.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has conducted any independent assessments or tests assessing the safety of transport containers used by his Department to move nuclear materials.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. All containers used by the Ministry of Defence to transport nuclear materials undergo testing to standards laid down in the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  US Warships
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list United States naval warship visits to British ports from 23 May 1989 to the present date; the time at which they visited; and the type of vessel involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:
  19

  Ship

  Type

  Port

  Arrive

  Depart

  L. Mendal Rivers

  Submarine

  Portsmouth

  15 November 1989

  20 November 1989

  Pargo

  Submarine

  Portsmouth

  12 March 1990

  19 March 1990

  Equipment (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones),Official Report, 3 May, column 646, he will publish in the Official Report a full list of the publications on environmental impact of equipment produced for his Department to which he refers.

  Mr. Neubert
  It would require disproportionate cost to identify and list all the publications by the Department which refer to the environmental impact of defence equipment. These range from the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990 to, where appropriate, environmental impact assessments of individual projects.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones),Official Report, 3 May, column 646, on the ordering of equipment for his Department, he will now make it his policy to make it a condition of purchase for his departmental suppliers that they conduct an environmental audit of their corporate operations.

  Mr. Neubert
  No, it is the responsibility of the individual companies concerned to make sure that their corporate operations meet the appropriate environmental legislation and regulations.

  Soldiers (Germany)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers serving in Germany in each of the last four years have been remanded for trial by district court martial; and how long was the period between each incident which led to the trial and the start of the court martial proceedings.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of soldiers serving in Germany who were remanded for trial by district court martial in each of the last four years was:

  Number

  1986

  404

  1987

  387

  1988

  417

  1989

  359

  Each case varies depending on its complexity, the degree of investigation required, the plea, availability of witness etc; a straightforward case might take three months, a complex case around 18 months. It would not be possible to give the further information requested without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers serving in Germany in each of the last four years have been involved in incidents which have been the subject of Royal Military Police investigations; and how long it has taken in each case(a) for an initial report to be made, (b) for initial legal advice to be given, (c) for final legal advice to be received
  20
  for a commanding officer to decide on disciplinary action and (d) where relevant, for district court martial proceedings to begin.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of soldiers serving in Germany who were involved in incidents which were the subject of Royal Military Police investigations was:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  12,997

  3,175

  2,947

  4,757

  1 Estimate.

  I am afraid that the detailed information requested could not be produced without disproportionate cost.

  Norton Manor Camp
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries he has made into the circumstances in which, on 15 May, a hole was cut in the perimeter fence of Norton Manor camp, near Taunton; if he is satisfied with the security arrangements at the camp; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On 15 May a security patrol at Norton Manor camp noticed an irregularity in the perimeter fence which suggested that an unauthorised entry might have occurred. As a precautionary measure, a full search of the camp was carried out, but no evidence of entry by unauthorised persons was found. It now appears that the irregularity discovered by the patrol was a section of fence which had been repaired, although the repair had not been recorded in the usual way. I am satisfied that appropriate security arrangements are in place at Norton Manor camp, although these are kept under constant review.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he plans to publish accident rates for individual types of Royal Air Force aircraft;

  (2) if he plans to publish the results of the skyguard monitoring in the United Kingdom of low-flying aircraft on an annual basis;

  (3) if he plans to introduce an address and telephone number which people can contact if they wish to complain about low flying;

  (4) if he will publish the list of approved targets for Royal Air Force low-flying aircraft in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neubert
  The points raised are recommendations by the House of Commons Defence Committee, whose report on low flying (HC 120) is currently being considered very carefully. There will be a response to all of the report's recommendations in the Government's reply to the Committee.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to assist home owners.

  Mr. Ryder
  Interest rates will continue to be kept as high as needed to reduce inflation. Everyone has far more to fear from a resurgence of inflation than from a period of higher interest rates.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of the current level of interest rates on manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Ryder
  Inflation is the greatest threat to the prosperity of all manufacturing firms. The Government will therefore keep interest rates as high as necessary for as long as necessary as part of their firm anti-inflationary policy.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss interest rate policy.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss interest rate policy.

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

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution his Department will be making to the conference on monetary union in Europe, organised by the Federal Trust for Education and Research, to be held in London on 24 May.

  Mr. Lilley
  I will be addressing this conference.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 9 May, if he will make a statement on the anticipated effect upon the rate of inflation of the 30 per cent. by which 1989's domestic rate revenue would have had to be increased to meet the current anticipated local authority revenue from the community charge.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 16 May 1990]: Local authorities' spending decisions have added 1 percentage point to the inflation rate in April. The effect would have been very similar had that spending been financed by domestic rates.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 9 May, if he will make a statement on the anticipated effect upon the rate of inflation of the £2·5 billion real terms increase in local authority revenues in the current financial year over 1989.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 16 May 1990]: The average personal community charge in Great Britain is estimated
  22
  to be 34 per cent. higher than the analogous rates per head figure in 1989–90 for households covered by the RPI. This increase has added about 1 percentage point to the annual inflation rate.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the total standard spending assessment for England for 1990–91 was designated to be raised from(a) business rate income, (b) community charge income at standard spending and (c) the revenue support grant; and what are the estimates for England for 1990–91 of actual sums raised from (i) business rate income, (ii) community charge income and (iii) the revenue support grant.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is as follows:(a) 35 per cent.; (b) 33 per cent.; (c) 32 per cent.; and (i) £10·4 billion; (ii) £12·7 billion; (iii) £9·4 billion.

  Local authority revenue expenditure is also funded by means of special grants and the use of balances or reserves.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage net current spending by local authorities has risen in real terms since(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1984–85.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authority net current spending in England has increased in real terms by 20 per cent. and 10 per cent. between 1978–79–1989–90 and 1984–85–1989–90 respectively.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will add to the list of exemptions from poll tax women who have been made homeless because of domestic violence.

  Mr. Chope
  A person is subject to the personal community charge in respect of his or her sole or main residence. A period of residence within a women's refuge does not confer exemption from the community charge unless it is a night shelter or hostel. In general, women will not be registered at refuges for the community charge unless, exceptionally, they are solely or mainly resident there. In almost all cases women stay in refuges for short periods, during which they will be registered for the personal community charge at their previous address.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the local authority associations to discuss changes to the poll tax; and if he will list other organisations he proposes to consult on the subject.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has not met with representatives of the local authority associations specifically to discuss changes to the community charge. He has no plans to change the principle of the charge. He did have a wide-ranging discussion when he met the leaders of the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils on 27 March.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the cost of
  23
  collection under the old rates system in England for 1990–91; and what is the estimated cost of collecting poll tax for the year 1991–92.

  Mr. Chope
  The estimated cost of collecting rates in 1989–90 was £200 million. Our estimate of the total cost of collecting and administering the community charge in 1990–91 is £400 million. No estimate has yet been made of the costs of collecting the community charge in 1991–92, but they will be taken into account in the revenue support grant settlement.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost in a full year of excluding non-earning spouses from liability to the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  It is estimated that there are about 5 million spouses of taxpayers who do not themselves pay income tax. Assuming an average personal community charge of £363 the revenue lost from exempting them would be about £1·8 billion.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that residents of sheltered housing cannot be required to fund the community charge of a warden's spouse who plays no part in the management of the development.

  Mr. Chope
  The spouse of the warden of a sheltered housing scheme is liable for his or her own community charge and receives a separate bill. The charges to residents of such schemes are a contractual matter for agreement between residents and operators.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were(a) the numbers of ratepayers and the average payment for each ratepayer in 1989–90 and (b) the numbers of community charge payers and the average payment for each community charge payer in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1989–90 there were 18 million domestic ratepayers paying an average of £516. In 1990–91 there are 36 million charge payers and the average charge bill in England at 1 April is £363.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a list in the Official Report of the amount of the poll tax adjustment in respect of forecast non-payment for each of the authorities in the northern region; and whether he will give the average national figure for such adjustments.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average level of community charge in London in boroughs that were(a) Conservative controlled and (b) Labour controlled before 3 May.

  Mr. Chope
  The level for Conservative controlled is £285 and for Labour controlled £445. The figures are based on charges at 1 April 1990.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving the implementation of CITES controls; and whether, in view 24
  of the letter from the head of the endangered species branch of his Department (WLF/2050/411) to the International Council for Bird Preservation, of 25 April, he will adopt a system of the reverse listing of birds.

  Mr. Trippier
  Since 1 January 1984 CITES controls have been applied in the United Kingdom and in the rest of the European Community by EC regulation 3626/82. The implementation of regulation 3626 is kept under constant review by the EC CITES committee, which is comprised of representatives of the CITES authorities of member states. A new regulation to replace regulation 3626/82 is to be prepared and will take account, inter alia, of decisions resulting from an independent study of the implementation of regulation 3626/82. It will be for the EC CITES committee to consider if the reverse listing of birds and other species is to be incorporated in the new regulation.

  The reverse listing of birds in the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 remains extant in the United Kingdom for species not covered by EC regulation 3626/82.

  Twin Towns (USSR)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the towns and cities in the United Kingdom which are currenty twinned with towns and cities in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if he will make a statement on his proposals for promoting such arrangements and increasing their effectiveness in developing people-to-people contact especially between young people.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is as follows:

  Overseas community

  British community

  Chimkent

  Stevenage

  Crimean Region

  Derbyshire

  Donetsk

  Sheffield

  Gatchina

  Monklands

  Gorlovka

  Barnsley

  Kiev

  Edinburgh

  Kostroma

  Durham

  Krasnya Presnya

  Hackney

  Kustany

  Kirklees

  Kutaisi

  Newport

  Leningrad

  Manchester

  Leningradsky District

  Hounslow

  Minsk

  Nottingham

  Moskvoretsky

  Lambeth

  Novgorod

  Watford

  Novorossiysk

  Plymouth

  October District

  Newham

  Odessa

  Liverpool

  Rostov-on-Don

  Glasgow

  Sochi

  Cheltenham

  Sukhumi

  Kilmarnock

  Tbilisi

  Bristol

  Vinnitsa

  Peterborough

  Vladimir

  Canterbury

  Volgograd

  Coventry

  Voroshilovgrad

  Cardiff

  Yalta

  Margate

  Yaroslavl

  Exeter

  Zaporozhye

  Birmingham

  The Government believe that twinning links can play an important role in breaking down barriers and developing mutual trust. To that end local authorities are encouraged through the local government international bureau to

  25
  develop twinning links with their east European counterparts, particularly where fully democratic local government is being established.

  Housing
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the future expansion of social housing, in terms of Government grant, private funding, local authorities funding and housing associations in(a) the United Kingdom as a whole and (b) Suffolk and Norfolk;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of social housing funding and grant aid to housing associations from 1991–92 onwards.

  Mr. Chope
  Housing associations are to be the main providers of new subsidised housing for the future; local authority expenditure on housing will increasingly be focused on renovation of their own stock. Gross expenditure by the Housing Corporation on grants and loans to housing associations in England is planned to rise from £938 million in 1989–90 to £1,736 million in 1992–93. In addition, associations can expect some continuing support from local authorities. By 1992–93, 90 per cent. of the housing association schemes for rent which the corporation approves for grant are expected to be on a "mixed funding" basis: that is, the proportion of scheme cost not met through grant will be financed by borrowing from the private sector; the programme of low-cost home ownership schemes is already wholly mixed-funded. Housing associations' output, in England and in Suffolk and Norfolk, should therefore increase greatly as a result of increased public expenditure provision and growing use of private finance. My Department is not responsible for housing in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on affordable rents in social housing; and what definition of affordability his Department uses in its policy.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 25 April 1990 to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), at column 326.

  Inland Waters
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many United Kingdom inland river, broad and lake waters used extensively for bathing and water recreation passed the European Community mandatory and guideline parameters in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Information is held centrally only for those waters identified for the purposes of directive 76/160/EEC. No inland water has been found to meet the criteria for identification.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many United Kingdom coastal bathing waters passed the European Economic Community requirements for all mandatory parameters for the last year in which figures are available; and what percentage this number was of the total.
  26
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the report on the quality of United Kingdom bathing waters for the 1989 bathing season which my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside placed in the Library on 25 January 1990 (Official Report, column 785).

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many United Kingdom bathing waters passed the European Economic Community 76/160 recommended guideline values in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The directive's very demanding guide value standards were met in 1989 for the coliform parameters by 179 (41 per cent.) of the 440 identified bathing waters; 76 per cent. of these waters complied with the mandatory values.

  Private Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many private rented sector units of accommodation there were in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 to date.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Information about the numbers of dwellings rented privately, or with a job or business and about the numbers of dwellings rented from housing associations, is shown in table 2.22 of "Housing and Construction Statistics Part 2", No. 39. These figures show numbers at December 1988 and September 1989; figures for later periods are not yet available. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Assured Shorthold Tenancies
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the change in market rents since the introduction of assured shorthold tenancies.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Detailed information is not yet available. However, my Department will shortly be seti:ing in hand studies to evaluate the effects of deregulation, including the impact on rent levels.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to exempt from the uniform business rate premises used by commercial fishermen, which are not used for processing, wholesaling or retailing, but simply for storing of equipment required for the work of providing fish for food consumption.

  Mr. Chope
  I have no plans to do so. Premises of this sort are liable to pay rates under the new business rate arrangements which came into force on 1 April, as they were under the previous rating system.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant was made by his Department in respect of homelessness to(a) the Bayswater Hotel Homelessness project, (b) the British Refugee Council, (c) the Central London Housing Advisory Service Id) CHAR, (e) Community House Information Centre, (f) Empty Property Unit, (g) Homes for Homeless People,

  27
  (h) Housing Debtline, (i) National Association of Voluntary Hostels, (j) National Council for One Parent Families, (k) Specialist Information and Training Resource Agency and (l) Resource Information Service for Work on Homelessness, in each of the last three years; and what grant he is giving for the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This year we have trebled the funds available under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to £2 million. Comparing grants for individual bodies between this year and last is likely to be misleading because the nature of the programme has changed. In previous years, the emphasis was on providing core funding for voluntary bodies. This year, half the funds will go to a new national advice service based on citizens advice bureaux with specialist assistance from Shelter and SHAC; and half to specific projects providing direct assistance and practical help to single homeless people.

  Of the organisations funded under section 73 in previous years, substantial increases in the level of grant have been made to Shelter and SHAC. Shelter will receive a 400 per cent. increase from £144,490 in 1989–90 to £454,554 in 1990–91. SHAC will receive a 200 per cent. increase from £199,439 in 1989–90 to £407,236 in 1990–91. Increased grants are also being offered to Housing Advice Switchboard, the London Diocesan Fund and the Bristol Cyrenians but final details have yet to be agreed. Organisations receiving section 73 grant for the first time are: WECVS, Centrepoint, Riverpoint Single Homeless Ltd., the Hillingdon project, Portsmouth Housing Trust, St. Basil's centre, Birmingham, Newark (Nottingham) Young Single Homeless Trust, Leicester night shelter, Brighton Housing Trust, Housing Aid for Youth, National Foster Care Association, Lodgers, Chester lodging support project, Key House, The Passage, St. Martins-in-the-Fields social care unit, Thames Reach, Threshold, St. Vincent's hostel, North Lambeth day centre, London Connection, Coventry Day Centre for the Homeless Ltd., Reading emergency accommodation project and Resource Information Service. Detailed offers will shortly be agreed with these bodies.

  Grant in each of the last three years to the organisations listed by the hon. Member was:

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  £

  £

  £

  Bayswater Hotel Homelessness Project

  12,000

  13,840

  15,390

  British Refugee Council

  10,590

  21,400

  21,230

  Central London Housing Advisory Service

  12,760

  17,000

  16,865

  CHAR

  34,630

  36,200

  35,920

  Community House Information Centre

  11,870

  14,000

  13,890

  Empty Property Unit

  18,430

  27,300

  27,080

  Homes for Homeless People

  29,680

  31,000

  30,750

  Housing Debtline

  30,414

  32,500

  32,250

  National Association of Voluntary Hostels

  21,630

  22,600

  22,435

  National Council for One Parent Families

  21,990

  22,970

  23,010

  28

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  £

  £

  £

  Specialist Information and Training Resource Agency

  —

  25,000

  24,780

  Resource Information Service

  26,700

  34,000

  33,545

  Of these bodies, only Resource Information Service has been offered grant this year; details are yet to be agreed.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what amount funding to the Nature Conservancy Council has increased since 1979.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Grant in aid to the Nature Conservancy Council has risen from £7·9 million in 1979–80 to £44·069 million in 1990–91. This is an increase in real terms of 159 per cent. The council has also been allocated an additional £750,000 this year to meet its costs arising from the proposed reorganisation of the conservation agencies.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effects the European Council decision on waste management and reduction will have upon his present toxic waste policy.

  Mr. Trippier
  The European Council resolution of April 11 on waste policy sets a framework for the future development of Community policy in this area. It supports waste minimisation through the use of clean technology and clean products and the maximum possible use of recycling. For unavoidable waste arisings, it calls for pre-treatment and high environmental standards for final disposal. The resolution also refers to the desirability of members states aiming for self-sufficiency in waste disposal and calls for an adequate network of disposal facilities across the Community. As such, the resolution is generally consistent with the Government's policies on waste and consequently was strongly supported by the United Kingdom.

  Pollution
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when and where he expects the joint European Environment Council—eastern European COMECON Environment Ministers meeting on atmospheric pollution, nuclear safety and environmental protection to take place.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Irish Government, as President of the European Council, will be hosting a meeting of Community Environment Ministers with their counterparts in eastern and central European countries in Dublin on 16 June.

  County Hall
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make an announcement on the development proposals for County hall.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  After I have carefully considered the inspector's report.

  Hedges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to introducing a statutory protection for valuable and ancient hedges, along the same lines as that recognised in relation to ancient monuments and trees.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Our current review of tree preservation policies and legislation is also considering matters relating to hedgerows.

  Rain Forest (Conference)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will be represented at the International Timber Organisation conference on strategies to help save the rain forest to be held in Bali in May.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Officials from my Department and the Overseas Development Administration are representing the United Kingdom at this meeting.

  Fur Production
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations exist in terms of(a) cage size, (b) access to natural light and (c) diet for animals in factory units for fur production; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are at present no legal requirements relating specifically to the welfare protection of fur-bearing animals. However, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 makes it an offence to cause livestock on agricultural land unnecessary pain or distress and the Protection of Animals Act 1911 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any captive or domestic animal.

  Welfare standards for fur-bearing animals are currently being negotiated in the Council of Europe and are expected to be implemented subsequently within the European Community.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Training
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young people received employment training in Northern Ireland during the years January 1987 to December 1988; and what percentage of those on completion of their training went to(a) jobs, (b) self-employment, (c) full-time education, and (d) full-time training other than employment training.

  Mr. Needham
  It is assumed that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the youth training programme (YTP).

  In 1987 12,076 and in 1988 12,067 young people entered full-time training under YTP. Information on YTP leavers, whose destinations were known, from full-time training provision is:
  30

  percentage to jobs

  percentage to full-time education and training

  percentage to unemployment

  1987

  54

  5

  41

  1988

  61

  5

  34

  These figures include the destinations of young people who leave YTP prematurely. Separate figures are not available for young people who went to self-employment and these are included in the percentage who went to jobs.

  Birth Control
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what development of family planning advisory facilities has taken place in the constituency of Strangford during the past five years.

  Mr. Needham
  There have been no developments of family planning services in Northern Ireland in the last five years due to fully comprehensive family services having been available free of charge throughout Northern Ireland. Since 1975 most family doctors and two community clinics in the Strangford constituency pro vide these services. In addition, patients can, if they wish, attend family planning clinics in other areas.

  Civil Service Premises
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who owns the premises at Maryfielld in which the Irish civil servants are based.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]The premises at Maryfield are the property of the Crown.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. Cope
  [holding answer 10 May 19901 The information in respect of the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office for 1988–89 is as follows:

  £ million

  Electricity

  5·419

  Oil

  2·09

  Gas

  0·308

  Coal

  0·008

  TOTAL

  7·825

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department for the latest year available.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]The information in respect of the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office for 1988–89 is as follows:
  31

  Gigajoules

  Electricity

  340,118

  Oil

  777,916

  Gas

  57,566

  Coal

  5,274

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by detention centre in Hong Kong, the number of Vietnamese boat people held, on the latest date for which he has figures.

  Mr. Maude
  As at 17 May 1990, there are 11 detention centres in Hong Kong with a total population of 43,974.

  Centre

  Population

  Green Island

  299

  Hei Ling Chau

  3,290

  Chi Ma Wan

  1,878

  Whitehead

  22,185

  Cape Collinson

  323

  Argyle Street

  1,495

  High Island

  6,815

  Lowu

  399

  Shek Kong

  5,295

  Nei Kwu

  627

  32

  Centre

  Population

  Shek Kwu Chau

  999

  Victoria Prison and other Institutions

  369

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement in respect of the attempted escape by Vietnamese boat people at the Whitehead detention centre in Hong Kong on 3 May.

  Mr. Maude
  During the early hours of 29 April, 102 Vietnamese boat people, some armed, escaped from the Whitehead detention centre in a well-planned breakout. Five people were apprehended almost immediately and 39 were arrested within 24 hours of the escape. The police have continued to make arrests but a total of 56 people are still missing. On 4 May, police officers and correctional services staff conducted a large scale search of the Whitehead detention centre to find and remove dangerous weapons. More than 2,500 weapons were removed from the centre and 187 people moved to other institutions. The search took place against a background of intimidation by gangs of other boat people, assaults on staff, armed escapes and the widespread possession of offensive weapons. These are serious offences which could not be ignored. The Hong Kong Government are determined to maintain the rule of law inside the detention centres and searches at the centres will continue.

  El Salvador
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the findings of the Scotland Yard detectives sent to El Salvador to investigate the killings of six Jesuit priests; and when a full report will be made public.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Scotland Yard team went to El Salvador at the request of President Cristiani. Its report will be sent to the Government of El Salvador. It will be for the Salvadorean authorities to decide on future action, including publication.

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

  Mr. Maude
  The latest information shows that the European Commission employs 990 British citizens—409 A (administrative) grade, 179 B (executive) grade, 217 C (clerical and secretarial) grade, nine D (manual) grade and 176 L (linguistic) grade. Similar information for other institutions is being sought and a further reply will be given as soon as possible.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have any plans to use the bilateral mechanism under the CSCE process to discuss with the Soviet Government the applicability of principle VIII of the Helsinki Final Act "Equal Rights and Self-Determination of People" to the Baltic states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have on several occasions made clear to the Soviet Government that a solution to the present dispute must be reached through dialogue. This should lead to a settlement acceptable to both sides, which will allow the Lithuanian people to decide their own future. We do not at present plan to raise Lithuania under the CSCE mechanism.

  Sri Lanka
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Sri Lanka about the murder of one of the country's Members of Parliament and its implications for human rights.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have not raised with the Sri Lankan Government the specific case of the murder of Mr. Sam Tambimuttu. But we have consistently made clear our concern at the level of violence and human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for tht, Home Department, in relation to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and offences committed under the Health and 34
  Safety at Work etc. Act and any of the relevant statutory provisions within the meaning of section 53 of the said Act, if he has any plans to amend the Magistrates' Courts Act to empower magistrates to refer corporations to a higher court for sentencing.

  Mr. John Patten
  Paragraph 3.15 of the White Pa per "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" (Cm. 965) states that the Government intend to amend section 38 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, in line with the proposed new statutory framework for sentencing, so that the court's decision is based on the seriousness of the offence. That would replace the present provision whereby the decision of the court depends on information about the offender's character and antecedents, and which does not apply to corporations.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether comprehensive ethnic monitoring is to be extended to prison officers and police officers along the lines of that proposed for the probation service, and broken down by grade.

  Mr. Mellor
  For the prison service, consideration is being given to a further statistical survey of ethnic origin, by grade, on broadly similar lines to that proposed for the probation service. Home Office circular 87/1989—"Equal Opportunities Policies in the Police Service"—recommended that ethnic monitoring arrangements should be established for police officers. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary is monitoring the information provided in response to that recommendation.

  Parole System
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will delay the implementation of the recommended changes in the parole system outlined in "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" until after the publication of Lord Justice Woolf s inquiry into the prison disturbances.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the annual crime detection rates for all crimes and for violent crimes for each year since 1978.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested for 1978 to 1988 is published in table 2.17 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1988" Cm 847, and for 1989 in table 6 of Home Office statistical bulletin 10/90. Copies of both these publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were(a) the total number of crimes and (b) the number of violent crimes in Wales in each year from 1978.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested for 1978 to 1988 is published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", in table 32 for the years 1978 to 1979 and in table 2.5 for the years 1980 to 1988; and for 1989 in table 7 of Home Office statistical bulletin 10/90. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Probation Orders
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek powers to enable day centres operated by the probation service to offer the initial introduction to employment training for persons subject to a section 11(4b) probation order.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have already agreed arrangements with the Training Agency for integrating day centre attendance with the youth training scheme. We are now considering whether similar arrangements might be extended to employment training. Home Office officials will be meeting the Training Agency in the near future to discuss this possibility.

  Ames Glover
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the steps being taken to solve the case of missing baby Ames Glover; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the police have assigned a full investigative team, consisting of 12 officers, to investigate this case. They will continue to make every effort to trace the whereabouts of Ames Glover.

  Immigration
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the present whereabouts of 670 immigrants detained on the Earl William in 1987 by(a) those granted permission to remain in the United Kingdom, (b) those returned to their state of origin, (c) those in the United Kingdom, case under consideration and (d) those whose whereabouts are unknown.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not readily available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Trafalgar Square (Incident)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many of the mounted officers involved in the disturbances in London on 31 March were involved in the charge in Trafalgar square.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am advised by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 25 mounted officers were deployed to disperse the demonstrators in Trafalagar square during the disturbances on 31 March.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have sought political asylum in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years; and how many have been granted asylum.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the table. Further information on applications for, and grants of, refugee status in 1980–88 is published in Home Office statistical bulletin issue 25/89 "Refugee Statistics United Kingdom 1988", a copy of which is in the Library. The bulletin for 1989 will be published later in the summer.
  36

  Applications for refugee status in the United Kingdom, and grants for refugee status, 1980–89.

  Number of persons

  Year

  Applications received

  Grants1 of refugee status

  1980

  2,352

  1,147

  1981

  2,425

  1,473

  1982

  4,223

  1,727

  1983

  4,296

  1,185

  1984

  3,869

  649

  1985

  5,444

  915

  1986

  4,811

  565

  1987

  5,160

  439

  19882

  5,105

  960

  19892

  12,570

  1,550

  1Grants in a particular year do not necessarily relate to applications made in that year.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, in numerical order by prison, the number of escapes from each English prison in 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  The following table shows the number of prisoners reported as having escaped from within closed prisons in England in 1989:

  Establishment

  Number

  Highpoint

  28

  Wymott

  13

  Ranby

  9

  Acklington

  6

  Aldington

  6

  Haslar

  6

  Featherstone

  5

  Northeye

  5

  Norwich

  5

  Stafford

  5

  The Verne

  5

  Channings Wood

  4

  Erlestoke House

  4

  Lindholme

  4

  Manchester

  4

  Canterbury

  3

  Dartmoor

  3

  Stocken

  3

  Durham

  2

  Haverigg

  2

  Oxford

  2

  Thorp Arch

  2

  Camp Hill

  1

  Hull

  1

  Leicester

  1

  Lewes

  1

  Nottingham

  1

  Pentonville

  1

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Waddington
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]The full cost of staff, accommodation and administration for the Home Office press office from 1979–80 to 1989–90 was:
  37

  £

  1979–80

  283,140

  1980–81

  392,532

  1981–82

  381,799

  1982–83

  424,290

  1983–84

  516,362

  1984–85

  560,512

  1985–86

  606,996

  1986–87

  548,136

  1987–88

  599,282

  1988–89

  674,945

  1989–90

  715,646

  The budget for 1990–91 is £822,471.

  Note: The costs for 1979–80 are based on figures supplied by Her Majesty's Treasury. From 1986–87 costs have been calculated departmentally following the adoption of a system of devolved budgeting.

  Prison Management
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will postpone the implementation of the management structure review of the prison service pending Lord Justice Woolf's report on the riots in Strangeways.

  Mr. Mellor
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 May 1990, c. 667]: My right hon. and learned Friend has today written to the Prison Governors Association confirming that the reorganisation of the prison service will take place on the timetable which was announced on 11 January. A copy of his letter has been placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing for the latest available date for each of the regions of England how many general practitioners are(a) men and (b) women.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At 1 October 1989 the figures were as follows:

  Region

  Unrestricted principals

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Northern

  1,310

  299

  1,609

  Yorkshire

  1,548

  386

  1,934

  Trent

  1,905

  478

  2,383

  East Anglia

  883

  184

  1,067

  North West Thames

  1,393

  604

  1,997

  North East Thames

  1,531

  494

  2,025

  South East Thames

  1,521

  446

  1,967

  South West Thames

  1,151

  413

  1,564

  Wessex

  1,215

  345

  1,560

  Oxford

  1,025

  305

  1,330

  South Western

  1,561

  347

  1,908

  West Midlands

  2,193

  522

  2,715

  Mersey

  976

  288

  1,264

  North Western

  1,580

  419

  1,999

  National Health Service Reform
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to how many ballots of staff and patients on the question of the formation of self-governing trusts have resulted in majorities in favour.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are aware that ballots on the establishment of National Health Service trusts have 38
  taken place in a number of units, however, we have consistently made clear that it would not be appropriate or necessary for changes in management of National Health Service services to be subject to ballots. Applications for National Health Service trust status will not be invited until Parliament has approved the necessary legislation. Staff and the local community will then have an opportunity to express their views on individual proposals before any formal applications are made.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has of the views of National Health Service staff or patients for the formation of self-governing trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 193 units have so far expressed an interest in NHS trust status, with some 80 indicating that they may seek trust status in 1991. This demonstrates the keen interest with which senior NHS staff, including members of the medical and nursing profession, view the prospect of establishing NHS trusts. However, applications for NHS trust status will not be invited until Parliament has approved the necessary legislation. Staff and the local community will then have an opportunity to express their views on individual proposals before any formal applications are made.

  Hospices at Home
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement of the funding of the Hospice at Home organisation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  For England, we have allocated an additional £8 million to health authorities this year to enable them to contribute more to voluntary hospices. The funding of individual projects is a matter for discussion between the organisations and authorities concerned. The funding of projects in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Cataract Operations
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cataract operations were performed in 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authorities in England reported 81,000 cataract operations in 1988–89.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on current consideration of the pay and conditions of nurses and midwives in the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The pay of nurses and midwives is determined in the light of recommendations from the independent pay review body for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine. Conditions of service are a matter for the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council and the general Whitley council.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the Government's decisions on pay for staff in the clinical and education grades in 1990–91 on 1 February at columns 260–62. The review body intends to make recommendations on pay levels for senior nurse managers in a supplementary report when the negotiating council has completed its review of the structure for these staff.
  39
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he has received any recent representations from within the midwifery profession or from other organisations about the need for a career structure for midwifery managers;

  (2) if he has made proposals regarding pay and grading structure for midwifery managers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a small number of representations from senior midwives about the need for a new structure.

  A joint working group of the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council has recently concluded negotiations on a new structure for senior nurses and senior midwives. A final offer has been made to the staff side, who are currently consulting their members.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities have a duty to consult disabled people and their carers on their community care plans.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government are currently examining ways of incorporating into the National Health Service and Community Care Bill a requirement for local authorities to consult service users and their carers on community care plans.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy towards the role of small community hospitals as part of the community care policies of the Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Small hospitals can play a valuable part in providing a range of services where it is needed locally. They can be more accessible to both patients and staff alike and foster closer relations between local people and primary care services than do larger hospitals. District health authorities in determining the best pattern of services to meet local needs must weigh these benefits against those of larger district hospitals which can provide a full range of specialised treatment and help avoid uneconomic duplication of services on a number of different sites.

  Ambulance Personnel, Cheshire
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the numbers of ambulance personnel employed in Cheshire in the years 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information is shown in the table. Figures for 1989, 1990 and 1991 are not available.

  Ambulance staff (including officers) in post at 30 September each year

  Cheshire county1

  Years

  Whole-time equivalent2

  1985

  330

  1986

  360

  1987

  360

  1988

  350

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) annual census of non-medical manpower.
  40
  1 All staff are based in the Chester District Health Authority.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalent.

  Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the staffing levels on geriatric wards at Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The North Western regional health authority has set and published "Standards for Nursing Services" which includes standards for the management and staffing of wards and we understand that the Stockport health authority intends to apply all those standards. The authority continues to keep under review nurse staffing levels on the geriatric wards at Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport.

  Community Health Councils (Monitoring)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the changes proposed in monitoring by community health councils, once the National Health Service is reorganised into an internal market with providers and purchasers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The role of community health councils will remain fundamentally unchanged. District health authorities will be expected to take careful account of the views of their resident population on the overall pattern of service which they plan to secure through their contracts. CHCs will play an important role in this.

  Mr. George Pawsey (Eviction)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the result of the investigations carried out by his Department into how a terminally ill pensioner, Mr. George Pawsey of Chelmsford was left to live in a garden shed after being evicted from his flat by Essex county council.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that an inquiry into Mr. Pawsey's case is being conducted by Essex county council. The need for any action by the Department will be considered in the light of the outcome of that inquiry.

  Sphygmomanometers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reviews or legislation he is undertaking to ensure that sphygmomanometers satisfy the accuracy requirements of international recommendation No. 16—manometers for instruments for measuring blood pressure (sphygmomanometers); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A recent limited local survey suggested a high risk of inaccuracy beyond the standard laid down in the OIML international recommendation 16. The Department has asked for details of the survey to be provided and we look forward to receiving them. On the evidence currently available, however, we believe that the inaccuracies reported by the survey are more likely to arise from user error or misuse, or from inadequate maintenance or recalibration, than from faulty design or manufacture. The Department is therefore planning to update and reissue standing guidelines on use and
  41
  maintenance of sphygmomanometers. In addition, the British standards for mercury and aneroid instruments have recently been updated as a further point of reference and now reflect the international recommendation. EC directives are planned for implementation from January 1993 which will set minimum standards of essential requirements for marketing medical devices of this kind within the single European market.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with representatives of the junior hospital doctors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 1 May at column 521.

  Charities
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which charities will receive assistance under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 in the current financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  For awards in 1989–90, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health gave my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on 24 April 1990 at columns 160–64.

  The full list of awards in 1990–91 will be published after the financial year has ended.

  AIDS
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration his Department has given to the guide published by the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs and the Disabilities Study Unit entitled "Caring for Someone with AIDS"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department awarded the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs a grant of £8,000 towards the costs of compiling and editing this handbook for informal carers of people with AIDS or HIV infection. We value the role which informal carers play in the care of people with AIDS and hope that the handbook will help them in providing that care.

  Genetic Passports
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give consideration to the introduction of genetic passports for babies, using the biotab technique of a palm print of mother and baby at time of birth, as a means of proving the identity of a baby put up for adoption.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to introduce such an arrangement. We are unaware of any difficulties arising in connection with uncertainties about the identity of children placed for adoption in the United Kingdom.

  Pharmaceuticals
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice he has received from the standing pharmaceutical advisory committee, the standing medical 42
  advisory committee and the standing nursing advisory committee and their joint sub-committee on original pack dispensing on the introduction of original pack dispensing for parmaceuticals in general, and for generic pharmaceuticals;

  (2) whether it remains his policy to encourage the dispensing of pharmaceuticals in original packs; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We consulted widely on the report and recommendations of the joint sub-committee and received a large number of comments. Progress on any systematic introduction of original pack dispensing has been delayed by the failure of the parties consulted to agree on any common standards for pack sizes.

  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will amend the Medicines Act to allow pharmacists to dispense pharmaceuticals in original packs of a size nearest to the quantity prescribed by the general practitioner.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no present plans to issue a proposal for consultation since views expressed on the report of the joint sub-committee of the standing medical, nursing and midwives and pharmaceutical advisory committees have so far led to disagreement.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which district authorities in the financial year 1989–90 in the north-west had to cut services in order to remain within budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1989–90, additional cash resources were made available to the North Western regional health authority amounting to about £88 million, which represented an increase of about 8·4 per cent. over the previous year. Taken together with about £19 million efficiency savings, this increase enabled service developments of £19·2 million to go ahead and meant that no district health authority needed to cut services to maintain a balanced budget.

  British Generic Manufacturers Association
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last formally met representatives of the British Generic Manufacturers Association; what issues were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the association at their request on 8 November 1989. He discussed matters of mutual interest in relation to original pack dispensing. Any further action would now be a matter for the commercial judgment of individual companies.

  Accident Units (Closure)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward legislation to place a statutory duty on a health authority, which intends to close an accident or casualty unit, adequately to advertise the proposed closure.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Community Health Councils Regulations 1985 provide that a district health
  43
  authority considering a substantial variation in the provision of health services has a duty to consult the community health council. The exception to this is when the authority is satisfied that, in the interests of the health service, a decision has to be taken without allowing time for consultation. In such a case, however, the authority is required to notify the community health council immediately of the decision taken and the reason why no consultation has taken place.

  Guidance from the Department, in particular circular HC(IS)207, a copy of which is in the Library, sets out the procedures to be followed by health authorities in relation to the closure or change of use of health buildings. They are advised to consult a number of organisations including local authorities, recognised staff organisations, family practitioner committees, local advisory committees and local medical committees, as well as community health councils.

  We would expect a district health authority to satisfy itself that it had made adequate provision both for dealing with accidents and emergencies and for publicising locally any substantial changes to those arrangements.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Children's Rights
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure that the Government honour United Nations and European conventions on the right of all children to education.

  Mr. Jackson
  The legal obligations upon the Government, local education authorities and parents in this country are such as to ensure that the provisions of United Nations and European conventions to which we are party are met.

  Lip-reading Classes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received concerning national provision for lip-reading classes; if he will list, by region, the authorities in England that provide lip-reading classes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has not received any representations concerning national provision for lip-reading classes. It is for local education authorities to assess the local demand for lip-reading classes. The Government do not collect information centrally on the availability of classes in lip-reading.

  Civics
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the provision of civics as part of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The National Curriculum Council has identified citizenship as a major cross-curricular theme, and will shortly issue guidance to schools on its incorporation into the curriculum.

  School Pupils (Suspension)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education Science what information he has, by local education authority for the last 12 months, and by ethnic 44
  origin, on the number of pupils suspended from school distinguishing between (a) primary and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not centrally available. Under the recently introduced national exclusions reporting system, the Department is requesting information on all cases of permanent exclusion from maintained schools over the next two years. The information being requested includes the ethnic origin of the pupils concerned, who will not be identified.

  Higher Education Corporations
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what monitoring his Department is conducting of appointments of(a) independent governors, (b) local authority nominees, (c) academic nominees and (d) others to higher education corporations.

  Mr. Jackson
  None. While initial appointments of higher education corporation governors were made by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, all subsequent appointments are entirely a matter for the corporations themselves, or their independent members, within the comprehensive and carefully constructed provisions of schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much has been spent on the assisted places scheme and for how many pupils in each year of the scheme from its inception, to the latest available year in cash, and in constant prices and with an index related to the expenditure in constant prices where the first year equals 100.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information requested is as shown in the table and relates to England only. The figures for Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Year

  Pupil numbers (academic year)

  Cash cost (£ million)

  Real cost (£ million)

  Real cost Index

  1981–82

  4,185

  3·0

  3·0

  100

  1982–83

  8,616

  8·7

  8·1

  271

  1983–84

  13,102

  15·0

  13·4

  446

  1984–85

  17,386

  22·2

  18·9

  629

  1985–86

  21,412

  29·6

  23·7

  791

  1986–87

  24,478

  37·9

  29·5

  982

  1987–88

  26,899

  46·0

  34·4

  1,146

  1988–89

  27,083

  50·9

  35·9

  1,196

  1989–90

  27,008

  56·5

  36·9

  1,232

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the average cost per pupil of an assisted place in each year of the scheme from its inception, to the latest available year.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The average cost per pupil of an assisted place is as follows:

  Financial

  Cost per pupil

  year

  £

  1981–82

  1,098

  1982–83

  1,267

  1983–84

  1,303

  45

  Financial

  Cost per pupil

  year

  £

  1984–85

  1,482

  1985–86

  1,603

  1986–87

  1,759

  1987–88

  1,952

  1988–89

  2,121

  1989–90

  2,329

  1 Subject to final adjustment.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing for each year of the scheme since its inception to the latest available year the number of assisted places available, the number taken up, and the percentage of those taken up which were free places.

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

  Academic year

  Places available

  Places taken up

  Percentage of free places

  1981–82

  5,446

  4,185

  37

  1982–83

  11,058

  8,616

  37

  1983–84

  15,866

  13,102

  36

  1984–85

  20,699

  17,386

  38

  1985–86

  25,210

  21,412

  37

  1986–87

  29,295

  24,478

  36

  1987–88

  33,228

  26,899

  34

  1988–89

  33,217

  27,083

  32

  1989–90

  33,268

  27,008

  31

  TEMPUS
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on United Kingdom participation in the TEMPUS scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 8 May 1990 at columns 41–42.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of differences in policy and practice between publicly funded institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom and those in other European Community countries, in respect of tuition fees for non-European Community students, on opportunities for United Kingdom institutions of higher education to participate in the TEMPUS scheme;

  (2) what action he proposes to take to compensate United Kingdom institutions of higher education in respect of tuition fees for students from non-European Community countries under the TEMPUS scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  The United Kingdom is not alone among Community member states in charging tuition and other fees to non-EC students. Against that background the Government are discussing with the Commission how fees may best be dealt with under the TEMPUS programme, with a view to ensuring full participation in the programme by United Kingdom institutions.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on institutions of higher education in other European Community countries preparing courses of engineering 46
  and business management in English in order to meet the preferences of non-European Community students under the TEMPUS scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have no detailed information. But I understand that some institutions in member states such as the Netherlands have introduced courses for overseas students and their own nationals which are conducted in English. It may be expected that in future the number of such courses will increase, whether under the TEMPUS programme or otherwise. Such developments, recognising the growing status of English as a world language, are to be welcomed, though within the Community only by studying in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland can students benefit from opportunities to study not only in English but alongside students whose language is English.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with interested parties on the administration of the access funds established by the Student Loans Act; and when he expects to publish the details of the administration of the access funds.

  Mr. Jackson
  Access funds, which will be established by my right hon. Friend by virtue of his powers under the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Education Act 1944, were the subject of consultation papers issued to interested parties last year. Since then, officials have had discussions with representatives of the institutions, the Universities Funding Council, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and local authorities. Additionally officials have participated in conferences and seminars organised among the institutions themselves.

  Statements of conditions of payment and notes of guidance have been sent to the chairmen of the governing bodies of maintained further education colleges and chief education officers, and to the two funding councils. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Library of both Houses. It falls to the two funding councils to draw up statements of conditions of payment and guidance notes on the access funds for their institutions.

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list of the committees presently established by the National Curriculum Council, the number of members of each committee known to be practicing school teachers and the proportion of such members within the total membership of each committee.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Committee

  Number of practising teachers

  Proportion of such members to total Per cent.

  Whole curriculum

  3

  19

  National curriculum A

  5

  29

  National curriculum B

  4

  25

  Professional development

  3

  21

  Curriculum review

  2

  15

  47
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state his responsibilities and policy towards securing that practising school teachers are represented among the membership of(a) the National Curriculum Council and (b) committees established by the National Curriculum Council.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Section 14(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988 requires that appointments to the National Curriculum Council"shall include persons having relevant knowledge or experience in education".

  My right hon. Friend makes appointments on a personal, not a representative basis. He seeks to appoint members who between them have wide-ranging knowledge and experience in education. He is also concerned that there should be some members with knowledge and experience of the business world. Two of the current members are practising head teachers; others have had teaching experience.

  The National Curriculum Council is responsible for determining membership of its committees.

  Higher Education (Inspections)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer of 15 May to the hon. Member for Bridgend,Official Report, column 363–64, if he will give details of each request received from the management of any independent institute of higher education for an inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors, showing the name of the institution, the purpose of the inspection, its result, its cost and by whom this was borne, for the period 1986 to date.

  Mr. Jackson
  There have been no such requests.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the banning by local education authorities of British meat from school meals in the interests of children's health in view of concern over bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has circulated advice and guidance about bovine spongiform encephalopathy to all local authorities and the chief medical officer has clearly stated that British meat is safe. My right hon. Friend hopes that education authorities will take full account of that advice in considering the provision of British meat in school meals.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Central and Eastern Europe
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the Government are doing to encourage investment in central and eastern European countries;

  (2) what special help the Government are giving through export guarantees or other means to encourage British exporters to central and eastern European countries.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department of Trade and Industry is doing its best to keep up to date with changes in the legal 48
  and fiscal framework for business in each of the countries of central and eastern Europe and is disseminating this information to interested companies. In addition, the Department seeks to make available to British business information on specific export and investment opportunities in those countries; and to encourage them to take full advantage of the assistance offered by the United Kingdom know-how fund as well as schemes of assistance operated by the EC and multilateral institutions.

  The Export Credits Guarantee Department also assists and encourages exporters and investors. Export credit guarantees to encourage British exports to central and eastern Europe are available to the extent considered justifiable for particular markets within ECGD's normal underwriting criteria. The position is kept under regular review. Also, as recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, ECGD is prepared to consider applications to cover from United Kingdom concerns wishing to invest in those countries under its investment insurance scheme.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to amend paragraph 2(a) of section 390 of the Companies Act 1985 to require that the auditor's notice of resignation, if accompanied by a statement of circumstances, be addressed to members, creditors and employees.

  Mr. Redwood
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the statement of circumstances mentioned in section 394 of the Companies Act 1985, which has been inserted into that Act, in substitution for section 390, by section 123 of the Companies Act 1989.

  I have no plans for further legislation on these matters. Section 394 provides that the statement must be sent to the registrar of companies. If the statement concerns matters which the auditor considers should be brought to the attention of members or creditors of the company, then it must also—subject to provisions enabling the company to challenge such a statement in the courts—be sent to every person entitled under section 238 of the Companies Act 1985 to be sent copies of the accounts. These provisions enable appropriate publicity to be given to an auditor's statement.

  Unpublished Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 26 February,Official Report, columns 16–17, on unpublished reports, what was the cost of producing each report.

  Mr. Redwood
  Costs to date of investigations, other than those conducted by departmental officers, which are not separately identifiable, are as follows:

  Company name

  Date of report

  Cost (£)

  Euroseas Securities Limited

  5 Mar 1985

  399,741

  Alexander Howden Group plc

  130 December 1985

  226 June 1987

  1,055,700

  British Anzani plc

  28 November 1986

  184,353

  Medway Secondary Metals Limited

  21 October 1987

  88,934

  House of Fraser Holdings plc

  23 July 1988

  1,512,485

  Guinness plc

  124 November 1988

  1,699,008

  Aldermanbury Trust plc

  120 December 1988

  726,176

  49

  Company name

  Dale of report

  Cost (£)

  Consolidated Goldfields pic

  113 January 1989

  15 April 1989

  1,076,527

  Graylaw Holdings Limited

  Link Service Stations Limited

  28 November 1989

  287,083

  Bank Street Securities Limited

  28 November 1989

  157,088

  Pennine Commercial Holdings plc

  128 November 1989

  338,372

  The Animal Defence Society Limited

  31 December 1989

  55,562

  Minet Holdings plc

  216 January 1990

  WMD Underwriting Agencies Limited

  324 July 1986

  1,244,077

  1 Interim.

  2 Final.

  3 Interim published.

  USSR
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received concerning the effect of political reforms in the USSR on the textile trade in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. Textiles trade between the USSR and the EC is governed by a bilateral agreement negotiated last year and running till the end of 1992. This complements the general trade and co-operation agreement negotiated at the same time and replaces the previous regime, which imposed autonomous quotas on USSR exports.

  Pirate Radio
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the future of both offshore and land-based pirate radio in Britain in the light of the Broadcasting Bill.

  Mr. Forth
  It remains Government policy to take vigorous action against unauthorised broadcasters, whether based offshore or inland. It is essential to keep the airwaves clear for the emergency services and for the wider variety of legitimate broadcasting that we aim to foster. That is the purpose of the new enforcement provisions in the Broadcasting Bill.

  Iraq
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 365, of the trade delegations that visited Iraq with Government support in 1989–90, 1988–89, 1987–88 and 1986–87, what size of companies, by Her Majesty's Government criteria of size, made up each delegation.

  Mr. Redwood
  Companies are separated into three groups by number of employees. The relevant figures (where available) are:

  1–49

  50–200

  200 +

  n/a

  Total

  1986–87

  4 groups

  13

  15

  53

  32

  113

  1987–88

  4 groups

  7

  5

  38

  4

  54

  1988–89

  50

  1–49

  50–200

  200 +

  n/a

  Total

  3 groups

  20

  11

  44

  7

  82

  1989–90

  6 groups

  26

  39

  88

  4

  157

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 364, which sectors of Iraqi industry or Government Ministries participated in the British Government-supported inward missions in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Redwood
  The 1988–89 inward mission organised by the Federation of British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers Associations consisted of participants from the Iraq state organisation for electricity.

  The 1989–90 inward mission organised by the Association of British Healthcare Industries consisted of specialists from various hospitals and other medical services.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 365, of the trade delegations that visited Iraq with Government support in 1989–90, 1988–89, 1987–88 and 1986–87, how many companies have been on more that one delegation; and how many on more than two delegations.

  Mr. Redwood
  During the years covered by the question 24 companies have been supported more than once and 42 have received support more than twice.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to publish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the bid for Dixons plc by Kingfisher plc.

  Mr. Redwood
  The report will be published and the Secretary of State's decision announced as soon as is practicable.

  Exporters (Promotion Services)
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes have been made as regards the promotion services available to United Kingdom exporters.

  Mr. Redwood
  More than 21,000 people involved in exporting now hold DTI service cards. Our market research shows that the services we provide are much appreciated by exporters. The changes we are introducing will help us to provide those services in the ways that are most helpful to exporters by improving the presentation and content of reports and by making it easier to get access to our publications.

  The market information inquiry service provides reports from any of the 190 Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts around the world, in response to inquiries from United Kingdom exporters. Charges were introduced for this service for the first time on 1 April 1989. I recognise it is important to present reports in a fully professional way and to ensure that consistently high standards are met by our staff in answering inquiries.
  51
  The changes that are being made ensure that the minimum standards of presentation and content are met and that work is carried out within specified periods. This will mean that the business man knows what he is getting when he commissions a report from us. Changes have also been made to the charges for this and other services. Details of the charges that apply from 1 June are set out in the table.

  The aim of the changes to the market information inquiry service and the export representative service is to reflect more closely the work involved in answering inquiries. In some cases, for example where an export representative service case for certain countries can be completed with fewer than 24 hours' work, the charge will be less than at present. Some readily available information will be provided free. In other cases fees will increase.

  Charges from 1 June

  £

  Market information inquiries (inc VAT)

  Market information held by post (readily available information may be provided free Up to four hours work

  30

  Up to four hours work

  60

  More than four hours and up to eight hours work

  120

  More than eight hours work

  180

  Export representatives service (inc VAT)

  Up to 24 hours work

  300

  More than 24 hours work

  600

  New products service (inc VAT)

  Per article for 15 markets

  60

  Publications (not subject to VAT)

  "Hints to Exporters" visitor's guide

  5 each

  Country profiles

  10 each

  Sector reports

  30 each

  For the first time a catalogue of publications available from the Department, including those which attract a charge and those which are available free is being published. This will detail in full all the publications, notably sector reports, available to exporters containing invaluable information about overseas markets.

  The export publications catalogue will also list five publications jointly produced by the export promotion organisations of the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy and Belgium. The publications are in a new series called "Setting up in Business In……" which will guide firms in the five countries on the business and legal background to establishing a presence in five markets of the Pacific Rim: Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea. The series will be continued at the end of 1990 with similar booklets on five markets of South America.

  Recycling
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received expressing concern at the extension to textiles of the three arrow symbol used to denote recycled materials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: I have received letters from the International Wool Secretariat,
  52
  the Confederation of British Wool Textiles Ltd. and, more recently, from the chairman of the all-party wool textiles group about the three arrow symbol.

  I have no plans to force the use of the ISO-registered symbol on any product. Its use, or otherwise, is a matter for individual companies to decide for themselves.

WALES

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) which Ministers will deal with developments regarding hospital closures during the indisposition of the Under-Secretary;

  (2) how ministerial responsibility for the various subject areas will be shared within his Department during the period of indisposition of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No change in ministerial responsibility is necessary. My hon. Friend is continuing his duties from his sick bed. I have encouraging reports on his progress.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to impose a surcharge on local authorities levying a high poll tax in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he proposes to exempt from the poll tax elderly or infirm persons cared for by their families at home;

  (2) if he proposes to introduce banding upwards for the poll tax in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government are reviewing the operation of the community charge system. It is too early to say what changes might be made.

  Mayors
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to introduce directly elected mayors in local government in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  We have no plans for such a proposal.

  Capital Formation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each year since 1979 the value of gross domestic fixed capital formation in cash and constant prices for(a) the Welsh economy as a whole, (b) energy and water supply, (c) manufacturing, (d) transport and communication and (e) dwellings.

  Mr. Grist
  Gross domestic fixed capital formation figures for the Welsh economy as a whole are not available. The information requested for industry groups(b) to (e) at current (cash) prices, is given in the following table. Constant price data are available only for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  53

  Gross Domestic Fixed Capital Formation

  (£ million)

  Energy and water supply

  Manufacturing

  Transport and communication

  Dwellings

  1979

  228

  442

  115

  322

  1980

  215

  384

  136

  385

  1981

  300

  365

  127

  358

  1982

  277

  344

  121

  358

  1983

  209

  334

  121

  436

  1984

  170

  437

  116

  494

  1985

  185

  548

  136

  468

  1986

  194

  514

  141

  547

  1987

  163

  652

  179

  653

  Source: Regional accounts, Central Statistical Office.

  River Taff (Pollution)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who is responsible for cleaning up the banks of the River Taff in Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the riparian owners.

  Brymbo Steelworks Closure
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has proposals to assist the workers made redundant as a result of the closure of the Brymbo steelworks at Wrexham.

  Mr. David Hunt
  At Gwydyr house on Wednesday 16 May, I met with a delegation, led by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), of representatives of the Brymbo work force, the community, and local authorities. I then met, separately, with the owners of Brymbo steelworks. As a result of the meetings, United Engineering Steel Ltd. has agreed to have immediate discussions with the Welsh Development Agency about the options open to the company for the future of the steelworks at Brymbo.

  Urban Aid
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce his decisions regarding all urban aid applications submitted to him in respect of the current financial year, listing for each county(a) all approvals given and the authority through which the application was made together with the figure offered and the figure applied for and (b) all applications refused and the figure applied for.

  Mr. Grist
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the capital grants to voluntary youth services, village halls and community centres programme.

  The programme for 1990–91 was notified to the local education authorities on 11 May. The table gives the information requested. All approved projects have been offered grant for the full amount sought.

  The time scale for the issue of invitations to local education authorities to submit applications and for the announcement of decisions is designed to meet the needs of applicants at all stages, but it is kept under review.

  For each project approved under the programme, the Welsh Office allows a period of three years for the work to be undertaken and grant claimed. The later announcement of approvals for 1990–91 should not therefore jeopardise completion of these projects within this timespan. But if there were problems carry-over arrangements exist and could be used in appropriate cases.
  54

  Clwyd local education authority

  Project/work

  LEA Grant

  WOED Grant

  A. Youth projects

  Clwyd county girl guides—phase II of new training centre.

  25,000

  50,000

  1st Marchwiel and Pentre Maelor scouts—provision of new HQ.

  8,000

  16,000

  B. Community projects

  Llandegla memorial hall—new roof, toilets and extension.

  9,125

  18,250

  Trefnant village hall—rewiring, new roof, shower facilities

  3,000

  6,000

  Broughton war memorial hall—new heating system.

  1,500

  3,000

  Overton playgroup—remodelling of disused canteen for use as a community centre.

  4,750

  9,500

  Stiwt arts/leisure community centre—renovation of miners' institute.

  25,000

  50,000

  Totals

  76,375

  152,750

  Dyfed local education authority

  Project/work

  LEA Grant

  WOED Grant

  A. Youth projects

  Llanelli centre project—purchase of building, extension and refurbishment.

  15,000

  30,000

  Carmarthen scout group—re-roofing of existing building.

  1,000

  2,000

  B. Community projects

  Talgarreg village hall—repairs to existing building.

  13,150

  26,300

  Ffynnonwen community centre—re-roofing of centre.

  4,198

  8,396

  Tysul village hall—refurbishments and repairs to hall.

  4,950

  9,900

  Simpsons cross activity group—erection of village hall.

  6,250

  12,500

  Carew memorial hall—provision of kitchen facilities.

  1,746

  3,492

  Whitland community centre—renovation of toilets, rendering and new windows.

  10,000

  20,000

  Boncath YMCA—erection of new hall.

  7,000

  14,000

  Cwmgwili welfare association—new roof, cladding and provision of kitchen/toilet facilities.

  2,950

  5,900

  Gwynfe community hall—renovation and extension to existing building.

  2,158

  4,316

  St. Dogmaels memorial hall—new extension and re-roofing of existing building.

  25,000

  50,000

  55

  Project/work

  LEA Grant

  WOED Grant

  East Williamson hall—installation of toilet facilities.

  1,814

  3,628

  Alma community centre—new roof and windows.

  3,000

  6,000

  Llansaint village hall—erection of new hall.

  6,583

  13,165

  Totals

  104,799

  209,597

  Dyfed local education authority

  Rejected Projects

  Project/work

  LEA Grant

  WOED Grant

  Community projects

  Eglwys Fach church hall—new roof.

  625

  1,250

  Tregaron hall—new roof and provision of fire exit.

  5,000

  10,000

  Llangadog community centre—new roof and windows.

  2,500

  5,000

  Camrose community centre—refurbishment and re-wiring.

  825

  1,650

  Newport memorial hall—repairs to stage and provision of exits.

  825

  1,650

  Rhydlewis village hall—rebuild exterior wall and interior decoration.

  1,094

  2,188

  Brynberian village hall—renovation of former school to provide community facilities.

  3,375

  6,750

  Coracle hall, Llechryd—new floor.

  2,362

  4,724

  Llanboidy market hall—new floor.

  2,775

  5,550

  Trelech community centre—new heating system.

  878

  1,756

  Amroth village hall—repairs and renovation to existing hall.

  5,000

  10,000

  Ddraig Goch village hall—new roof.

  1,875

  3,750

  Ferryside village hall—new roof and renovations to interior.

  2,145

  4,290

  Llangathan village hall—re-plastering exterior walls.

  375

  750

  Totals

  29,654

  59,308

  Gwent local education authority

  Project/work

  LEA Grant

  WOED Grant

  A. Youth projects

  1st Gilwern scout group—new HQ.

  11,828

  23,656

  Ringland youth and boys' club—emergency lighting, fire doors and heating system.

  1,444

  2,888

  B. Community projects

  Sir John Herbert memorial hall, Llanover—new roof, kitchen extension and replace electrical system.

  4,906

  9,812

  Whitebrook village hall—new roof, windows, doors and electrical system.

  7,717

  15,434

  Totals

  25,895

  51,790

  Gwynedd Local Education Authority

  Project/work

  LEA Grant

  WOED Grant

  A. Youth projects

  Aelwyd yr Urdd, Blaenau Ffestiniog—re-roofing.

  2,250

  4,500

  Caernarfon scouts—repairs to HQ.

  2,750

  5,500

  Bala guides—construction of HQ.

  4,250

  8,500

  Caernarfon guides—repairs to HQ.

  1,300

  2,600

  56

  Project/work

  LEA Grant

  WOED Grant

  B. Community projects

  Penisarwaun community hall—phase II of building extension.

  17,750

  35,500

  Talwrn village hall—rebuilding hall entrance.

  550

  1,100

  Rhosirwaun village hall—new floor.

  1,125

  2,250

  Llanfairpwll village hall—replacement ceiling and new heating system.

  900

  1,800

  Llaingoch community hall—new windows.

  812

  1,624

  Maesywaen hall—new roof and windows.

  5,375

  10,750

  Penygroes memorial hall—last phase of refurbishment, including new toilets.

  6,000

  12,000

  Pwllheli community hall—new floor, heating system and windows.

  8,400

  16,800

  Llanfaelog community centre—toilet and kitchen facilities.

  3,500

  7,000

  Eglwysbach village hall—kitchen facilities/extension.

  5,000

  10,000

  Blaenau Ffestiniog community centre—eradication of dry rot.

  12,500

  25,000

  Totals

  72,462

  144,924

  Mid Glamorgan Local Education Authority

  Project/work

  LEA Grant

  WOED Grant

  Miskin campsite (scouts)—phase II of sewerage works.

  1,290

  2,580

  Porth YMCA—refurbishment and remodelling interior to provide a modern youth club.

  23,142

  46,284

  Totals

  24,432

  48,864

  Powys Local Education Authority

  Project/work

  LEA Grant

  WOED Grant

  A. Youth projects

  1st Presteigne scout group—new scout hut.

  5,335

  10,670

  B. Community projects

  Llanigon village hall—construction of new village hall.

  25,000

  50,000

  Llandeilo Graban village hall—conversion of old school into a village hall.

  7,500

  15,000

  Totals

  37,835

  75,670

  South Glamorgan Local Education Authority

  Project/work

  LEA Grant

  WOED Grant

  A. Youth projects

  29th Cardiff scout group—new HQ

  25,000

  50,000

  Cardiff north west girl guides—new windows and facia boards.

  550

  1,110

  1st Llantwit Major girl guides—purchase of freehold.

  836

  1,672

  B. Community projects

  Llandough and Leckwith institute—extension to existing building.

  9,500

  19,000

  Cathays Methodist church—redevelopment to extend provision for youth and community facilities.

  7,000

  14,000

  57

  Project/work

  LEA Grant

  WOED Grant

  Totals

  42,886

  85,772

  Development Agencies (Property Sales)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate, for each year of the existence of the Welsh Development Agency and Mid Wales Development, the amount of cash raised in sales of property and factories.

  Mr. Grist
  The value of capital sales by the two development agencies since their inception has totalled £92·4 million (including land) at 31 March 1990.

  The table provides a breakdown of this figure in the form requested.

  Total value of capital sales (including land) as at 31 March 1990

  Year

  WDA

  DBRW

  Total

  £000

  £000

  £000

  1976–77

  200

  Nil

  200

  1977–78

  600

  10

  610

  1978–79

  646

  19

  665

  1979–80

  1·056

  12

  1·068

  1980–81

  1·328

  15

  1·343

  1981–82

  4·623

  763

  5·386

  1982–83

  4·651

  912

  5·563

  1983–84

  4·497

  582

  5·079

  1984–85

  11·318

  1·037

  12·355

  1985–86

  6·570

  1·625

  8·195

  1986–87

  8·544

  1·707

  10·251

  1987–88

  8·061

  2·635

  10·696

  1988–89

  8·134

  2·735

  10·869

  1989–90

  17·820

  2·352

  20·172

  Grand total

  £78·048

  £14·404

  £92·452

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions in the past 12 months the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for health has visited either the headquarters or one of the hospitals of Gwynedd health authority, on what duties and for what purpose.

  Mr. Grist
  I have not made any such visits during the past 12 months, though I have met the chairman of the authority on three occasions during that period in London and south Wales.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any items of expenditure of Gwynedd health authority during 1989–90 were met by his Department from funds other than those identified as provision for the revenue or capital expenditure of that authority.

  Mr. Grist
  Detailed information relating to the expenditure of the Gwynedd health authority in 1989–90 will not be available until after 30 June, which is the due date for the submission of the authority's annual accounts.

  In 1988–89, £315,266 of the expenditure recorded in the authority's accounts was incurred on an agency basis on behalf of the Department and funded as such rather than as part of the authority's revenue and capital provision. This comprised the following items:
  58

  £

  Health and personal social services research and development

  21,512

  Cost of free issue of dried baby milk and vitamins; the sale of baby milk at reduced prices, and the purchase of welfare vitamins

  82,488

  Patients travelling expenses

  20,427

  Payments for expenditure incurred for the mental handicap strategy

  190,839

  315,266

  Source: Gwynedd health authority accounts for 1988–89.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many members there will be of the Gwynedd health authority after the reorganisation planned for later this year and who will appoint these members.

  Mr. Grist
  The exact composition of the membership is dependent on Royal Assent being obtained to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and the consequent laying of new membership regulations. It is proposed that the membership will include: a chairman and five members all appointed by the Secretary of State, one of whom will be drawn from the University of Wales; the chief officer of the authority; the director of finance, the chief administrative medical officer/director of public health medicine; and the chief administrative nursing officer. It is further proposed that the chairman, the chief officer and the five members appointed by the Secretary of State may appoint one additional officer of the authority if they wish.

  District Nurse Service
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of district nurse service contacts with persons aged 65 years and over in each district health authority area in Wales, per 1,000 population aged over 65 years in that area, together with the corresponding figure for Wales as a whole for the most recent available year.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest available information is given in the table:

  Number of persons treated by district nurses at least once during 1988, aged 65 and over per 1,000 population aged 65 and over.

  Health Authority

  Numbers

  Clwyd

  276·9

  East Dyfed

  148·0

  Gwent

  172·2

  Gwynedd

  196·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  408·8

  Pembrokeshire

  160·3

  Powys

  385·9

  South Glamorgan1

  381·1

  West Glamorgan

  235·7

  WALES

  272·9

  1 1987 figures have been used as 1988 data are not available and the available data used to calculate Wales figures.

  Casualty Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each district health authority in Wales the full casualty hospitals and the minor casualty hospitals/ clinics currently in use.
  59
  Mr. Grist
  The following hospitals, as at 31 December 1989, recorded attendances under the categories "Accident and Emergency Departments" and "Minor Casualty Units":

  Health Authority

  Accident and emergency departments

  Minor casualty units

  Clwyd

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  HM Stanley

  Ysbyty Maelor

  Colwyn Bay community

  Denbigh infirmary

  Ruthin

  Holywell

  Flint

  Mold

  Chirk

  Llangollen

  East Dyfed

  Bronglais

  Aberaeron

  West Wales general

  Cardigan

  Llanelli

  Tregaron

  Llandovery

  Gwent

  Nevill Hall

  Abertillery

  Royal Gwent

  Blaenavon

  Blaina

  Ebbw Vale

  Monmouth

  Tredegar

  Pontypool

  County

  Mount Pleasant

  Gwynedd

  Llandudno

  Stanley Sailors

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  Caernarfon Cottage

  Madoc

  Bryn Beryl

  Ffestiniog

  Dolgellau

  Tywn

  Mid Glamorgan

  Princess of Wales

  Bridgend general

  East Glamorgan

  Maesteg

  Llwynpia

  Aberbargoed

  Mountain Ash

  Aberdare

  Prince Charles

  Caerphilly Miners

  Redwood

  Pembrokeshire

  Whithybush

  Tenby

  South Pembrokeshire

  Powys

  Brecon War Memorial

  Llandrindod Wells

  Builth cottage

  Ystradgynlais

  Machynlleth chest

  Llanidloes

  Victoria Memorial

  Montgomery county

  infirmary

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff royal infirmary

  Barry community

  West Glamorgan

  Morriston

  Singleton

  Gorseinon

  Neath

  Clydach

  Computerisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 262, if he will give the reasons for the reduction by £500,000 of the contract with the IBM Corporation,
  60
  United Kingdom, agreed to in August 1986 for the computerisation of his Department's management information system.

  Mr. Grist
  There have been no reductions. It is anticipated that further payments for maintenance and services will be made during the lifetime of this project, bringing total payments to approximately £1·6 million.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether any software subcontractor employed by IBM UK for the computerisation of the Welsh Office management information system was removed from the contract between August 1986 and 1 April 1990;

  (2) which software subcontractors were employed by IBM UK under the contract of August 1986 with the Welsh Office for the computerisation of its management information system.

  Mr. Grist
  These are matters for IBM UK Ltd.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether he has sent a report to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency on the final settlement of the contract awarded in April 1986 to IBM to computerise his Department's financial management system;

  (2) whether he has forwarded any advice to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency on the tendering procedure followed for the computerising of departmental financial management systems.

  Mr. Grist
  The CCTA has been fully informed of all matters relating to the contract with IBM UK Ltd.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will be making any further report to the National Audit Office on the conclusion of the contract awarded to IBM UK in April 1986 to computerise the financial management system in his Department.

  Mr. Grist
  We have made no reports to NAO as there is no requirement for us to do so. The Department's records are available for NAO's inspection in the normal way.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any payments were made to any software subcontractor employed by IBM UK for the completion of the contract of August 1986 for the computerisation of the Welsh Office management information system.

  Mr. Grist
  Our Department made no payments to software subcontractors employed by IBM UK Ltd.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the grants made by his Department to voluntary organisations working in the field of homelessness in Wales, in each of the last three years and (b) grants he is giving for the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  Since 1987–88, the Department has given grant aid to three voluntary organisations in Wales, in pursuit of the Government's policy of tackling homelessness on a strategic level. Supplementary allocations from other housing programmes have been given in each of the last three financial years to these three bodies and to a number of smaller local projects in need of financial assistance.
  61
  The figures for 1987–88 to 1990–91 are given in the following table, with the additional allocations identified separately:

  Original allocation

  Supplementary grant

  1987–88

  Shelter

  36,180

  11,350

  Welsh Women's Aid (WWA)

  12,700

  57,000

  Swansea Accommodation for the Single Homeless (SASH)

  4,120

  29,000

  Shortlife Housing Association

  —

  1,500

  Cardiff Flatshop

  —

  1,500

  Welcare Llandaff

  —

  1,500

  Wallich Clifford Community

  —

  1,500

  Cardiff Cyrenians

  —

  1,500

  Cardiff Single Women's Housing Group

  —

  1,500

  1988–89

  Shelter

  37,600

  15,000

  Welsh Women's Aid (WWA)

  37,584

  19,827

  Swansea Accommodation for the Single Homeless (SASH)

  15,808

  —

  Cardiff Flatshop

  —

  1,983

  Cardiff Single Women's Housing Group

  —

  1,345

  1989–90

  Shelter

  59,115

  11,495

  Welsh Women's Aid (WWA)

  41,832

  29,027

  Swansea Accommodation for the Single Homeless (SASH)

  35,591

  2,515

  Cardiff Flatshop

  —

  3,347

  Cardiff Single Women's Housing Group

  —

  1,157

  Shortlife Housing Association

  —

  680

  Anastasia Housing Project

  —

  —

  Ty Glyn Housing Society Ltd.

  —

  3,344

  1990–91

  Shelter

  114,684

  —

  Welsh Women's Aid (WWA)

  63,286

  —

  Swansea Accommodation for the Single Homeless (SASH)

  71,150

  —

  Orthopaedic Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the percentage trends in the latest available three successive quarters for the trading list for orthopaedic treatment for outpatients in Ysbyty Gwynedd.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest available information, which relates to outpatients seen in the specialty of traumatic and orthopaedic surgery, is given in the table:

  Outpatients seen at Ysbyty Gwynedd

  New

  Total

  Quarter ending 30 June 1989

  Number seen

  1,071

  3,210

  Percentage change over previous quarter

  -4·4

  -0·6

  Quarter ending 30 September 1989

  Number seen

  1,018

  3,251

  Percentage change over previous quarter

  -4·9

  + 1·3

  Quarter ending 31 December 1989

  Number seen

  999

  3,172

  Percentage change over previous quarter

  -1·9

  -2·4

  Community Hospital Beds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment has been made by his Department of the needs over the next 10 years for community hospital beds in each part of Wales; how this need will be met by the National Health Service and the private sector respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The requirement for community hospital beds is for district health authorities to determine in conjunction with family practitioner committees and other interests, and in the light of local needs and available resources. Local strategies for health, which are to be submitted to the Department by December 1991, will provide the context for a long-term review of requirements.

  Health Care Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each of the district health authorities in Wales for the most recent available years, the total expenditure, capital and revenue, on health care services per head of population.

  Mr. Grist
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 30 January 1990.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for the most recent available date, the number of health visiting service contracts made with people per 1,000 population aged 65 years and over, in each of the district health authority areas of Wales, and for Wales as a whole, and if he will express the figure for each area as an index against the Welsh average taken as 100.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest available information is given in the table:

  Number of persons seen by the health visiting service at least once during 1988, aged 65 and over per 1,000 population aged 65 or over

  Health authority

  Number

  Index (Wales = 100 )

  Clwyd

  48·6

  65·6

  East Dyfed

  63·7

  86·0

  Gwent

  52·1

  70·3

  Gwynedd

  17·3

  23·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  98·3

  132·7

  Pembrokeshire

  44·6

  60·2

  Powys

  136·5

  184·2

  South Glamorgan1

  91·1

  122·9

  West Glamorgan

  114·3

  154·3

  Wales

  74·1

  100·0

  11987 figures have been used as 1988 data are not available and the available data used to calculate Wales figures.

  Casualty Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek to amend the law to ensure that statutory responsibility to deal with accident or casualty services rests clearly with district health authorities.

  Mr. Grist
  The provision of hospital staff, accommodation and ambulance services for use with accident and
  63
  emergency services is already the responsibility of district health authorities by virtue of section 3(1) of the National Health Service Act 1977 and the NHS Functions (Directions to Authorities and Administrative Arrangements) Regulations 1989.

  Health Authorities (Asset Sales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the capital receipts from the sale of their assets district health authorities can use for capital or revenue expenditure without requiring specific authorities from the Welsh Office.

  Mr. Grist
  District health authorities retain, without reference to the Department, income from the sale of vehicles and other equipment. They are entitled to receive the proceeds from the sale of land and buildings no longer needed by the Health Service except in those cases where the property has become surplus as a result of a closure following the provision of a centrally funded scheme. In such cases the sale proceeds will not be kept by the district health authority but will benefit the all-Wales provision. Health authorities may use the proceeds of sale for the provision of hospital and community health services for which they are responsible.

  Children's Hospital Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the closure of the children's ear, nose and throat hospital in Ely, Cardiff.

  Mr. Grist
  We have not received any representations about the possible closure of the children's ENT hospital in Ely, Cardiff, since we approved the broad thrust of South Glamorgan health authority's strategic plan in July 1989.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what are the most up-to-date guidelines for children requiring long-term orthopaedic treatment being accommodated in mixed-intake children's wards;

  (2) what proposals he has for the reduction of cross-infection risks in mixed-intake wards for children requiring long-term orthopaedic in-patient treatment.

  Mr. Grist
  These are matters for district health authorities within the general guidance that children should be nursed on paediatric wards.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to visit the children's ear, nose and throat hospital in Ely, Cardiff.

  Mr. Grist
  Not at present.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the current waiting list for ear, nose and throat operations for children within each Welsh health authority and within Wales as a whole for(a) out-patient treatment and (b) in-patient treatment;

  (2) what were the waiting lists for ear, nose and throat operations for children for each health authority within Wales and for Wales as a whole in 1984, 1986 and 1988;

  (3) what were the waiting lists for tonsil and adenoids removal operations for children for each health authority within Wales and for Wales as a whole in 1984, 1986 and 1988; and what is the current waiting list.
  64
  Mr. Grist
  Information both on the number of patients on waiting lists for individual operations and on the age of patients is not collected centrally. Total in-patient waiting lists figures for the ear, nose and throat specialty are given in the following table. Out-patient waiting lists relate only to appointments, and not to operations, and are not included in these figures.

  1984

  1986

  1988

  1989

  Pembrokeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clwyd

  1,073

  998

  1,550

  1,066

  East Dyfed

  543

  967

  478

  562

  Gwent

  883

  681

  634

  702

  Gwynedd

  242

  275

  551

  848

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,731

  2,535

  1,997

  2,242

  Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  1,449

  1,283

  930

  634

  West Glamorgan

  403

  815

  1,056

  1,099

  Wales

  7,324

  7,554

  7,196

  7,153

  Note:—At 30 September each year.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidelines for consultation on hospital closure proposals for those hospitals and specialised wards in which a high proportion of the patients come from outside the boundaries of the health authority and extend the consultation procedure to involve those community health councils from which significant numbers of their patients originate.

  Mr. Grist
  Appropriate guidance is already available in Welsh Office Health Service planning paper 5, appendix B.

  Hospices
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospices there are in each of the counties of Wales; and what is his policy regarding the expansion of the hospice provision in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  There is one voluntary hospice in Wales providing in-patient care, in south Glamorgan. The provision of hospice facilities and other care for the terminally ill is a matter for the voluntary sector and health authorities but we are considering what assistance we can give to aid this work.

  A487
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest information concerning the specification for a Llanllyfni bypass on the A487 trunk road; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Gwynedd county council is carrying out a feasibility study of possible options for improvements between Caerau and Llanwnda which includes Llanllyfni and a draft report has been submitted to the Department for consideration.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) the purpose and (b) the cost of the road reconstruction which has been undertaken over recent weeks on the A487 trunk road between Felinheli and Caernarfon, in the vicinity of Griffith's Crossing; and what criteria determined the timing of this work.
  65
  Mr. Grist
  The reconstruction works, costing £247,130 are necessary to strengthen the trunk road and maintain it in a safe condition. Timing was influenced by the need for reasonable weather conditions while avoiding the peak holiday months of July and August.

  Hospitals (Transitional Arrangements)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for transitional arrangements for the period 1 April 1991 to 1 April 1993 for health authorities in respect of those hospitals and specialised wards in which a high proportion of the patients come from outside the boundaries of the health authorities.

  Mr. Grist
  From 1 April 1991 district health authorities will be funded to meet the needs of their resident populations rather than those of the wider catchment areas they serve. The services provided by hospitals will be paid for under service agreements negotiated with health authorities and GP fund-holding practices on behalf of their patients. Thus hospitals receiving patients from outside the district in which they are situated will in future receive funds from the district health authorities or, where appropriate, the general practitioner fund-holding practices, covering the respective patients' areas of residence.

  In 1991–92, district health authorities will be funded to enable them to meet the costs of anticipated patient flows across boundaries. It is expected that these anticipated flows will broadly reflect the existing pattern of cross-boundary movements of patients and will in any case represent the agreements reached in the course of this year between health authorities, general practitioner fund-holding practices and the providing hospitals. We do not therefore expect to see patients disadvantaged, or individual hospitals or specialist services made unviable, simply because of the new funding arrangements that will be introduced next April.

  In clue course, district health authorities' revenue funding will reflect their weighted population share of available resources—which may be more or less than the shares based on their residents' use of services which, as I have described, will be the basis of funding in 1991–92. There will be a process of transition to weighted capitation funding in order to allow authorities and hospitals time to adjust—either by considering new ways of providing services or by improving efficiency. It is not yet possible to say how long this period of transition will take since the starting point for transitional arrangements will not be determined until authorities produce data on anticipated cross-boundary flows and since the methodology for calculating weighting population shares will not be determined until authorities have been consulted. These matters will be resolved during the autumn and transitional arrangements will then be mapped out when the district health authorities' allocations for 1991–92 and their resource planning assumptions for subsequent years are published in December and January respectively.

  Special Needs Housing
  Mr.Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he proposes to make changes to the funding arrangements for special needs projects undertaken by housing associations in Wales and if he will make a statement.
  66
  Mr. Grist
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 April 1990, c. 1057–58]: We have now reassessed requirements and expect to incur expenditure of £33,000 up to the end of June. Pending parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate for class XVII, vote 6, this expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund. Further advances may be required for expenditure in July.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment and Youth Training Initiatives
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to deregulate and privatise his Department's employment and youth training initiatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My aim is to ensure that the private sector has a leading role in training and enterprise programmes and that burdens on business are kept to a minimum. I have recently completed the sale of the Skills Training Agency and announced plans that private voluntary bodies will take the place of five of the statutory industry training boards. I am now establishing a network of training and enterprise councils (TECs) which will be private sector companies operating as employer-led partnerships in their local communities. TECs will run training and enterprise programmes, including ET and youth training, previously administered by the Department of Employment. TEC contracts will allow considerable flexibility to adapt programmes to meet the needs of local employers and individuals.

  Restart
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the purpose and status of current experiments with restart menus, including options courses; and if he will list which experiments are taking place in which areas.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The main opportunities offered at restart interviews remain:

  submission to a job vacancy

  a place on a job club

  a place on employment training

  a place on a restart course

  a place on the enterprise allowance scheme

  There are no plans to experiment with this range of opportunities, although additional opportunities may he available in particular localities. However, employment service managers may arrange for variations in the delivery of the main opportunities in order to meet local needs.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which member countries of the EC have no system of legally enforcing a minimum wage for their labour force.

  Mr. Eggar
  All EC member states have arrangements for enforcing minimum rates of pay in some or all sectors of their economies.

  TVEI
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether there are any plans to scale down the technical and vocational education initiative.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We are currently reviewing the timetable for entry of local education authorities into TVEI. The scale and long-term funding of the initiative remains the same.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to the reply he gave to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim),Official Report, column 170 of 24 April, he will give the total estimated expenditure on TVEI in each of the years 1990–91 to 1997–98, inclusive, and for Scotland, England and Wales in both cash and real terms.

  Mr. Eggar
  As laid out in the public expenditure White Paper the Department plans to spend £134 million in 1990–91, £133 million in 1991–92 and £141 million in 1992–93 on TVEI.

  The remaining balance of around £393 million will be spent between 1993–94 and 1997–98.

  Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Minister of State's recent official visit to Liverpool.

  Mr. Eggar
  I recently carried out a long-standing engagement to visit Liverpool, to see at first hand the Government's training schemes and initiatives for the long-term unemployed in operation.

  I paid a visit to a JIG (job interview guarantee scheme) pilot and was very impressed by the schemes being run by Post Office Counters Ltd.

  This was followed by a visit to Monks Ferry Training Trust, a provider of employment training and youth training, where I had discussions with representatives of the local community.

  Married Women
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the number of married women in the United Kingdom and regarding the number who undertake domestic duties in the home and have no paid employment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Preliminary results from the labour force survey for spring 1989 show that there were in the United Kingdom, 11,241,000 married (or cohabiting) women of working age, 16–59 years old. Of these 3,903,000 had no paid employment, comprising 466,000 who were unemployed (using the international definition based on a four-week job search period) and 3,437,000 who were economically inactive. Among the latter group some 70 per cent. (an estimated 2,430,000 women) further reported that their main reason for not seeking work was that they were looking after the family or home.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many copies of the information memorandum were issued by Deloitte Corporate Finance 68
  on the Skills Training Agency; how many organisations tendered for the skill centres either in part or in whole; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 May 1990]: Deloitte Corporate Finance issued more than 100 copies of the information memorandum about the Skills Training Agency (STA).

  The Government were pleased with the number of expressions of interest received, which covered every unit in STA.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been or will be redundant from the network of skill centres due to the sale of the centres to Astra Training Services and other companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 May 1990]: I intend to close those parts of STA not included in the sale packages agreed with successful bidders and the staff in those parts will, as far as possible, be redeployed. I expect that there will be some redundancies among instructional and industrial grade staff, but the number is not yet known.

  Staffing levels in the parts of STA which have been sold to the private sector are a matter for the new purchasers, but most purchasers have made it clear that they will need to restructure the businesses so as to secure commercial viability. I understand that one purchaser, Merseyside Education Training and Enterprise Ltd. (METEL), has declared redundancies with effect from 15 May.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his meeting on 10 May with their employers about the deaths of workers on the channel tunnel project.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 15 May 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 15 May to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), Official Report, columns. 403–4.

  Action Credit
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the changes made to the three action credit pilot schemes since their introduction.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: The weekly earnings limit for participants has been raised from £43 to £75 to allow greater flexibility and the pilot has been extended for three months.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the role of training and enterprise councils and the employment service will be in promoting and administering action credit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: When the action credit pilots have been completed and evaluated it will be for each training and enterprise council to decide whether they wish to operate such a scheme in their area. They will be responsible for administering any scheme and for negotiating locally with the employment service about its role.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when a statement will be made on whether
  69
  action credit will be extended beyond its current pilot schemes; and what are the criteria by which the success of these pilots is being judged.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: The final evaluation report is due in November. The results will be made available to training and enterprise councils and it will be for them to decide whether to introduce schemes in their area.

  The evaluation includes interview surveys of actual and potential participants and of employers.

  Significant criteria for success will be the extent to which action credit is successful in helping ET leavers into full-time employment or self-employment, and in helping them to obtain a job reference.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a detailed account of the moneys his Department and the employment service have spent, and are projected to spend, in connection with the piloting of action credit.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: To date expenditure on the pilot of action credit for those leaving employment training is £61,319·51. The projected total expenditure on administering and monitoring the pilots is £100,025. A further £24,725 is projected for the independent evaluation currently under way.

  The cost to the employment service of market research into the feasibility of an action credit pilot targeted at those unemployed for 12 months or more is £35,466. The employment service has no immediate plans to spend further money on action credit.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the percentage and number of action credit participants who on leaving the scheme have (i) found employment and received the bonus, (ii) have signed off without finding permanent work and received the bonus and (iii) have continued to claim income support.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: No. This information will be available after the action credit pilot is completed at the end of August.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the possibility of the Spastics Society withdrawing from employment training as a result of cuts in funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: The Spastics Society informed my Department on 2 May of its intention to withdraw from employment training with effect from the end of May 1990.

  Arrangements are being made to place its trainees with other providers.

  Youth Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received(a) on the possible closure of the major provider of special needs youth training in the Tower Hamlets and Newham area and (b) from the careers service concerning the youth training guarantee; and if he will make a statement.
  70
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: I have received no representations on the particular case referred to by the hon. Member, nor from the careers service about the guarantee.

  Training Agency area offices are currently negotiating funding levels with training providers in respect of the youth training programme which commences on 29 May 1990. Under youth training, the Government's guarantee remains unaffected. All young people under the age of 18 who have left full-time education and who are unable to find a job, are guaranteed the offer of a training place on the programme.

  Training Organisations
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of applications from ET training managers for approved training organisation status which have been(a) rejected on the first five criteria, (b) rejected on the last four criteria and (c) rejected by the Training Agency.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: Only those training managers who are considered to have the potential to meet the stringent standards entailed in the award of approved training organisation status are given contracts to provide employment training. The approval process involves a constructive partnership between the Training Agency and the training manager to build provision which meets these standards. Rejections are made only when it becomes clear there is no prospect of achieving this.

  For those training managers who began operations at the start of employment training, the assessment process is under way and as at 30 April 1990, it has proved necessary for the Training Agency to reject only one training manager who failed on the first five criteria.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of applications from training agents for approved training organisation status which have been(a) rejected on the first five criteria, (b) rejected on the last four criteria and (c) rejected by the Training Agency.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: Only those training agents who have the potential to meet the stringent quality standards entailed in the award of approved training organisation status are given contracts to provide employment training. The approval process involves a constructive partnership between the Training agency and the Training Agent to build provision which meets these standards. Rejections are made only when it becomes clear there is no prospect of achieving this.

  For those training agents who began operations at the start of employment training, the assessment process is under way and as at 30 April 1990, it has not proved necessary for the Training Agency to reject any training agents.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of ET training managers who have received Training Agency approval for each of(a) the first five criteria and (b) the last four criteria set out in the approved training organisation process.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: The approved training organisation process involves a

  71
  constructive partnership between the Training Agency and the training manager to build provision which meets the stringent standards entailed in the approved training organisation award. Training managers have two years from the date of commencement of their employment training operation to meet these standards which are tested in two stages. The assessment process for those who began on 5 September 1988 is currently under way and as at 30 April 1990, 873 have received Training Agency approval for the first five criteria and three have received approval for the last four criteria.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of ET training agents who have received Training Agency approval for each of(a) the first five criteria and (b) the last four criteria set out in the approved training organisation process.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: The approved training organisation process involves a constructive partnership between the Training Agency and the training agent to build provision which meets the stringent standards entailed in the approved training organisation award. Training agents have two years from the date of commencement of their employment training operation to meet these standards which are tested in two stages. The assessment process for those who began on 5 September 1988 is currently under way and as at 30 April 1990, 153 have received Training Agency approval for the first five criteria. None so far has received approval for the last four criteria.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many taxpayers face a marginal deduction rate of 70 per cent. or more as a result of the interaction of the tax and benefit system.

  Mr. Newton
  There are around 320,000 tax units paying income tax with a marginal deduction rate of over 70 per cent. The social security reforms and subsequent changes to national insurance have effectively eliminated the risk of facing combined deductions for taxes and benefits which exceed each extra pound earned.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of people who lose 90p or more in every pound of increased earnings as a result of the interaction of the tax and benefit system.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of people who lose 90p or more in every pound of increased earnings as a result of the interaction of the tax and benefit system.

  Mr. Newton
  Before the reforms 70,000 families had marginal deduction rates over 100 per cent., and 130,000 had rates over 90 per cent. Now nobody has a rate of 100 per cent. or more, and the number over 90 per cent. has fallen to 40,000.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of 72
  people who lose 90p or more in every pound of increased earnings as a result of the interaction of the tax and benefit system.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that there are about 40,000 benefit units where the head is in full-time employment and faces a combined marginal tax-benefit withdrawal rate of 90 per cent. or more.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many taxpayers face a marginal deduction rate of 70 per cent. or more as a result of the interaction of the tax and benefit system.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that there are about 320,000 benefit units where the head is in full-time employment, pays income tax and faces a combined marginal tax-benefit withdrawal rate of 70 per cent. or more.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new measures are being introduced to protect members of occupational pension schemes.

  Mr. Newton
  The current Social Security Bill includes measures to appoint a pensions ombudsman; reduce self-investment by schemes; extend the rights of early leavers; and provide, from a date to be appointed, for annual increases in respect of pension rights derived from future service and for scheme surpluses to be used to make increases in respect of existing rights. These are further important steps forward in safeguarding the position of the members of such schemes.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers the pensions ombudsman is proposed to have to resolve any grievances held by members of occupational pension schemes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on 2 April at column 488.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he anticipates his Department's computerisation programme will benefit social security claimants.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Computerisation has improved the speed and accuracy with which benefit claims are handled. It provides a better service to the public on inquiries. It has enabled us to move benefit processing work out of London to areas where it is easier to recruit and retain good staff—and so provide a better service to our London customers.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in implementing his Department's operational strategy.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department's highly complex £1·7 billion strategy for the computerisation of the social security payment system is proceeding as planned. The pilot exercise in 23 local offices has been
  73
  completed and the systems are being introduced nationally office by office. By 4 May 1990, 226 offices had received the departmental central index (DCI) system; 225 the retirement pensions system; and 119 the income support system—out of an eventual target of 440 offices.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to assist lone parents living on benefits to be able to move into work or training.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to assist lone parents living on benefits to be able to move into work or training.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The benefit system already contains a number of special provisions to help lone parents who wish to work. Regular payments of maintenance can also provide a valuable stepping stone from benefit to work. We are currently reviewing the maintenance system to see what improvements are needed.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much a lone parent with two children would have to earn to be better off in work than on benefits, making an appropriate assumption about the costs of child care.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much a lone parent with two children would have to earn to be better off in work than on benefits, making an appropriate assumption about the costs of child care.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) earlier today.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to assist lone parents who are not living on benefits to obtain maintenance from the absent parent.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to assist lone parents who are not living on benefits to obtain maintenance from the absent parent.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to assist lone parents who are not living on benefits to obtain maintenance from the absent parent.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Absent parents have a clear legal responsibility to maintain their families wherever they can afford to. The Government have announced an inter-departmental review of the maintenance system to see what changes need to be made to the way in which maintenance is awarded and paid. A survey of the work in a sample of courts and DSS local offices is under way to provide full and up-to-date information as a basis for deciding on the best way forward, and this information will relate both to benefit and non-benefit cases. We are also examining systems in use in other countries to see what lessons can be learned from them. The Government aim to bring forward proposals later this year.
  74
  In the shorter term we have taken action to improve the payment and enforcement of maintenance under the current system. These measures will help lone parents who want to move from benefit to independence, since maintenance can provide valuable extra income to supplement earnings. Some two thirds of lone parents are dependent on income support. We have strengthened the basis on which local offices assess absent parents' ability to pay maintenance and have improved our instructions on interviewing lone parents about the identity of the absent father. We have also introduced a new clause to the current Social Security Bill to expand our ability to take action and address some of the problems lone parents have experienced with the current system. In particular the new clause will enable an order obtained by the Department to be transferred to the lone parent leaving benefit, removing the need for her to go to court to obtain a private maintenance order. DSS will also be able to enforce a lone parent's maintenance order for her when payments are not being made in full, if the lone parent is claiming income support for herself and her family. This will ensure that prompt action is taken in all cases and will reduce the chance of the absent parent getting into the habit of non-payment.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate he has as to the number of lone-parent families in receipt of income support; and how many also receive family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  At May 1988 some 722,000 lone-parent families were in receipt of income support of whom some 6,000 were also in receipt of family credit. (The figures do not include prisoners' partners). At December 1989 there were 120,000 lone-parent families in receipt of family credit; information is not available on the number also in receipt of income support. There is a limited overlap between income support and family credit because an award of family credit lasts for six months.

  Sources: Income Support Annual Statistical Inquiry 1988;

  Family Credit Statistical System.

  Absent Fathers
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures are being taken to make the arrangements for recovering maintenance from absent fathers more effective; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I am currently examining the maintenance system and aim to bring forward proposals for change later this year. In the meantime I have taken a number of steps to improve the recovery of maintenance under the current system. This includes a new clause introduced to the present Social Security Bill which will improve our ability to pursue maintenance.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the operation of the social fund.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations on the operation of the social fund he has received.

  Mr. Scott
  Representations on all aspects of the social fund have been received from hon. Members, members of the public and various organisations.
  75
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund applications have been reviewed since the High Court's decision relating to his guidance on local office budgets; and how many additional payments have resulted.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund applications have been reviewed as a result of the High Court's decision on his guidance on local office budgets; and how many additional payments have resulted.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund applications have been reviewed since the High Court's decision on his guidance on local office budgets; and how many additional payments have resulted.

  Mr. Scott
  Between 1 March 1990 and 30 April 1990, a total of 27,000 applications for review were processed by local offices. A total of 593 were requests for a further review in the light of the High Court decision, and resulted in 473 full or partial awards totalling £144,400.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local social security offices have had their social fund budgets reduced in(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1989–90, in cash terms and in real terms.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local social security offices had their social fund budgets reduced in(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1989–90, in cash terms and in real terms.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows:

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Cash terms

  184

  0

  Real terms1

  429

  252

  1 Real terms prices as reckoned by the gross domestic product deflator.

  The figures compare allocations at the beginning of the relevant financial year with those at the beginning of the preceding year.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much spending on income-related benefits for families with children has changed since April 1988.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since April 1988 we have provided over £350 million extra help in real terms to families with children receiving income-related benefits.

  Income Support
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have occurred in the last year in the quality of service to claimants of income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There have been significant improvements in the quality of service provided to claimants of income support during the past 12 months. For example, the average time taken to clear income support claims improved by 4 per cent. (to 4·7 days) whilst the error rate fell by 13 per cent. (from 9·1 per cent. to 7·9 per cent.).
  76
  In addition, the service provided in London is being improved by relocating work which does not require face-to-face contact away from 21 London offices to areas where recruitment and retention of staff is easier. There is already substantial evidence that significant improvements in accuracy, clearance times and quality of service are being made.

  The programme to computerise income support, which was implemented in 95 local offices in 1989–90, and will be extended to all offices by 1991, is bringing major improvements in service to the public enabling staff to process claims more accurately and quickly.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are receiving income from(a) savings or (b) occupational pensions.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those pensioners who have recently retired are receiving income from occupational pensions or savings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figures show that, in 1987 73 per cent. of recently retired pensioners had an occupational pension and 82 per cent. had income from savings. In the same year 83 per cent. of all pensioners and 90 per cent. of those recently retired had income from one or both of these sources.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the average increase in incomes since 1979 for those pensioners who receive all of their income from state benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figures show that between 1979 and 1987 pensioners who receive all of their income from state benefits had experienced a real terms increase of over 27 per cent.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the increase in pensioners' average net income for(a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to date.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' average net incomes have increased since 1979.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average annual increase in pensioners' total incomes(a) since 1979 and (b) between 1974 to 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Between 1974 and 1979, pensioners' average total net incomes rose by an average of 0·6 per cent. per year in real terms or 3·0 per cent. over the whole period, whereas between 1979 and 1987 they rose on average by over 3 per cent. each year. In total they rose by over 31 per cent. in real terms in this Government's first eight years of office.

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent figures he has for the increase in pensioners' incomes from savings since 1979.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of(a) all pensioners and (b) recently retired pensioners is receiving income from savings.
  77
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' incomes from savings changed between(a) 1979 and the latest date and (b) 1974 to 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figures show that between 1979 and 1987 pensioners' average income from savings more than doubled in real terms. This compares favourably with the period from 1974 to 1979 when the value of pensioners' savings fell by 16 per cent. In 1987, 73 per cent. of all pensioners and 82 per cent. of recently retired pensioners received income from savings.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest available figures on the proportion of pensioners whose incomes fall in the lowest fifth of national income distribution.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figures show that in 1987 only 24 per cent. of pensioners had incomes in the lowest fifth of national income distribution; whereas, when we took office in 1979, 38 per cent. of pensioners fell into the lowest fifth.

  Low-paid workers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many low-paid workers are entitled to claim means-tested benefits and also liable to pay income tax; and what was the number in 1985.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many low-paid workers are entitled to claim means-tested benefits and also liable to pay income tax; and what was the number in 1985.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) earlier today.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department has received from the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Disablement Income Group concerning the phasing out of the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received no representations from the Association of Directors of Social Services concerning the future of the independent living fund.

  We have consulted the Disablement Income Group and will continue to do so as the plans for the future of the ILF are being evolved.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from local authorities concerning the phasing out of the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received representations from some local authority directors of social services concerning the future of the ILF.

  As was made clear in our report on disability benefits, "The Way Ahead", we shall be consulting local authorities on the future of the independent living fund in relation to the implementation of the proposals for care in the community to take effect in April 1991.

  Departmental Services
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures are being introduced to improve his Department's services to the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps have been taken to improve his Department's service to the public.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since the Government reforms were introduced in 1988, the social security system has become simpler for claimants to understand and easier for staff to operate. As a result there have been very real all-round improvements in standards of service to the public. For example, in 1989–90 the average time taken to clear income support claims improved by 25 per cent. (to 4·7 days) compared with 1987–88, the last year before the reforms, and error rates fell by 31 per cent. (to 7·9 per cent.).

  There is still room for further improvement, particularly in inner London. This is being tackled by relocating work which requires no face-to-face contact away from 21 London offices to areas where recruitment and retention of staff is easier. There is already substantial evidence that significant improvements in accuracy, clearance times and quality of service are being made.

  By 1991 the programme to computerise social security operations will bring major improvements in service to the public to all offices and enable staff to process claims more accurately and quickly.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress is being made in implementing the recommendations contained in his Department's business of service report.

  Mr. Newton
  I have today placed in the Library the implementation report of the regional organisation scrutiny, the business of service, which I have approved.

  In January 1989, my predecessor approved and announced to Parliament an action plan for implementation and the business of service scrutiny of my Department's regional organisation, which was published in June 1988. This major and wide-ranging review addressed a number of improvements which might be made in the regional organisation's performance, and looked forward to improvements in the organisation and management of work to be achieved in the context of a benefits agency. The report's central thrust was towards devolution of authority to local office managers as the best means of improving service to the public. Other recommendations were for a shortening of the line of senior management, improvements in resource allocation and management, development of local service planning, improved training for managers to help them fulfil their new tasks, the development of a corporate image for the service, and the provision of improved management information for managers at all levels.

  Some important recommendations have already ben put into effect; a start has been made on the relocation of work from certain offices in inner London, and a national statement of good service was published in May last year, associated with targets for improvement by local offices in the delivery of key benefit outputs. A substantial programme of further work lies ahead, and is being carried forward as part of our preparations for setting up the

  79
  benefits agency. I am confident that if this work is carried through successfully, the benefits agency will be well placed to make further improvements in the services we deliver and in the way in which it is perceived by both public and staff.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much will be spent by his Department in 1990–91 in the form of benefit to those suffering from industrial diseases or injuries.

  Mr. Scott
  "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93", Cm. 1014, copies of which are available in the Library, indicate that an estimated £569 million will be spent on industrial injuries benefits in 1990–91. This includes expenditure of £64 million on industrial death benefit.

  Staff Relocation
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in relocating his Department's staff away from the London area.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 14 November 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) at column 170, in which my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State announced that a substantial amount of the Department's work in London was to be relocated to Leeds. A site for the new headquarters building in Leeds has been identified, and we hope that building work will commence by the end of this year. We expect that the relocation of posts from London will begin around the end of 1991 or early 1992.

  Community Charge Rebate
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the increase in community charge rebate for a married couple with capital of £6,000 or more if the £3,000 capital disregard applied to each partner.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  If the lower capital limit for a married or unmarried couple were raised to £3,000 for each partner, community charge benefit would increase by up to £1·80 a week. This assumes that the partners share their savings equally.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average annual real increase in spending on the disabled between(a) 1974–75 and 1978–79 and (b) 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  The average annual real increase, at 1989–90 prices, was as follows:

  £ million

  (a) 1974–75 to 1978–79

  220

  (b) 1978–79 to 1989–90

  375

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures have been introduced to assist sick or disabled people; and if he will make a statement.
  80
  Mr. Scott
  We are currently spending £8·3 billion on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people. We announced 10 measures in October 1989 to provide extra help for disabled people and their carers, which include the extension of attendance allowance to disabled children under two and mobility allowance to people who are both deaf and blind; the increase over and above the normal annual increase, in the adult disability premium in income support and housing benefit, by £1 for a single person and £1·60 for a couple; and the more than doubling of the disabled child premium in income support and housing benefit from £6·50 to £15·40 per week.

  "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" (Cm. 917), which I laid before Parliament on 10 January, details our major proposals for improving social security help for disabled people. Our proposals include increasing severe disablement allowance for nearly 250,000 disabled people later this year; a new disability allowance for people of working age and below to improve help with the extra costs of being disabled; and a new disability employment credit to make it easier for disabled people to take up jobs.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussion he has had recently with representatives of voluntary organisations for the disabled about benefit levels under the community charge.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have not recently discussed community charge benefit levels with representatives of the voluntary organisations for disabled people.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposals for improving the collection of national insurance contributions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have recently established a new unit within the Department to take responsibility for all the operational aspects of national insurance contributions work.

  The unit will place a high priority on compliance, and there will be improved training for national insurance inspectors. Their existing jobs will be reorganised so that they can spend more time visiting employers and investigating national insurance irregularities. By carrying out other contributions work more efficiently, it is intended that staff resources will be released to allow additional inspectors to be deployed.

  From April 1991, we propose that the unit should be given full agency status, thus increasing management accountability and encouraging the development of a more professional approach to contributions work.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if people found to be wrongly imprisoned are fully credited for national insurance contributions during their stay in custody.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no legislative provisions which allow national insurance credits to be awarded in these circumstances.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates are preparing for their retirement by taking out personal pensions.
  81
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate he has as to the number of people who have joined a personal pension scheme.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of people who have taken out appropriate personal pensions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Just under 3·7 million people have so far taken out appropriate personal pensions.

  Carers' Premium
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will benefit from the introduction of the carers' premium.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We expect the new £10 premium, being introduced in October, to help 30,000 carers through income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  Benefit Uprating
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in which years during the 1980s the uprating of supplementary benefit or income support rates provided for an increase in their real value; and by what percentage.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) earlier today.

  Expenditure
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure by his Department in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  Total expenditure in 1978–79 was £16,437 million in cash terms, or £38,677 million in 1989–90 prices. Estimated total expenditure for 1989–90 is £52,583 million.

  Hostel Accommodation
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about payments of benefits to people in hostel accommodation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  People living in hostels are able to claim housing benefit to help towards accommodation charges and income support to help towards other day-to-day living expenses. In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 16 May at column 421 I announced that direct payments of income support for service charges are to be made available to all hostels from 21 May. This extends the existing arrangements which have hitherto applied only to night shelters.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the expenditure in each social security office area in Wales for the most recent available year, on paying for people to live in(a) private residential homes and (b) private nursing homes, respectively.
  82
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret the information requested is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to provide housing benefit to those in local authority residential homes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  People in local authority residential homes are required to contribute to the cost of their care and accommodation according to their means. Those with insufficient resources to pay the statutory minimum contribution may be entitled to income support. Housing benefit is not payable in addition as there is no unmet liability for housing costs. We have no plans to change these provisions following the proposed introduction of the new arrangements for community care from April 1991.

  Pension Entitlement
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of giving pension entitlement as of the day after a woman's 60th birthday and a man's 65th birthday.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The estimated cost in 1990–91 is £6 million.

  Shelter Report
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will obtain a copy of the report by Shelter, "Our Homes, Our Rights," for his departmental library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A copy of the report has already been ordered for the departmental library. Its contents will be considered carefully after it is received.

  State Pensions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now instigate a scheme for the equalisation of state pension provision between sexes, with the provision of a basic state pension from the age of 60 years.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce legislation to harmonise age-related benefits and concessions at the age of 60 years, for both sexes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  Equalisation of state pension provision for men and women and the effect which it would have on other benefits and concessions is a complex issue requiring careful study. Consideration needs to be given to a number of factors. The Government will not be drawn into making hasty decisions and will bring forward proposals only when all the issues have been fully considered.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement in respect of the notice to his Department's employees as to what
  83
  present potential hazards are to be experienced if they travel to (a) East Germany, (b) Czechoslovakia, (c) Hungary, (d) Poland and (e) Romania.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the public service it has long been the practice to advise staff of the problems that they may encounter when travelling to certain countries, particularly if the staff concerned may have access to classified information. This is for the protection of both Government information and the officers themselves. The guidelines are being reviewed in the light of recent changes in eastern Europe.

  Perrier
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement clarifying his Department's concerns about Perrier labelling.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have asked the European Commission whether the use of the description "naturally carbonated natural mineral water" on the label of Perrier meets the requirements of Council directive 80/777/EEC.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which animal species are currently, or have been, involved in experiments in the transmission of spongiform encephalopathy; and what have been the results to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 16 May,Official Report, column 464.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will cull all calves born of animals infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 17 May 1990, Official Report, column 1009.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been notified in cattle under two years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  BSE has been confirmed in one animal under two years of age; a cow aged 22 months.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the transmissibility of bovine spongiform encephalopathy between mammals by biting or oral contact or any other non-experimental method, apart from ingestion.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no evidence of any natural means of transmission of BSE other than ingestion.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been reported to him to date in cattle first identified as bovine spongiform encephalopathy-suspect by veterinary inspection at(a) fatstock markets and (b) slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information up to 31 March 1990 is as follows:
  84

  Numbers

  (a) Markets

  Suspects reported

  133

  Cases confirmed

  92

  (b) Slaughterhouses

  Suspects reported

  203

  Cases confirmed

  149

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the(a) total cost and (b) cost per suspect head of testing cattle suspected as suffering from BSE.

  Mr. Maclean
  The full economic cost of conducting a histopathological examination on a brain for BSE diagnosis is £166. Since 21 June 1988, when BSE became notifiable, the veterinary investigation service has examined 14,253 brains at a total cost of £2,365,998.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tests of cattle heads were conducted for BSE in the first four months of the current year; and how many were confirmed.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the first four months of this year 4,215 cattle were slaughtered as BSE suspects. Of those, BSE has been confirmed in 3,596. Results are pending on 186.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 16 May, what information he has concerning the number and distribution of calves born to cows subsequently confirmed as BSE sufferers.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 23 April,Official Report, column 80.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether it is his Department's practice to confirm by laboratory tests all notified cases of BSE.

  Mr. Maclean
  All cattle slaughtered as suspected cases of BSE are subject to diagnostic laboratory tests.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the distribution of the total number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, by county, in the United Kingdom in the four weeks to 17 May.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information for Great Britain is as follows:

  County

  Number

  Avon

  27

  Bedfordshire

  4

  Berkshire

  3

  Borders

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  Central

  3

  Cheshire

  32

  Cleveland

  1

  Clwyd

  11

  Cornwall

  72

  Cumbria

  16

  Derbyshire

  11

  Devonshire

  94

  85

  County

  Number

  Dorset

  80

  Dumfries

  6

  Durham

  11

  Dyfed

  76

  Essex

  7

  Fife

  3

  Glamorgan M

  6

  Glamorgan W

  1

  Gloucestershire

  45

  Grampian

  7

  Gwent

  11

  Gwynedd

  3

  Hampshire

  50

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  23

  Hertfordshire

  5

  Highland

  5

  Humberside

  4

  Isle of Wight

  5

  Kent

  25

  Lancashire

  38

  Leicestershire

  27

  Lincolnshire

  10

  Manchester

  1

  Norfolk

  15

  Northamptonshire

  8

  Northumberland

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  Oxfordshire

  20

  Powys

  13

  Salop

  28

  Somerset

  95

  Staffordshire

  28

  Strathclyde

  13

  Suffolk

  13

  Surrey

  18

  Sussex E

  21

  Sussex W

  22

  Tayside

  2

  Warwickshire

  10

  Wiltshire

  39

  Yorkshire N

  45

  Yorkshire S

  5

  Yorkshire W

  1

  Total

  1,148

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any cattle infected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been buried in Lincolnshire.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes; such carcases are buried on licensed tips owned by, and with the agreement of, the county council.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the development of diagnostic testing for the agent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The nature of the BSE agent requires the application of molecular biology techniques for the development of a diagnostic test. Research is in hand, but cannot be expected to yield results for several years at least.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what stage in the development of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the sub-clinically affected animal it is possible to identify bovine spongiform encephalopathy by histopathological examination.

  Mr. Maclean
  Research to establish this is being planned, but results will not be available for several years.
  86
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his staff have taken to ensure that the heads and spinal columns of BSE-infected animals dumped at Attebridge, Norfolk, have been incinerated and that there is no evidence of the BSE virus leading into the River Wensum.

  Mr. Maclean
  Heads of suspect BSE cattle are removed for diagnosis and then destroyed by incineration. All carcases are buried in accordance with sound veterinary practices to ensure that none poses a risk of spreading disease.

  Veterinary Investigation Service
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of the veterinary investigation service.

  Mr. Maclean
  The review of the veterinary investigation service commissioned by the Minister has now been completed and will shortly be submitted to Ministers for their consideration. No decisions have as yet been taken on any of the recommendations of this review.

  Zoonoses Order
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representation he has received on the Zoonoses Order 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a number of representations on the Zoonoses Order 1989 about the arrangements for the compulsory slaughter with compensation of salmonella-infected poultry flocks. These were taken into account when new compensation rates were announced on 13 February followed by provisions for the processing of carcases from infected flocks, under carefully controlled conditions, which I announced on 26 March.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will increase to 100 per cent. compensation paid to farmers whose poultry are slaughtered under the Zoonoses Order 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so. The present compensation arrangements are in line with the requirements of the Animal Health Act 1981 and any producer who disputes the Ministry's valuation can take the matter to independent arbitration.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his timetable for the implementation of the European Community requirement for the ante mortem veterinary inspection of livestock at all slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Maclean
  I regret that the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 3 May,Official Report, column 641, contained a typing error. Ante mortem inspection is to be introduced in non-exporting plants from 1 January 1991, not 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Commission's proposals concerning the slaughter of horses.
  87
  Mr. Maclean
  I am not aware of any European Commission proposals exclusively concerned with the slaughter of horses. However, Commission officials are working on a draft measure on the welfare of all animals, including horses, at slaughter. A formal proposal has not yet been made to the Council, but I welcome the Commission's intention to propose a strengthening of Community legislation in this important area.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the requirement for the high temperature processing of slaughterhouse waste before turning into cattle cake was relaxed; what scientific advice was taken; and if he has any proposals for restoring the regulations in the light of the transmission of scrapie to cattle.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) of 14 March,Official Report, column 241.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that red meat from cows is not contaminated by nervous tissue during the slaughtering process.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Specified Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 make it an offence to use in food for human consumption any specified bovine offal. This is an ultra-precautionary measure applying to all cattle over six months of age designed to ensure that no material in which the BSE agent, if it is present, is most likely to occur enters human food. The enforcement of standards of practice in slaughterhouses, including the hygienic removal of specified bovine offal, is the responsibility of local authorities. The Ministry is ready to give advice if it is needed and we are considering the issue of guidance.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will supply the costs and earnings for the period 1983 to 1989 for United Kingdom fishing vessels broken down by vessel type:(a) beam trawlers, (b) pelagic trawlers, (c) otter trawlers, (d) demersal seiners, (e) purse seiners and (f) drifters;

  (2) if he will supply figures for the costs and earnings of United Kingdom fishing vessels in England and Wales for the period 1983 to 1989, broken down by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food category 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) 140 ft and over.

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

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for improving conservation by decommissioning grants for fishing vessels; and what funds are available from the European Community for this purpose.

  Mr. Curry
  I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member on 11 January, 22 February and 18 April, columns 1077–78, 901 and 954.

  Food and Wine Surpluses
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the amount which will be spent each week by the EEC in 1990 on the disposal and destruction of food and wine surpluses; and if the figure has been reviewed in the light of the recent price settlement.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Commission's latest estimate of expenditure expected in 1990 on storage withdrawal and export refunds for agricultural products is 218 million ecu (£156 million) per week. A revised estimate has not been produced since the price-fixing settlement of 27 April, but we do not expect this expenditure to increase significantly in 1990 as a result of the price fixing.

  Research and Development
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will place a copy of the Barnes review report on research and development in the Library.

  Mr. Gummer
  No. The Barnes review was an internal exercise whose report, like all advice from officials to Ministers, is confidential.

  Government Supply Index
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his Department's decision not to participate in the Government supply index.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department joined the Government supply index as a founder member in 1987 and has no plans to withdraw its participation.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department has on the average earnings of employees in the United Kingdom fish-catching sector by salary grade.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department has on the average earnings of employees in the United Kingdom fish-catching sector by(a) region and (b) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food category vessel size bands.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department has on the average number of employees per vessel in the United Kingdom fish-catching sector by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food category vessel size bands.

  Mr. Curry
  Estimates of the average number of employees per vessel in the United Kingdom fish-catching sector are shown in the table. The information comes from records of crew size for each vessel held by Fisheries Departments.
  89

  Vessel length band

  Average crew size

  Under 10 metres

  1·8

  10 metres—39·9 ft

  2·5

  40–79·9 ft

  5·0

  80–109·9 ft

  7·9

  110 ft and over

  12·3

  Scrapie
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the earliest research was carried out in the United Kingdom concerning the infection under laboratory conditions of bovine brains by scrapie; and when was the first confirmation that such infection was possible.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 15 March,Official Report, column 325.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department first became aware of the ability to transmit under experimental conditions sheep scrapie to other animal species.

  Mr. Maclean
  The first report of the transmission of sheep scrapie to another species, in this case goats, was published in 1939. The first report of transmission to animals other than sheep and goats (mice) was published in 1961.

  Sugar Levy
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any representations about the levy to be imposed on sugar by the intervention board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have not received any representations about the levies imposed on sugar other than general comments in the context of the EC review of the sugar regime.

  Pet Food
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his consultations with the Pet Food Manufacturers Association concerning the incorporation of bovine offals in pet food.

  Mr. Maclean
  My officials have discussed the matter with the Pet Food Manufacturers Association and made clear that there is no scientific justification for stopping the use of bovine offals in food.
  90
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the number of pet food manufacturers currently incorporating those bovine offals specified in the Bovine Offals Order in their pet food products.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available. However, the Pet Food Manufacturers Association, which represents 95 per cent. of pet food manufacturers, advises its members not to use the specified offals.

  Cricket Bats
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the makers of cricket bats regarding the supply of willow.

  Mr. Gummer
  None.

  Forestry
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Forestry Commission to discuss forestry in England.

  Mr. Gummer
  I met the chairman of the Forestry Commission on 14 November 1989 when we discussed a range of forestry topics. My noble Friend the Minister of State meets commission officials frequently.

  British Beef
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what advice he is giving to local authorities that are intending to ban or have banned British beef from their establishments; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) on how many occasions, and in which local authorities, members of his staff have met representatives from local authorities to discuss proposed or existing bans on British beef in establishments of the local authorities concerned;

  (3) if he will list the local authorities that are intending to ban or have banned British beef in their establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: All local authorities have been advised of the Department of Health's view that British beef can be eaten safely by everyone. This Ministry has issued comprehensive guidance to all local authorities, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The Mouse met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Sunday Trading: Restrictions
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
In which countries of the European Economic Community, other than the United Kingdom, it is a criminal offence for a willing seller to sell goods to a willing buyer solely because the sale took place on a Sunday.
The Minister of State, Home office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, although the majority of member states in the Community have some restrictions on Sunday trading, the detailed information which my noble friend requests is not readily available.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that not particularly communicative reply. However, can he tell us whether any of our European colleagues reproduce that provision in our law under which it is lawful to sell a pornographic magazine on a Sunday but a criminal offence to sell a Bible?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is difficult enough to know what the law of this country is without knowing what the law of each individual Community country is. We agree that the present position is an absurdity whereby you can buy such things as my noble frend suggested, yet you cannot buy other things.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although we are all in favour—I believe that there has been wide agreement on this matter—of removing the absurd anomalies to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred, West Germany, the Netherlands and Italy have prohibitions, similar to those provided for by the Shops Act 1950, on shops opening on Sundays and that there are effective ways of enforcing the laws in those countries?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may be so. We have effective ways of enforcing the laws of this country too—by going to the courts.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that another place, which is answerable to the people as a whole in this land, rejected out of hand a proposal to make Sunday like any other day? Will he also bear in mind that a great many people in this land hope that no government will ever make Sunday lose its special distinction as a reminder that this is still a Christian land?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am only too well aware of the noble Viscount's view of what happened to the shops Bill about four years ago. That is the reason why the Government have no intention of producing another Bill until such time as it is likely to prove practical and enforceable, and until it carries widespread agreement and a parliamentary majority.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as a member of God's holy opposition, may I ask my noble friend whether the campaign lobbying against the proposed reforms of the shops Bill some years ago was not among the most disreputable and ridiculous which Christian Churches, which are unable to agree about almost anything, managed to put on.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a peculiarly graphic description of the Bill's passage through another place with which I have no intention of joining in.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I buy anything that I need on Sundays without the shops concerned breaking the law because my Sundays are spent at home in Scotland where there are no restrictions; but Sunday is nonetheless special and in my area the churches are full?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an interesting piece of information on which I would not seek to disagree with my noble friend. Perhaps one day that will happen in this country.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister take on board the fact that those who advocate complete deregulation of shopping on a Sunday fly in the face of the opinion of the people of this country? Is he aware that, although those people seek to use the device of making comparisons with the rest of Europe, other EC states overwhelmingly proscribe an ability to sell anything at any time on a Sunday? Does the noble Earl agree that, if this country were to deregulate on a Sunday, it would be an exception to the European rule?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the opposition which might be generated by complete deregulation. The noble Lord says that all European countries have restrictions. I can confirm that there are restrictions on trading on Sundays in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. On the other hand, it is absurd when you can sell a razor blade to cut corns, but you cannot sell one for shaving and you can buy newspapers, but you cannot buy toilet paper. Noble Lords will recall that, as I have said before, you can sell tinned or untinned clotted cream and untinned unclotted cream, but not tinned unclotted cream. It is an absurdity.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there are no instructions on my razor blades when I buy them as to what I should use them for?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the obligation is on the seller and not the purchaser.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that using anomalies cheapens arguments? Does he further agree with the view of the Church of England board for social responsibility which argues that the prime consideration is that we should work for freedom from work on Sunday rather than freedom to work on Sunday?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for drawing attention to the points made by the Church of England on this matter. I should be reluctant to comment for fear that I receive a riposte from some other noble Lord. However, I realise that that is one very substantial and important part of a diverse argument.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that a law riddled with anomalies, absurdities and contradictions does nothing whatever to reinforce or support the Christian idea of Sunday but merely reflects the bad system that we operate and which your Lordships' House, unlike another place, was prepared to alter a short time ago?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite agree that when a law is riddled with absurdities it is very difficult to make it make sense. My noble friend will understand that he takes one view and the right reverend Prelate takes another. We have had this argument before. Until there is a parliamentary majority for any Bill it is pointless to try to put the matter right. If my noble friend lobbies vigorously the right reverend Prelate and all those who take an opposing view to see whether some accommodation can be reached with his own view, we may get somewhere.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not an additional complication that whereas Christians keep the Sabbath on Sunday, Jews keep it on Saturday and Moslems on Friday?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one should not ask a question from this Dispatch Box, but I was going to say, "So what?"

Algeciras-Gibraltar Ferry Service
2.45 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present position in relation to the Algeciras to Gibraltar ferry service following their letter of 9th February to the European Commission requesting that infraction proceedings be commenced against Spain.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Reay told the House on 19th April, we await an answer to our request from the European Commission. We have asked the Commission when we can expect a reply to our letter and we hope to receive one shortly.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions.
592
Have the Government reminded the Commission of its obligations under Article 155 of the treaty which states:
"In order to ensure the proper functioning and development of the common market, the Commission shall ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied"?
Secondly, as the three-month administrative stage is over, are the Government prepared to start the judicial stage and bring the matter before the European Court of Justice?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have pressed the Commission for a reply on this matter on numerous occasions since we wrote on 9th February. We have not yet received a reply. So far as concerns direct action by the Government before the European Court of Justice, we shall consider action under Article 170 of the Treaty of Rome at the appropriate time. For the moment it is for the Commission to decide whether there is a case against Spain under Article 169.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government support the ferry agreement and also the airport agreement and that the Spanish Government at the moment link the one to the other? Can the Minister say whether there is a possibility that Her Majesty's Government will speak to the Gibraltar authorities to see whether there might be any modification in their attitude to the airport agreement which could lead to a settlement?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have kept in close touch with the Chief Minister in Gibraltar on the ferry agreement. The airport agreement, we believe, is a good deal for Gibraltar and does not comprise any concessions to sovereignty. What we are talking about in the Question is a different route to get to the ferry agreement. We believe that there is no linkage between the ferry agreement and the airport agreement. But the Spaniards, as we are all aware, take the opposite view. That is why we have taken the other route so far as concerns the ferry services, invoking an EC regulation on the freedom to provide maritime transport services between member states.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I fully support the line that the noble Lord takes on behalf of the Government. Can he say whether or not dicussions have been held with Mr. Bossano on the possibility that Gibraltar might change its mind to some extent on the airport agreement?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have certainly discussed the airport agreement with the Gibraltar authorities, We have made clear in negotiating the agreement with Spain that it was subject to the Gibraltar House of Assembly passing the enabling legislation. Gibraltar has not done so. We have made clear to the Gibraltar Government that the agreement constitutes no concession on sovereignty and have urged them to bring benefit to Gibraltar by implementing it. We cannot force the agreement on Gibraltar.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is justification for Gibraltar to bring this matter before the European Court of Justice on grounds, as I understand it, that application of the European Community air transport policy has not benefited Gibraltar while other new air routes have been approved? Does that not constitute discrimination?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the airport agreement is a different matter from the subject of the Question on the Order Paper. If the noble Lord wishes me to go into detail on the airport agreement I think it would be better to wait for a Question to be tabled on that subject.

English Industrial Estates
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to continue support for English Industrial Estates in promoting development in areas needing employment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we certainly intend to support English Estates in promoting the provision of industrial and commercial premises. The Government's policy is to ensure that premises and sites are available to meet the needs of businesses in the assisted areas. Wherever possible that should be done through private sector provision. English Estates will continue to make an important contribution to regional policy; but the Government now want it to move away from direct provision, wherever possible, and in many areas to operate primarily as a facilitator using a range of mechanisms to draw in private sector developers.
Lord Jay: My Lords, whatever that Answer means, the company has been one of the Government's most successful instruments for many years in promoting employment in areas that needed it in England. It owns a large area of valuable industrial property. Will the Minister note that any serious curtailment of its activities would be a major blow to these areas, in particular in the North of England?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. I agree with almost everything that the noble Lord has said. The Government will continue to support provision of new floor space in assisted areas both through the range of incentives, as I have indicated, and, where incentives do not prove sufficient, through continued direct provision. A substantial assisted areas programme for English Industrial Estates of up to £52-8 million has been announced for 1990–91.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in addition to industrial estates, areas are suffering severely because of closures. I refer, for example, to Ravenscraig in Scotland. What will the Government do to try to stop the loss of that steelworks and of so many skilled jobs?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is an entirely different question. English Industrial Estates deals with England. Scotland is a different region. However, perhaps I may indicate to the noble Lord that where the shipyards have closed down in Sunderland special provision has been made by English Industrial Estates to redevelop certain areas there in order to assist with employment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, if someone wishes to start an industrial estate, to what government office should he apply? Is it a matter for the Department of the Environment or the Department of Trade and Industry or is it left entirely to the local authority?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am answering for the Government but from the Department of Trade and Industry. English Industrial Estates encourages private sector developers into the assisted areas and provides a tremendous amount of market information. Such information would include available development sites, demand, rental levels, construction costs and rental and capital value growth indices.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, where does one obtain such planning permission? Is it from the local authority or from the Department of Trade and Industry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I feel that other noble Lords are already answering the question. All planning is dealt with by the Department of the Environment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the splendid work undertaken by English Industrial Estates in the northern region? My noble friend Lord Jay was quite right to refer to it. Those of us who have had close dealings with the organisation over many years realise the tremendous work that is done for the northern region, which still has the highest rate of unemployemnt. Secondly, I am a little confused, as was my noble friend. Is the Minister saying that there is a possibility of privatisation at some time in the future?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no, not so far as I know. The noble Lord may be thinking of what has been announced. English Industrial Estates will sell off some of the portfolio that it holds, thereby encouraging the private sector into these industrial areas.
Lord Peston: My Lords, employment in manufacturing is already declining. According to the Government's own forecast employment may continue to decline and unemployment rise at a faster pace in the coming year. Bearing that in mind, is it not a singularly inappropriate time for the Government to be interfering with English Industrial Estates, which everyone agrees has done an extremely good job? Surely what is required is that the Government give it more support rather than talk of selling off its assets.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to hear the wholehearted support for English Industrial Estates from the noble Lord which we thoroughly endorse. I do not believe that investment in these assisted areas could be considered to be diminishing if the budget increased from £42 million last year to £52 million this year. Selling off the estates does not withdraw the premises available; it changes the landlord.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps the Government will confirm my understanding from what I have read in the newspapers. I do not have the advantages of the noble Viscount. Are the Government totally committed to the continuation of English Industrial Estates? Will it continue to have sufficient resources to do the job that it has done so well until now?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is my reading of the matter.

Housing Associations: Funding
2.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What resources are available to housing associations and whether these are sufficient to enable them to carry out the functions laid on them by recent legislation.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government plan to increase the Housing Corporation's programme of grants and loans to housing associations from £938 million in 1989-90 to £1, 736 million in 1992-93. Associations are also now able to draw in private loan capital to help finance their grant-aided schemes. As a result associations will be able to fulfil their role under the Government's housing policies as main providers for the future of new homes for low income households.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer does not accord with the housing associations' view of the situation? Is it not a fact that the Government brought forward £120 million in January from this year's allocation to cover last year's expected overspend? The effect of that was to cut the target for approvals this year from 24, 000 units to 19, 500. The associations now believe that the figure could be reduced to 10, 000. The Government have stated repeatedly that they no longer view councils as builders of houses but only as enablers and that the charity organisations will take their place. Do the figures not indicate that the Government are failing abysmally in what they are trying to do?
Lord Reay: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, a new financial regime was introduced on 1st April 1989. It resulted in housing associations bringing forward their schemes faster than had been anticipated. That factor resulted in £120 million worth of capital expenditure which was originally
596
planned to be used by the Housing Corporation in 1991 being spent in 1989-90. A corresponding decrease has been made for 1990-91. If the two years are taken together the number of new homes that housing associations will provide is expected to remain as planned. A faster rate of spending will mean that new homes will be ready sooner. That must be a good thing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, it was predicted that 27, 000 units would be produced in 1991-92. Unless there is a further increase in funding the figure may reduce to 7, 000 over the two years. Does that not indicate that the situation needs looking into? Mr. Splcer, the Housing Minister, ought not to continue to reject overtures of the housing associations as he did last week.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not accept that. The output of houses is expected to double from 1988-89 to 39, 000 by 1992–93.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I am a little worried by the reply that the Minister gave. I am a member of a housing association. Last week we received a long letter from the director of the Housing Corporation on the difficulties of finance, which were described as considerable. Perhaps I may read part of it. Writing to housing associations the director of the Housing Corporation stated:
"I am aware of the serious financial difficulties caused to housing associations by the failure of the Housing Corporation to forecast its cash flow".
That is contained in the letter—
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the Minister investigate the letter from the director of the Housing Corporation which has made it extremely difficult for those housing associations which had approval to carry on with their programmes only to find now they are without cash until the end of this year?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I appreciate that a difficult situation may arise for some assocations which were expecting to be able to bring forward plans which must now be postponed. However, I am confident that the corporation will do what it can to minimise the problem. I do not believe that the difficulties should be exaggerated. Forty thousand new homes are now being built under schemes which have been approved. We are confident that housing associations can expand to achieve what is asked of them. Indeed, they are already putting forward more schemes than the Housing Corporation can accommodate in its programme.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does not the last question bear the truth? Is is not the case that the housing associations, through the Housing Corporation, are ready to meet an expanding need but the Government are not prepared to find the money?
Lord Reay: My Lords, no. As I said in my original Answer, the Government plan to increase the Housing Corporation's programme from more than £900 million to £1, 700 million in the next three years. That is a substantial increase.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for the purpose of taking the Second Reading of the Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Bill. It is possible that that will take something over one hour. Therefore, it may be helpful to say that the Committee stage will resume no earlier than 8.15 p.m. or no less than one-and-a-quarter hours after the commencement of the adjournment.

Social Security Bill
3.2 p.m
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chain.]
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Uprating of child benefit
In section 63(3) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be added the following paragraph—
"(c) mentioned in subsection (l)(f) above".").
The noble Lord said: The object of the amendment is simple although the original implementation of the provision was complicated. The amendment adds child benefit to the list of those which are indexed each year in order to maintain their real value. In real terms the effect is virtually nothing. Indexation is keeping pace with inflation and we are trying to maintain the real value of child benefit which has diminished steadily over the past three or four years. Today its real value is about 20 per cent. less than in 1976 when it was introduced. It has diminished steadily and, I believe, tragically from the time when we were less prosperous than now.
I make no apology for bringing the matter forward yet again. Since last year there has been an increasing groundswell of opinion in favour of the provision not only among all parties in both Houses but throughout the country. It is worth reminding the Committee that child benefit replaced not only the child-taxed allowances but also family credit. In 1976 the result was that there was almost no net increase in public expenditure. In real terms the benefit costs less now than it did then. Furthermore, I have no hesitation in saying that if no change had
598
been made in 1976 no government would have had the nerve to abolish the child tax allowances. That is proved by the fact that no attempt has been made to remove or to reduce the married man's allowance.
As so forcibly pointed out last week by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and Mr. Timothy Raison, we are talking about the maintenance of family life and the bringing up of healthy children. I wish to refer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in a pamphlet for the Conservative think tank and also read an extract from a book written by Mr. Raison. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, stated that families had gained less from government policies than the childless. Figures showed that expenditure per person in families with dependent children was only £54.31 per week when the mother did not go out to work compared with £117.31 in households without dependent children with a working wife.
That shows extremes that are really remarkable. In his book Mr. Raison stated:
"There are limits to the extent to which governments can change attitudes in this sort of respect: but it is open to them to use the tax system and child benefit to support those mothers who stay at home, instead of tipping the tax system in favour of the couple where both work".
In a newspaper interview Mr. Raison said:
"We say we are the party of the family. I don't want us to become sermonising or priggish but if we believe traditional marriage and the family are very valuable institutions, we should produce policies which will support them".
Those comments are from members of the Conservative Party.
I hope that not only will the maintenance of child benefit remove the necessity for many families to go cap in hand to social security, which so many people feel to be degrading however well it is wrapped up, but that it will be recognised that couples with children are at real considerable economic disadvantage compared with others. We must not be the country among those of the developed world that does the least for the family.
I am not asking for any financial concessions. I am not asking, alas, for any real improvement in family support. All I am asking is that we should stop the situation becoming worse for our children and our families. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: We on these Benches are pleased to support the amendment. It is intended to maintain child benefit as now paid directly to the mother, to make good the amount that has been lost in the three-year freeze of child benefit since April 1987 and to ensure that it is index linked against future inflation.
The commitment to keeping child benefit in line with inflation goes back a long way in the Conservative Party. It goes back to 1975 when the benefit was first introduced. Mr. Kenneth Clarke, who was then Opposition spokesman on social security, said:
"whatever figure is chosen at least keeps in line with inflation thereafter".—[official Report, Commons, 13/5/75; col. 389.]
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, when he was Secretary of State for Social Services, said:
"it is our intention, subject to economic and other circumstances, to uprate child benefit each year to maintain its value".—[official Report, Commons, 28/7/80; col. 1063.]

599
The same point was made by Sir Geoffrey Howe when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. To the credit of the Government they increased child benefit to its highest ever level in 1983. He then said:
"it is the benefit which provides the greatest help to many of the poorest families in the country".—[official Report, Commons, 15/3/83; col. 143.]
The same view was also put by the Prime Minister in 1983:
"It has long been the view of all parties that our tax and benefit system should recognise the needs of families with children and should differentiate between such families and those without responsibility for children".
That point was emphasised in the Green Paper on the reform of social security in 1985 which underlined that argument. It is right that families with children, whatever their income level, should receive some recognition for the additional costs of bringing up children, and the tax and benefit system should allow for a general redistribution of resources from those without children to those who have a responsibility for caring for them.
There has been a dramatic change since those thoughts in the mid-1980s. They were best summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in a pamphlet, which has already been referred to, entitled Rewards of Parenthood? which was published only last week. Referring to what has happened it states:
"Child tax allowances have been withdrawn: tax thresholds in real terms have fallen sharply: families now pay tax at below Income Support levels: national insurance contributions have risen: parents who both work are taxed less than when one stays at home while the children are young: and personal cash allowances climb while the only tax recognition of the costs of dependent children—tax-free Child Benefit—is frozen, so that the effective discrimination against the family with dependent children becomes worse each time personal cash allowances are raised …
All this has caused a sideways shift of net income from households with dependent children to the single, to the childless, to families whose children have become independent. The plain fact is that families with dependent children have gained less from our policies than the childless".
Despite all the protestations in the mid-1980s in favour of the uprating of child benefit, since 1987 there has been a change of heart by the Government. The basic reason for that is the cost of child benefit, which is now £4-5 billion. The Government have given two reasons for their failure to uprate child benefit. Mr. John Moore, speaking in another place, said that most of the money would go to better off families including the very wealthiest. He said that the poorest, that is those on income support, would gain nothing at all from the child benefit increase and neither would those who would be claiming family credit.
I deal, first, with the point that child benefit is wasted on the better off. Perhaps one fifth of child benefit goes to better off households. The argument is that the better off do not need an increase in their disposable income which they will receive from an increase in child benefit. We recently heard that argument in a different context and we have heard the Government's answer. On the whole, the better off have done very well out of the poll tax. However,
600
the Government have very quickly pointed out that the better off pay a lot more in terms of taxes so they are not better off as a result of the poll tax. Surely the same argument applies to child benefit. We know that the better off have gained an increase in disposable income from the poll tax and the Government find that acceptable for the reasons I have cited. Equally, the better off with children will receive an increase in disposable income if child benefit were to be increased, which this amendment requires. Surely the Government's argument as regards the poll tax and the better off applies equally as regards an increase in child benefit.
Secondly, it is said that those on income support and family credit do not gain through an increase in child benefit as the increase is taken into account in benefit levels. We know that the take up of family credit is of the order of only 40 or 50 per cent. depending on the basis of the calculation. Therefore it is not true that all those eligible for family credit do not gain. Also, there is a complicated relationship between income support and child benefit and other benefits relating to what has been called the poverty and unemployment traps. That was summed up extremely well in Research Note No. 484 of the House of Commons Library Research Division, which points out that:
"Abolishing child benefit would appear to increase the breadth, but not the depth, of the poverty trap and to increase the unemployment trap".
It is clear that the freezing of child benefit would tend to have the same effect, although at a slower speed, as the abolition of child benefit.
The central point is that the freeze in child benefit has saved of the order of £250 million while the increase in the means tested benefits which the Government pray in aid will cost of the order of £70 million. That point was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in the pamphlet when he said:
"The extra Family Credit for poor families with dependent children (and the extra for single parents) is being provided not by the population at large but by other parents through savings on Child Benefit".
The Government say endlessly that social security benefits should be targeted. We know that child benefit is targeted. It is targeted on children and has a take up rate of 98 per cent. It is our most effective benefit to help those on low incomes who are just above the family credit and income support levels and of course the single parent families. It recognises the extra costs borne by those with children and, above all, it recognises the importance of the family as a social unit.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: On these Benches we support this amendment. I know that the Minister will tell us that the Government want the money to be targeted on those who are worst off. We have heard that so of ten and it will be very disappointing if we do not hear him say it again today. I want to make the point that, although I agree that there are times when that argument applies, there are times when it does not. There is no need to be dogmatic in supporting the principle of targeting or the principle of universality. It is horses for courses. Some benefits are appropriate

601
for targeting and others are appropriate for universality. I should like to make the case very briefly that child benefit is supremely a benefit which is not suitable for targeting but is suitable for universality.
I believe that I can say that with even more confidence and more appropriately than the previous two speakers because it is crystal clear to any single person who has not had children that that person is a great deal better off than colleagues doing the same work receiving the same salary but trying to bring up children. The case for redistribution between a single person with no dependents and a married person or a single parent with children is surely unanswerable. This is a case for universality and no1 for targeting.
The Government's argument is that the benefit goes to the very well off. That depends upon how one defines "very well off". However, a great deal goes to that large band of people on middle incomes who, it is true, are above the poverty level but are struggling to maintain reasonable standards and a reasonable, decent home. The child benefit is a considerable advantage if that is so. I believe—and one cannot prove this—that that additional money, normally in the hands of the mother, can do a great deal to oil the wheels for families which are stretched for money and do not know where to look to meet the demands being made upon them.
Child benefit has the enormous advantage that it does not increase the poverty trap. Because it is not a tax benefit it does not mean that when a person obtains a job or is promoted he does not gain considerably because he loses out through his benefit, which is the case with many other benefits. That is a great advantage. On these Benches we believe that there is a very strong case for some kind of basic income which should be free of all statutory taxation. Child benefit is a very good example of that principle. For no other reason that is a strong case for maintaining it and I hope that the Minister will not produce the same old arguments and opposition.
Lord Stallard: I too support this amendment. It is useful to go back to how it started. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has given me that opportunity by talking about the difference between those with children and those without them. This benefit was introduced in place of a married man's tax allowance. It was never introduced as a social handolt but was introduced to make a distinction and equity between those who had children and those who did not. It was a deliberate tax policy to produce that kind of equity.
We must remember that because the benefit is discussed as some sort of social security handout. It is essential to remember that it started as a definite part of our fiscal policy to try to create some equity between those with and those without children. It was paid to the mother. There would be an outcry if, for instance, it were suggested that the married man's allowance—there are other examples—be frozen because it was paid to all people whether or not they needed it, or because some people were receiving above average income and some were not.
602
That would be ridiculous, yet we gladly put forward the same argument with regard to child benefit. It does not stand up. I should like the Minister to reply to the original perspective of child benefit: that it was introduced in order to create some equity between the two types of tax benefit.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Nobody disputes that child benefit has been a useful part of our social security system. The question that this amendment poses is whether priority be given to increasing it in line with inflation over the many other directions in which that money could usefully be spent.
If he will allow me to say so, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in moving the amendment, rather obscured counsel when he said that the proposal did not cost anything because it was proposed simply to adjust to the level of inflation. As I understand it, to adopt what is proposed in the amendment would cost £250 million per year. That money, if spent in that direction, would not be available for the other good causes for which many noble Lords plead—and rightly plead—from time to time. The question therefore is not as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, appears to think. The question is whether it is right to apply £250 million a year to this particular benefit in preference to the other claims which are made and with which your Lordships are only too familiar.
Child benefit has the disadvantage that it is paid regardless of means. There is no doubt that if we were to adopt the amendment a large part of the £250 million extra would go to people who in no sense need it. of course they should like to have it; of course people would like to be paid to help with their family, but around one-fifth of the recipients are not in need. On the other hand, if we were to accept the amendment it would not benefit the people at the bottom of the scale.
Lord Carter: Perhaps I may intervene. Before the noble Lord leaves the point regarding the better off, will he deal with the point I made, that the Government felt that it was acceptable for the people who were better off to gain from the poll tax because they paid more taxes. Exactly the same argument applies to child benefit.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: That does not apply at all. On the one hand the noble Lord is talking of a tax. We are here speaking of a payment from the Exchequer to the individual, and there is all the difference in the world. I see both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, are seeking to intervene, but I shall finish my sentence before leaving it to them to decide whether chivalry demands that the noble Baroness should speak first.
There is all the difference in the world between paying a social benefit raised from taxation to those who do not need it, and adjusting the system of taxation in one respect only as against many other respects in a way which may be said to benefit one particular section of society.
I shall happily give way if your Lordships will settle who wishes to speak next.
Baroness Seear: Does the noble Lord agree that income tax relief for those in the 40 per cent. tax band also benefits those who are particularly well off, and that a reduction of that benefit to 25 per cent. would more than meet the uprating of the child benefit?
Baroness Phillips: Perhaps I could—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot carry a list of interventions in my mind. I hope I shall be allowed to reply to the noble Baroness. There is all the difference in the world between reducing the burden of taxation and making a grant. I do not want to weary the Committee by widening the debate, but the levels of taxation imposed—particularly the higher levels—have a considerable impact on the growth of the economy, the development of productivity and the stimulus to effort. With great respect to the noble Baroness, therefore, it is utterly irrelevant to compare making a social security payment to the better off with any reduction which can be made in lowering the level of taxation. Experience over the past few years has shown that that has greatly mitigated the working of our economy.
We therefore come back to the question posed by the amendment whether it is right to spend £250 million per year on increasing child benefit regardless of the fact—as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said—that it is not targeted; regardless of the fact that perhaps one fifth of it goes to people who are in no sense in need; and, as I was about to observe when I was interrupted, the perhaps even more important feature that it would not benefit the poorest people involved. If child benefit is increased, that amount is then deducted from income support and family benefit, which is the benefit paid to the poorest.
What is proposed therefore is to increase a benefit—many people no doubt find it useful—which will help a limited number of people who do not need it in any sense and which will confer no benefit on the poorest. If we are concerned with social security administration, as some of us have been concerned for many years, the important factor in any such proposal is whether we are to benefit those most in need of the benefit. The brutal fact remains that this amendment, if carried, would not do that. There is also the factor that it is a large amount which might otherwise be favourably spent elsewhere.
I should like to remind the Committee, because it is very relevant in this context, of words spoken by the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan in his farewell speech, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, at the beginning of his book, The Labour Government 1964–1970:
"I would describe the central problem falling upon representative government in the western world as how to persuade the people to forgo immediate satisfactions in order to build up the economic resources of the country".
Those are wise words spoken in his final speech by a great man whom a great many of us remember, quoted by a former Prime Minister from the Party opposite, and they are true. It is easy to say that it is a good thing to increase various benefits, including
604
child benefit. of course that would give some pleasure and do some good, but if we are to work an effective social security system which takes care of need without crippling the development of the economy upon which that social security system depends for its well being, we must take a severe view; we must take a strict view. That view suggests that if there is £250 million more to spend, it should not be spent in increasing a benefit which helps some of the rich but gives nothing at all to the very poor.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord referred to my reference to the relief for 40 per cent. income taxpayers. He must agree that that relief gives additional spending power to people in the better off sections of the community, otherwise they would not be paying 40 per cent., and the Exchequer is the poorer because those people receive it. That means that it is not irrelevant to the argument.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not wish to contradict the noble Baroness and I am sure that it is hopeless to do so, but there is all the difference in the world between making social security payments to people from public funds and deciding to take less from their earnings by way of taxation. If the noble Baroness cannot see that I can only comment that she obviously fails to understand the effect of taxation, particularly of high taxation, on diminishing the growth of the economy, the incentive to work, to undertake enterprise and to take risks. If that is so, we must agree profoundly to differ. Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to say that if that is the view of the Liberal Party it is no doubt one of the explanations for its state today.
Baroness Seear: I cannot accept that patronising reply from the noble Lord. I fully understand the effect of high taxation on the development of the economy. What we are discussing here is not giving a specific benefit, a generous benefit, to the better off That is an entirely different matter from increasing taxation. I have no desire to see taxation increased. I have every desire not to see benefits of that order given to people who most emphatically do not need them.
Lord Jay: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not notice that one of his arguments is in fact in favour of the amendment. Several times he argued that the great advantage of reductions in taxation is that they give incentive to the worker because he can earn more by having an increase in his spendable income. That is precisely one of the merits of child benefit. It is a social payment such that if your wage or salary is increased you do not lose social benefit. That is an extremely powerful argument in regard to just the incentive to which the noble Lord referred. That would appear to be one of the major elements in this argument.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Does the noble Lord not recognise that there is obviously some force in what he said? One has a much better incentive by reducing the tax that the person concerned pays.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I must begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. With the best will in the world I failed to arrive here for the beginning of the debate on this amendment.
I should like to take a slightly different line from that taken by other speakers. I believe that over the years we have got ourselves into a confusion about child benefit. My mind goes back to the Treasury in 1970 to 1974 when my noble friend Lord Cockfield—I am delighted to see him in his place—invented for us the tax credit scheme. We quickly came to the conclusion that if it were to be introduced it should be in stages and that much the easiest first stage would be to introduce a child tax credit in order to make sense of what then existed—a thoroughly illogical and undesirable combination of child tax allowances and family allowances. A great deal of the work was done under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Barber, who was then Chancellor, so that the incoming Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 was able to introduce what they chose to call child benefit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the very good point that, because it replaced child tax allowances, this benefit was to be regarded as part of the process of achieving horizontal equity—a perfectly horrible economists' phrase—between different categories of taxpayer. It cannot be gainsaid that families at almost any level of income who bear the responsibilities of bringing up children will have heavier commitments than those who do not. Certainly there is not the slightest doubt that at the outset all major parties recognised that child benefit had that considerable purpose behind it; namely, that it perpetuated a system of horizontal equity between families with and families without children.
It was an enormous improvement on what went before because it went to families who were below the tax threshold and who could benefit only in part or not at all from the child tax allowances. It went to them whether or not they were in work. Therefore, it was a considerable easing of the disincentive to take work, if one was out of work, and it represented immediate cash.
The logic of the case—if noble Lords care to look back over the history of the matter they will see that this was argued—was that the benefit should, like the tax allowance, appear in the breadwinner's pay packet. However, I do not need to remind the Committee, and perhaps the noble Baroness less than most, that the argument for making sure that the element of the family allowance went to the mother in cash over the post office counter was lobbied with great passion and force and the government of the day felt obliged to abandon any suggestion that part of the child tax credit or child benefit should appear in the worker's pay packet.
In terms of incentive and of reward for work, to have retained that characteristic of the old child tax allowance would have had considerable advantage in regard to incentive and all the other important characteristics to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred. However, it was not to be. It proved to be politically untenable. Therefore, faute
606
de mieux, the child benefit rapidly acquired the characteristic not of a child tax credit, which is what it started as and what in some respects it still is, but of a benefit like any other social security benefit. Naturally that has given rise to all the arguments that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and others have deployed in asking where is the sense of paying benefits to families who manifestly are not in need.
Perhaps I may take issue with my noble friend on one point. He stated that child benefit confers no advantage on the really poor. That would be true if the take-up of the means-tested benefits was anything approaching 100 per cent. It is certainly better than the old family income supplement, but nobody seeks to pretend that the family credit, or the one-parent family benefit, reaches anything like 100 per cent. of the families who are eligible. The advantage of child benefit, however, is that at least it goes automatically to all families.
I come back to the point I made earlier. I believe that we have all got ourselves into confusion. We have lost sight of the point about horizontal equity.
Baroness Seear: I mentioned the point.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Baroness says that she mentioned the point and I have acknowledged that. The arguments for index linking or regularly increasing child benefit have perhaps taken far more into account that this is a benefit akin to pensions, invalidity benefit or all the other social security benefits.
I believe that this Government, or any other, will have to face up to the problem of whether we are to treat child benefit as essentially a benefit which should be phased out or phased down in favour of selective benefits for families on very low incomes. The absolute logical concomitant of that must be the reintroduction of child tax allowances. I do not shy away from that. I believe that that is now possible with the increasing sophistication of computerisation at the Inland Revenue and the arrangements of the great majority of employers for paying wages and salaries; the growing practice of wage payments monthly rather than weekly; the growing practice of payment by bank credit and the increasing use of information technology.
I believe that some of the arguments advanced 10 or 15 years ago that the system of tax allowances had to be extremely simple no longer apply. There were only the three broad categories—LHT: the lower rate, higher rate and a third category. It is now, or will be, open to future Chancellors of the Exchequer to have a more tailored system of taxation which can take account of such matters and, if thought appropriate, introduce a child tax allowance; and then follow through all the powerful arguments which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has deployed about the automatic indexing of child benefit. At the same time it should be possible to ensure that the take-up of some of the means-tested benefits is higher if only by involving employers.
I now turn to the question of family credit. When first mooted in the Green Paper which heralded social security reform it was to be paid to the

607
breadwinner in the wage packet. That attracted me enormously: there was an incentive for every employer to see that employees entitled to the benefit received it. It meant a larger sum of money in the pay packet.
I say in sadness that the feminist lobby insisted that, notwithstanding the fact that the child benefit was already going to the mother, so should the family credit, at least temporarily. I have a letter on my files from Sir Norman Fowler. At that time I had left the Government: I challenged him on the matter. He said that we would have to start by paying the credit in cash to the mother but that did not rule out the possibility at some future stage, and as part of a wider reform, of it going to the breadwinner in the pay packet.
Therefore, there is a combination of measures that could be undertaken to make sense of a system of child support. It would be a combination of tax allowances, a general cash allowance and a more effective and selective allowance for the very poor. Those measures would represent a considerable improvement on what we now have.
Where does all this leave us when considering the amendment? It cannot be right for the Committee to accept an amendment of this kind, carrying implications of immediate expenditure, which was tabled on Friday. No one who had not had his attention specifically drawn to it over the weekend would know of its appearance on the Marshalled List today.
Furthermore, Members of the Committee such as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who argue that the child benefit still retains some of the characteristics of a child tax allowance, one of its purposes being to maintain horizontal equity, will know perfectly well that if there were a child tax allowance we would not be allowed to debate it let alone to table an amendment. Certainly we would have no power to amend the Finance Bill.
In those circumstances it cannot be right for the Committee to pass this amendment. However, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, can take some comfort from having given the Committee the opportunity to look again at what is now a somewhat tangled skein of support for families. If he intends to put this matter to the decision of the Committee I make it perfectly clear that I shall support the Government in resisting the amendment.
Lord Seebohm: I am sorry that the noble Lord was not here when I spoke. I ask him a direct question. If the noble Lord had not preferred child benefit and had left it as a tax allowance, would he be reducing that benefit now until it withers away?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have wearied the Committee at some length but perhaps I may answer that. I have consistently argued, both in and out of government, with successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, that the levels of child benefit should be considered at the same time and in the same context as the levels of tax allowance. Had that been done and the measure had retained more of the characteristic of a child tax allowance, we might have found ourselves in a rather happier position.
608
Because it is a social security payment paid in cash across the counter of a post office and because it has been increasingly dealt with in social security legislation, it has progressively lost that character. Therefore, I believe the noble Lord's question is a little hypothetical. We are dealing with what the provision is now. I have argued a number of steps which might usefully be taken and which could get us out of a mess.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: For the reasons already given by my noble friend I also oppose this amendment. I did not know about it until I reached the House shortly before the debate started. I find the amendment unacceptable. The strength and validity of our social security system is dependent on inflation not reducing the value of benefits.
The amendment will be automatically inflationary for two reasons. The first is that the Secretary of State will be required in a year's time, if not before, to increase the amount of benefit whatever view the Chancellor of the Exchequer may take about the threat of inflation. That is a wrong principle to put on the statute book. The second reason is one which I mentioned in a similar context last week and the week before. Government expenditure will be increased by £250 million. Although that may be only a marginal addition to inflation it is not to be ignored. The very people whom the social security system is intended to benefit will suffer if we allow public expenditure to continue to increase indefinitely. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Stallard: When the noble Lord says that the amendment would cost £250 million drawn from social security, does the noble Lord not agree that that sum would have been paid as tax allowances? Had we left the tax allowance with the married man with children, has the noble Lord calculated how much that would have cost? Has he also deducted it from the £250 million which he alleges would have to be spent?
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has already answered that question and he will support me further if he wishes to do so. We are here dealing with a separate financial issue from that of tax allowances.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My noble friend Lord Henley is in charge of this Bill for the Government but for reasons which I hope will shortly become apparent it seemed appropriate that I should deal with this first amendment.
Almost exactly 11 months ago I stood at this Dispatch Box and on behalf of the Government put the case against an amendment which provided for the annual uprating of child benefit. But the Committee divided, the amendment was agreed to and another place was asked to think again.
Another place did think again and almost exactly 10 months ago I stood at this Dispatch Box once more and informed your Lordships that another place had disagreed to the amendment for reasons

609
of financial privilege. I therefore asked the House not to look into the question but to refrain from insisting on the amendment. To that your Lordships agreed.
Here we are again. For behind this somewhat technical-looking wording one might be forgiven for not readily grasping that the effect of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to uprate child benefit in all future years by at least the level of general price increases without having regard to all the circumstances, as he is at present required to do under the law as it stands.
I make it absolutely clear that I do not—I repeat—do not deny the right of the Committee to make this amendment if that is its wish. It would be up to another place to assert its financial privilege if it wished to do so. I suppose that, in that event, in about a month's time, I should be at the Dispatch Box arguing again that we should recognise the financial privilege of another place. At this moment I simply ask the Committee to consider whether it is sensible or necessary to risk going round that course again.
I recognise the sincere feelings expressed on the matter not least by the two noble Lords and by the noble Baroness whose names are attached to the amendment. From this side of the Committee perhaps I may briefly put a few points against the amendment which I do not believe have emerged from the speeches of those who support it.
Resources are finite and we have a duty to spend as carefully as we can. This of ten involves difficult judgments about the needs of different groups of people and who ought and who ought not to have the prior claim to additional resources which are available. This year we are spending more than £55 billion on social security—more than £1 billion a week—but even that unprecedented sum must be directed to where it is most needed. I reflected as I listened to the interesting intervention of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that the need to leave the way open for making difficult judgments was undoubtedly in the mind of the Government of noble Lords opposite when the Child Benefit Bill was introduced 15 years ago. That Bill required child benefit to be reviewed annually but not to be indexed annually. The law has remained exactly the same under Labour and Conservative governments ever since child benefit was introduced.
But this amendment, by committing available resources from the outset, would effectively limit the scope for putting money where it would do most good—that is, in the hands of those who most need it. The Secretary of State, when reviewing child benefit is required under the Act to consider all the circumstances, which necessarily include whether there are other groups of people whose needs should be given greater priority; groups such as less well off families, pensioners, disabled people and those who care for them so devotedly. Under this amendment, however, the Secretary of State would have to give an automatic increase to child benefit, which from this April would have worked out at 55p per week per child, regardless of the fact that this would not help the least well off families—those on family credit and income support—because those benefits
610
are adjusted to take account of changes in child benefit; and regardless of the fact, which was brought out clearly by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that, among the families who would gain more than £1 billion goes to 1¾ million families with incomes of more than £20, 000 a year. As my noble friend indicated in his intervention, that is hardly the most effective way to spend £250 million.
In contrast, the policies which we have tried to follow have directed extra help over and above normal upratings to families with children through their income-related benefits—extra help which since 1988 has amounted to more than £350 million a year in real terms.
Lord Carter: Does the noble Lord agree with the words of his noble friend Lord Joseph on that very point? In a pamphlet published last week he stated:
"The extra family credit for poor families with dependent children and the extra for single parents is being provided not by the population at large but by other parents through savings on child benefit".
Does the noble Lord agree with those words?
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, the noble Lord will find that about 80 per cent. Of families with children are taxpayers. Tax has to contribute to child benefit. It is impossible, if that is what the noble Lord is putting to me, to consider child benefit in isolation from other benefits. We have tried tenaciously and honestly to achieve a balance by putting money where there is greatest need.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, drew attention to the position of those who are, to quote the noble Lord's words, "better off", or, as I think both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, just above benefit level. However, I did not hear them mention gains in family income from increased earnings, lower taxation and higher personal allowances. During the lifetime of this Government real take-home pay for a married man on average earnings but with two children has increased by 34 per cent. compared with just 0.6 per cent. under the previous Labour Government.
Despite those considerations, this amendment seeks mandatory across-the-board increases in child benefit. My noble friend Lord Renton felt that this was public expenditure which at the present time would not be wise and indeed could be inflationary. Our policies, by contrast, have been designed to achieve a balance between income related and universal benefits by facing up to the difficult decisions of where best to direct available resources. Perhaps I may end my remarks on the substance of the case by giving one example. We have tried to put the available resources where they will do most good. It is impossible to conceive of an affordable level of child benefit which could possibly provide the level of help offered by family credit, paid incidentally to the mother, with more than 40 per cent. Of family credit recipients getting £30 a week or more and payments of £40 or £50 by no means uncommon.
I am not arguing against the right of noble Lords to put down amendments which are within the relevance of the Bill, although I must say that this

611
amendment, which I at any rate only saw printed on Friday, is stretching the good nature of the Committee a good deal. But we should hesitate before using this Bill as an opportunity to cover ground which was covered only 10 months ago and where another place asserted its financial privilege. I therefore hope that the noble Lord who moved the amendment will not press it.
Lord Seebohm: I get awfully tired of a long-playing record which is as scratched as the one I have heard today. None of the arguments is new and half of them are fallacious. We are not asking for any increase in the proportion of child benefit to GNP. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke as if we were seeking to increase only one side of the expenditure and were not looking at the increase on the other side. I do not propose to continue arguing about it. We have had it over and over again. I am completely unconvinced. I am sorry that the noble Lord the Leader of the House takes the view that he does. I sympathise in many ways. I know that he has a difficult task and that he will have a very difficult one if I divide the Committe on the amendment.
I do not propose to divide the Committee. However, I hope that the Government realise that the whole swing of the country is against them on this matter. It is no good pretending that it is not. Even members of their own party are speaking very loud and clear about this, as two did last week. I shall not leave the matter alone. I shall have to think of what steps I should take next but I do not propose today to divide the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Attendance allowance for the terminally ill]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert:
("() the claim shall be treated as having been made three months before it was actually made; ").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which deals with the difficult and sensitive matter of the time limits for application for attendance allowance for the terminally ill. The amendment attempts to give a time limit of three months in which to make a claim under the terminally ill provisions. Within that period, benefit can be backdated to the first day on which the person satisfied the test of terminal illness. That is to acknowledge that the terminally ill provisions for attendance allowance represent virtually a new benefit. A person qualifies from the first day he counts as terminally ill. As such it is legitimate to treat it differently from ordinary attendance allowance, where the qualifying period theoretically gives time to adjust to disability, discover benefit entitlements and make claims.
Currently attendance allowance can be awarded only from the pay day—usually a Monday—on or following the day the claim is received in the department's office. Where life expectancy is so
612
short, as with the terminally ill, missing out on a week's benefit is more crucial than in the ordinary attendance allowance case. It certainly means that the terminally ill will miss out on a far greater proportion of the total attendance allowance payable to a person who is not terminally ill.
This is a difficult matter. On balance we consider that a time limit of three months should be introduced immediately for those claiming attendance allowance under the terminally ill provisions. This is to align fresh claims under the terminal illness provisions with the normal three-month time limit for requesting reviews of existing awards. We believe that the more difficult position of those who have recently been diagnosed as terminally ill warrants particular sensitivity and consideration. As I said, it is a sensitive matter. The Government have tried hard to get the matter right and we give them credit for that fact. However, we believe that the six-month requirement does not completely meet the needs of these people and that a change to the three-month period would improve the situation. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I rise briefly to express my support for the amendment. I am sure we all realise that this is a very sensitive matter. In many cases the person concerned is dead before he or she has reached the stage of qualifying under the provisions of the Act. What is proposed would ease that most difficult position. It would not cost a great deal of money.
Lord Henley: I thank the noble Lord for giving the Government credit for introducing Clause 1. I should also like to thank him and the noble Baroness for putting down this amendment in such good time.
Lord Carter: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Before we hear too much about this aspect, will he agree that on Friday he tabled an amendment to Clause 3 for a reduction in the earnings allowance? Is he suggesting that we should not also discuss that amendment?
Lord Henley: No. When we reach Clause 3, I shall speak to it briefly. However, I can tell the noble Lord that it is a very minor technical amendment.
Lord Carter: It was put down on Friday!
Lord Henley: I accept the fact that it was put down on Friday. However, all the other government amendments were put down in good time. I just thought that I should make that point about the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Stallard: Before the noble Lord leaves the point, is he aware that these amendments were available on the 17th? I saw some of them actually dated the 17th. Moreover, I am sure that he must have seen them.
Lord Henley: The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord was put down in very good time. I cannot remember the exact date, but perhaps the

613
noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be able to say. In any event, I think that it was put down before the 17th.
As I said on Second Reading, Clause 1 fulfils the commitment announced by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale during the passage of last year's Bill. Several noble Lords, my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk in particular, pressed long and hard for this provision to be introduced last year. Since then we have consulted widely among organisations and individuals directly involved, all of whom welcome these proposals. We have found their comments to be very helpful and constructive. One of the major concerns expressed was that claimants should not have to wait as long as is normally the case for their claims to be decided. In recognition of this concern, the need for a medical assessment of their attendance needs will generally be replaced by a factual report from the claimant's own doctor sent with the claim, and all claims made under the special rules for terminal illness will be put on fast track. The aim is to clear them within about two weeks of receipt.
The removal of the qualifying period for those who are terminally ill will help 58, 000 people at a cost of about £20 million in 1991 rising to £35 million in 1992-1993. If we were to accept the amendment we would be faced with considerable further costs because attendance allowance would be payable for a period of three months before the date on which a claim for it was made. This would be contrary to the basic premise on which the scheme operates—that claims cannot be backdated. There is good reason for this. It would make it unreasonably difficult for doctors charged with assessing the disabled person's attendance needs to do so for periods long past. That said, we are retaining the provisions in regulations which allow a claim for income support to be treated as a claim for attendance allowance if they contain a clear and unequivocal statement of the disabled person's attendance needs.
I appreciate the point being made by the noble Lord in putting forward the amendment—that there may well be a period of denial immediately following diagnosis of terminal illness, during which the terminally ill person, and his family, has difficulty in coming to terms with the diagnosis and will possibly refrain from claiming under the provisions of Clause 1. Nonetheless, I believe that backdating would be difficult to operate in practice—from the administration angle as well as the medical adjudication point of view—and could only lead to delays in processing claims.
Abolition of the six months' qualifying period for terminally ill people coupled, as the noble Lord will know, with our proposals to reduce it to three months for the generality of claims for the new disability allowance (as announced on page 29 of the White Paper) represent real, worthwhile and practical steps to accelerate help to disabled people faced with extra costs. I think that it would be wrong to encumber those arrangements with additional flourishes which could only slow down the adjudication process and delay settlement of claims.
The noble Lord said that his amendment was a probing one. I hope that I have been able to clarify
614
most of the points he raised and that he will, therefore, feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: I am most grateful to the Minister. I said on Second Reading that I thought the Government would have a problem with the period of three months for mobility allowance and the six-month period for the terminally ill. However, it is a technical point and I shall read with care what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 25, leave out from ("and") to ("within") in line 27 and insert ("there is a significant risk that his death in consequence of that disease may occur".).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is based on the same subject but it approaches it from a different angle. In moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 4 with which it is grouped and which contains almost the same wording.
Lord Kilmarnock: I appreciate that the wording of the two amendments is practically identical. However, if the noble Lord will permit me, I should like to speak to my amendment as there is a slight nuance of difference.
Lord Carter: I am happy to agree to the noble Lord's request. The definition of terminally ill as someone who is suffering from a progressive disease in consequence of which death,
"can reasonably be expected within 6 months",
has caused a good deal of concern among those involved with the care of the terminally ill. The point of concern is not on the technical point of claiming for attendance allowance; it is based on the definition which is used.
The object of the amendment is to get away from the stark prognosis that death can be expected within six months. It would have a similar effect to that of an amendment which was debated in Committee in another place. On that amendment the Minister said:
"I shall certainly take it away and look at it very carefully to see whether we can respond". [official Report, Commons, Standing Committee G, 1/2/90; Col. 36.]
As I said when moving the previous amendment, this is a sensitive and delicate matter. It is a very difficult decision for the carers of the terminally ill to make. It is difficult for them to apply for the attendance allowance. Moreover, it is especially difficult for those who suffer from AIDS. The Terrence Higgins Trust has expressed concern in this respect. I hope that the Minister can offer both an explanation and a reassurance on the matter and tell the Committee whether the commitment to respond, which was given in another place, has been fulfilled. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak now to Amendment No. 4 which has been grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It is indeed almost identical in its wording to

615
Amendment No. 3, which was also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I discovered that fact only on Friday afternoon. We seem to be getting into trouble about Fridays. At that time it was too late to contact anyone and therefore I left my amendment to stand. However, as I said, there is a nuance of difference in that mine is slightly tighter and it is also a peg upon which to hang some additional arguments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, there is much to be welcomed in Clause 1 in that it removes the six-month qualifying period for the terminally ill before they can claim attendance allowance. Thus it should eliminate such very sad cases as those where approval came through after the death of the claimant. It also allows a claim to be made on behalf of a terminally ill person without his or her knowledge or authority. That seems to me to be a welcome concession. On that latter point, can the noble Lord confirm that that concession will extend not only to carers and relatives but also to voluntary organisations, such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, to which mention has already been made, making a claim or acting on behalf of a person suffering from AIDS? I should like clarification on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has made the general case. However, the Bill as worded is in fact a little chilling. The phraseology is that:
"a person is 'terminally ill' at any time if at that time he suffers from a progressive disease and his death as a consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months".
I must confess that I am not too happy with that wording for several reasons. On the grounds of the morale of the patient, doctors may well be unwilling to give so pessimistic a prognosis; alternatively, they may not want to commit themselves to such a prediction on professional grounds in case they were proved wrong, which could result in someone being denied attendance allowance who desperately needed it.
We should also remember that we are not talking in general terms; we are talking in the context of attendance allowance at the higher rate. To qualify for that higher rate allowance the Attendance Allowance Board has to be convinced that 24-hour care is required. That is a big hurdle. It means that the person in question is probably unable to wash or go to the loo without assistance. Someone in such a condition is by definition seriously ill. When combined with the terminal prognosis, life expectancy is clearly severely limited.
It could be persuasively argued that the definition could have dispensed with the survival time. The allowance could then have been based on two main conditions: first, that the patient is not expected to recover; and, secondly, that his or her condition is such as to qualify independently of that for the higher rate of attendance allowance. That would be more humane and hardly more expensive. It might save money overall for reasons that I shall give shortly. However, I recognise that the Government would probably argue that that would open the door to long-term, incurable diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, or to elderly people who have suffered strokes. I am not convinced that a formula could
616
not still be found to exclude long-term conditions. However, in order to avoid the floodgates argument, I have, like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, stuck with the phrase, "within six months", allowing at the same time a little more flexibility to the prognosis.
I speak now in my capacity as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS. That is a disease which, with the present state of knowledge, is terminal, and, as many members of the Committee will know, the multi-system nature of the disease, which can be present in a number of different guises, makes prognosis difficult. The time of survival from contracting full blown AIDS varies widely Consequently, the median is 18 months although some 40 per cent. of sufferers have died within 12 months. In most cases supporting the sufferers in the community is highly desirable both on humane and financial grounds. The cost of a hospital bed for an AIDS patient is well over £1, 000 a week and for a hospice bed about £700 a week, whereas attendance allowance at the higher rate is £37.55 a week.
If all those with AIDS expected to be alive at the end of this year—some 2, 350 according to the Day Report—claim and qualify for a whole year, not just for six months, the cost would be approximately £4.5 million. It is inconceivable that claims would be made and established on that scale, given the varying pattern of episodes and remissions in the disease. I doubt whether the claims would exceed a quarter, and definitely not a half, of that sum. I mention those figures merely to show that a slightly more liberal phraseology in the definition of terminally ill in the Bill would hardly open the floodgates. When compared to hospital and hospice costs, it would probably produce savings in general Government expenditure. It would also be of great benefit to people with AIDS and their carers. I therefore hope that the Government will accept one or the other of these modest amendments.
Lord Stallard: I do not wish to detain the Committee much longer or to indulge in a long debate on clause stand part. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer two questions which arise from the clause. Why has it been necessary to specify renal failure as a special case? There must be many other conditions—I could think of them if I had time—which would be equally open to a similar specification. Renal failure has been specified and that point should be clarified. I am sure that the Minister will be able to answer that question. Secondly, why is there no special appeals procedure included, given that the Attendance Allowance Board will be deciding who is terminally ill and who is not? There is an appeals procedure, but it could be long drawn out. I wonder why there is not a special, speeded-up procedure given all the special circumstances of those sick people. Why could it not be two weeks from the beginning to the end of the procedure, given the urgency of the cases? Perhaps he could answer those two points: why renal failure has been spelt out, and why there is no special appeals procedure in relation to the board's designations.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I hope that I can find the answer to those questions before I reach the end of my speech. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the issue is a sensitive one and that it is difficult to get the matter right. That brings me to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about people not wanting, to make an application. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of subsection (5) which clearly states that it is not merely the dying person who can make an application, but it can also be,
"any other person purporting to act on his behalf, whether or not that other person is acting with his knowledge or authority".
Lord Kilmarnock: I made that point. I congratulated the Government on including that subsection. The query that I then put to the Minister was whether that provision extends beyond carers and relatives to voluntary organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust making a claim on behalf of the patient.
Lord Henley: My right honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Nicholas Scott, said in Committee in another place that we would be publishing a draft upon which people would have every opportunity to comment. We have consulted a wide range of organisations involved in the care of terminally ill people, including Help for Hospices, the Association of Hospice Social Workers, the Sainsbury Foundation, the Marie Curie Cancer Care, the Association of Palliative Care and of course the BMA. We have also consulted individual doctors caring for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves. We have commissioned independent research to test the proposed claim form and leaflet, and after taking account of the comments received, we consulted again before preparing the final printing.
All the organisations we consulted welcomed our proposals. However, that does not answer the point whether, in law, an organisation is a person. I should have thought that a "person" as in subsection (5)(b) could be an organisation. My understanding is that a body is a person.
The amendments relax the test of the likelihood of death within six months from our own definition of "reasonable expectation" to a "significant risk". The amendments would raise serious problems of definition. "Significant risk" represents a subjective test which could be applied much more widely than is intended by the provision. The risk of dying within six months must be greater for someone who has a terminal illness than for others who have a progressive disease, and "significant" could be seen to add little to the degree of risk. The term "can reasonably be expected" was chosen carefully. I agree with the Committee that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line. We felt that "can reasonably be expected" would be less likely to lead to questions of degree.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked about renal failure and a special appeals procedure. I shall write to him about renal failure, but the noble Lord will remember that when we were discussing the previous amendment moved by his noble friend Lord Carter,
618
I said that we were trying to create a special fast track for those claims to ensure that they were processed much quicker than others. I hope that will go some way towards meeting his point of asking for a special appeals procedure.
I hope that having made those points about "significant risk", and expressed our feeling that the definition is slightly too wide, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. We have had a useful if short debate. It is a difficult matter which is hard to get right. The Minister's explanation will help many people outside this place who are worried about the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert:
("(5A) After section 106 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"107. Where a claim for an attendance allowance has been made under section 35(2B) above and the Attendance Allowance Board are satisfied that an award cannot be made under that subsection but that the person concerned would be entitled to an attendance allowance on other grounds, they may treat the claim as a claim for an attendance allowance on those other grounds.".").
The noble Lord said: This again is a probing amendment to seek clarification. The purpose is to ensure that where a claim for attendance allowance on grounds of terminal illness is turned down, the attendance allowance board can proceed to consider whether the person is entitled to an allowance under the normal rules without requiring a new claim. The main advantage of this is that the allowance could be awarded from the date of the original claim.
As we heard in the debate on the previous amendment, the department is considering the use of a claim form which I believe has been circulated for consultation on it and on the design of the claim form. It covers both types of claim under the normal rules and on grounds of terminal illness. To the extent that a combined form of this kind is to be used if it is designed correctly, the amendment may be unnecessary. However, until we see a final draft of the form, we feel that we should probe to see what are the intentions of the Government.
We are advised that there is one type of case where a combined form would not be possible, where a claim on grounds of terminal illness is made by a third party. That was also discussed on the previous amendment. Clause 1(6)(3) enables such a claim to be made even without the sick person's knowledge or authority. However, that applies only to grounds of terminal illness. A claim on other grounds would have to be made by the claimant himself or herself, perhaps resulting in the loss of attendance allowance for several weeks. The amendment would avoid the need for a new claim in these circumstances.
Clause 1(1)(b) on line 20 of page 1 may answer the point when it states:
"the period specified in a certificate issued by virtue of paragraph (a) above shall be the remainder of the person's life, beginning with that date".
We wish to know whether that will cover the situation if the application is turned down on grounds of terminal illness and whether the same application would stand for the normal attendance allowance. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This seems a sensible proposal. Unless the form is such that the provision can be made without amendment to the Bill, I hope that my noble friend will consider the matter.
Earl Russell: In the absence of my noble friend Lady Seear, I wish to express the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches for the amendment.
Lord Henley: I hope that I can answer briefly. I can assure the noble Lord that this amendment is not necessary. Any claim under the terminally ill provisions will be able to be accepted as a claim under the normal provisions if the terminally ill criteria are not met. In view of that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and thank the noble Lord very much.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 6:
"Page 3, line 5, at end insert:
("(8) In the Social Security (Attendance Allowance) (No. 2) Regulations 1975, regulation 2(1)(c) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the residence test required for attendance allowance. Because it is a non-contributory benefit, some kind of residence test is necessary. There are three conditions, all of which must be satisfied. First, the person must be ordinarily resident in Great Britain. Secondly, he must be present in Great Britain on every day for which the allowance is claimed. Thirdly, he must have been present in Great Britain for at least 26 weeks in the year immmediately preceding the claim, again with exceptions for temporary absence. The amendment is designed to abolish the third condition. There is no question of attempting to abolish the residence test, but the first two conditions are, we feel, sufficient to prevent any abuse by people from abroad who come to Great Britain in order to claim attendance allowance.
We have received a note from the welfare rights unit of the Greater London service of the citizens' advice bureaux. It states:
"while it is entirely reasonable that people in receipt of attendance allowance should be ordinarily resident in this country, there cannot be any acceptable justification for the rule that claimants must have been present in Great Britain for 26 weeks during the year previous to the date of claim … This rule discriminates against people from abroad, no matter how legitimate their presence here may be nor how severe their need. It also discriminates indirectly against black people and other ethnic minorities, who are less likely to be able to meet the present test because of Britain's discriminatory immigration rules.
In the context of Clause 1, which we have been discussing, this condition seems to be particularly inappropriate and to raise a real difficulty.
If somebody who is normally resident in Great Britain becomes terminally ill while working abroad and returns home for what remains of his or her life, presumably it is not seriously suggested that payment of the attendance allowance should be refused on residence grounds. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if the Government will put forward their own. It seems to us to be an obvious anomaly which should be put right in the Bill. This amendment gives the Government a chance to do that. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: There is a strong case to be made for the amendment simply on the grounds of common humanity. Becoming seriously ill is no less disabling, no less worrying, no less frightening if it happens in a strange country where one does not know one's way around. The problem is just as great. The number of people to whom it applies is likely to be small. I cannot believe that the amendment will break the Treasury and I am happy to support it.
Lord Henley: This provision, with the other tests for residence and presence in Great Britain, stands in place of contribution conditions. It is relatively straightforward to fulfil and ensures that the purpose of the benefit—to assist with the costs of long-term disablement in Great Britain—is met.
The particular test which the amendment seeks to remove for all attendance allowance claims is intended to ensure that attendance allowance is only paid to people who have demonstrated a permanent link with this country. We do not think it appropriate that a person who has a home abroad but maintains a residence here and returns to Great Britain for fairly short periods once in a while should be able to claim during those periods. A great deal of work would be involved in handling what would essentially be short term claims.
Nevertheless, I accept that the aim of the amendment is to remove the test for terminally ill people. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled said in another place during the Committee stage that he would look at this provision. He intends to examine the area of non-contributory benefits in general, and I hope that the Committee will accept that it would be right to look at this entitlement condition as part of that consideration. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I repeat the assurance that my right honourable friend has said that he will consider the matter.
Lord Carter: I shall withdraw the amendment. However, before I do so, can the Minister say whether there is any chance that we shall see an amendment at the next stage of the Bill?
Lord Henley: I do not think that I can give the noble Lord that assurance. I can only go so far as to say that my right honourable friend will consider the matter.
Lord Carter: In the light of that answer, we may wish to come back to this at the next stage of the

621
Bill in order to stiffen the Government's resolution in the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
["Mobility allowances: severe mental handicap
.—(1) In section 37A of the principal Act (mobility allowance) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"or is suffering from severe mental handicap and from severe behaviour problems such that he is unable, without physical control by another person, to walk to any intended or required destination while out of doors". (2) In subsection (2) of that section leave out "physical".").
The noble Lord said: I fear that this amendment may take a little longer than the previous few that we have discussed. In speaking to the amendment—which I hasten to add was put down immediately after Second Reading—I recall that when last year's Social Security Bill was under consideration, an amendment was passed here but subsequently rejected in another place. It provided that the mobility allowance should be payable to those suffering from severe mental handicap and severe behaviour problems requiring constant physical control. The amendment that was rejected also applied to the deaf and blind.
Subsequently, the Government performed a U-turn—for which we are grateful—and conceded the allowance to that especially unfortunate group. It proved possible to achieve this by a regulation and the wording of this amendment is based largely on its phraseology.
However, I am advised that for those with whom I am now concerned, an alteration of the substantive law is required, since the condition of these individuals has no known physical cause, and since they may well be capable of walking in the literal sense. The present statutory provision is applicable to an individual who is suffering from physical disablement such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so.
Perhaps I may illustrate the problem by citing a case. It is that of a young man of 19 who, as well as being severely mentally handicapped, is deaf, suffers from asthma and epilepsy, tends to run out into the road and cannot hear anyone calling him back. He of ten needs two people to manage him when he is out of doors and he is likely to sit down and refuse to move or to grab out at passers-by. When his case came before a tribunal he walked 150 yards under his father's control. On that occasion he stumbled twice and although it was accepted that there could well be times when he was less co-operative, it was held that he did not qualify under the wording of the current regulations. I could mention other cases of individuals who are likely to lie down screaming, rush out into the middle of the traffic or attack fellow passengers. However, I do not think I need labour the point further.
MENCAP has carried out a number of studies to calculate how many people would be covered by the amendment. The criteria used in a survey carried out in Wessex for a government White Paper published in 1971 (Cmnd. 4683) made it possible to identify the numbers of those with severe mental handicap and severe behaviour problems who required constant control. Extrapolating the results for the whole country originally produced a figure of 4, 400 people. The figures have been investigated again to make sure that all possible cases are included and account has been taken of two later surveys carried out in 1988 in Gwent and Swansea where the same criteria applied. Those studies, taken together, give a suggested national total of 8, 800 people—a figure larger than the original estimate and almost certainly on the high side. It will include some people who receive a mobility allowance on other grounds. Therefore the starting point of this amendment is that it makes out a case on behalf of a group which, it can now be said with reasonable confidence, totals fewer than 9, 000 people.
Let us look at the Government's calculations. Arguing against last year's amendment, the Government said the figure was not the one we mentioned but 100, 000 people. When the amendment reached another place a week later, the figure had become 125, 000. It transpired that the Government had lumped in the mentally ill, sufferers from Alzheimer's disease and others—anyone near the top of the intellectual functioning scale and of the behaviour, communication and consciousness scales was included—selected for the OPCS survey. I hope I have got those scales right. All that occurred notwithstanding the fact that the amendment has been specifically limited to the mentally handicapped. Further, it became abundantly clear that the criteria used by the OPCS made it impossible to identify the group with which we are concerned—those who cannot walk without physical control by another person.
On 12th October last year at col. 565 of the official Report the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that the OPCS data showed that there were about 140, 000 severely mentally handicapped people and that although the total of those who would have been covered by the amendment was smaller than that figure he did not accept that it would be as small as had been claimed. When this matter was pursued by correspondence, as the Minister will recall, he explained that those who might be in question under the OPCS criteria came to the remarkable figure of 214, 000 adults and 52, 000 children, but that by a process of discounting and trying to limit the calculations to the mentally handicapped, this enormous total had been reduced to 50, 000; that is, 50, 000 severely mentally handicapped people who would gain from any feasible attempt to extend mobility allowance on the basis of the need for accompaniment and control. The Minister emphasised that this figure was an order of magnitude and not a precise estimate.
MENCAP is now arguing an estimate of 8, 800 people while the most recent public position of the Government was a figure of 50, 000 people. That is

623
certainly better than last year's figure of 125, 000 people. I know that the latter figure caused noble Lords opposite some concern when the amendment was being discussed. However, as I ventured to say in a debate on 14th March at col. 1565 of the official Report, the figure must be wrong. There is, I think, general agreement that the number of severely mentally handicapped people is of the order of 160, 000. That is not far off the figure which the Minister himself mentioned. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that nearly one in three have the characteristics covered by this amendment. It simply cannot be so. It is not borne out by anyone who has personal experience of the matter. The Minister passed over my point in silence when he replied to the debate. Somewhat uncharacteristically he did not write to me subsequently. Perhaps he was stuck to know what to say.
I am well aware that the Government have promised a £10 a week mobility component in the new disability allowance promised for 1992. Some of the people I am concerned with would no doubt qualify for that. The cost of giving them the payment could indeed be offset against the cost of the concession for which I am now pleading. However, the full rate of mobility allowance, which I believe is now £26.25, is itself hardly enough to cover the extra costs. The Government must not suppose that the £10 payment would be an adequate substitute for the allowance which these few thousand people need and deserve just as much as the 600, 000 present recipients of the allowance.
The Government can justly claim credit for the scale on which mobility allowance is now paid. The figures have increased enormously during their term of office. This amendment would add a little less than 1.5 per cent. to the total. Incidentally, it would save a good deal of money by doing away with all the appeals in this type of case. In the course of a fairly lengthy campaign involving Members of both Houses and one or two deputations, Ministers have in the past expressed sympathy for what I am now suggesting. I am not at all clear what the Government's objections to this amendment can now be. They can hardly in all conscience stick to the figure of 50, 000 people. Certainly, much of the argument and the figures which were used against us last year have fallen away. On this amendment at any rate we cannot be said to be going over the same ground that was covered a year ago.
Perhaps it is a question of drafting to make sure that the concession is strictly limited to the type of case we have in mind. I claim no pride of authorship in the draft before us and perhaps the Government can improve on our efforts before the later stages of the Bill. As regards the merits of the amendment, I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made the same point on Second Reading as he has made today when he said that these regular social security Bills provided an opportunity of applying the test of which items merited priority over other admirable claims. My submission today is that this proposal passes that test. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This amendment is the second half of unfinished business from an amendment discussed last year. I say to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal in response to what he said on Amendment No. 1 that I make no apologies for bringing back something which has been moved before and to which the Government have said no. That has been done for as long as parliaments have existed. I hope that it will continue to be done for as long parliaments continue to exist. The risk in bringing back business which has been discussed before is the risk of boring the Committee. Noble Lords are entitled to run that risk if they wish but at their own hazard.
The basic point of the amendment is the point made by Mary Holland of MENCAP last year. The law treats equal disabilities differently which is wrong. The amendment is concerned with people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, put it on 14th March—I hope that he will forgive me for quoting him—may at any moment run sideways, backwards or under a bus. If you have the job of caring for someone like that, it does not take you long to start feeling like a First Division goalkeeper. A great many people are not fit enough to sustain it for very long. It is a severe pressure on those responsible.
I understand the point made by the Secretary of State last year that there is considerable difficulty with the assessment. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, whose drafting of the amendment I admire, has addressed that difficulty carefully. I should take a great deal more seriously the points made about the difficulties of assessment if I were happier about the way assessment is conducted at present. I do not think it can be said that the medical assessments, as they are conducted now, work smoothly and satisfactorily.
There was a case reported in my local paper, the Kilburn and Willesden Recorder, of someone exactly like the person in the case described by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, who might run backwards, sideways or under a bus and whose claim the medical assessment tribunal dismissed on the grounds that he was too naughty. That person was suffering from acute autism. The situation seems thoroughly unsatisfactory.
In its review of medical assessment, NACAB has found a good many similar cases. For example, a man with acute heart trouble who could not even get up to make a cup of tea was found ineligible for mobility allowance. He appealed but died before the appeal was heard. There are other cases just as startling. For example, a person who suffered a stroke, drags the left leg, has arthritis in the hips, a trapped sciatic nerve and a heart condition and who is also diabetic had mobility allowance withdrawn following reassessment. There is also the case of someone who had meningitis and a brain haemorrhage, who is paralysed on one side and has epileptic fits and who, although on occasion walking 80 yards, has several times fallen and broken bones in the process. That person's mobility allowance was withdrawn following reassessment.

625
I hope that, when my noble kinsman replies, he can assure me that those assessment procedures will be looked at. I hope that he will not use the integrity of the present assessment procedure as a reason for resisting a sensible amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who moved the amendment with his usual lucidity and clarity. It is worth re minding ourselves again of the figures which he gave the Committee and which the Government have produced over the past year. When we discussed the matter in Committee last year, the Government gave no figures of their own to compare with the lower figure of 4, 000 people and the higher figure of 8, 000 people which those of us who supported the amendment had quoted on the basis of the MENCAP research. Only three weeks later at Report stage, the Government produced the figure of 100, 000 people. We said at the time that we were sure that the Government had it wrong because the OPCS survey did not allow a calculation of the number of people who would be caught by the definition in the amendment. As the noble Lord said, about a week later the figure of 100, 000 had suddenly grown to 125, 000. By the time the noble Lord, Lord Henley, responded to my Starred Question in October, it had grown to 140, 000, but, by December, it had fallen in correspondence to 50, 000.
I must say that playing with numbers will not do. We are dealing with some of the most severely handicapped people in society. We have heard examples of the kind of people who would benefit from the amendment. They create immense and unremitting problems for those who care for them. I must say to the Government, with some sadness, that statistical juggling to meet some self-imposed, departmental ordinance or doctrine is no answer. MENCAP has checked, rechecked and updated its data. I am totally confident that the maximum number of potential beneficiaries is no more than 8, 000 to 9, 000 people, although not all of them will apply. MENCAP has given its evidence to the department which has given no satisfactory response.
The amendment is crystal clear and tightly drawn. It refers to severe mental handicap—not mental illness—and severe behaviour problems which are defined. The cost, even if everyone eligible claimed—and that certainly will not happen—is in the order of £12 million compared with a total cost for mobility allowance of £839 million. That is less than 2 per cent. Accepting the amendment would give great assistance to those few thousand severely handicapped people. We hope and trust that the Committee will recognise the force of the argument and accept the amendment.
Lord Henley: As the Committee will know, since we debated the amendments during the course of last year's Social Security Bill, there have been two significant developments. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, the amendments which we debated included the deaf-blind. Since then we have been
626
able to help that group by extending mobility allowance in the Mobility Allowance (Amendment) Regulations which came into effect on 11th April. The second development has been the statement on our proposals for the future of disability benefits in The Way Ahead which was published last January. They include the incorporation of attendance allowance and mobility allowance as a new benefit—the disability allowance.
The mobility component of the new disability allowance will be at two levels. The upper level will be along the lines of the present mobility allowance and the new lower level will be for people who are not independently mobile. I feel embarrassed about using any figures today after various criticisms have been made of me, but perhaps I should give some figures to keep the noble Lord happy. We estimate, although I should not like to break down the figure, that some 150, 000 people, including a significant number of mentally handicapped people, will receive the new lower level of the mobility component of the disability allowance when it is introduced from April 1992.
I appreciate that the aim of the mover of the amendment is to make mobility allowance and, subsequently, the higher level of the new mobility component, available to a particular group of mentally handicapped people. As has become obvious, there has been considerable discussion about the size of the group. MENCAP has supplied detailed workings, its estimate being 8, 800. However, one should note that that has increased from 4, 400. In other words, it has doubled to 8, 800. Although there might be some criticism of government figures, I believe that MENCAP's increased figure shows the difficulty of identifying the group with which the amendment is concerned.
There have been difficulties about using the findings of the OPCS survey which, while telling us more than we ever knew previously of the practical consequences of disability, do not provide definitive evidence of diagnostic cause. Nevertheless we have some broad indications of the instance of mental handicap. Here I reiterate the figure of 50, 000 which I believe was the last figure that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in answer to his Question in October.
Lord Carter: That figure was in a letter from the department to MENCAP. The last figure that the noble Lord gave was 140, 000.
Lord Henley: It is now 50, 000. Our main concern has been the considerable difficulty of defining the group in legislation. The Committee will accept that it is very important properly to define the group because we are speaking here about government expenditure. To define it in an imprecise manner might lead to much greater expenditure than originally was intended. Because of that we believe that the number of people who would qualify would not be as low as the supporters of this amendment suggest. It would involve substantial additional expenditure over and above the £12 million a year which an extension to 8, 800 people would cost.

627
I should like to apologise profusely to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for not having answered the points that he raised during the debate on the rich and poor in society introduced on 14th March by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. No apology is needed for not answering him on that day, because a great number of points were raised, but I apologise for not having written to him. I hope that I can deal with his point now. In that debate—and I think my noble kinsman Lord Russell quoted him—he described a person who:
"May go sideways, backwards or straight under a bus or he may lie down screaming in the highway and be quite impossible to manage on public transport". [official Report, 14/3/90; col. 1565.]
There are likely to be quite a number of mentally handicapped people who need to be controlled to protect them from possible traffic dangers. The entitlement in such cases would depend on whether or not the medical authorities classified mental handicap of these persons as severe. It is not correct, as the noble Lord said in the course of that debate, that the group that he had in mind are excluded because their condition has no known physical cause. Some of those whom the noble Lord described when he gave examples as those whose walking progress is interrupted by behavioural problems may well qualify under the current rules. The reason that others may not qualify is that it has been held by commissioners and in the courts that a person who can walk but who cannot make purposeful use of this ability unless escorted by another person is not virtually unable to walk.
I have explained the current provisions which enable some people who are mentally handicapped to qualify for the mobility allowance. I have also explained that we have proposals for extending help to others through the new disability allowance and its extra mobility component from April 1992. We are still developing details of the criteria for that new disability allowance. In doing so, we take note of the representations made on behalf of particular groups. We shall also take note of what noble Lords have said in the course of the debate this afternoon.
I also want to touch briefly on the assessment procedure, which was a matter raised by my noble kinsman. We are carefully studying the NACAB report on medical assessment and shall comment on the findings and recommendations in due course. The assessment procedures, however, will be considered in preparation for disability allowance and we shall seek to eliminate both the complexity and the delays.
I do not think that I can give any further commitment at this stage in the light of what I have said about the scope of the disability allowance. Because the new disability allowance is in preparation, I do not believe that we are in a position to accept this amendment. I hope that, bearing that in mind, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: The Minister mentioned extension of the mobility allowance, which we welcome. Perhaps he will tell the Committee—or write to me and put
628
the answer in the Library—the number of those 3, 000 deaf-blind who are likely to benefit from the extension of the allowance?
Lord Henley: I do not know the answer to that question. I gather that last year we were talking about 3, 000 or so. Is the noble Lord asking what has been the level of take-up?
Lord Carter: I am asking about the number of 3, 000. There will, for example, be some of them who are over 65. What is the number of the 3, 000 who are likely to benefit from the extension of the mobility allowance? It is not a figure I have seen anywhere. We should find it helpful to be told.
Lord Henley: If a figure is available I shall make it known to the noble Lord. I shall ensure that a copy is put in the Library and that it is not forgotten as was the response which I owed to the noble Lord, Lord Allen.
Lord Parry: The Government and the Committee will accept that many noble Lords have worked for many years with Mary Holland and have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, speak of ten about the detail of these problems that he faces. We appreciate the Minister's embarrassment just as we appreciate the right to privacy in his reply. However, we are bound to say that the careful research done into these figures from the MENCAP side is much more convincing than what we have been told today or earlier from the Government side. That is said with no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I wish merely to point out that this complicated problem is further complicated by the fact that other initiatives in the field are taking away the support that these physically and mentally handicapped people currently have within institutions such as the specialised schools. The Government propose to put those handicapped pupils back into mainstream education. It was precisely for those reasons that many Members came to the Committee today to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Allen: we hope that he will persist with it.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may briefly reply. I believe that figures lie at the heart of this matter. It is very important when extending a benefit to get it right so that it is clear how many people will be involved. There is considerable disagreement on the figures. Whatever one feels about either the Government's figures or MENCAP's figures, the number is at the heart of the matter. Even MENCAP has had to double its estimate. It is a very difficult job and more work needs to be done on it before we go any further. I have given the Committee assurances about the new mobility component in the disability allowance. I hope that that will be enough to satisfy the Committee at the moment.
Having taken some advice, perhaps I may briefly come back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It will save me having to write a letter to him and put a copy in the Library. The figure that he asked for is in fact 3, 000 and that figure takes into account those over 65.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Perhaps I may begin by thanking the Minister for his apology for not writing to me. Perhaps he could complete it by writing to me on the other point, about the poll tax, which I raised on the same occasion and on which I have heard nothing.
As regards the reply to the amendment, to say that I am disappointed is to put it mildly. However, I am also very surprised. The £10 promised is, for the reasons that I explained—and I shall not go over the ground again—nothing of an answer. The fact that the original calculation was increased as a result of going carefully over the figures and looking at the results of other surveys would, I should have thought, have been a mark of commendation rather than of criticism. I am interested to have confirmation from the noble Lord that the OPCS figures make it completely impossible for them to be used to identify the people about whom we are speaking.
I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the Minister say that he still stuck by the figure of 50, 000. I can hardly credit that. I do not want to repeat my earlier remarks but to suggest that one in three of the severely mentally handicapped people in this country qualify under the kind of criteria that are laid down in this amendment is so ludicrous that it leaves me speechless. It surprises me that over quite a considerable time, in deputations to Ministers and discussions with them, we were led to believe that Ministers sympathised with what we intended to do and that the difficulty was primarily one of drafting to make sure that the provision applied only to those whom we had in mind.
I have no offer this evening on any help with the drafting to improve the amendment. Although I do not like this matter to be decided by people who have not heard the rather pathetic reply of the Government, I feel that I have no option but to test the opinion of the House.
5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 110.

DIVISION No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

David, B.

Airedale, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Annan, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Aylestone, L

Falkland, V.

Birk, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Blackstone, B.

Fitt, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Galpern, L.

Brightman, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Graham of Edmonton. L [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grey, E.

Carter, L.

Hampton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hatch of Lusby. L.

Craigavon, V.

Hayter, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hirshfield, L.

630

Hooson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rea, L.

Hunt, L.

Richard, L.

Jay, L.

Ritchie of Dundee. L.

Jeger, B.

Rochester, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Kearton, L.

Russell, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ryder of Warsaw. B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kirkwood, L.

Seear, B.

Lawrence, L.

Seebohm, L.

Listowel, E.

Serota, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Shackleton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Longford, E.

Shepherd, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stallard, L.

Mais, L.

Stoddart of Swindon. L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mayhew, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mishcon, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Monkswell, L.

Tordoff, L..

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden. B.

Mulley, L.

Underhill, L.

Nathan, L.

Vernon, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Northfield, L.

Walston, L.

Ogmore, L.

White, B.

Parry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Willis, L.

Phillips, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Porritt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Holderness, L.

Allerton, L.

Hood, V.

Annaly, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding. L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Joseph, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Blyth, L.

Layton, L.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brookes, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway. L.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Margadale, L.

Carnock, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Middleton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mountgarret, V.

Donegall, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Munster, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elibank, L.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Orkney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Foley, L.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pennock, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gridley, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reay, L.

Renton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rodney, L.

Henley, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hesketh, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hives, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

631

Selkirk, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Tranmire, L.

Slim, V.

Ullswater, V.

Strange, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Westbury, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sudeley, L.

Wise, L.

Suffield, L.

Wynford, L.

Swansea, L.

Yarborough, E.

Teviot, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.7 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Severe disablement allowance
In Part III of Schedule 4 to the principal Act, for paragraph 2 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"2. Severe disablement allowance (section 36)
The weekly rate specified in section 6(1)(a) of the Pensions Act.".".
The noble Earl said: The purpose of the amendment is to increase the severe disablement allowance to the rate of the basic invalidity benefit; that is, by a rate of £18-70 a week. In trying to justify the lower rate the Government make a distinction between a contributory and non-contributory benefit. However, severe disablement does not cost any the less because the benefit is non-contributory.
A great deal of noise has been made over the past several years about the OPCS surveys and what the Government intend to do for the disabled. A good many of us feel that we have as yet seen very little action as a result of the talk. There is a widespread feeling of considerable disappointment. The main purpose of the amendment is to attempt to deal with that sense of disappointment and in some quarters to ease it. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: On these Benches we are pleased to support the amendment. It is intended to increase the rate of severe disablement allowance to the rate of the invalidity benefit. A severe disablement allowance (SDA) is a basic non-contributory income replacement benefit for people of working age who are incapable of work and who have not paid national insurance contributions which would entitle them to the equivalent of contributory incapacity benefit; namely, invalidity benefit. SDA is paid only at 60 per cent. of the basic rate of invalidity benefit because the Government consider that people who have not made any or the correct number and type of National Insurance contributions should receive less than those who have paid at the full rate.
Many disabled people must claim severe disablement allowance because they have never been able to work. It is inequitable that they should be considered less deserving and receive a lower-rated benefit than other people who may have similar disabilities. We believe that they should not be affected by the type of disability, the way in which it is caused and whether sufficient National Insurance contributions have been paid.
The rate of SDA is lower than the income support personal allowance which is the minimum that the Government consider necessary to live on. Some
632
people can claim means-tested income support to top up their SDA. We argue that it should not be necessary to do so. They should be paid an income replacement and benefit of right at a high enough rate to make it unnecessary for most people to claim means-tested income support as well. We are concerned that people with severe disabilities who are never able to work and therefore make the required National Insurance contributions should not be considered as being less deserving and be treated inequitably by the social security system. The amendment seeks to correct that situation.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment seeks to increase the basic weekly rate of severe disablement allowance to the basic rate of invalidity benefit. Both the benefits are available to people who are long-term sick. People who have been in recent work qualify for invalidity benefit after they have been receiving statutory sick pay or sickness benefit. Severe disablement allowance is aimed at people who do not have the necessary record of National Insurance contributions to take them on to invalidity benefit. In other words, it is a non-contributory benefit.
We are aware of the recommendation made by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its report, Benefits for Disabled People; a Strategy for Change, that the rate of SDA should be raised progressively until it is the same as for invalidity benefit. In framing its recommendation in this way, it was acknowledging that it would be necessary to move by stages to this ideal position.
In Clause 2 of the Bill we are making the first move to bring the weekly entitlement for the respective benefits nearer together. We are doing so by introducing age-related additions to SDA which are set at the same rates as invalidity allowance. The highest rates will go to the SDA recipients who have never been able to work or who have been disabled earlier in life. This is the group whom we identified, from the findings of the OPCS surveys, as having a priority for additional help which becomes available. They may not have had the opportunity to qualify for contributory or occupational benefits or to make savings because of their disability.
To align the basic levels of the contributory and the non-contributory benefits for people who are incapable of work would involve substantial additional expenditure. We estimate that the gross cost would be around £250 million a year. The net cost is also substantial at around £110 million a year. We are already committing a substantial amount of extra money to SDA by bringing in the age-related additions at a cost of £50 million in a full year. It is difficult to find a further £100 millon a year, which is what the new clause would cost when there are many pressing demands on the social security budget as a whole.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, ended by saying that the amendment was achieving a little for this group of people. I believe that what I have said in my response goes a considerable way towards the objectives which I know the noble Earl seeks. Therefore it is a question of balance and I hope that he will agree that the increases to which I have

633
referred are to be welcomed. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply which was not altogether without encouragement. Therefore, I shall not enter at length into a long debate on the uprating statement dealing with the amount of money that the Government have in fact committed to the proposals.
The noble Baroness referred with a certain degree of sympathy to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and to the notion of a benefit increasing by stages. I should find it most helpful if she were able to be a little more forthcoming although I appreciate that there are difficulties in the way of anything too explicit.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Earl provokes me, but it would be difficult for me to go further other than to say that we are agreeable in principle to the particular recommendation of the Committee, as and when practicable. I believe that the measure I have mentioned is a positive first stage in that process.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness warmly for that comment. It goes that crucial bit further than her first reply. It is enough to enable me to withdraw my amendment. I hope that when she and her right honourable friends think about the matter they will find that they can implement that principle sooner rather than later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Severe disablement allowance: age related addition]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 6. at beginning insert:
("() In section 36(4) of the principal Act, for paragraph (c) there shal be substituted the following paragraph—
"(c) he does not satisfy the prescribed conditions as to presence in Great Britain; or".".).
The noble Lord said: I should tell the Minister at the outset that, depending on her answer, I may not be as accommodating as was the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The amendment deals with the excessively harsh residence conditions for those receiving the severe disablement allowance. It harks back to a debate we had earlier today in relation to the residence conditions for the attendance allowance. The requirements for applicants are that Great Britain must be their normal place of residence; they must have been resident in Great Britain for 10 out of 20 years prior to the claim, or for 10 years of their lives if under the age of 20; and they must have been physically present in the country for each of the 196 qualifying days of incapacity.
We believe that to be excessively harsh. I hope that the Minister can explain the reasons for the requirements because they do not tie in with the residence requirements for invalid care allowance, attendance allowance, mobility allowance, housing
634
benefit and income support. No understandable reason has ever been given for the anomaly which appears to exist with the severe disablement allowance. When speaking at the Committee stage in another place, Mr. Nicholas Scott said:
"For perfectly obvious reasons, there are residence and presence conditions for non-contributory benefits".
He went on to admit that the period for qualification is different from the condition for benefits and so there is a lack of harmonisation between the two. He then said:
"I make no commitment to come back at a later stage of the Bill on this issue because the costs will have to be examined very close, as will some points of principle. I certainly give the undertaking that when the Committee stage of the Bill is over, I will have a look at the rationale behind the condition to see whether, so many years later, the difference between the qualifying periods for SDA and other non-contributory benefits can be sustained. I do not think I can go any further today". [official Report, 8/2/90; Standing Committee G, col. 91.]
That was understandable.
The purpose of the amendment is to ascertain whether the department has had an opportunity to consider the rationale behind the conditions and to explain why the residence conditions for the receipt of severe disablement allowance appear to be harsher than those for other non-contributory benefits. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I support the amendment. The condition to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, drew attention is likely to affect more people than it did 20 years ago. Economically we are increasingly living in one world. More members of our population spend a substantial proportion of their lives working outside this country. A case is being brought to the Government's attention in another place showing that a member of the Armed Forces and his family were held to be ineligible because they were stationed overseas in the service of the Crown. That appears to me to be a reductive and absurd condition.
There are many people across the Atlantic and the English Channel who cannot give loyal service to their companies, the Crown, or to any other employer without moving about regularly. If such movement is to carry this kind of penalty, it will be found that mobility of labour, which already causes enough dislocation in people's lives, will be harder to achieve. That would be economically unfortunate. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his reference to the fact that we are all now living in one world is not suggesting or implying by that that everyone in the world should take advantage of the benefit system on offer in this country. I am being flippant.
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that there must be some residential qualifying rules and that is what this amendment is about. As the supporters of this amendment have explained, the effect of this amendment would be to remove the powers to lay down residence conditions for severe disablement. This would remove the current condition that a person must have been resident in Great Britain for 10 of the past 20 years.

635
The current presence conditions are that to qualify for SDA a person must be present in Great Britain. The person must also have been present here for 24 weeks out of the continuous period of 28 weeks for which a person must have been incapable of work before qualifying for SDA. We would have to think about whether these presence conditions could stand on their own if the current residence conditions were removed as this amendment proposes.
The residence condition which would no longer apply is that a person must have been resident in Great Britain for 10 of the preceding 20 years (or10 years since birth in the case of a person under age 20). The removal of this condition would involve considerable additional expenditure. We estimate that at any time there are about 1, 000 people who are unable to qualify for SDA because of this residence condition. The gross cost of paying them SDA would be around £14 million a year.
We are very much aware of the difference in the residence and presence conditions between the benefits which are available for people who are disabled and we shall be considering whether changes should be made. The current residence conditions for SDA are similar to those for non-contributory retirement pension. We are considering whether this link should be sustained as the residence and presence conditions for attendance and mobility allowances are much easier to satisfy. This involves the examination of costs and consideration of points of principle and we have not yet reached any conclusion on this issue as the attendance and mobility allowance conditions need to be considered in the light of the new disability allowance which will incorporate both benefits.
We are also aware of the representations made on behalf of members of service families who have spent several consecutive tours of duty abroad. For most service families the so-called 10-in-20 test will present no difficulties. We are aware, however, that there is a very small number who cannot qualify for SDA because of the test. We have already made special arrangements to help service families to meet the presence conditions. We are looking sympathetically at finding a way of helping them with the residence test, but the extent to which this will be necessary will depend on what conclusion we reach about the residence rule for claimants generally.
In conclusion, I would also like to mention that a person can be absent from Great Britain and still be held to be resident here. A social security commissioner held that the wife of a serviceman who spent substantial periods abroad with him was held to satisfy the residence conditions because they were held to be resident here during the period for which they have been buying a house. It is for the independent adjudicating authorities which decide claims to consider whether people can be regarded as resident here, even though abroad, in other circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is trying to press us as to when we shall report on our considerations. I am not able to give him a very precise answer except
636
to give him an absolute assurance, to concur with a promise made by my noble friend on a previous amendment, that all these matters are under consideration. When that consideration is complete, it will be reported to the House. I hope that in the light of that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before the noble Lord decides what action to take on this amendment, perhaps my noble friend can say something further on the position of those who have been overseas in the service of the Crown, whether in the Armed Forces or in the foreign service.
It would seem very oppressive because of absence for those reasons—namely, serving our country in an area where they have been told to serve it—that those people should be prejudiced in any degree in an application for an allowance. Perhaps my noble friend can say a little more as to whether that is the attitude of the Government.
Baroness Blatch: I addressed the point on service families, which would include those serving in Crown positions and working out of the country. I said that for most service families the so-called 10-in-20 test will present no difficulties. However, I went on to say that we are aware that there are a small number of people who cannot qualify for the allowance because of the test and we have already made special arrangements to help those families meet the presence conditions. I went on to give a particular example of a family which had spent a number of successive postings out of the country, but nevertheless a way was found to establish residence qualifications in this country. That is a point which will be part of the review on all these matters and I assure my noble friend that the Government are sympathetic to the point that he makes.
To address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the residence conditions for severe disablement allowance follow on from those which apply to non-contributory retirement pensions. That was the existing income replacement benefit in force at the time that the non-contributory invalidity pension, the predecessor of severe disablement allowance, came into force.
On another point, the residence and presence tests for non-contributory benefits need to be looked at carefully both on a national and international level. The rules vary between different benefits as they were introduced at different times and it would be sensible to rationalise them. Again, that is the rationale for the review. I hope that the noble Lord will bear with us while those matters are under consideration.
Lord Carter: The Committee will understand my reasons for tabling this amendment as it is very complicated. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee whether, when the consideration is complete—and I shall not attempt to press her on when—the changes can be enacted through regulations or whether primary legislation will be needed.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the power exists within primary legislation and therefore it could be coped with by secondary legislation.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Baroness Darcy Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 10:
Alter Clause 2. insert the following new clause:
("Income support: disabled students
The following paragraph is inserted at the end of paragraph (c) of section 20(3) of the 1986 Act—
"(cc) he is a disabled person and he is participating in a course of higher education and he fulfils the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection; ".").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 because they form part of a package. Their purpose is to ensure that all disabled students retain entitlement to social security benefits by applying the standard definition of disability used in the 1986 disabled persons Act.
As matters stand at present deaf students and those with dyslexia will be excluded. The problem is that in the draft regulations for the Education (Student Loans) Act a disabled student is defined as one who is eligible for disability and severe disability premiums. I am sure that it was not the Government's original intention to exclude deaf students. Assurances that disabled students would retain entitlement to social security benefits were given many times at meetings, in the White Paper, in Committee in the other place on 9th January and on 15th January in a letter to the RNID. Disability organisations were, therefore, surprised and very anxious that the definition to be used excluded deaf students.
We discussed the matter during the passage of the student loans Bill in this House and it has been pursued by the all-party disablement group and by my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton, who cannot be here today as he has a previous commitment which he must honour.
We feel that there is a misunderstanding of the problem, which I very much hope can be resolved today. The reason for the chosen definition was given in a Parliamentary Answer on 7th March 1990 in the other place, which stated that deaf students are unlikely to have the additional weekly living expenses because of their disability that income support and housing benefit are designed to meet. That argument is totally illogical because income support and housing benefit are not designed to meet extra disability costs. That is the purpose of the mobility and attendance allowances.
We are talking about income maintenance benefits. Deaf students need to be able to claim those benefits because, like all disabled students, they find it much more difficult to obtain part-time and vocational employment while studying. Many of those jobs involve waitressing, bar-work and hotel reception work. It is surely illogical to use a definition which includes blind students but
638
excludes deaf students when they have very similar difficulties in obtaining employment.
Deaf and dyslexic students of ten take longer to study, which means that part-time work is impractical. The RNID said:
"In our experience, when other students are taking an evening off, or out earning money, many deaf students are catching up on their work. When this sort of commitment is being demanded of deaf students … it does not seem appropriate that they should in addition have to undergo additional financial difficulties".
The Government's generous package to meet extra educational costs has been warmly welcomed by all the disability organisations. It would be a great pity if deaf students—there are only currently 300 in higher education—were deterred from entering higher education because they were denied entitlement to income maintenance benefits.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these amendments. The definition of a disabled person in the 1986 Act comes from the National Assistance Act 1948. There is a precedent for using that definition to define a disabled student in the Education Reform Act 1988. At Third Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, moved an amendment on higher education corporations and the needs of disabled students in response to one that I had moved at Report. When speaking of the definition of disabled students the noble Baroness explained:
"We believe that it would not be right to use an educational definition since that is couched in terms of special educational needs which would not necessarily apply to higher education. The general definition in the National Assistance Act fits best. That is the one that we shall rely on. The definition takes account of all physical and mental disabilities".—[official Report, 8/7/88; col. 525.]
We should continue to rely on that definition so that deaf students and those with dyslexia are able to continue to claim income maintenance benefits along with their fellow disabled students. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I had intended that my name should be added to those putting forward the amendment. I very warmly support the noble Baroness because there is a strong case that deaf students should be looked on in the same way as other disabled students. There is a difficulty with regard to definition, and that will perhaps need to be discussed. We need a far better definition than the one which goes back to 1948. The important point is that the amendment is not asking for help with educational matters, such as extra equipment and so on. We know that grants have been allowed—and we are very grateful for those—under the Education (Student Loans) Bill. These amendments refer to help and maintenance.
Deaf students have problems which non-disabled students do not. Deaf students take much longer over their work because they cannot lip-read in a lecture. They can lip-read if they are close to somebody in a seminar or under individual tuition, but lectures are very different. They may have to copy down notes from friends and make up that time when other people are free to take an evening

639
job or whatever. They therefore take longer to complete their work.
As the noble Baroness said, they have much more difficulty in obtaining work because, due to their deafness, they are not acceptable to many employers. I should like to give the Committee two examples. A deaf student was studying art for a BA in London. She received numerous rejections when applying for part-time work. Eventually she was offered a part-time job handing out magazines at Tube stations in the mornings, but was unable to hang on to that job as it involved ringing in each morning at 5 o'clock to confirm that she would be coming and to receive details of the station to which she should go. She could not cope with that so she lost that job.
Another deaf student studying English in London failed to gain any employment whatever during the summer vacation. Employers replying to his applications said that they were unable to offer him employment because they had no communications support for deaf people and the short time that he would be employed did not justify making such arrangements.
The Royal National Institute for the Deaf has many cases of deaf students failing to obtain jobs and so they cannot obtain the extra money to help with maintenance and living expenses as can able-bodied students. There is therefore that problem. There is also the problem that deaf students have to spend more time on their work. Another point made by the noble Baroness relates to the very small numbers of deaf students who will be calling for the support. I hope that the Minister will treat the amendment with sympathy or at any rate say that it will be looked at for discussions to take place.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: Many times in the past four or five years resolutions and amendments to Bills have been passed to make it clear that we do not wish to make any distinction between those who are handicapped and those who are not, provided that they can meet the demands of their situation. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, we clearly have another opportunity of doing something which will keep together the non-handicapped and the handicapped; it will enable the handicapped to continue to do as much work and obtain as much help as they could if they were non-handicapped. That is something which has been very satisfactory over a number of years. Here is an opportunity to do something which will enter into the same spirit.
I hope that the Government will look at the amendment seriously and see whether or not they can agree it in some way so that the theory of non-handicapped and handicapped working together and helping the handicapped in order that they should be able to compete, could be promoted by this amendment as well as the many others to which the Government have agreed.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to support the amendment. As my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and the noble Baroness, Lady David, have already said, deaf students not only find it harder to
640
find casual employment, but any spare time they may have is fully taken up with catching up on their work. The RNID find that deaf students cannot lip-read or watch an interpreter during lectures and tutorials and at the same time make notes. That means that especially those on lecture-intensive courses spend a considerable amount of time copying notes from friends or going over notes supplied by others. As my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) said, blind students receive help and I hope that deaf students will also receive it.
Lord Addington: I should like to address most of my remarks to dyslexic students, while fully endorsing the comments on the difficulties of the deaf. Dyslexic students suffer from many of the same difficulties in that they have to take up more time and have more pressures placed upon them in completing their work units, especially if they are in units where they must rely on dictated notes or notes written on a blackboard in technical subjects. The reason is that dyslexics are invariably much worse at copying down anything which involves written symbols. It does not need to be written language; the difficulty involves written symbols. They thus have a greater commitment on their time.
Dyslexia, meaning difficulty with words, is probably an inappropriate title. The more we learn about the problem the more we know that it is all-encompassing. They have a greater problem with sequencing. I have experienced that and have seen many dyslexics with greater problems in sequencing than myself. That means that dyslexic students when applying for a job must first ensure that they do not have to do any writing in that employment and, secondly, that they do not have to record figures accurately over a telephone for any period of time. That is especially so if they are being placed in a stressful situation, for instance answering a phone and writing down numbers. Their accuracy will fall sharply and they will of ten find the emotional stress too great.
There are many situations in employment where those skills are essential. For those reasons dyslexics follow hard behind the deaf. I hope that the definition will be extended to dyslexics because if someone with dyslexia can be deemed to be disabled for work I suggest that he or she is disabled in all other spheres.
Lord Stallard: I too support this amendment. I confess that I did not fully understand the implications until I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who so ably moved the amendment. On reading the proceedings of the other place and from reading various letters since then I had thought that the assurances given there were adequate. The Minister assured the Committee in the other place at col. 223 of Hansard:
"It is important to note that disabled students will continue to retain entitlement to social security benefits".
He did not say "some" disabled students. I took that to mean all disabled students, with no distinction between the blind and the deaf, which is even further dividing the disabled into different groups.

641
The Minister then wrote to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on 15th January:
"I do rot believe that the loans scheme will penalise deaf students or those with disabilities; on the contrary, the terms of the schema—retention of benefit entitlement [for the disabled]… are designed with their needs very much in mind".
I accepted those assurances and I confess, even with my interest in the disabled, I did not go any further along the line of amending that. I thought that, the assurances being there, the Government were not going to subdivide the disabled into dyslexics, the blind, the deaf and so on when there seems to be blanket coverage for disabled students.
I believed that there must have been a mistake—and many others felt the same—until we saw a reply to a Parliamentary Question on 7th March in the other place (at col. 681) which excluded deaf students. I do not know whether the Government were afraid to admit their mistake or were trying to justify it by giving an answer in that form.
The reason given for the exclusion of deaf students from income support and housing benefit is that they are unlikely to have additional weekly living expenses; because of their disability which income support and housing benefit are intended to meet. However, we all know, and it has already been said in this debate, that income support and housing benefit are not intended as additional weekly living expenses,. They are income maintenance benefits and not just for additional living expenses. Therefore, the Answer did not make much sense. It now makes even less sense than when I first heard the explanation.
It is totally illogical to subdivide the disabled, particularly the deaf from the blind. I do not want to put one against the other in the way that the Government are doing. I have listened carefully to what has been said and I hope that the Minister has also listened. There are genuine difficulties that affect deaf people in much the same way as the blind and other disabled people. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments—they are totally logical—or will come forward with a government amendment on these lines at Report stage.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I also support the three amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) I can see no logical reason why my noble friend on the Front Bench and the Government in general should refuse to accept these amendments even if they need to be reworded in some way to improve them.
However, I suspect that the Government, always cash conscious, will refuse the amendments on the ground of cost. That is a short-term view. The Government are keen on training and having that training carried out quickly. Dyslexic and severely deaf students take longer in their training and because of their disabilities may find their training more difficult. It is possible that their disability may mean that they are not trained quite as well as others. Therefore, they need support to give them more time to train properly so that in due course they can be
642
of even greater benefit to the communiy than they would have been without such support. Ultimately, that will bring in far more per student than is paid out to them while they are students through the greater taxes they will be paying for the rest of their lives.
Lord Carter: The arguments for these amendments have been put so well that there is very little more to say. However, one point should be emphasised. Deafness is a particularly disabling handicap, not only in obtaining vacation employment—the problems we have heard about in regard to the telephone, communications within work and so on—but also with the speech defect that of ten accompanies total deafness.
I know that those who are blind and who also have a hearing loss claim that deafness is a more disabling condition than blindness. The technology to assist the blind is much further advanced in many ways than is the assistance for the deaf. Therefore, there is a very real disablement in being deaf which should be recognised. The point about income maintenance is of course vital to the argument and has already been extremely well put.
It is extraordinary that the Government have not found a means to assist, if the figures are correct, only a small number of students. I believe there are only 300. Therefore, I hope the Minister can give the Committee some assurance on this matter.
Baroness Blatch: The student loans White Paper outlined the intention that students who are disabled will continue to be able to claim income support and housing benefit but no attempt was made to define "disabled" because there is no generally accepted definition of disability. It was intended that an appropriate definition would be developed as details of the changes were worked up.
In order to give groups access to benefits it is essential to draw up a very precise definition of the group at issue so that it can be clearly expressed in regulation and understood both by those administering the benefits and by those who might claim them. An established definition of disability for benefit purposes already exists in income support and housing benefit. The definition is manifested in the disability and severe disability premium. The Government propose that the qualifying criteria for these premiums should form the basis of the definition of a disabled student for social security purposes.
This definition will embrace a broad spectrum of disability. It will be targeted in particular on those students who face higher everyday living costs because of their disability. The introduction of the proposed new disability allowance, announced in the White Paper The Way Ahead will widen the scope of this definition still further.
Those deaf students who meet the criteria for the disability and severe disability premium will continue to be eligible for income support and housing benefit. Students whose sole disability is deafness will not be entitled to income support and housing benefit. The OPCS survey of disability

643
showed that, in comparision with people with other disabilities, those who are deaf are among the least likely to have additional living expenses of the kind that income support and housing benefit are intended to meet.
The Government do not believe that it would be right to extend the disability premiums to deaf students while other claimants who are deaf do not benefit from these premiums. We are aware that deaf students can face a number of expenses connected with their attendance at educational courses. Here, having listened to the debate, I suggest that there has been some confusion. Much of what has been said related to the difficulty of students studying on courses.
However, it is not for the social security system to provide for costs of this kind. The disabled students' allowance administered by local education authorities is intended to assist in these circumstances. This scheme will not only continue under the new student support arrangements but will be considerably improved. The annual allowance is to be increased from £765 to £1, 000 per year and new and additional allowances are to be introduced to assist with the cost of non-medical helpers. That addresses the needs of dyslexic students referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. This would be up to £4, 000 a year and for major items of specialist equipment up to £3, 000. Deaf students will clearly benefit from these changes.
It is important to note that, dependent upon circumstances, it is possible for a disabled student to receive up to £18, 000 over a three-year course, which would be additional to the normal grants; that is, £4, 000 per annum for help of a personal kind—the standard severe disablement allowance of £1, 000 per annum plus a £3, 000 allowance for equipment which a deaf person may require.
The needs of deaf students are best dealt with through the education support arrangements rather than through the social security system. These two sources of financial support have very different aims. It would not be right to link benefit entitlement to a particular education need. The noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, made reference to deaf students who take longer to pursue their studies and who then cannot get work in the vacation.
Baroness David: I know about the grant for equipment to help disabled students. However, if they take longer over their work and even if they have that kind of support, they still have not time to do odd jobs which can create the money to help with their maintenance. That is the point.
Baroness Blatch: The new and additional forms of student financial support being introduced under the education system will outweigh, and were always meant to outweigh, the benefit losses of students. They are not being introduced on the assumption that students will have to supplement their incomes by working, though we all know that many students do.
644
Another point raised by many Members of the Committee was that disabled students would be unable to manage financially in the long vacation. Again, it is important to note that students who are unable to find employment in the vacation because they are disabled are eligible to apply for a vacation hardship allowance which is payable at the discretion of the local education authority under the mandatory award system. However, because the student is on a course of educational study it would be a matter for the judgment of the local education authority.
These two sources of financial support have very different aims. It would not be right to link them. Having given all those assurances about the needs of the disabled being met while they are studying and because some allowance will be made during the vacation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): In vaguely thanking the noble Baroness for her reply I am sure that she will not be surprised when I say that I am extremely disappointed. I am amazed because very little of what she has said is not contained in letters from the Minister for the Disabled and from herself to my noble friend, Lord Henderson. I am quite taken aback by her reply.
She began by saying that there was not an accepted definition of a disabled student. I do not believe that the noble Baroness heard what I was saying when I was quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, at the Third Reading of the Education Reform Act. We now have that definition in that Act, which was chosen by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness. If it is good enough for them then, it is good enough for me.
The noble Baroness still seems to think that we are talking about extra disability costs and not about income and maintenance costs. She said that much of the debate referred to the difficulties of studying on courses—a matter which the noble Baroness, Lady David, picked up. That is not what we are talking about. The noble Baroness also said that it was not appropriate to meet extra education costs from the social security system. We are not talking about that. We are extremely grateful for the lump sums. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said, they are extremely generous sums.
It does not make sense to give these enormous sums to assist the students in their education and then to scrimp over the few (at most 300) deaf students claiming income support and housing benefit. I appreciate what the noble Baroness said about the vacation payment. However, why should one treat deaf and dyslexic students differently from other disabled students? What is the sense of subdividing them, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard said? It is extraordinary to say that a deaf student is not a disabled student when one acknowledges that deaf students will be greatly helped by these large and generous sums.
There is a letter from the Minister for the Disabled, Nicholas Scott, to Susan Daniels, who is the education manager of the RNID. The letter was very much echoed in something which the noble Baroness

645
said in her letter to my noble friend Lord Henderson. It states:
"We are proposing to use the qualifying criteria for these premiums"—
that excludes deaf and dyslexic students—
"as the basis of our definition of a disabled student".
That is quite worrying if it becomes the standard definition of a disabled student. What are the implications for repaying student loans? Is that a matter which has been thought of? The letter continues:
"We are also seeking to ensure that anyone who is treated as a disabled student under our current rules will continue to be entitled to benefits even where they do not meet the new criteria".
Therefore, we have another subdivision where a deaf student is a disabled student if he was disabled before the Education (Student Loans) Act comes in. It is really too ridiculous.
I very much hope that the noble Baroness will think again. I was not planning to divide the Committee. I hoped that she would say that she appreciated the problem, but, if she did not, I hoped that she would say that she realised there was a problem and that we could meet and have discussions. Before I decide what to do, can the noble Baroness indicate whether she has any further thoughts on the subject? Does she really appreciate the problem and has she thought about the implications of saying that a deaf student is not a disabled student?
Baroness Blatch: I hope nothing I said minimised the concern about the difficulties that a deaf student has. I pointed out the considerable range of allowances for courses of study which are available to make sure that these young people are able to study and that they are helped both by mechanical aids and by personal assistance. We are here talking about housing benefit. I also made the point that the student loan system more than made up for the loss of benefit. The same arguments apply to the normal student as to the deaf student. On that point we have to disagree. I cannot go beyond the reply that I have given to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may press the noble Baroness: the letter states that the Government wish to use the definition there as the definition of a disabled student. Will that be used in future as the definition of a disabled student? I refer to the eligibility criteria for the disability and severe disability premiums.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the noble Baroness is referring to a letter which states that all these matters are under consideration. It would be precipitate of me to give a definitive answer to the question which has been noted a second time. I shall return to the matter if I have more to say about it. I shall do that in writing if necessary.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): But can the noble Baroness reconsider the matter at the moment?
Baroness Blatch: I cannot consider it at this moment.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do about this amendment, and as my name is attached to it, I say that the Government's answer has been very unsatisfactory. A number of very strong points have been made. Very few people are involved in this matter. We have pointed out the exceptionally disabling nature of deafness compared with other handicaps. None of these points has been met. I hope that the noble Baroness will take these factors into account before deciding what to do about the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): If the definition is accepted for a disabled student, what implication does that have for the repayment of loans by disabled borrowers? Would deaf students not be treated in the same way as other disabled students?
Baroness Blatch: Again, that would depend entirely on the precise definition at the time. The noble Baroness knows from reading that letter that the matter is under consideration. When it is complete I believe that I shall be able to be more definitive in my answer to the question. I am advised that we currently operate different definitions for education and social security purposes. We have no plans to transfer the definition used for social security into other provisions.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am not at all happy with the situation. I cannot see that one should divide deaf from disabled students. They can all be called disabled students and then one can go into the problem of what is a deaf student. At one stage one says that the disabled include the deaf and then one asks: what is a deaf student? If there is a problem about the definition, that can be sorted out by using the clinically accepted levels at which people are considered to have a significant hearing loss.
I am not satisfied and I am deeply disappointed. I thought that we stood a chance of having discussions and perhaps accomplishing something at the next stage. I must ask for the opinion of the Committee.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 86.

DIVISION No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

David, B.

Airedale, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Aylestone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Birk, B.

Falkland, V.

Blackstone, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Galpern, L.

Brightman, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Grey, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hampton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hayter, L.

Craigavon, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Holderness, L.

647

Hooson, L.

Raglan, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Richard, L.

Hunt, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochester, L.

Jay, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Jeger, B.

Russell, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kilmarnock, L.

Seear, B.

Kinloss, Ly. [Teller.]

Seebohm, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Serota, B.

Listowel, E.

Shackleton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stallard, L.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McNair, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mais, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Thurlow, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mishcon, L.

Underhill, L.

Monkswell, L.

Vernon, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Northfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ogmore, L.

Willis, L.

Parry, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Peston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Lindsay, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Blyth, L.

Mersey, V.

Borthwick, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Brookes, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norrie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Orr-Ewing. L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Donegall, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Dulverton, L.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renton, L.

Elibank, L.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Foley, L.

Slim, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Suffield, L.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L.

Teviot, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hood, V.

Tranmire, L.

Huntly, M.

Ullswater, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Westbury, L.

Joseph, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wynford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Housing benefit: disabled students
The following paragraph is inserted at the end of section 20(7) of the 1986 Act—
"(d) he is a disabled person and he is following a course of higher education and he fulfils the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection; ".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Disabled person: definition
In Section 20(11) of the 1986 Act the following definition is inserted after the definition of "child"—
" "disabled person" has the same meaning as in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Equal rights to social security benefits
.—(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other Act, order or regulations, every person residing in any part of Great Britain, of whatever age, sex, parentage, nationality, or occupation, shall have a right to an adequate level of social security benefits.
(2) Any provision of Part II or Part III of the 1986 Act or of any regulation made or direction issued under either of those Parts which, in conferring or restricting entitlement to or availability of any social security benefit or payment, discriminates or results in discrimination between categories of persons other than on grounds of differences in needs, shall have effect as if it applied to all such categories in the same way as to the most favourably treated category.").
The noble Earl said: I have always understood, I hope not wrongly, that it was a basic principle of the social security system that no one ought to starve—not "no one except"; not "no one except those people over there"; but no one. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, challenged us to state our sense of priorities. That challenge was addressed to a good many of us. Some of his remarks were about the language of socialism which, perhaps I may remind him, I do not speak, but I think that I am one of those from whom he would like an answer. That is my first priority and I hope to be able to return to others later. I do not assert it as a matter of natural right. I do not assert it as an absolute. But I think this country is rich enough at present to be able to afford it.
I am not asserting eligibility to be a matter of natural right. I am asserting it to be a matter of contractual right. It is a matter of the same web of responsibilities which carries with it the right to vote and the duty to pay taxes. Those are three things from all of which exclusions are extremely risky. They ought not to be undertaken lightly. They ought to be thought about very hard indeed. They ought to be justified, if at all, by cast-iron arguments.
The principle of the social security system as a safety net is one which will justify excluding people from its operation by virtue of their personal

649
economic circumstances. It is perfectly legitimate to exclude someone from the system because they happen to have so much money that they do not need it. However, what I do not understand—and I very much hope that my noble kinsman will give me some explanation—is why it should be regarded as legitimate to exclude a whole category of people from the system regardless of their economic circumstances.
That is an exclusion which should be approached with grave misgivings, whether we are dealing, for example, with a proposal that "gypsies be recycled and dumped in the sea"—I assure the Committee that I am quoting—or, to take a reductio ad absurdum, a proposal to exclude Peers from the social security system. I admit that we do not think of Peers as being in the sort of category for which the social security system is designed. However, Peers, as well as other people, are capable of falling on hard times. I have not forgotten the case of the 18th century Lord Acton, who was a second under-cook. It is a case I regularly use to try to distinguish between class and status.
It seems to me that whatever group of people you belong to, if you fall on hard times and do not have the amount of money which brings you to benefit levels, you should have an equal right to receive benefit from the system. Anyone who argues to the contrary will have a very hard piece of arguing to undertake.
The basic principle of the amendment is taken from Article 10 of the European Social Charter, the social protection clause. However, for many reasons, not least of which was the problem of the Long Title, I decided that I would make no attempt to enact European law as such. However, if I find a principle in European law which I think is a good one, then I hope that I may lay it before this Chamber with the recommendation that it should become part of British law. Not for the first time I have to commend to the Committee the distinctly nourishing qualities of the diet of Brussels.
Noble Lords may say that this is an unnecessary amendment. I am almost certain that my noble kinsman is at this moment preparing to say just that. I wish it were so. In fact, we have recently witnessed several attempts to remove a category from the social security system. What first brought me to think about the question of how you can justify excluding a category is the case of the eligibility of 16 year-olds and 17 year-olds for income support and housing benefit. We shall of course be discussing that aspect tomorrow and I shall not, therefore, go any further in that direction.
It is appropriate for the type of provision made by the social security system to vary according to age—for example, care provided for children under 14 is very different from what might be appropriate for older people. However, the basic principle that one should be eligible for help if one's circumstances are poor enough should stand.
The second case where a whole category of persons have been excluded is for students. We have heard much about this already, and I shall not detain the Committee too long with what I have to say. We
650
shall be hearing more on this aspect at a later stage. I should not argue if the case were simply that it was appropriate to finance the students by other means. That is a point which can be argued perfectly well. However, my noble kinsman may be interested to know that his right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled admitted in a letter to me dated 20th April that if the object were to float the students off benefit, it would have been necessary to provide them with a very much higher level of loan than has been granted.
The third case where the Government have excluded people for considerations other than those in relation to their means is in cash limiting the social fund in relation to regional offices. That means that a misfortune which is eligible for relief in Sandwich may not be eligible in Sheffield. As I see it, that is a failure in equality before the law.
Therefore, we have had three such cases in a relatively short space of time. It makes me ask, what next? It also makes me ask whether the Government will provide us with a general theoretical justification of why they think that they are entitled to implement such measures. When I hear that justification, I shall decide how much further I wish to take the matter. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. As he indicated to the Committee, the wording of the amendment is taken directly from an article in the Social Charter. We debated the charter recently in this Chamber as a result of the report by the Select Committee of which I had the honour to be a member. It is well known that the United Kingdom Government alone of all those in the Community opposed the charter outright. Apparently they were not willing to accept it even as a basis for negotiation. However, there are surely aspects of the charter with which the Government would be in agreement. Among them is the emphasis on equality of treatment. That aspect is dealt with in the wording of the amendment.
There are many ways in which we on this side of the Chamber might argue that, despite protestations to the contrary, in practice the Government have departed from those objectives, especially those set out in the latter part of the amendment. We shall have an oppportunity to debate some of these issues, one of which was referred to by the noble Earl; namely, the withdrawal of benefit from those unemployed between the ages of 16 years and 18 years even when they are homeless. There has also been the general spread of means-tested benefits in income support or family benefits.
Those are issues about which we can and will argue our case. But as a statement of general principle, it is surely right that a Bill concerned with social security should set out in quite unambiguous terms the fact that we believe in equal rights in social security provision and that persons unable to work and without means of subsistence must receive sufficient resources and social assistance in keeping with their particular situation. I should have thought that that was what all social security programmes in

651
civilised countries were about. I do not see how the Government can oppose the amendment and still maintain their insistence that they are providing the nation with a programme for social provision.
When we debated the report of the Select Committee in this Chamber I gained the impression—perhaps wrongly, but no doubt the Minister will put me right if that is so—that the Government's main opposition to the charter was based around the issue of employment rights. I refer to the employment provisions, the minimum wage or decency wage and so on. However, we are not talking about that; we are talking about basic social security provision. Therefore, it seems to me that the wording suggested by the noble Earl ought to commend itself to the Government.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: We are told that the amendment derives from the European Social Charter. However, that does nothing to increase my enthusiasm for that somewhat controversial document. On the other hand, if we were to put what is proposed into our law, it would be a marvellous benefit to the legal pr of essions. I say that because, if it were put into law, it would give rise to an enormous possibility of litigation on the largest possible scale. I am sure that it would be of the greatest benefit to the legal professions, though perhaps not to anyone else.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The Government have not hesitated to do that in the sphere of employment, which has surely been a bonanza for the legal professions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Even if the noble Baroness is right, that is no argument for extending benefits to the legal
profession although of course I know that its members would be happy to have them.
The Committee should look at the amendment. People are to:
"have a right to an adequate level of social security benefits".
What is an adequate level? Who is to decide what is an adequate level? Are the courts of law to decide what is an adequate level or is the person who decides to bring proceedings to enforce his or her rights to an adequate level of social security benefits to decide?
It has been the practice in our social security administration for a great many years to decide, of ten after prolonged debate in both Chambers, what is a proper level; what is a level that can be afforded by the British economy; and what will reasonably meet social needs. But merely to lay down, as a legal principle, that everyone is entitled to an adequate level of social security benefits is one of the most extraordinary propositions that I have ever seen. Age is to be disregarded. The amendment would appear to read as if a five year-old child is entitled to the same rate of benefit as a 50 year-old man. The whole proposal, although no doubt well intentioned and highly emotionally supported, is so unrealistic that to suggest that the Committee treat it as a serious essay in legislation is going too far.
Lord Henley: I have read carefully the new clause tabled by my noble kinsman and listened with interest to his speech. I must confess—he is aware of this, because I spoke to him immediately before he moved the amendment—to being less than clear as to the intention underlying the amendment. At times I became even more confused as he spoke. He spoke of whole categories of people being removed from the benefit system. I believe he said that neither gypsies nor Peers were entitled to benefit from it. As far as I know they are not excluded from the system. He mentioned three other categories to which I shall come later. I shall not say that I feel the amendments are unnecessary; I feel that they are worse than that. I cannot recommend that the Committee accept the amendment for two main reasons.
The first relates to subsection (1) which confers a right to an "adequate" level of social security benefit to any person in Great Britain of whatever age, sex, parentage, nationality or occupation. The question of what is "adequate" for a particular individual inevitably involves the exercise of subjective judgment and is not a yardstick which can be given legislative force. Pinning the right to a level of benefit which can be regarded as "adequate" effectively nullifies the amendment and renders it meaningless.
There is more to it than that. The Committee will know because I have given the figures before, that in the coming financial year the Government plan to spend a record £55 billion on social security. That represents a 33 per cent. increase in real terms since we came to office. It amounts to over £20 per week for every man, woman and child.
That we have felt it right to devote such an unprecedented level of resources to the social security programme is itself a recognition of the obligation owed by the state to those of its citizens who have to live on limited incomes and depend on what the state provides. Social security benefits meet many needs—some provide an income for people who have little or no earnings, because they are elderly, unemployed or sick. Others provide help with housing costs or the cost of bringing up children; pension for retirement pensions and income for widows; and assisting with the extra costs of disablement.
Our policies have done more than merely pour money into an ever-growing programme. We have sought to protect the position of those most in need. Retirement pensioners, the sick and disabled, families with children—all have had their position safeguarded and protected. Indeed, in many cases, we have been able to go further and achieve real improvements in the position of those dependent on benefits; but one of the major objectives we set ourselves in the major restructuring of the benefit system was to ensure that resources were more effectively targeted on those who need them most.
The reforms which we introduced in 1988 brought about a more flexible and responsive structure of income-related benefits which has enabled us to achieve that objective. The system of personal allowances and premiums has enabled us to target help effectively towards priority groups, reflecting the particular needs faced by those groups. To

653
attempt the assessment of the individual needs in the way the amendment implies could have enormous administrative and financial implications.
I share my noble kinsman's view that people who need help should be adequately provided for, and I understand the sentiment which underlies the amendment he has moved today. My response to his concern is to point out what we have achieved in the reformed benefit sytstem is to ensure that those who need help are adequately provided for.
That takes me to the second reason for being unable to accept the amendment. Subsection (2) could effectively undermine the very structure which has facilitated the achievement of those objectives. To treat all categories—pensioners, lone parents, disabled people, families, single people, students, people in trade disputes, people who leave work voluntarily, people who care for the severely handicapped, war widows and so on—in the same way for all benefits (as the amendment would seem to imply) would be counter to all logic. To bring their benefit up to one most favourable level would be inordinately expensive and would not help those most in need. There are special, and I believe valid, reasons for treating them in the particular ways in which they are treated in the benefit system. It is misleading to suggest that the treatment of particular categories in particular ways amounts to some kind of "discrimination"—almost akin to racial or sexual discrimination.
The amendment not only runs the risk of undermining the principle of targeting help; it could also tie the hands of Ministers in a wholly unrealistic manner and to an unreasonable degree by preventing the application of special rules applying to special groups of people. It could for example, spell the end of differential disregards for different groups or any of the entirely justified special arrangements for particular groups which apply under the present system. I refer topically, for example, to the recent case made out for war widows. It could also call into question whether people's needs should be looked at, irrespective of whether they—or, in the case of a couple, the partner—work, or irrespective of the hours worked.
My noble kinsman cited three groups which he said were excluded. I know that he is concerned about the benefit entitlements of a particular group; namely students—a subject we have debated at length in this place during the passage of the Education (Student Loans) Act. We shall be coming later to amendments relating to students. I am well aware of his concern that students are being singled out by the social security system simply by virtue of their chosen occupation.
Bearing in mind that other amendments have been tabled, it may be best to leave that point until later. My noble kinsman also mentioned 16 and 17 year-olds as an example of those who are excluded from social security benefits. We have on many occasions made it clear that there is no need for 16 and 17 year-olds to be without money. If they cannot find work on leaving school, they are guaranteed a YTS place. For those who are estranged from their families, as my noble kinsman is well aware, there
654
are special arrangements for them to receive benefits to avoid cases of severe hardship.
I shall turn now to the social fund, an issue which will probably arise tomorrow. Part III of the Social Security Act 1986 established the social fund. The regulations and the directions made or issued under this part provide for a system of one off payments for those in greatest need at times when additional money may be needed; for example, the birth of a child; a death in a family; a breakdown in a family relationship; or to help cope with the effects of a crisis.
In this respect the social fund is actually following the noble Earl's criterion of discriminating on the grounds of need. But however one defines need, it cannot be the only criterion. The aim of the social fund is to meet a range of needs that may occur in particular circumstances. For example, the regulated part of the scheme deals with clear-cut events in life. However, the discretionary part of the scheme is precisely designed to deal with an enormous variety of circumstances relating not just to need but to situations in which individuals find themselves. The fact that payments for community care grants, budgeting loans and crisis loans are made on a discretionary basis having regard to the circumstances of the individual case serves to highlight this. But even then, the Government believe that it is only right to provide discretionary payments within certain parameters.
The fact is that no system can meet all needs imposed upon it. Given that social fund payments are made from public funds provided by the taxpayer, it is only fair and reasonable that there is some limit on expenditure. The Government's policy is to concentrate the help that is available where it is most needed. To achieve this the scheme must have a clear structure within which it can be operated. We therefore provide a framework of directions and identify certain groups of people as eligible for help or items which we classify as high priority. However, in doing so we ensure that every case is considered on its merits. For example a vacuum cleaner may normally be an item of low priority but for a person suffering from asthma it could well be a necessity and the priority will be increased accordingly. Within the structure we make it clear to the social fund officers and inspectors who determine applications for discretionary payments and the adjudication officers who determine the claims for regulated payments that they should apply the criteria without regard to the applicant's race, sex or religion.
This has not been a straightforward amendment to speak to, since it was not absolutely clear to me what my noble kinsman had in mind. I hope that, for the reasons I have given, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment. Failing that, I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Earl decides what to do with the amendment, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made some play with the weakness of the phrase,
"shall have a right to an adequate level of social security benefits".

655
The word "adequate" seemed to concern them. It reminded me of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which states clearly in regard to the timetable for the implementation of community care that except where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the resources available to local authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out of their duties in a manner conducive to the interests and welfare of any person for whom community care services may be provided or arranged. Why is the use of the phrase "adequate for any person" acceptable in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, but not in this amendment?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: It is quite obvious that the two cases are completely different. In the case of the National Health Service Bill my right honourable friend must satisfy himself that the resources are adequate. Here, the use of the word "adequate' for a particular individual inevitably involves a subjective judgment that makes the amendment which seeks equality of treatment meaningless because adequacy will be different in different circumstances. The amendment is meaningless in the use of the word "adequate" which conflicts with the equality of treatment required because the adequacy will be different for different people.
Lord Carter: Under the National Health Service Bill it will also be different because the Bill says, "adequate for any person". Every person will have different requirements.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Surely there is all the difference in the world between the Secretary of State having to satisfy himself that certain provisions are adequate—he is answerable to Parliament for the decision he makes on that—and laying down in a statute that something shall be adequate. That is a matter which could only be interpreted by the courts which will be in a hopeless position to do so.
Earl Russell: This was intended as a probing amendment, but it seems that I have found a good deal of confusion. The difficulty on the Government Benches in understanding what the amendment is all about indicates that its tabling was well worthwhile and that we still need to find out why the Government think that they are entitled to discriminate. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested that by incorporating a general principle in legislation one might give rise to litigation. I could not help wondering whether that was what King John said about Magna Carta.
We have also heard a good deal about the word "adequate". My purpose in using it was to indicate the same level of social security benefits as for anyone else. The basic purpose of the amendment was non-discriminatory. It was an equal rights amendment. If I had specified a particular financial level, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would have pointed out, perfectly rightly, that it would
656
have required an annual uprating formula that would have given rise to considerable complications. It was not the purpose of the amendment to fix a particular financial level. Its purpose was to ensure equal treatment.
The Minister went through the different categories in some detail. I shall not follow him into all of them. I was interested to notice that he admitted that students had been singled out by occupation. That was precisely the point I was making. On that, and on the 16 and 17 year-olds—the case that originally attracted me to the matter of this amendment—as the Minister said, I spoke as if it were discrimination akin to racial discrimination. I see no good reason to withdraw that. I think it is.
The same can be said about the Social Fund. My noble kinsman the Minister said that need could not be the only criterion. He will correct me if I misquote him. That was an interesting admission. It weakens all the argument about targeting. It seems to conflict with his statement later that help should be given where it is most needed.
My first desire is to find out why the Government think that they are entitled to discriminate. I have not ascertained that. Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall bring it back on Report when I hope to receive a better answer following which I shall decide how I wish to proceed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 14:
Before Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Automatic reinstatement of severe disablement allowance
Regulations shall provide that in any case where a person was in receipt of Severe Disablement Allowance immediately before the commencement of a course of youth training and on ceasing that course fails to secure gainful employment the entitlement of that person to a severe disablement allowance shall be automatically reinstated.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is to plck up a point which concerns many organisations for disabled people. In the White Paper The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People, the Government stated that one of the objectives was to promote independence where this is feasible and sensible and in particular to help those disabled people who wish to work to do so. We can all agree with that. Youth training is an important step towards employment for some young people receiving the severe disablement allowance. However, a number of organisations—particularly the Spastics Society, and Barnardos—are concerned that the current arrangements in the SDA scheme may act as a disincentive to those who would otherwise choose to take up a youth training place.
For others who have taken up a place and who have been unable to finish training or to find paid work immediately after completion, it can prove a risk. They may consequently lose their entitlement to SDA and never have it restored. Those people most likely to be affected are young people, aged 20 or over on completion of training, who had qualified for the severe disablement allowance on the grounds that they were incapable of work before their 20th birthday. Some people under the age of 20 may also

657
be affected if, after they have completed their youth training, they are reassessed as no longer being capable of work.
The net cost of this change will be very small, as most people in this age group with severe disabilities are also entitled to income support. However, it would be a step in helping to keep more young people with disabilities off exclusive dependence on means-tested benefits. In the long run, it could save the Government money if it encouraged more people to take up training places and then employment. The amendment simply proposes a rational change in line with current regulations on income support and disability premium. It is consistent with the Government's own proposals in The Way Ahead. The current regulations impose a risk and act as a disincentive to young people who might otherwise take up training. The amendment is intended to ensure a safety net which would give them added confidence and encouragement. Some may as a result of their training find paid employment which would enable them to come off social security benefits altogether. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I understand and sympathise with the objective of this amendment. I have listened to the points which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has made, and I agree that it is important to help disabled people to receive the training which will help them to obtain employment. That is the whole point of attending the training scheme in the first place. Indeed, in The Way Ahead we have brought forward proposals that will create a new disability employment credit which will make it easier for disabled people to take up jobs. It will provide assistance with low earnings similar to that given to families through family credit.
Returning to the existing system of benefits, the first point which I think we must bear in mind is that severe disablement allowance is a benefit for people who are incapable of work. It is the non-contributory equivalent of invalidity benefit for people who have not paid the necessary national insurance contributions. Accordingly, the basic qualifying condition is that the person must be incapable of work. For people who become incapable of work early in life—on or before their 20th birthday—incapacity for work is the only qualifying condition.
The effect of the new clause would be to make the severe disablement allowance available to people who finished youth training simply because they had failed to find suitable employment. The fact that they would not have to be incapable of work cuts right across the principles of the SDA scheme. The SDA scheme however, has special arrangements for people who were receiving SDA and who then undertake youth training. These arrangements help people to have benefit reinstated immediately under what are known as linking rules. For example, if a person was receiving SDA before the youth training started and is incapable of work when the training ends, either at the expected end of the course or earlier, SDA can be reinstated immediately.
These linking arrangements also help a person who registers as unemployed at the end of training
658
and again becomes incapable of work before finding employment. SDA would be reinstated because the periods of training and unemployment link the new claim for SDA with the one before the training is given. There is also provision for ignoring short gaps such as a period of employment following the training. If such a gap is eight weeks or less, it will not affect the linking arrangements for SDA claims. There can be any number of such gaps. The effect of these changes therefore is that a person who is incapable of work when youth training ends or in some circumstances some time afterwards can have SDA reinstated without having to wait for the normal 28-week qualifying period. Because of the nature of SDA, however, entitlement has to be conditional upon incapacity for work.
I hope that that clarifies the position. There is no intention whatever to deny the allowance as long as the qualifying conditions are met; that is, that the person is incapable of work.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. The assurances that she has given are welcome. I shall obviously need to read what she has said with care, but I believe she has met the points we have been trying to make. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Reduced earnings allowance and retirement allowance]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5. line 26, leave out subsection (8) and insert:
("(8) The following provisions shall cease to have effect—
(a) in section 2 of the Social Security Act 1988, the subsection (8) originally enacted (restriction on entitlement to reduced earnings allowance); and
(b) in Schedule 1 to the 1989 Act, paragraph 8(7) (which substitutes for that subsection a subsection (8) and a subsection (8A).").
The noble Lord said: I mentioned this amendment earlier. It is a technical amendment. The subsections mentioned in the amendment have not come into force. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I think that an amendment of this extremely important nature should have been tabled before last Friday.
Lord Henley: I apologise to the Committee but I do not consider the amendment to be quite as important as the amendment which the noble Lord tabled on Friday.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to oppose the Question that Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill. On Second Reading I said that I regarded this clause, which abolishes future rights to the reduced earnings allowance, as a further attack by the Government on the industrial injuries scheme. At present the scheme provides for a reduced earnings allowance

659
for loss of earnings by people whose disabilities are caused by industrial accidents or diseases. I shall no doubt be told that existing beneficiaries will not be affected and that the only people to be affected will be those who are injured at work from the autumn of this year. I shall no doubt also be told that such people will in any case become entitled to invalidity benefit.
I should like to repeat what I have said in this Chamber on many occasions in the past in defence of the industrial injuries scheme. Many industries are inherently dangerous, no matter what is done to improve health and safety. I am willing to agree that the Health and Safety Commission does a good job. However, we need people to work in unsafe environments and there should be a proper scheme of compensation for them if they are injured or become ill as a result.
The industrial injuries scheme is the only system of no-fault compensation that we have in this country. In other cases it is necessary to sue in the courts for negligence. That is a lengthy and of ten costly exercise resulting in no more than 10 per cent. of victims receiving compensation by that route. As a result of the Social Security Act that went on to the statute book last year, social benefits are clawed back from that compensation.
My view of the need for an industrial injuries scheme quite separate from other social security provision is not a new one. Beveridge himself said,
"many industries vital to the community are also especially dangerous".
He also stated at the same time that:
"it is essential that men should enter them and desirable, therefore, that they should be able to do so with the assurance of special provision against their risk".
Furthermore, those who become disabled in this manner are acting under orders.
Since the Government took office we have seen attempts to whittle down the scheme. In 1986 there were changes which restricted the payment of industrial injuries disablement benefit to assessments of 14 per cent. or more and to certain prescribed diseases. Those changes cut out 90 per cent. of new awards. The abolition of the reduced earnings allowance can be seen, as the Disability Alliance has said, as heralding the extinction of the industrial injuries scheme.
Unfortunately there is still a great deal of work-related illness and injury. In the construction industry, for example, the numbers of injuries are no longer falling and there has been an increase in the number of deaths and injuries. One has only to refer to particularly hazardous industries such as the oil industry and the building of the Channel Tunnel to appreciate that we are talking about real problems. I hope there will be an opportunity to debate health and safety questions at some time in the future in this Chamber. Unfortunately these issues only hit the headlines when there are fatalities. However, there are many injuries which are never reported and in the main the people who suffer from them do not obtain compensation in the courts either. They must rely on the industrial injuries scheme.
660
It is important to realise that the reduced earnings allowance is not an earnings replacement benefit but compensation for loss of earnings. of course the Government will argue that there should not be double compensation and that such people will be eligible anyway for invalidity benefit. But that really is not the point. The Disability Alliance, which campaigns for all people with disability no matter how it is caused, opposes the abolition of the reduced earnings allowance as it believes that it is the Government's intention merely to disguise another cut under the pretence of avoiding duplication within the social security system. The alliance believes in levelling up and not down.
I understand that about 146, 000 people are likely to be affected initially. It is estimated that the figure will remain similar throughout the decade. The Government's own estimate given in the Bill is that initially there will be savings of £1 million, rising to £40 million in 1992–93. Frankly that is a paltry amount and this is a paltry proposition. I therefore oppose the Question that Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill.
Earl Russell: I wish to join the noble Baroness in opposing this clause. I wish particularly to draw attention to the point she made that we are discussing a no-fault scheme. That is something in which there are many advantages. As I have been accused of encouraging litigation I should say that the measure could have the effect of discouraging litigation. Other things being equal, I think that is worth doing.
Much of the justification we have been given for this change concerns the encouragement of occupational schemes. I have nothing against occupational schemes. I am a member of one, I approve of it and am extremely glad that I am a member. However, the difficulty that we have found with occupational schemes, not only in this country, is that they are not universal. In her interview with the Sunday Telegraph, the Prime Minister said that she did not want to hear ever again of the phrase "underclass". She thought that it was a horrid phrase, or words to that effect. I sympathise with that, but one must make the thing go away if one is to make the word go away. The category of people not eligible for occupational pensions comprise those who easily get pushed into the status of an underclass.
If we look at where occupational schemes are and are not available, we see that they are particularly rarely available in those small firms with fewer than 10 employees—the kind of firms that the Government rightly like to encourage. For them to have adequate security at work requires state backing. It is also difficult to spread adequate occupational schemes in the particularly dangerous occupations such as construction—again, a business which is not, largely, very organised in which people move about, work for limited periods of time as the job dictates and sometimes work for small firms.
It is also becoming painfully clear that a reliance on occupational schemes works to the detriment of women. There is therefore increasingly a category of second-class workers who are women, which is extremely undesirable and likely in the end, in

661
roundabout ways, to cost a great deal of money to the social security system in the form of income support.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, drew attention at Second Reading to the proportion of our population that relies on income support. I believe that the figure 1 quoted was 17 per cent. We should think about diminishing that figure. It is a fantastically high figure. The encouragement of adequate compensation for injury received would be one of many small ways in which we might chip away at that problem. For that reason, among many others, I am happy to support the noble Baroness.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said. I was responsible for the administration of the industrial injuries scheme for a period of six and a half years and therefore have some knowledge of its workings. I think I can say at this time that it was remarkable how few complaints were directed against it. It was thought to be and, I believe, was fairly and sensibly administered and worked extremely well.
However, it is no use crying over spilt milk. As has been said, not only the growth of occupational schemes but the growth of new benefits since then have developed in a way which is inconsistent with the then industrial injuries scheme. Plainly, it is being replaced, whether we like it or not, by those various alternatives.
I therefore rise only to say that I personally am sorry that successive governments—Labour governments as well as Conservative—have nibbled away at the industrial injuries scheme and that there is no longer the valid scheme that there used to be. It is therefore logical to go ahead with the steps proposed in the clause and, with a rather sad heart, I shall support it.
Lord Stallard: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will accept that I appreciate the work that he did in the old days of the workmen's compensation scheme. However, I had hoped to hear him say tonight that he opposed the abolition of the reduced earnings allowance. Its abolition virtually takes us back to those days of litigation, argument, responsibility and negligence of the workmen's compensation scheme. I thought that we had moved on from that. Beveridge certainly moved a chunk from that and, as the noble Lord rightly said, he moved another piece in the right direction. We are now going right back for no other reason, so it appears, than to save more money. It will not improve anything. In the main, the abolition of the REA is another cost-cutting exercise.
The reduced earnings allowance compensates many thousands of people for loss of earnings. It is not just a question of disability in the normal way; there is a reduction of earnings capacity. There is a great and necessary difference if a man who has been capable of earning decent wages finds that, because of the loss of a finger or leg, he can no longer command the kind of earnings to which has been accustomed and entitled. He therefore relies to a great extent on the reduced earnings allowance. It
662
was a great step forward. Its abolition will be a retrograde step and I had therefore hoped that the noble Lord would have opposed the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Henley: I have listened carefully to the arguments of the noble Baroness and my noble kinsman in opposing the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill. There are good reasons for introducing the clause with which I shall deal in a moment.
Perhaps I may deal first with two questions of figures. I believe that the noble Baroness said that 146, 000 people would be affected initially. That is not the case. About 14, 500 new awards of REA are made each year. As she knows, all existing recipients will continue to have their benefit reviewed and uprated as of now.
Perhaps I may also correct my noble kinsman on one of his statistics. I believe he said that women in the workforce were less likely to be covered by occupational sick pay cover for long-term sickness. I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Minister of State, in Answer to a Written Question on 19th January this year from Mr. Alf Morris, stated that out of a total workforce of 22 million, it is estimated that just under 13 million—58 per cent.—have occupational sick pay cover for long-term sickness. That figure comprises 6-5 million men, which represents 54 per cent. of the male workforce and—this will interest my noble kinsman—6 million women which represents 61 per cent. of the female workforce. The figures are therefore the reverse of what my noble kinsman suggested.
Lord Stallard: Does the noble Lord accept that, although we understand that the present participants in the REA scheme will not lose entirely, their allowance will be frozen at the 1988 level at best so that, ultimately, they will lose?
Lord Henley: I thought that I had dealt with that matter. I have given an assurance that those benefits will continue to be reviewed as of now and uprated where a decision to uprate is made.
As the Committee will know, Clause 3 provides for the removal of entitlement to reduced earnings allowance for new claimants. That benefit is payable where a person loses earnings as a result of an industrial accident or the onset of a prescribed industrial illness.
Our provision for change in entitlement to reduced earnings should not be considered in isolation. Instead it should be viewed in the light of our overall proposals to improve the balance and structure of disability benefits as a whole. We are concerned to improve the structure of benefits for disabled people; to promote their independence where that is possible and sensible; and to balance the help given by different benefits so that more is given to those most in need, including especially those disabled at birth or earlier in life.
However, as well as ensuring that we make better provision to fulfil those objectives, we also have another objective—to avoid duplication with other

663
sources of help. Here I have in mind the preferential help presently given through reduced earnings allowance. Most of those who receive that allowance and who are not working also receive the normal long-term national insurance benefit—invalidity benefit—which is available to those who are unable to work as a result of sickness or disability. Reduced earnings allowance is also paid for that incapacity to work. Abolition of that allowance will remove a clear overlap between benefit provisions for the majority of those recipients.
In putting forward that provision, the occupational pension rights of people who might otherwise have received retirement allowance, following receipt of reduced earnings allowance during their working lives, have also been considered.
People such as these who, on reaching retirement age, have chosen to leave full-time employment will have been able to earn additional pension rights both for invalidity benefit and retirement pension. So there are ways in which their retirement incomes will have increased. In addition we have been mindful of the circumstances of people who receive severe disablement allowance. So a new age-related addition is included in the Bill to increase payments to them.
The noble Baroness said that many industries were inherently dangerous. The Pearson Commission of 1978 recognised that that argument cannot provide a general justification for a separate scheme for all work injuries, even those caused by safe jobs. Furthermore, in so far as the argument is based on providing an economic incentive to do dangerous work, research has shown that payment only after an accident has occurred is something that people prefer not to think about. In any case, disablement benefit still provides a significant preference for those with occupational disabilities of 14 per cent. or more.
Finally, let me remind the Committee that, as I said before, this clause relates only to new claims. Present beneficiaries and those who establish new entitlements before the Bill becomes law will be fully protected. Neither will the provisions in the clause affect claims to disablement benefit. That benefit will continue to be paid for occupational disabilities assessed at 14 per cent. or more and the benefit will continue to be uprated on the same basis as now. For those reasons I commend the clause to the Committee.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am not surprised at the Minister's response although I am a little disappointed by it. I was gratified to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that he still felt at least some emotional attachment to the Industrial Injuries Scheme. I hope that that might cause him to support the stance that we take in relation to it on this side of the Chamber.
Frankly, I am not at all convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister. As has already been stated by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, occupational schemes do not by any means cover everybody. In my experience in the main
664
occupational schemes tend to cover white collar and staff workers much more frequently than they cover manual workers. It is manual workers and particularly those in industries such as the construction industry who are most at risk and most likely to require the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
I note that the number of people involved is likely to be rather fewer than I had thought—14, 500—but on the other hand the Minister did not quarrel with the figures as to costs, which, after all, are stated in the financial memorandum; namely, that it will save £1 million and later on £40 million. As I said earlier, that is a very paltry sum of money.
As I also indicated, although people have the opportunity if they are injured at work to go to the courts should they consider that they have been injured as a result of negligence, if they succeed all their social benefits now come out of the money that they eventually receive. To my knowledge only 10 per cent. of the people who are injured succeed with their claims in the courts.
This is a no-fault system of compensation. I emphasise that. I believe that it is the only system of no-fault compensation that we have in this country. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already indicated the reasons why it should continue to be maintained and supported. In the circumstances I have no alternative but to divide the Committee on this issue.
7.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 55.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Henley, L.

Allerton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Auckland, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Joseph, L.

Blyth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brookes, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller,]

Mountevans, L.

Donegall, M

Munster, E.

Dulverton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nelson, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norrie, L.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Portsmouth, E.

665

Reay, L.

Swinton, E.

Rodney, L.

Teviot, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ullswater, V.

Selkirk, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vinson, L.

Stokes, L

Wise, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L,

Wynford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Yarborough, E.

Suffield. L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Raglan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Feversham, L.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Hooson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Willis, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 3, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee meet again not before ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Employment Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Bill
7.13 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
On 5th April this year I informed your Lordships' House that the Government intended to make it possible to hand over to the Commonwealth of Australia, as a gift, one of the two vellum copies of
666
the Act of Parliament which brought Australia into being as an independent nation. The introduction of this Bill in another place on Anzac Day was a first step towards the fulfilment of that undertaking. I am pleased to be able to inform your Lordships that on the occasion of its Second Reading on 3rd May, this modest Bill was unanimously welcomed by all sides, and that on that day it completed all its remaining stages in the other place.
The Public Record copy of the Australian Constitution Act 1900 is already in Australia on loan. The effect of this Bill will be to release that copy from the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958, thereby enabling Her Majesty's Government to accede to the Australian Government's request that it should remain there permanently.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I explain that there are two copies of the Australian Constitution Act 1900, which were printed at the time on vellum. One is held in the Record office of the House of Lords as the official record of Parliamentary proceedings. The other is the Public Record office copy, which has, as I say, been on loan to Australia for the past two years. The Act established the framework for the Commonwealth of Australia, including the powers of its Government and judiciary, and its provisions have remained relatively unchanged since its enactment. The Act was drafted by Australians and was endorsed at the time by a majority of Australians and by each of the Australian parliaments and governments.
The Australians already hold a duplicate original of the Royal Proclamation, signed by Queen Victoria, which brought the Act into force on 1st January 1901: and a duplicate original of the Commission of Royal Assent to the Act, which was also signed by Queen Victoria. The provision of the Public Record office copy of the Constitution Act on a permanent basis will, therefore, complete the trinity of documents which, taken together, represent Australia's birth certificate as a nation. Far from being a dimly remembered historic document, the Act is regarded by Australians as the embodiment of Australian nationhood, containing provisions which remain as relevant now as they were 90 years ago.
There has been a great deal of interest shown in the document by the Australian people. Since the Public Record copy of the Act was lent to Australia for the Bicentennial in 1988, over 2 million visitors have had the opportunity to see it on display in Parliament House in Canberra. On a personal note, it gave me great pleasure to be able to view the document when I visited Australia in 1988 on the occasion of the inaugural sittings in the new Parliament House. I had the chance to witness, at first hand, the great interest shown by the Australian people in the copy of the Act. I am sure that there can be no doubt of the depth of feeling which lies behind the request to hold a copy of the Act permanently.
The Government recognise of course that the arguments against the disposal of any of our public records are also strong. Among my various duties as Lord Chancellor, I have ministerial responsibility for the supervision and care of our nation's public records under the provisions of the Public Records

667
Act. I take those responsibilities very seriously. Public records are an important part of this country's heritage and form an integral and unique collection which go back a very long way. The dispersal of material from our national archive is therefore not a step that can be lightly agreed to. But, in view of the special circumstances of the Australians' request, including the fact that the people of Australia have become accustomed to having easy access to the document, and the fact that minds are presently focused on old ties between our countries, the Government have decided that it would be right to find a way to offer the document to the Commonwealth of Australia as a gift, and I so informed this House by Written Answer on 5th April. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has now written to Mr. Hawke offering a gift of the document and that offer has been warmly accepted.
As things stand at present, the copy of the Act is a public record selected for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958. The provisions of that Act do not allow for gifts or permanent loans of records to be made. This Bill will make it possible for the document to be released to the Commonwealth of Australia by providing that this vellum copy of the Act alone ceases to be among the United Kingdom public records to which the Public Record Act applies. The Bill has been drafted in such a way as to make it clear that this change in status refers, and is intended to refer, to this one particular document alone. The preamble refers to Her Majesty's Government's willingness to advise Her Majesty to accede to the Australiam Government's request.
This Bill will not technically make the gift but will rather make it possible. Subject of course to Parliamentary approval for the course of action the Bill proposes, there will be—as my right honourable friend the Solicitor-General said in another place—an ideal opportunity formally to hand the document over when my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council visits Australia on offical business this summer. To make sure that proper arrangements can be made in time for that visit, the Bill will proceed rapidly, I hope so that Royal Assent may be obtained before the Summer Recess. It is also desirable that the Bill should come into force without the usual two-month interval after Royal Assent.
The effect of this short Bill will be to make possible a gesture which means a great deal to the people and Commonwealth of Australia, a nation with close and long-lasting legislative and constitutional links with our Parliament. We at Westminster should welcome this opportunity to recognise the Australian commitment to Parliamentary democracy which endures within a framework that the 1900 Act set up. I am sure that we in this House will wish to reiterate the many warm tributes paid in another place to the respect, friendship and high regard which we feel for the people of Australia. They are among our closest neighbours in all but the geographical sense. The gift of a copy of the Act is a symbol of the history, heritage and traditions which we share
668
and of our friendship. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining the Bill. I can say at the outset that we on this side of the House support it most warmly and will do everything to expedite its passage. It is entirely appropriate that the Commonwealth of Australia should receive one of the two copies of the Act of Parliament that gave birth to Australia as an independent nation. We know how much the Australian Government and people appreciate the gesture. Someone called the Act "the nation's birth certificate". To give the copy to Australia will strengthen the links between our two countries and not weaken them.
The noble and learned Lord gave the House some interesting information in his speech. The more one reads about the Act—which was drafted by the Australians and endorsed by a majority of Australians—the more one appreciates the importance of the presentation. The participation of Australia in the processing of the Bill was unique in the history of the Commonwealth. When he expressed his gratitude for what he referred to as "this unique gift", Mr. Bob Hawke, the Australian Prime Minister, said that it followed six years of negotiation. It is curious that it should have taken so long but, as we know only too well, few things are more difficult to unravel than constitutional problems.
As the noble and learned Lord has explained, one of the copies of the Act belongs to the Public Records office; that is, to the state. The other copy belongs to Parliament. Furthermore, it was feared by some that a precedent would be created which might in due course involve other countries. Parliament's copy, which is kept in the Record office of this House, forms part of an unbroken archive going back to the 15th century. The noble and learned Lord quite properly stressed the historic importance of that archive.
Those and other obstacles had to be overcome before the Bill made its appearance. That was achieved with good will on all sides. However, many people were involved in the negotiations and I should like to thank them warmly for their persistence and congratulate them upon their success.
On the Australian side, the Prime Minister, Mr. Hawke, and his colleagues, including the Australian High Commissioner in London, made plain their aspiration that one copy should rest in Canberra. Mr. Hawke's address to the parliamentary ANZAC group last June and an article he wrote for The Times in February underlined the strength of the case and the feeling which existed in Australia.
On the British side a number of our parliamentary colleagues in both Houses played their part in the achievement. But none has been more enthusiastic or determined than my right honourable friend Mr. Alf Morris. He is the chairman of the parliamentary

669
ANZAC group and we owe him a debt of gratitude for the skilful way in which he prepared his case. As we know, in February in another place he introduced a Private Member's Bill supported by a number of distinguished colleagues. It could well be called the "Australian Constitution (Alf Morris) Bill".
Finally, I wish to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Throughout he has been a sympathetic supporter of the Australian aspiration. From the moment that he was apprised of the problems the noble and learned Lord sought constructively for solutions. The Bill is largely a result of his work.
We are privileged to live in remarkable times when people throughout the world are yearning for freedom and for stable, democratic institutions. The Bill does more than authorise the handing over of an historic document; it teaches the world a lesson because it demonstrates how dedicated nations can be to these great principles and how determined they are to preserve them. We wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I rise conscious that I am about to strike a slightly discordant note. I must express my dismay at the Bill and make it clear that in doing so I speak not as a serving judge but as the 69th Master of the Rolls. That office came into existence in or about the 13th century when the Master of the Rolls was the Royal Archivist and, if I am not mistaken, the Lord Chancellor's predecessor was the Royal Chaplain. However, since those times successive holders of my office have always had a primary responsibility for public records which has been shared with the holder of the office of Lord Chancellor since 1958.
I am not alone in my dismay. When in 1958 the custody of records was transferred from the Public Records office to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Parliament in the statute established an advisory council on public records to advise him. As Master of the Rolls I am the ex officio chairman of that council. At a recent meeting of the council, all members present, with one exception, expressed the view that the principle of the inviolability of the public records should be defended and that objections should be made both to the particular intention embodied in the Bill and to the general implications of it. That advice was conveyed to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor but was rejected by the Government. It is not for me to express any view as to the public interest; and considerations of Commonwealth unity and so forth, although I full appreciate those aspects. My concern is with the public records as such. A similar view was expressed by the National Archives Council. I know of no body concerned with public records and archives which, despite the special circumstances, does not believe that the Bill is a mistake.
Since time immemorial Acts of Parliament have been recorded in two separate copies. As the noble and learned Lord has said, one copy is kept in the Houses of Parliament and it is Parliament's own
670
copy. The other copy is kept in the Public Records office and it is not too fanciful to describe that as the people's copy. It was the people's copy which was sent to the Commonwealth of Australia on temporary loan in connection with the bicentennial. Such a loan is authorised by Section 2(4) of the Public Records Act 1958. The Commonwealth was also supplied with two very high quality facsimile copies, but it' now wishes to retain the original.
I understand that the Commonwealth was offered an exemplification of the Act under the Great Seal and attested by the Signed Manual but that the offer was not acceptable. I should explain that exemplification is not a new-found gimmick to get out of the difficulty. It was common during the Middle Ages and the exemplification of public Acts of Parliament continued until the reign of Queen Anne who died in 1714. If it was revived it would be the most prestigious version possible after the original. Indeed, unlike the original it would be unique.
I fully appreciate the importance which the Government and the people of Australia attach to their Constitution Act. I support fully everything that was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about the greatness and importance of Australia and the naturalness of its desire to have the document. However, it should also appreciate the importance which we attach to maintaining an unbroken collection of our records. Although drafted in Australia it is a United Kingdom Act. As far as I am aware never before in our history have we parted with such a record.
We are assured that the Bill will not set a precedent, but I ask, why will it not? Other nations which used to have colonial status may not be able to make a special case this year. However, I am sure that they will be able to do so in years to come.
There are some 107 United Kingdom statutes in force which relate to Commonwealth and other territories. If we are talking about national birth certificates—and I take only those of the 107 which have the word "independence" in their title—we are faced with those relating to the Bahamas, Barbados, Botswana, Burma, Ceylon, the Federation of Malaya, Fiji, Gambia, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tanganyika, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Zambia. That leaves out constitutional Acts relating to Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and a host of other new independent nations.
It is clear from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it is too late to persuade the Australian Government to accept an exemplification. However, all else failing, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his reply could undertake to arrange for an exemplification of this Act to be included among our own public records, although that will not overcome the problem of a break in those centuries old records. If that is asking too much, perhaps the people of this country will be allowed to have a high grade facsimile for inclusion in those records.
As I say, I realise that I am a lone voice crying in the wilderness. However, I hope that if anybody is

671
minded to reform this House, a little place will be left for the lone voices crying in the wilderness from the Cross-Benches.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I thought that I was here to welcome a Bill. I feel singularly ill-equipped to start debating this issue with the Master of the Rolls. I am happy to leave that to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, this is a sovereign Parliament and we can do what we judge is right. We shall override precedents.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has played a crucial part in this issue, as has my right honourable friend the honourable Member for Wythenshawe, Mr. Alf Morris, in bringing this to our attention. I should like to point out the support which he had in another place. When he introduced his Bill, which was rather longer than this, the following Members were signatories to the Bill—and it would be difficult to find a group of supporters more representative of a British Parliament: Sir Bernard Braine, the right honourable Denis Healey, the right honourable Sir David Steele, Sir Richard Body, the right honourable Merlyn Rees, Margaret Ewing, the right honourable Jack Ashley, Neil Hamilton, the Rev. Martin Smyth, Robin Corbett and Dafydd Wigley. Those Members are a splendid cross-section of the House of Commons. I hope that we shall show our enthusiasm for a Bill which is clearly thought to be important by the Australians.
Nobody in this House speaks for anybody but himself of herself but I speak as a former chairman of the Britain-Australia Society and a former chairman of the Cook Society of which the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who had hoped to be present this evening is the present chairman. That is a British Australian society both in Australia and here. We are shortly due to have a meeting, which we have every year or two, to discuss issues of common interest. Many of us can remember Australia during the war. I can still remember an air crew coming in which would be wearing RAF blue and one would then see the dark blue uniform of an Australian. Very of ten, the navigator was an Australian. Whether that was because they were intellectually superior I do not know. However, they were a great moral strength to us.
We are very conscious of that and it is so nice to see Australians in this House. We remember Dick Casey who was a regular attender and we are lucky to have the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, here. Indeed, I wish that there were more Commonwealth representatives in the House of Lords; perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might care to bear that in mind.
Those of us who know Australia are deeply devoted to it. We had Australian friends during the war and we knew how important they were to us. It is a marvellous country. In the Kimberleys one finds the crocodiles which are fairly fierce but not as fierce as some of the animals around the coast. We remember the wonderful surf. I went surfing on a day which was too cold for the Australians on a
672
beach in Perth and acquired the title of "Lord of the Board". Australia has everything. If I were not living in England that is where I should choose to make my home. So many of us feel the same way.
The importance of this Bill cannot be overrated. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took a brave decision on this matter because it was open to criticism. I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, need worry about being alone. He had the backing of his council which advised him, but Parliament decided otherwise.
The fact that the Prime Minister and so many Australians attach so much importance to this matter justifies us taking this step. I do not believe it is too political to congratulate Mr. Hawke on winning another election. He is a fair competitor to our Prime Minister on these matters. I hope that it would be proper through the High Commissioner Doug McClelland, who is a popular figure, to send good wishes for a rapid recovery to Bob Hawke who has recently had quite a severe operation. I am sure that the House of Lords will pass this Bill although we do not dismiss lightly the view of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls. The fact that we have chosen to override his opinion makes greater the gift.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, although my family symbol represents the kiwi rather than the koala bear, I give this Bill a very warm welcome. We are very much obliged to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his very clear exposition of the Bill.
I was in Australia three years ago as a guest of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Anyone who has been to Canberra and who has seen the war grave cemetery will realise how much we owe to the Australians for the sacrifices they made in two world wars and elsewhere. I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid to the right honourable Member for Wythenshawe as chairman of the ANZAC parliamentary group of which I have the honour to be a member. He has contributed a great deal to Australia and to New Zealand where he was deservedly decorated recently.
It may be said that this Bill breaches certain conventions. Public records are not always given to another country. I suppose that one might facetiously say that New Zealand might want back the Treaty of Waitangi in due course although I believe that that is unlikely. This is a special case and, as I understand it, there will still be an original copy in this country besides the copy going to Canberra. It is true that as the Commonwealth becomes increasingly self-governing, Australia is entitled to an important document of this kind.
There is no doubt that the ties between Australia and ourselves remain very strong; certainly when I was there three years ago, with five colleagues from the House of Commons, that was made quite clear. It is absolutely right that the copy of the Australia Constitution Act should be returned to Australia. I should like to pay a particularly warm tribute to the

673
High Commissioner, whom I first met in Canberra when he was president of the Senate.
Far from creating problems over our links with Australia, the Bill will further closer relations between ourselves and a country to which we owe so much.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shackleton was kind enough to link me with two Australians, the late Lord Casey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes. I wish I were an Australian. I feel that I have been there so of ten that I am one; alas, I am not.
Last year I was fortunate enough to go for the second time to Parkes, the little town where the noble Baroness was born. When I heard of this Bill I felt that if Australia were kind enough to give us the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes, the least we could do was to return their constitution. That is a fair swap.
I should like to welcome the Bill. I add my congratulations to Alf Morris, the Member for Wythenshawe, for his work on the Bill, and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who cut through a few Gordian knots to achieve the result that we all seek.
This morning I received a phone call from the third member of the team that worked so hard for the Bill, Doug McClelland, the High Commissioner. He asked me to convey his greetings to the House. He is sorry not to be listening to the debate: but he is at a function in London trying to promote Melbourne as host either for the next Olympic or Commonwealth Games. I hope that those efforts are not successful; I believe we have other plans.
I warmly welcome the Bill and congratulate all those who have made possible its coming before the House.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too should like to give a warm welcome to the Bill, the passing of which will give great pleasure and satisfaction to the people and Government of Australia. I have a particular interest in the Bill for two reasons. First, I am treasurer of the ANZAC group. This is a case where the Commons needs the consent of the Lords before expending any money. Secondly, my daughter and son-in-law emigrated to Australia where they and their family have enjoyed 22 happy years.
I should also like to refer to the role of my right honourable friend Alf Morris in bringing the Bill to fruition. When Bob Hawke was in Britain last June he came to a meeting of the ANZAC group and asked for its help in obtaining one of the two vellum copies of the 1990 Act for his country on a permanent basis. Alf Morris, who is the chairman of the ANZAC group, took immediate steps to comply with that request.
He first approached Sir Robin Butler, the Cabinet Secretary, but the response from Sir Robin was not encouraging. Many lesser men would have decided to proceed no further in the light of the dusty answer from the most senior civil servant. However, my
674
right honourable friend is well known for his quiet determination. He subsequently produced his own Bill to facilitate the transfer to Australia of one of the original copies of the Australia Constitution Act 1900.
However, Alf Morris wanted the Bill to have unanimous support—and that is important. He, together with Sir Richard Body, the vice-chairman of the ANZAC group, saw the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to discuss the matter, with the result that we now have before us a Government Bill which has the near unanimous support of Britain's Parliament. I am sure that we all wish to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his courteous consideration and sheer common sense in bringing the Bill to fruition.
This country and its people should feel pleased and gratified that the people of Australia—two million of whom have already taken the trouble to have a sight of the 1900 Act—want to have in their own country the Act which, while giving independence to Australia, nevertheless bound our countries closer together in freedom and amity.
It is my wish, and that of most British people, to preserve our relationship with Australia and to strengthen ties rather than loosen them. Seventeen years in the alien EC have not altered our feeling of kinship with Australia nor for that matter with other countries of the Commonwealth. The present High Commissioner—His Excellency Doug McClelland—has done a great deal during his term of office to build new relationships and rebuild old ones. Above all he has convinced British people in all walks of life that Australia is not going to walk away from our special relationship but will instead seek to extend that relationship through increased trade and other ways.
Finally, Bob Hawke, to whom we all wish a speedy recovery from his recent operation, said in his Times article of 22nd February 1990:
"When the constitution was enacted, Australians became one people. It would be fitting if by 2001—Australia's centenary of federation, the first major celebration of our constitutional nationhood—the Act had a permanent home in Australia to serve as the focal point for the celebrations".
All I can say is, "Bob, we've done yer proud, cobber—you've got it 10 years early."
7.47 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I rise as a humble Back-Bencher with no official relationship to Australia to welcome this Bill and this Second Reading debate. It is interesting that we had the contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. It is important that we listen to the information that he has given and take it on board. The historical continuity of records is important.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pointed out, we are a sovereign Parliament. We can make decisions and change precedents that existed before. In the opening remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor there was one aspect which jarred a little because it impinged on the sovereignty of Parliament. I shall have to read the record

675
tomorrow in Hansard, but I thought I heard him say that the Prime Minister had told Bob Hawke that he was to receive the copy of the Australia Constitution Act permanently. That was before Parliament has considered the Bill. It is not very constructive for a Prime Minister effectively to presume what Parliament will do. The Government may propose but it is Parliament that disposes.
That is one reason that I rise to support the Bill. It is an example of democracy in action. It is an example of our responding to the wishes of the people of Australia, through the persistence and the good offices of Alf Morris, MP, regarding something which is obviously important to them.
Here I should like to say a few words about Alf because I am a councillor in his constituency. I know him as a dedicated constituency Member of Parliament. The nation knew him as a Minister for the Disabled. It is curious that, although in opposition, Alf sometimes has more clout in matters concerning the disabled than even government Ministers. However, in this respect we see him playing an international role. It is a role that we should recognise as significant.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that all parties were represented in the list of supporters that Alf Morris had for his original Bill on the subject. It is worth pointing out that not only were all parties represented but all the countries of the United Kingdom were represented. That is also significant. Therefore, we have in front of us a Bill promoted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I pay tribute to him for, as was said earlier, cutting the Gordian knot and bringing the Bill before us.
We must all pay tribute to Alf Morris and recognise that in giving the Bill a Second Reading—I am sure that it will receive no impediment in its passage through Parliament—we are effectively acting in a democratic fashion. It is perhaps curious to use that sort of language in this House, but we are listening to the will of the people, expressed clearly by the Australian people and their Government, and we are acting on it. I am sure that there will be no impediment to the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers but the authorities have been informed that I intend to speak. It has been a most enjoyable debate. I agree with every point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. I must qualify that, but before doing so I should explain that I have been to Australia three times in the past decade. If I was given an excuse to go again I could not go immediately; it would have be tomorrow evening because the planes do not leave until then or perhaps slightly earlier, at lunch time. It is a most delightful country. However, that is not an important point to make.
I was on the Advisory Council of Public Records between 1974 and 1982. I had one meeting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, but that was only personal and one must forget that.
676
Whatever excellent arguments have been offered, whatever time and whatever the circumstances, in a highly disciplined area, if one visits as a breeder, one must have all the documents correct. It is one of the most disciplined areas, even more than the law, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and my noble and learned friend.
Excellent arguments have been put forward in regard to this document of 1901, but I feel that, when it was struck it should have remained in this country. However, the Bill went through all its stages in the other place and we are fortunate to have it before us on Second Reading. I see that I am being looked at rather severely. of course I absolutely approve of Australia but I hope that this Bill, although a precedent, will not be repeated for other constitutional documents.
7.55 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers because I thought that I would still be in Australia and I have only just returned. Knowing that the Bill was coming forward for Second Reading I thought that it would be wrong if I did not add my voice to the debate, because it is a significant matter.
I thank the officers of the ANZAC group for bringing this matter to Parliament in the first instance and for moving matters along in the way that they have. I echo the tributes paid to Doug McClelland. He has been oustanding.
This has been a valuable debate. It is fascinating to notice the speakers in the debate. I first refer to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who earlier this year was given the highest award, the Order of Australia. He spoke of what he had done as if it were nothing, but he has done an enormous amount to cement relations between our two countries.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred to Australia and I thank him for his nice remarks. The noble Lord is almost an honorary Australian. I wish that I could spend as much time in Australia as he does. He makes regular trips. I am sure he will know what I mean when I say that the one advantage Parkes feels that it has over Forbes is having a Baroness. There is much rivalry between those two small country towns.
Sir Henry Parkes, after whom Parkes was named, was one of the fathers of the federation and was very much involved in the early work in that respect. That makes this Bill of special significance for me. My own father, Greg McGirr, who was born in 1879, in Parkes, as I was, was one of the very first candidates for the federal elections. Being a dutiful daughter I never questioned that when he told me, but apparently he stood on a combined ticket with several members being elected at the same time. They were not one-member constituencies. I think he may have stood for the Senate, but some day I must check the accuracy of all that. Nevertheless, I believed what he said. He was very young—he said that he was one of the youngest candidates—for the

677
very first federal elections. Unfortunately, he was unsuccessful. I know that within about 10 years he was a member of the state parliament so I have no reason to doubt what he said. As I said, I must check that one day.
I was also interested in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will give the House an undertaking that the Public Records office will be made complete again. It is important to realise that in giving this gift to Australia—I thoroughly approve of it; it is a marvellous action which I know will be much appreciated—we should not overlook the fact that for some Australians it is easier to get to London than to Canberra. Therefore, the Public Records office, which has been described as being the people's office, should contain a complete record. It would be a loss for Australia too if a copy in some form is not kept in the Public Records office.
The suggestion of a good photocopy—if that is the best that can be done—would at least keep the records, complete. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will tell the House whether the House of Lords copy would automatically be available for people to view or whether ordinary members of the public can only see such documents at the Public Records office. I do not understand the detail of that point. However, if we ended up with only one original in this country and no copies, that would be a loss. I am very much in favour of a copy being held in Australia. I welcome that. I am glad that circumstances brought me back to London early enough to join in the debate tonight. I feel privileged to be a Member of this House. I support the Bill.
7.59 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I say at once that there is no question of ignoring the advice of the advisory council, to which my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls spoke and to which my noble friend Lord Teviot also drew attention. I was, and have been all along, extremely conscious of the importance of our public records and the completeness of its archives with these prepared vellum copies; one of which goes to the Record of Parliament—which is not so readily accessible to the public—and the other to the Public Records office.
We are anxious, if possible, to meet the Australian desire and at the same time to preserve intact our public records. That was the reason we thought of the exemplification to which my noble and learned friend has referred. It would bear a very special authentication. It would be an extremely high quality copy of the original Act. In a sense there is no such thing as the original because they are all copies. It is only a question of which copy one wants.
It was made clear to me—and I took some time indicating to the Prime Minister of Australia—what was involved in exemplification and how good it was. The emotional appeal of the copy which had been loaned built up and nothing would be quite like that in the estimation of Australians. It was in the light of that and after carefully weighing what had been said by the advisory council that we gave
678
effect to what the advisory council said to the following extent: we made it absolutely plain that the legislation refers only to the single Act and the Bill is restricted to that Act. We shall certainly discuss with the advisory council the appropriate form of copy. It will be very simple to provide one. We shall decide the precise nature of it and we shall certainly discuss what it will be. As far as possible I shall endeavour to meet that point.
In a sense the signatures of Her Majesty Queen Victoria to the Royal Proclamation bringing the Act into force and her signature on the original copy, if I can use that expression, of the Royal Assent, which itself is unique, constitute original documents. Australia wished to have that and in all the circumstances we thought it right that it should do so. That conclusion was reached only after giving the most careful consideration to what the advisory council said, bearing very much in mind the interests of our public archives.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was right when he thought I said that the Prime Minister had written offering a gift to the Commonwealth of Australia, subject to the legislation going through. It was absolutely apparent to Mr. Hawke that it was impossible for us to give outright the Public Record office copy without legislation. There was some suggestion that we could provide what is sometimes called "a permanent loan". I have never been clear what that is. I took the view and also received advice that it was not possible for me, on my own initiative, to make a permanent loan under the terms of the Public Records Act.
This matter has been the subject of negotiation with Australia. The Prime Minister told Mr. Hawke that we had reached the conclusion that the best way forward was by way of a gift and that the necessary legislation for that would be put before Parliament.
I am extremely grateful for all the kind things that have been said about me. I have simply endeavoured to do what seemed right in the circumstances, including considering carefully the advice tendered to me by my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls as chairman of the advisory council. His office puts him in that position. I carefully considered not only the thrust of what was said but also the details. As far as possible I endeavoured to give effect to it in the wording of the Bill.
I join also in thanking all those who have participated. One great advantage of the Bill proposed in the other place by the right honourable gentleman Mr. Alf Morris is that it was made apparent how strong and widespread was the support for this legislation. That was a factor in deciding how we should take it forward. I also thank the High Commissioner and his staff. It is also fair to say that at the time he approached Sir Robin Butler negotiations were proceeding. It may be that their precise nature was such that it was right to pursue them in the way that he ultimately did.
It was very clear that the Prime Minister of Australia was very anxious to secure this document. I am very glad that, subject to the approval of Parliament, we shall be able to accede to his request. I am sure that all noble Lords will join the noble

679
Lord, Lord Shackleton, in wishing him a very speedy recovery.
Therefore, it is with some confidence, though fully appreciating what my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls has said, that I invite your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.7 to 8.10 p.m.]

Social Security Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 4 [Computation of additional pension for purposes of invalidity pension etc.]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert:
("(4) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the expected long-term increase in the balance of the national insurance fund resulting from the provisions of this section and his proposals for applying that increase for the purpose of improving benefits for people with disabilities and those caring for them.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 16A, as the two amendments are grouped. Clause 4 is probably the biggest benefit cutting provision in the entire Bill. It amends Sections 14 to 16 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, whch relate to the computation of the earnings related additional pensions payable with invalidity pension.
Section 14 of the Social Security Act 1975 provides that the weekly rate of invalidity pension is calculated according to a formula similar to that used for calculation of Category A retirement pension. Clause 4(1) of the Bill inserts a new subsection specifying that the relevant tax year used in the calculation is any tax year between 1978-79 and 1990-91 in a period in which a person is over 16 and which ends with the tax year before the tax year in which the person qualified for invalidity pension. This has the effect of ensuring that no year after 1990-91 will count towards the calculation of the earnings related addition, while preserving rights accrued between 1978–79 and 1990–91.
By the end of this century the Government think they will have saved around £350 million. It may very well be a great deal more than that, depending on what the rise in wages will be, as this is an earnings related supplement. If fact some of the organisations looking after the disabled calculate that the savings may well be £2 billion a year in the long run and about £1 billion in 20 years from now.
The money is being taken away from the long-term sick and disabled. The Government claim that they are improving benefits for those disabled early in life. In doing so, however, they are making those pay for it who become disabled at a later age. That is not acceptable. It is the usual game of making the already disadvantaged pay for the very poor or those even worse off. If there are savings to be made they should not be achieved in this way.
Amendment No. 16 would bind the Secretary of State to report on what is being done with the savings and would in a sense earmark the savings for the use of the disabled and those caring for them. Incidentally, these would be savings on the National Insurance Fund. The record of the Government in regard to the National Insurance Fund is open to a good deal of question. The orginal Beveridge conception was that this should be funded from contributions from employers, employees and the Treasury. In 1979 the Treasury supplement accounted for about 18 per cent. Since then it has been gradually reduced and in the most recent Social Security Act was discontinued altogether on the grounds that the fund was in surplus and the Treasury contribution was no longer required. Then the Government used the surplus by way of bribes to encourage people to leave SERPS and to take up private personal pensions. Now savings are to be made from the fund at the expense of the long-term disabled.
Perhaps I may say a little about the reasons for Amendment No. 16A. The object of the amendment is to establish whether the Government are correct in claiming, as they do in their paper The Way Ahead, that there has been a rapid growth of long-term occupational sick pay schemes and that the coverage is now nearly 60 per cent. However, this is not altogether borne out by independent research. According to a survey conducted in 1988, while it is apparently true that 56 per cent. of employees are covered by some form of formal long-term sick pay scheme, the spread of such schemes is very uneven. Nearly everyone in the public sector is covered in some way or other but only 39 per cent. of employees in the private sector are covered. For those working for firms with fewer than 10 employees the proportion covered falls to only 10 per cent.
Coverage is particularly low among private firms in what are described as hazardous industries, a matter with which we dealt in the previous amendment. I refer to hazardous industries such as construction, mining and quarrying. Only 4 per cent. of those firms have formal long-term sick pay schemes and only another 3 per cent. say they might make discretionary payments. Those people are most likely to be in need of long-term sick pay and yet they are least likely to get it.
Even where a firm has a scheme, it does not automatically follow that all employees will benefit from it. The survey to which I referred found that 38 per cent. of schemes excluded recent employees. The qualifying period of service was typically six months to 12 months. Manual workers were frequently excluded altogether—that was the case in 18 per cent. of large manufacturing establishments—while another 25 per cent. excluded

681
non-salaried staff. Part-time workers were also excluded by 13 per cent. of the schemes. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made reference in the previous debate to that and to the effect upon women workers.
There is also the question of amount. Levels of long-term sick pay are normally lower than short-term levels. Only 12 per cent. of schemes paid full basic salary, while 25 per cent. of private sector schemes paid only a flat rate benefit. Among private firms in hazardous industries, none provided full pay and 36 per cent. paid only a flat rate. Nor is there any indication that this flat rate is indexed. If it loses its value over the years because of inflation, it is of very doubtful value anyway.
Unlike national insurance invalidity benefit, which continues for as long as it is needed or is replaced by retirement benefit, almost all occupational schemes have time limits. When all these limitations are taken into account it seems quite wrong for the Government to state that it is all right to introduce the provision in Clause 4 because the intention is to encourage occupational provision and this encouragement has succeeded so well that the benefit will no longer be required. There may be a case for a small minority where occupational provision is exceptionally generous. I know from my own experience that such situations exist. If the Government wanted to pursue this line, there could be a contracting out arrangement for people in that position.
However, the proposed amendment would give an opportunity to have another look at the whole position, as a report covering these issues would have to be laid before Parliament before the provisions could be enacted. It is a sensible proposition and I hope that the Government may feel disposed to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The Government have already provided, in The Way Ahead, which we published last January, details of our proposals for improving benefits for people with disabilities and their carers. The proposals improve the balance and structure of help for disabled people by providing better coverage with the extra costs of being disabled; creating a better balanced structure of help for disabled people who cannot work, particularly those disabled from birth or early in life; and giving better help and incentive for disabled people who wish to increase their independence by working.
We have also provided details of the costs of our proposals—both in the short and in the long term—in response to parliamentary questions. In particular, the reply my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled gave in a Written Answer in another place on 26th January sets out estimates of costs and savings. I take the opportunity to stress, however, that estimates for the later years, contained in that reply, especially those for the year 2025-26 are subject to considerable margins of uncertainty.
Our proposed improvements will result in increases in expenditure on social security help for disabled people in every remaining year of this century. This increase is on top of the increase in spending on benefits for people who are sick or
682
long-term sick and disabled of nearly 100 per cent. since 1978–9. Not only are we now spending £8.3 billion, but by the year 2000 we expect that spending to increase to over £12 billion. To speculate on benefit initiatives beyond the year 2000 would seem to be a somewhat fruitless exercise as it will be for the Secretary of State of the day to decide on his priorities at that time.
Over the last 15 years the growth of occupational sick pay schemes has been impressive. Nine out of ten employees are now covered for short-term sickness. Just under 60 per cent.—approaching 13 million employees—worked for employers providing longer-term cover when the IFF Research Ltd. research into occupational pension was conducted in January and February 1988. We have seen coverage for long-term sickness triple in 15 years. There is every prospect that it will continue to rise. I believe that a tighter employment situation in the 1990s will lead to employers continuing to develop sick pay packages to attract people into their employment. They are likely to take into account the restriction on further accrual of entitlement to the additional pension part of invalidity benefit. No doubt employees and their organisations will not be slow to negotiate such packages.
It is against this background of increased occupational sick pay coverage that we have moved to restrict future entitlement to the growing earnings related element of invalidity benefit, which will avoid duplication of provision. However, it would be wrong to look at the question of occupational sick pay replacing the additional pension part of invalidity benefit in isolation. This measure is a major plank in our proposals for restructuring the range of benefits available to the disabled. Our purpose is to balance the help given to those in employment with the help for those most in need, especially, as I said earlier, to those disabled at birth or early in life. The average payment for additional pension is currently £9 a week with a maximum of £41 per week. This costs £450 million a year. If the scheme was not changed these payments would rise by 1998 to £21, £84 and £1-6 billion respectively. Growth on this scale would serve only to widen the gap between those who have worked and those who have not. We are instead concentrating resources on the two completely new benefits—the disability allowance and disability employment credit—which will give substantial extra help to disabled people. I am sure that this is the right approach.
I wish to be as helpful as I can and I will summarise for the Committee the findings in the IFF Research report that relate to this amendment. As I have already said, the report indicated that almost 60 per cent. of employees had long term sickness cover. of those covered by long term schemes 7 per cent. would receive full basic salary, whilst 57 per cent. would receive a percentage of salary and a further 19 per cent. a scale rate. In so far as duration is concerned, in the private sector 42 per cent. of long term sickness schemes continue until retirement and a further 40 per cent. have early retirement schemes. In the public sector these figures are 23 per cent. and 63 per cent. respectively. In about a third of schemes entitlement to state benefit is taken into

683
account in determining the amount of occupational sick pay that an employee will receive. As far as employees being excluded from schemes is concerned 32 per cent. of employees would not be excluded on any grounds. of the remaining 68 per cent. 37 per cent. would have to be with the company for periods between three and 12 months and 26 per cent. would be excluded on grounds of part-time work.
In the light of the significant improvements which I have outlined in occupational sick pay cover and the potential for further growth and improvements and of the importance of this measure to our improved benefit structure, I consider that to commission the further research which would be needed to satisfy this amendment would not be a sensible use of resources. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether the Government will be prepared to look at the possibility of instituting some form of contracting-out arrangement in respect of schemes which meet a certain minimum standard. We still have 40 per cent. of employees not covered by adequate schemes. It seems to me that if one were to pass the proposals in the Bill, those people would still suffer. On the other hand, in order to meet the Government's point—that is, that there are now numerous schemes which offer a good standard of occupational provision—would it be possible to have a contracting-out arrangement so that if, as I said, the scheme met a certain standard it contracted out and people did not receive entitlement to the benefit.
Lord Henley: I cannot give the noble Baroness that assurance. However, if she will allow me, I shall look again at the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I cannot go any further.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am most grateful to the Minister. We are anxious to protect people who have no cover. There are still many people in that position, especially in the manual industries. For example, people who have a chequered work pattern, who do not work for an employer for very long and who move around. of course that is a feature of the construction industry. However, if the Minister will at least look again at the matter I shall be most willing not to press the amendments. I look forward to hearing what he has to say on Report.
Lord Henley: I was not giving the noble Baroness an assurance that the Government would bring forward an amendment. I imagined that she would wish to return to the matter on Report. I said that we would look again at the matter and, if necessary, discuss the matter further at that stage.
Baroness Turner of Camden: In the circumstances, I shall withdraw the amendment and consider it
684
further with a view to returning to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16A not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Clause 5 [Retrospective effect of Section 165A of the principal Act]:
[Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8, line 6, leave out (" and 165B" ") and insert (" to 165D" ").
The noble Lord said: I think that, although I am to move this amendment and speak also to Amendments Nos. 175 to 189, somewhere in that grouping there is an amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Carter: Amendment No. 175 is tabled in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the Marshalled List. I think that the Minister's grouping should commence with Amendment No. 176. This may be a mistake on the grouping list.
Lord Henley: That is why I am confused. For some reason I thought that the amendment tabled in the noble Lord's name and that of my noble kinsman would be included in this grouping for discussion. I do not know whether that is correct.
Lord Carter: I think perhaps that I should formally withdraw the amendment tabled in my name from this particular grouping. In that way the Minister will be able to speak to the government amendments.
Lord Henley: In that case, we shall discuss Amendment No. 175 some time tomorrow evening.
In introducing these amendments I should like to explain why we consider it right to bring forward this measure at this particular time. There have been statutory restrictions on payment of benefit arrears since the inception of the present social security scheme in 1948. The reasons are essentially administrative: to avoid the requirement to retain records for immensely long periods of time and to discourage hopeless requests for reviews for periods in the distant past.
As part of the social security reform programme a revised set of adjudication regulations came into force on 6th April 1987. They included a new provision, Regulation 72, which was designed to allow the statutory payment of arrears of benefit in full where there had been an underpayment of benefit that was solely attributable to a mistake on the part of an official, including an adjudication officer. This provision was widely welcomed by informed social security practitioners and avoided the previous cumbersome and administratively expensive procedure of late appeal as a way of effecting the payment of such arrears.
However, legal advice revealed that Regulation 72 had an unintended side effect in that, where a social

685
security commissioner or higher judicial authority overturned the prevailing interpretation of the law, adjudication officers' decisions given prior to that reinterpretation fell to be described as errors of law, even though they were made in good faith and in accordance with the interpretation of the law at the time. In the light of that unlooked-for effect, Regulation 72 was amended from 1st September 1987 to re-impose the 12-month limitation on arrears where adjudication officers review decisions in consequence of a reinterpretation of the law by a commissioner or higher appellate body. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, however, criticised that provision as inequitable in that, when the law is reinterpreted and an affected case is not identified and reviewed immediately, the claimant will effectively lose one week's arrears for each week of the delay before a review decision is given. We have therefore decided to amend the provision accordingly.
Paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 will provide that, where a decision is reviewed on the grounds that it was erroneous in point of law by virtue of a subsequent determination of a commissioner or higher appellate authority, no benefit will be payable for any period which falls before that determination. That arrangement provides an equity of treatment that the existing backdating provisions lack. Any arrears which because of a reinterpretation of the law become payable on review of claims which were previously disallowed will in every case be backdated to a common date irrespective of how long after that reinterpreation such a case may come to light. That means that if someone had previously had their benefit claim disallowed but had come into benefit following a reinterpretation of the law, he would under this amendment have his arrears paid back to the date of that reinterpretation irrespective of how long it takes for his case to come to light. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will agree that that is a more satisfactory arrangement than that provided under the existing rules.
That caters for reviews, but what about claims? Having provided equity in the treatment of the backdating of arrears on review application, it would be illogical if we did not introduce a similar limitation on cases where a person makes a claim following a reinterpretation of the law where he is relying on that reinterpretation to give him title to benefit. This we are doing in paragraph 7 of Schedule 6, thereby providing a common start date for payment of benefit whether it be by way of a review of a claim previously disallowed or on a new claim. The difference between claims and reviews though is that for claims we are providing that the maximum amount of benefit arrears payable is limited to the absolute time limit for claiming the benefit at issue.
I should explain that an absolute time limit for claims has been an integral part of the scheme since 1948 when the limit adopted was six months. A 12 months absolute time limit, which applies to most benefits came into force in March 1969. Several benefits—child benefit, guardian's allowance, increases of benefit for a child or adult dependent—are subject to an absolute time limit of six months. It is considered that those limits give
686
suitable protection to the rights of beneficiaries while maintaining the need to provide efficient administration. Following that through, we see no justification for extending the normal absolute time limits for making claims.
I should explain that attendance allowance and mobility allowance claims are not included in those arrangements: such claims are not currently backdated and we see no justification for introducing what would amount to a relaxation here.
In summary, we believe it to be eminently desirable that, where there is a reinterpretation of the law which brings payment of benefit to any number of people, a common date should in the interests of equity be chosen from which arrears are paid irrespective of whether the claimant has previously claimed and been disallowed or whether he is now claiming for the first time.
Subject to normal time limits on claiming, the amendments provide for this, and along with Amendment No. 20, which is a consequential of this provision and of Clause 6, I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may take it that my noble kinsman has spoken to the extent that he intends on Amendments Nos. 176 and 180, which are the ones that I wish to address. I must confess that I am somewhat concerned about those amendments. The phrase which especially concerns me is the one dealing with the treatment of court judgments. The provision that is being made by the amendments is that, when there has been a case which was unexpected to the department, other cases:
"shall be determined as if the decision referred to in subsection (7)(a) above had been found by the Commissioner or court in question not to have been eroneous in point of law".
If I understand correctly the effect of what the Government are doing—I should be grateful to be corrected if I am wrong because I should be relieved to be told so—the purpose of the amendments is to provide that, when the Government lose a test case in the courts, the effect of that case shall stand in relation to the individual claimant in whose name the case was brought but shall not affect all the other claimants in the pipeline at the time, who are to be treated, if I understand correctly what the Government propose, as if that case had not taken place.
That is unduly diminishing the scope and the role of the courts. We are familiar, because Clause 5 familiarises us forcefully, with the fact that court cases can for future effect be reversed by legislation. The amendment provides that in relation to current cases in the pipeline the effect of the court judgment can be rendered nugatory by making it cease to apply to current cases as well as reversing it for future cases. The effect of the court judgment, if I have correctly understood, is entirely confined to the single, individual claimant. It appears to me, if that is correct, that that is driving a coach and horses through the rule of law. I should be grateful for a little more information before we leave the subject.
Lord Henley: It is a complicated matter. In Clause 5 and the amendments we are attempting for the

687
second time to secure the policy intention that has been accepted down the years by administrations of both complexions: that is, that a person is not entitled to a benefit for any period unless in addition to any other conditions relating to it he makes a claim for it in the prescribed manner and the prescribed time. To that extent, we accept that the provision is retrospective; but we believe that it is necessary to re-establish the policy position that existed previously. We see no justification for leaving what one might call a window of entitlement between the date of the Cartwright decision, the most recent case, and Royal Assent which would remain if we were not to provide for the clause to have that retrospective effect. It is a period in which claimants could claim payments when it was not intended that they should.
Earl Russell: I understand the explanation given. I should be grateful for some reassurance about how narrow the effect of the amendment may be. It seems to be setting a precedent which I do not wish to see followed too of ten. I understand that it can be frustrating to any Administration if it finds that a case comes before the court and the statute does not mean what it thought it did. However, are there not circumstances in which one has to accept defeat? Is not losing a case in the courts normally one of them?
Lord Henley: I hope that my noble kinsman will not mind repeating his last remark; I am sorry that I did not catch it. I was talking to my noble friend.
Earl Russell: I was saying: are there not circumstances in which one has to accept defeat? Is not losing in the courts normally one of them?
Lord Henley: No. There are occasions when it is important to try to re-establish the policy intention. We tried once and we are making a second attempt. I do not think it right that there should be a situation where claimants receive windfall payments when it was never intended that they should.
Baroness Seear: As my noble friend said, surely we must consider the implications of what the Government are doing. If the courts have shown that the statute does not mean what the Government intended it to mean, the right process would be to amend the statute. That is not to say that because the courts have given a decision that the Government do not like, they will disregard it. The precedent for that is extremely dangerous.
Lord Henley: I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. However, there always was this policy intention; it existed for years and the courts in later years said that we were wrong. We changed the law. The situation continued for some time and then the courts said that we were wrong again. I know what the noble Baroness is saying, that we are changing the law. However on this occasion, in order to prevent large numbers of what one could call "windfall" payments, with people receiving payments when it was never intended that they
688
should, we are perfectly justified in making the legislation retrospective.
Baroness Seear: Because the Government get it wrong, they legislate badly, they lose in the courts and say, "We shall take no notice of the courts". Can the noble Lord not see how dangerous that could be? One day we might have a benevolent government—and a benevolent government is perfectly possible—who, because the Government have done it on this occasion, would be delighted to apply the rule every time the court said something that they did not like. It is extremely dangerous to adopt that course. Surely the Government must change the legislation. If they get it so badly wrong that they get it wrong twice then, for goodness' sake, they had better find somebody else to draft the Bill.
Earl Russell: I understand what my noble kinsman means about windfall payments. I understand that this is how it appears from inside the department. I also understand that the Government intended to take away the concept of entitlement. However, the courts found that there was an entitlement. This provision takes away people's property rights, something which parliaments have regularly viewed with some misgiving.
Lord Henley: I accept what the noble Baroness said about the danger of retrospective legislation. We are trying to put the statute right, as the noble Baroness says that we ought. She then complains that it is retrospective. I believe that on this occasion quite a number of claimants would receive windfall payments in a manner that Parliament never intended. One has a duty to the Treasury and public funds to see that on this occasion there is justification for a small degree of retrospection.
Baroness Seear: The moral of this whole sad story is that the Government should get their legislation right in the first place. They should not cheat when they get it wrong, which is what they propose. Because they have lost on this, they must ensure that the legislation is properly drafted, bring it back to the House and alter the law. They should not say they will not do what the court says. Anybody can say that they do not wish to do what the court says. What a precedent to set!
Lord Henley: I hoped that I had given justification for a small degree of retrospection on this one occasion.
Baroness Seear: It is no argument to the Committee that it is only a small amount. That really will not do.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that I can take this any further. I moved Amendment No. 20 and spoke to the other amendments. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 25:
Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
"Exemption for full-time students
In section 20(12)(h) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be inserted the words "provided that no person shall be so treated solely on the ground that he is a full-time student." ").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 25 and speaking to Amendment No. 26 I wish to make a few introductory remarks. Those Members of the Committee who were here for debates on the student loans Bill will be familiar with the arguments, but I wish to give the picture before I move on to the amendments.
It is the Government's intention to disentitle fulltime students from social security benefits—namely, income support, unemployment benefit and housing benefit—from the beginning of the academic year 1990-91. The regulations making the amendments have not yet been laid before Parliament. On 26th April this year the Education (Student Loans) Bill received the Royal Assent. Throughout the passage of the Bill, Opposition Peers tabled a series of amendments which, if passed, would have retained entitlement to social security benefits for full-time students. These amendments covered all the issues which were raised here: income support, employment benefit during the summer vacation, housing benefit for undergraduate and postgraduate students, and regional housing costs.
During the debates on these issues in the House of Lords, concern was repeatedly expressed by Peers from all parties and none on the financial difficulties that students will suffer as a result of disentitlement to social security benefits. We all know the arguments. That contrasts with the situation in the House of Commons where there has not been a proper opportunity to discuss students' entitlement to benefits on the Floor of the House. In addition, it is not the Government's intention that this debate should take place. The amendment regulations will be laid before Parliament and are subject only to the negative procedure, even though many Conservative MPs have expressed concern about the Government's proposals to disentitle the majority of students from social security benefits.
For instance, during the Second Reading of the Education (Student Loans) Bill, Mr. Alistair Burt—and I remind Members of the Committee that he was PPS to Mr. Kenneth Baker—
"we should look carefully at housing costs and the abolition of benefits are a worry, particularly in some regions. It will do the Government no harm to examine that carefully".—[official Report, Commons, 5/12/89; col. 212.]
At the Report stage in another place there was no debate on social security issues. Amendments tabled were not discussed. The Social Security Advisory Committee gave advice earlier when it learned that the DSS intended to stop students being eligible for social security benefits. The committee stated:
"As the grant has declined in value, students have come to depend on benefits and we do not believe that this trend should be reversed by a transfer of resources to the grant system in which payments are made without reference to individual need".
The Social Security Advisory Committee has now made its report on the proposals to the Secretary of
690
State. It has been substantially leaked. On 13th and 14th May newspapers covering that report warned of,
"student poverty and administrative chaos in universities and polytechnics as thousands of undergraduates apply for special hardship grants".
According to the newspapers, the committee is particularly concerned about the wholly inadequate amount of money that has been allocated to the access fund. The sums are £5 million for futher education students, £14 million for undergraduates and £6 million for postgraduates. They describe the intention to withdraw unemployment benefit from those students who have paid to acquire national insurance contributions as a "breach of natural
In an unprecedented move six members of the committee, according to the newspapers, have produced a minority report demanding that the proposals be dropped. They argue that the withdrawal of social security benefits will reduce the number of students from lower income backgrounds. The committee's report is based on a calculation that many students will lose up to £560 per academic year in housing benefit. That is £140 more than the loan they will receive.
When the amendment to the Education (Student Loans) Bill on housing benefit was sent to the House of Commons, that Chamber invoked its financial privilege and disagreed to the amendment because it involved a charge on the public revenue. It is understood that that was decided within the context of the Education (Student Loans) Bill and that it is appropriate to raise it here as a matter relating to social security. If this set of amendments were passed, they would not require additional expenditure. Rather, they would retain existing students' entitlement to social security benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has gone but I believe he made that point when we were discussing this matter in relation to the student loans Bill. This Bill raises a different issue to the one we discussed on that Bill. The amendments argue simply that students as a body of persons should not be disentitled to social security benefits solely on the basis that they are full-time students. The question of Commons privilege does not arise.
The purpose of Amendment No. 25 is to ensure that students are not disentitled to claim housing benefit simply because they are full-time students. The draft amendment regulations that were published in February in relation to the Social Security Act 1986 substantially affect students' housing benefit entitlement. They
"A full-time student shall be treated as if he were not liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling".
That is also extended in another regulation to include the partner of a student. Therefore students and partners of students are to be treated as if they do not pay rent for their accommodation. That is clearly not the case. Approximately 60 per cent. of students nationally find their accommodation in the private rented sector. They usually pay substantial sums in respect of a dwelling. Furthermore, students living in halls of residence are not entitled to claim housing benefit at the moment. Therefore the proposed changes will not have any effect on them.
The purpose of Amendment No. 26 is to ensure that the 1986 Social Security Act stipulates that full-time students cannot be excluded from eligibility for housing benefit purely on the grounds of being postgraduate students. Students undertaking postgraduate courses will not be eligible to receive a loan. Therefore disentitlement to housing benefit represents an even greater loss of income for those students. A postgraduate student is deemed to be on his or her course of study for 52 weeks a year. Therefore a postgraduate student over 25 years of age living outside London, with an average rent of £25-40 per week, will lose out by £448-24 a year. Postgraduate students will be particularly impoverished as a result of being disentitled to housing benefit. We also have to remember that many of those students are self-financing.
Disentitlement to housing benefit will be detrimental to most sections of the student population. As approximately 60 per cent. of students nationally find their accommodation in the private rented sector, many students will be substantially worse off, particularly as a result of the establishment of market rents resulting from the so-called deregulation of the private sector by the Housing Act 1988. Under the proposed scheme of student financial support, a student with an average rent in London is left with £18.6 on which to live after paying for his or her accommodation. A student ouside London with an average rent will have £26-33 left on which to live. Both of those figures are less than the Government's own personal allowance for a single person aged between 18 to 24 of £28–80. In the case of a student in London it is over £10 below that level.
This measure is being taken simply on the basis that students should be treated as if they are not liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling. As I said before, the access funds will not be nearly enough to make up for this. The universities and polytechnics, which are being asked to administer those funds, are worried about the difficulty they will face in delivering loans and choosing who will have them, who will not have them and how much they will get. They are also worried about the administrative burden they will be landed with. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: If the Government had simply said that they did not consider the social security system the most appropriate way of supporting students, I would not have felt the need to argue with them. The appropriate response to that belief, if they had held it, was to increase student support to a level which raised students above benefit levels; in fact to float them off benefit. The right honourable friend of the Minister, Mr. Scott, admits that the Government have not done this. In a letter he was kind enough to send to me on 20th April he stated:
"this is not simply a case, as you suggest in your letter, of raising student support above benefit levels and therefore making our proposed regulations redundant. The taper system in Housing Benefit for example means that only a proportion of income above benefit levels (65 per cent. for rent allowance assessment) is taken into account when calculating benefit entitlement. Therefore it would require a maximum loan considerably higher
692
than currently envisaged in order to float all current student claimants off benefit".
I am grateful to the right honourable gentleman for that admission. It seems to me a rather important one.
The Government are leaving students below benefit level and denying them social security support in that situation. That is why I argued earlier this afternoon that the Government's policy is discriminatory. I do not withdraw that phrase. Even if the Government were providing a large enough loan to raise students in principle above benefit levels, they are well aware—I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, say this at the Dispatch Box—that a high proportion of parents fail to pay their full parental contribution. As there is still a substantial parental contribution in the assessed student support, the Government will not, I think, deny that those students who do not receive that contribution are well below the level that they assess for their needs, even though that level is itself below benefit level. So we have here cases where people, through no fault of their own, are put well below social security benefit levels, which God knows are low enough in the first place. Those people are then told that they are not entitled to any further support.
This is a discriminatory measure and I do not see the justification for it. I do not think that the Government have got their sums right on this either. We have been given figures which result from a very small sample survey conducted by a contract research firm. It gives results which most of us find quite incredible. I beg the pardon of the Government for saying this, but it seems to me to illustrate the disadvantage of not having research done by academics. If the Government thought that British academics were interested parties, there are others in foreign countries who would have been impartial and willing to help.
I have noticed in replies given by Ministers in another place a steadily diminishing confidence among them that they have their sums right. With the leave of the Committee I shall quote a few replies that have been given recently. On 5th March Mr. Meacher asked the Secretary of State
"total cost of housing benefit paid to students in each region and in Great Britain during the summer vacation of 1989".
Mrs. Shephard replied:
"Information is not available in the form requested".
Mr. Meacher asked what was:
"the total number of claims paid, the average length, and total cost of unemployment benefit paid to students in each region and in Great Britain during the summer vacation of 1989".
Mrs. Shephard replied:
"I regret that this information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost".—[official Report, Commons; 5/3/90, col. 535.]
Mr. Battle asked the Secretary of State:
"the average amount of benefit or support, of each kind, received by a student in full-time higher education".
That is the crucial question. Mrs Shephard replied:
"Information about the amount of benefit claimed by students is not routinely collected and is not therefore available in the form requested".—[official Report, Commons, 22/2/90; col. 893.]
The starting point of our case is that the Government simply do not know what the correct

693
figures are. In our opinion, because it coincides with our daily experience, the figures collected by the NUS are much closer to the truth, save only that the NUS has slightly undersold its case. It gives an average figure, for example, of rent being paid in London of £45. In my experience, most of our undergraduates pay £50 or occasionally a little over, but, although the NUS understated its case, it has come close to the truth. It calculates that students in London lose up to £1, 000 a year. That is a substantial amount of loss.
There is also substance in the point made by the Social Security Advisory Committee that, if students are taken out of social security, there must be some form of benefit directed to need. The loan is flat rate except for the London allowance—£40, or 20 tube journeys a year in from Zone 2. There is no regional evidence in that. As we know that regional housing costs vary grossly, some people will be much worse off than others.
With regard to residential homes, the Secretary of State has admitted that there is a strong case for local limits. I am glad that he has done so, but, if that case has substance for residential homes, it also has substance for students.
There is a particularly strong case to be made on behalf of postgraduate students, who are scandalously underfinanced. The supply is diminishing. In some subjects, particularly the sciences, the position is becoming increasingly difficult. As the Government are so worried about completion rates, they might take on board the fact that it is a great deal more possible to complete your work quickly if you are adequately financed.
However, the main reason for pressing the case for postgraduates is that the logic of the Government's case simply does not apply to them. The logic of the Government's case is that, because students have the loan, they do not need social security. Postgraduate students will not receive the loan, so I simply cannot understand the logic of taking them out of social security. It looks like a determination of principle to argue that students should not receive social security benefits. If there is a reason of principle behind that, I hope that, before tonight's debate is finished, we shall know what it is.
Finally, I shall beg the noble Baroness when she replies not to rely once again upon the access funds. In proportion to the needs, those sums are Maundy money.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Student support should be provided through a single source. The educational maintenance system is that source which is advocated by the Government. The administrative burdens on local authorities should also be reduced. Despite the noble Earl's description of the sums as derisory, the introduction of top-up loans and access funds has a real purpose. During our debates in this Chamber, those funds were substantially increased. Contrary to the assertions that have been made, that will not be at the expense of students. We firmly believe that the vast majority of students will find
694
that the new resources available to them will outweigh any loss of benefit entitlement.
The Government have taken careful account of the impact of housing costs and the impact that they can have on students' income. The mandatory grant system acknowledges the exceptional costs faced by students in London, for example. The loan scheme will do the same. The allocation of the access funds will take account of variations in students' housing costs. The access funds will be able to target resources more effectively on local needs than other forms of educational support have been able to do in the past. The educational institutions themselves will administer the funds according to local demands and, in distributing the funds to the funding councils, the Government have had due regard to the differences in relevant accommodation costs between their respective sectors, the numbers of students in each sector and the proportion of those students living in private sector accommodation.
The amendments would not simply overturn our proposed policy on housing benefits for students. As I understand it, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, they would also, by allowing students in halls of residence to claim, create entitlements where currently none exists. As the student grant includes an element to cover such accommodation costs, there would be a double provision. Moreover, many fruitless claims are likely to result, putting a pointless burden on local authorities.
The public expenditure implications of allowing students to have recourse to the benefit system on top of the other means of student support are substantial. We are putting well in excess of £10 million additional resources into the educational system, creating a new system of student support. It would not make sense to leave the housing benefit arrangements as they are, much less to extend them.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the fact that there was no increase in the additional moneys being put in by the Government through both the access funds coupled with the loan scheme which would outweigh the amount of loss of benefit. The figures are absolutely conclusive in that respect—£178 million is to be made available through the loan scheme and an additional £25 million is to be made available through the access funds. The loss of benefits totals only £68 million. That leaves more than £100 million excess funds available to students. From an independent survey carried out on students' income and expenditure, we estimate that in 1990–91 those students who actually claimed benefits would have received on average £315 in a full year. Instead of that level of benefit, students will have available to them a loan of £420 in most cases.
The total amount available to students in loans and access funds will outweigh what would have been available in benefits. We estimate that in the first year of the scheme expenditure on loans will, as I have just said, be £178 million compared with savings on social security expenditure of only £68 million for those within the scope of the loans. Additionally, and I continue to repeat it, we are making available £25 million through the access

695
funds and the Government will be spending well over £100 million more on students next year as a result of the new support system. Indeed, students in this coming year will have available to them an increase of 25 per cent. Of funds over the previous year.
However—this point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady David—we acknowledge that there is concern in some quarters about the effect on individual students of the loss of benefit entitlement. We accept that a few students might have been able to claim more in benefits than they would have had available to them in loans. I can reassure the Committee that the Government have not neglected the position of such students. It is a relatively small number but if a small number of students are in financial difficulty as a result of the withdrawal of benefit entitlement, they will be able to apply for assistance from the access funds.
The calculation has been made that if access funds were made available to all students they would be derisory. It is our intention that they should be made available to those students who particularly need them and where the decision and determination for their use is made at a local level.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made reference to the discrepancies in statistics. Evidence from a survey commissioned by the Department of Education suggests that a high proportion of students claimed housing benefit and income support. However, the Department of Social Security's statistics suggest that the figures are substantially lower. Those statistics are based on actual caseload counts or, in the case of housing benefit, on a 1 per cent. sample of claims. Therefore we believe those figures to be more reliable. They bear out our view that only a minority of students in practice will lose benefits.
A further point mentioned by the noble Earl concerned the problems raised for postgraduate students. Grant provision is intended to cover postgraduates throughout the year. Noble Lords should also bear in mind that postgraduates have an access fund specifically to deal with any financial problems which may arise from withdrawal of benefits. Proportionately, the access fund for them is significantly greater than that for other students.
There was one other point which I believe was raised by the noble Baroness in relation to the partners of students. I can assure her that income support benefits will be available to partners of students but in assessment the student's income will be taken into account.
I believe that the total amount of funds available to students more than outweighs the loss of benefit. The Government have gone a very long way to meet the needs of postgraduate students, disabled students (about whom we spoke earlier) and those particular students who live in high cost rented areas.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. However, she still ignores the evidence that has been collected about the way in which students will be worse off when the situation develops, as it will, next year.
With regard to the access funds, there are no guidelines about the administration, which is bound to be chaotic. Universities and polytechnics do not know how they will manage. Various promises have been made that access funds will be available not only to compensate for benefits but also to include child care costs, mature students, special education equipment, special travel costs and part-time students—and that is only £14 million for undergraduates.
I am assured that the amendments as they stand do not affect the present arrangements for halls of residence. They would not mean that students in halls of residence would have housing benefit available. I still believe that the situation has been totally badly assessed by the Government. I shall have to test the opinion of the Committee. The answer was not satisfactory.
9.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 53.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Adrian, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Butterfield, L.

McNair, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Oram, L.

Falkender, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Falkland, V.

Peston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Galpern, L.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Richard, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hirshfield, L.

Seear, B.

Hooson, L.

Serota, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stallard, L.

Hughes, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kagan, L.

Walston, L.

697

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Whaddon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

White, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winstanley, L.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Joseph, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brookes, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Reay, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Denham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Donegall, M.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Downshire, M.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Suffield, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Swinton, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Teviot, L.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Vinson, L.

Hives, L.

Wise, L

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.20 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 26:
Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption for postgraduate students
In section 20(12)(h) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be inserted the words "provided that no person shall be treated solely on the grounds that he is a postgraduate student, " ").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 27:
Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Housing Benefit: students
In section 21 (6) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be inserted the words "and may provide for the regional or local level of housing costs and any payment for the purpose of meeting such costs to be taken into account in determining the maximum housing benefit where the claimant is a full-time student." ").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with housing benefit but tackles a slightly different aspect of the problem. It ensures that the variations in local and regional housing costs are taken into account when determining the amount of benefit payable.
Everyone knows that the amount of housing benefit a person receives is dependent among other factors on the level of rent. As is well known, there are vast differences in rent levels across the country because of issues of supply and demand. That is particularly so since the Housing Act 1988 came into effect, with some rents in the private sector in
698
London doubling. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the different rents in London and elsewhere. However, even students outside London with an average rent of £25.40 would lose out by £173.10. Therefore, again a student is using all of his loan to pay his rent. Students on courses of more than three years' duration—some are of four, five and even seven years—will lose out to a much greater extent.
The Government justify their case in terms of increase in resources to students, but we know that the figures are far from accurate and were not thoroughly researched. Therefore, it is easy to foresee a situation in which students vote with their feet and give up going to colleges in high-cost areas. The depression in the demand for places in London has been noticed. The withdrawal of housing benefit will mean that colleges in London and the South East will face major falls in applications. The Government may mistakenly believe that loans will tempt more students into college but surely they cannot believe that making them worse off will be an incentive. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I am happy to support the amendment. As the noble Baroness said, it does not merely relate to London. Throughout our debates on the subject there has been a chorus of concern about regional housing costs in many areas other than London. The Committee may recall the speeches made on the subject by my noble friend Lord Addington. They may also recall the speech made on the Second Reading of the Student Loans Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, about housing costs in Oxford. The concern is widespread and something more than merely the London allowance is needed to deal with it. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The housing benefit entitlement is calculated on the basis of the individual claimants' eligible housing costs. Therefore, the benefit will reflect regional and local levels of rent.
When speaking to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 the noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke also to this amendment, as did I, because I addressed the regional variations in housing costs. I am happy to repeat what I said then.
The Government have taken careful account of the impact which housing costs may have on students' incomes. The mandatory grant system acknowledges the exceptional costs faced by students, particularly in London. The loan scheme will do the same. The allocation of the access fund will take account of a variations in students' housing costs. In fact, the access funds will be able to target resources more effectively on local needs than other forms of educational support have been able to do in the past.
It will be for the educational institutions—and this is very important—to make the determination. They will administer the fund according to local demand. In distributing the funds to the funding council, the Government have had due regard to the differences in relevant accommodation costs between the respective sectors, the number of students in each sector and the proportion of those

699
students living in private sector accommodation. I also made reference to the individual student who would be in particular difficulties; that is, a student who would lose more in benefit than would be available to him or her in loans.
I should make the point that the assessment of housing benefit for students differs only in so far as the amount of rent on which benefit is payable is reduced by a specified weekly amount. That rent deduction is made only during the period of study, so that a student grant payable for that period includes an amount towards accommodation costs. The amount of the deduction made mirrors the provision made in the grant and is set at one of the two levels—one for students in London receiving a higher grant and one for students elsewhere. If the aim of the amendment is to seek to remove that rent deduction, it is misplaced. It is only right that the deduction should be made, as the student grant includes an element for accommodation costs. Not to take that into account would create a wasteful duplication of provisions and would place students who live in privately rented accommodation in a more advantageous position than those living in halls of residence and other college-provided accommodation who do not have access to housing benefits.
I have been repetitious, but this point has been addressed by the noble Baroness and myself in speaking to the previous amendment. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness David: My disbelief on this amendment is just as great as it was on the previous amendments. I do not believe that the Government have their figures right and I shall again divide the Committee.
9.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 53.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Adrian, L.

Blackstone, B.

Grey, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Butterfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hooson, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carter, L.

Hughes, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jay, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Kennet, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Falkender, B.

Lockwood, B.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Gallacher, L.

McNair, L.

Galpern, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

700

Mayhew, L.

Russell, E.

Mishcon, L.

Seear, B.

Monkswell, L.

Shackleton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mulley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Northfield, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ogmore, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Oram, L.

Underhill, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Peston, L.

Whaddon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rea, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Richard, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Rochester, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Joseph, L.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brookes, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Byron, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Donegall, M.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Downshire, M.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Suffield, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Swinton, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Teviot, L.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ullswater, V.

Grantchester, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vinson, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wise, L.

Hives, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 6 [Late claims for widowhood benefits where death is difficult to establish]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Recovery from damages etc. of sums equivalent to benefit: further provision]:
9.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 69.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Ampthill, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Arran, E.

Butterfield, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Caithness, E.

Blatch, B.

Carnock, L.

Borthwick, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brookes, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

701

Donegall, M.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Downshire, M.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grantchester, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Greenway, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-N cholls, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Suffield, L.

Hives, L.

Swinton, E.

Hooper, B

Teviot, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ullswater, V.

Joseph, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V.

Vinson, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mulley, L.

David. B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oram, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Peston, L.

Falkender B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L,

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winstanley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Clause 7 disagreed to accordingly.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Before we proceed further with the Committee stage of the Bill, I point out that we have reached a position where the Government have been defeated in the Division Lobby on four occasions on matters of considerable importance. They have been defeated on disability and on the victims of road accidents. We take the view that such defeats on one of the central Bills of the Government's manifesto must give Ministers reason to pause for a moment. On this side of the Committee we regard it as an extremely serious position. I must call on the noble Lord the Leader
702
of the House to state the Government's intentions against that background.
Lord Belstead: The Government intend to continue with the Bill this evening to the point that it was agreed through the usual channels we should reach. We shall of course as a government be considering the result of these Divisions in the usual way.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): I am advised that as Clause 7 does not stand part of the Bill I cannot call on Schedule 1 and the amendments thereto.
Schedule 1 [Amendments relating to the recovery from damages etc. of sums equivalent to benefit]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 33 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Liability to maintain dependants]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 10, line 19, at beginning insert:
("() In section 22 of the 1986 Act, at the end of subsection (8A) there shall be inserted the words "and shall provide for £10 of any payments made to that person in any week by another person for the maintenance of that other person's child or children to be disregarded.").
The noble Earl said: Clause 8 relates to maintenance for single parents. The object of the clause is to assist in recovering maintenance from fathers, an objective supported from these Benches. The object of the amendment is to create a £10 disregard on income support for the first £10 of maintenance recovered. The purpose of such an amendment is to create an incentive to operate the system as this is one case where we think the Government are doing something which on the whole is sensible. We should like to help them to succeed. The amendment is offered in that spirit.
The proceedings for recovering maintenance are necessarily tedious and may possibly be painful. If there is not some advantage in doing it people will not do it. This applies to the business of persuading the father to pay, as the father is always liable, if he is the somewhat irresponsible person that the system envisages. He may say, "Why should I pay all this money just to save the Treasury? They have plenty anyway". It will assist in recovering maintenance if we can assure him that his child will be receiving a slightly larger total sum than would be the case if he paid nothing at all.
The position is similar for the mother. She has some disincentive to operate a system which involves a great deal of argument, a great deal of hassle and possibly a certain amount of discontent. There have been cases where the mother has been afraid to call on such a system. If she is not a penny better off at the end of it she may well suffer a disincentive to bother. That could defeat the effects of the clause.
A disregard of the kind we propose in the amendment is in use in both the Australian and the United States benefit systems. Both have found that

703
it is a considerable help in trying to get people to operate the procedure of recovering the money. I know that it would cost the Treasury a certain amount of money but the sum would be neglible. The assistance which it could bring in the form of recovering more money from fathers than would otherwise be the case would produce the possibility that it would result in a net saving to the Treasury. I hope that the amendment will not be objected to on the ground that it would involve cost to public funds. Any such cost would be negligible. In our view, what is put forward would make the system proposed by the Government a little more effective. It is offered in an altogether sympathetic spirit. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: On these Benches we think that this is a very sensible amendment. It is a disregard which would provide a strong incentive for the payment of child maintenance. We believe that the argument put forward by the noble Earl is a good one. In our view there is a longer-term benefit in encouraging the lone parent to claim maintenance. There may come a time when the lone parent may be able to seek employment. The mere fact of having a maintenance order may make the difference between whether the lone parent can afford to take up that employment or finds that the family would be poorer, after paying the child care costs, than if they stayed on benefit. The disregard would help to overcome that situation.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 34 does not address anything in Clause 8, but rather it seeks to amend the way in which maintenance payments are treated for the purposes of income support. More specifically, this amendment proposes that £10 of any maintenance payments made in any week in respect of one or more children should be disregarded. Currently, in assessing the amount of income support payable, and indeed also for assessment of supplementary benefit previously, any maintenance received is taken fully into account. In this respect it is similar to most other types of income.
In considering this amendment, we need to remember what is actually happening. Income support is available to lone parent families who need it, and it is absolutely right that it should be so. But support for these families should not be left to the social security system. Absent parents have a clear legal duty to maintain their families. Yet for three quarters of lone parent families dependent on income support, the absent parent pays no maintenance at all. That is the situation for some half a million families. They should not leave it to the benefit system. Income support for lone parent families costs £1-9 billion a year. It is right that the benefit system should receive some recompense from absent parents for the support it provides for their families.
Maintenance is still extremely important for the lone parent family receiving income support. It is income which the lone parent can take if he or she leaves benefit and takes up work. It is also vital that the absent parent should not get into a habit of
704
non-payment, so that regular maintenance is available to help the lone parent who wants to work. It is clearly right that the wider review which has been undertaken should look at all the factors involved in decisions about paying or not paying maintenance, and this is one aspect which we shall consider in this context. But we also have to look at the balance of costs and other aspects.
I move on now to Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38 and 40. These together seek to ensure that when a claimant leaves income support, then the rights to receive all payments under a Section 24 maintenance order can be transferred to the claimant, not just those payments in respect of the children. A consequential amendment is made to the provisions for transferring an order back to the Secretary of State or the lone parent reclaiming benefit.
Clause 8 includes a number of measures to improve the action taken by DSS to obtain maintenance under the current maintenance system. At present, where parents are divorced or were never married, we can only seek to recover the benefit paid because of the children. In these situations, the new Section 24A empowers courts to consider the cost of caring for the absent parent's children, and to have regard to the income support personal allowance paid for the caring parent when making a DSS order for maintenance. Courts already have powers to have regard to the mother's costs in caring for children under family law.
Provided that there is no private maintenance order, Section 24A also allows the Secretary of State to transfer rights under a DSS order to a claimant who leaves income support. When the parents are divorced, or were never ever married, this will not apply to any amount for the caring parent's personal allowance. We considered transferring rights to receive the personal allowance as well, but after careful thought rejected that idea. Although, as I have said, under family law the courts can award an amount for the children which includes an element for the caring parent's own costs as carer, it is possible that that may be less than the income support personal allowance. of course, the fact of leaving benefit itself implies a change of circumstance.
In practice many absent parents cannot afford to pay the full amount of the children's allowances and we anticipate only a small number paying a contribution for the caring parent; but, where they do, a move off income support by the caring parent would be likely to trigger an application from the absent parent to reduce the amount that has to be paid. There is much less acceptance by the absent parent of the need to recognise the caring parent's costs than of the responsibility to support the children. One of the objectives of seeking transfer is to secure continuity of maintenance income for the caring parent and to avoid the need for her to return to court. If transfer were instead to provoke variations the measure would be counter-productive. That would be the likely effect of this amendment.
We recognise the concern that has been expressed on this point and will look at the issues raised as part of our wider review of the maintenance system.

705
For the reasons and because of the promises I have just given, I recommend to the Committee that both amendments are rejected.
Earl Russell: I must confess to a little disappointment in that reply. We do not propose that the maintenance of children be left entirely to the social security system. I had thought that I had made that clear in my speech. We propose a £10 disregard, which is a limited fraction of total income support, to encourage people to use the system of recovering the sum involved from the father. I do not see that that is a proposal to leave it to the social security system. I understand that the Minister is worried about that. I was not offering the amendment in any such spirit. I hope that that can be understood.
I entirely agree with the Minister that it is necessary to look at the balance of costs, but when she looks more closely at it the Minister may find that the balance of costs is a fine one, and that in any case, on the worst interpretation, the amount the amendment would cost the Government would
706
be small. There is the possibility that it could save the Government some money if it made the machinery for recovering money from fathers more effective than it would otherwise be.
I do not intend to divide the Committee at present. The amendment was not offered in that spirit, but there is a possibility of returning to the matter on Report. I hope that by the time we reach that stage, the Government may have thought a little further about what is being proposed here, which does not seem to me in any way to conflict with their objectives. I would be grateful if between now and Report they would consider the matter in the light of that remark. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 36 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 37.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("subsection (6)") and insert ("subsections (6) and (6A)").
The noble Lord said: The amendments are primarily tidying-up amendments to ensure that the interim improvements we are making to our maintenance arrangements under the current system work in the way intended.
First, we are clarifying the position regarding any arrears that may be outstanding at the time of any transfer of rights under a DSS order to the lone parent or any transfer back to the Secretary of State. If there are any arrears at the time of transfer to the lone parent, and those arrears relate to the period when the order was held by the Secretary of State, then he retains the right to take enforcement proceedings in respect of those arrears. Similarly, when an order is transferred back to the Secretary of State, the lone parent retains the right to take enforcement proceedings on any arrears accrued during the time she held the order.
Secondly, we are setting out precisely when the transfer of rights takes place. When the transfer is to the lone parent on her leaving benefit, the intention is that the transfer should take effect from her ceasing to receive income support. While there will be a small element of backdating we believe it is right to ensure continuity of payment and it will simply be a question of forwarding any money received by the Secretary of State following a transfer which should properly be made to the lone parent. Where it is a question of transferring rights back to the Secretary of State the transfer can be made when benefit recommences or at a later date where a transfer is not immediately necessary because payments continue to be made regularly for a period. In such cases the date of transfer would be specified in the notice itself.
The next two amendments are technical corrections and do not affect the policy at all. The final amendment is a new provision introduced to safeguard the interests of the Legal Aid Board. Where the lone parent was legally aided for the original proceedings, the Legal Aid Board can recover any money still outstanding in respect of the costs of that action from an award of arrears of maintenance ordered to be paid as a lump sum. Where the lone parent has taken her own proceedings both she and her solicitor have a duty to notify the board. The solicitor will usually do this and will arrange payment. Special arrangements are needed where the Secretary of State has taken action to obtain arrears. This amendment will provide for the Secretary of State to notify the board in any case where arrears of maintenance are awarded as a lump sum following action he has taken to enforce a claimant's order and legal aid costs are outstanding.
There is no change of principle here; the provision merely helps give practical effect to the Legal Aid Board's existing claim on lump sum payments for outstanding legal aid costs. I commend these amendments to the Committee and beg to move Amendment No. 39.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask my noble kinsman to explain a little further the thinking behind Amendment No. 45. I have been trying to work out exactly what it is getting at. I am not quite sure that I have understood it. The provision is clearly concerned with the recovery of money for legal aid costs, but I am not entirely sure that I follow the legislative prose carefully enough to understand exactly who is recovering what from whom. I should be grateful if my noble kinsman could enlighten me a little.
Lord Henley: It is rather complicated. The final amendment, Amendment No. 45, is to safeguard the interests of the Legal Aid Board. Where the lone parent is legally aided for the original proceedings, the Legal Aid Board can recover any money still outstanding in respect of the cost of that action from an award of arrears of maintenance ordered to be paid as a lump sum. The provision safeguards the interests of the Legal Aid Board. Does that satisfy my noble kinsman?
Earl Russell: I apologise for taking the matter further but this makes me begin to wonder whether we are entering the area of Schedule 1 and the discussion which has just taken place. Is this a case where one recovers money from the father? Will that money pay the costs of the Legal Aid Board and not support the child? Is the money deducted from what would otherwise go to the child?
Lord Henley: I did not notice that we had discussed Schedule 1. Sadly, by odd procedural moves of the noble Baroness opposite, we have been prevented from discussing it. The noble Lord, Lord Byron, had some amendments down and I am sure we would all have taken a great interest in considering them but he was unable to move them. It is in the interests of the Legal Aid Board. I do not think that the child will lose out, just as the noble Earl knows full well that under Section 22 of last year's Act, which would have been affected by Schedule I, it would not be a case where the individual lost out.
Earl Russell: Is this a case where a government amendment applies the same principle as Section 22 of last year's Act? That is what I was trying to find out.
Lord Henley: I think I had better come back in detail on that. I do not think that that is the case but perhaps the noble Earl will accept my assurances to that extent and allow me to press the amendments. I shall write to him to make sure that I have got the position right and to make sure that he understands what I have been saying. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 40 contains a misprint. The Marshalled List should state:
Page 11, line 44, leave out from ("rights") to end of line 49.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 11 line 49, at end insert:
("(6A) The giving of notice under subsection (3) or (6) above does not transfer or otherwise affect the right of any person—
(a) to receive a payment which fell due to him at a time before the transfer took effect; or
(b) to exercise the relevant rights in relation to any such payment;
and, where notice is given under subsection (3), subsection (5) above does not deprive the Secretary of State of his right to receive such a payment in respect of any personal allowance element or to exercise the relevant rights in relation to such a payment.
(6B) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a transfer under subsection (3) above takes effect on the day on which the dependent parent ceases to be in receipt of income support in consequence of the cessation referred to in paragraph (c) of that subsection, and
(b) a transfer under subsection (6) above takes effect on—
(i) the first day in respect of which the dependent parent receives income support after the transfer under subsection (3) above took effect, or
(ii) such later day as may be specified for the purpose in the notice under subsection (6),
irrespective of the day on which notice under the subsection in question is given.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 13, line 10, at end insert (", provided that a court shall only exercise the power to make a maintenance order within the meaning of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (power to attach earnings) if the liable person consents to the making of such an order.").
The noble Lord said: New Section 24B of the Bill was introduced by the Government fairly late in another place. It reflects, as I see it, their concern, shared, I believe, by most Members of the Committee, that people should not be allowed to walk away from their family obligations. The provisions of the new section allow the DSS to step in and seek enforcement of maintenance orders in order to recover what it is paying out in family income support where an order already exists but is not being enforced by the man, or usually the woman, concerned.
One means of enforcement which the Government seem to favour is an attachment of earnings order. That has two basic problems. As the Committee will know, I am advised on this matter by the CBI. The CBI informs me that employers have grown accustomed to handling the small volume of attachment of earnings orders currently made by the courts for civil debts. They have accepted the burden as a public duty although the charge they may levy on their employees offers no realistic compensation for the administrative cost. One company has worked out that the cost per transaction can be as much as £5 whereas the most that is ever charged is 50p. Most companies do not even charge that amount because they do not think it is reasonable to make a charge on their employees.
A sideline to what I am discussing in the amendment but a point worth making is the fact that companies are doing the Government's job for
710
them in the same way as they do with the pay as you earn scheme. If they are to obtain compensation for that, it seems to me that it should come from the Government and not from the employee. However, I make the point in passing. That is one of the snags of using attachment of earnings orders as a means of enforcement.
Generally the quantity of orders has been kept within reasonable limits because the magistrates' courts have moved forward in a sensible manner, always obtaining the individual's acquiescence before imposing an attachment order. However, the Government are now showing growing enthusiasm for the use of attachment orders for debts where acquiescence may not be present.
My amendment seeks to ensure that an individual's acquiescence is obtained before the courts enforce an attachment of earnings order. If the Committee cares to think about that, it will appreciate that if people are called upon in relatively large numbers by their employers to hand over money which does not concern the employer—he is merely acting as an agent—it could lead to quite serious industrial relations troubles. Companies are extremely worried about the possible implications. Provided that the person who is liable for the attachment of earnings order has been persuaded by the court that he should consent to it voluntarily, everything will be perfectly all right. If it is done voluntarily, it will not lead to trouble. However, if it starts to be imposed without the voluntary feature, the industrial relations problems might be very great.
Under the present arrangements, employers must actively institute the recovery of the administrative charge rather than apply for it automatically—that relates to applying for it from the employee's point of view—but they will be reluctant to do so where the debt is not accepted by the debtor. That comes back again to the problem of collecting the expenses for running the scheme. Companies will not want to do that. They will be even less inclined to do it. There has been no offer on the Government's part to cover those administrative costs.
Companies are concerned that it will cost them money which they can ill afford these days. As we all know, they must be competitive in world markets, so anything which unreasonably inflicts extra costs on companies is not in the interests of the country, let alone the Government. In addition, companies might possibly be put in the position of experiencing industrial relations problems at a time when many have managed to achieve a much happier industrial relations climate than they had some 15 or 20 years ago.
I hope that the principle of the amendment will be accepted by the Government, although the way in which it is presented may not. I hope that I shall receive some encouragement. During the course of the passage of the Bill through this place, we may arrive at a solution which reflects the Government's undoubtedly right decision to try to ensure that people who walk away from their families should not be allowed to get away with not contributing to their support. At the same time, I hope that that will

711
not put a great strain on industry. Such a strain might well arise for quite the wrong reasons and reasons which are not connected with the main purpose of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I shall be extremely interested to hear the Minister's reply. At first sight, it appears that the amendment is concerned to look after companies and their administrative cost at the expense of lone parents. Perhaps I have misunderstood the noble Lord's explanation.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I gave the wrong emphasis. The amendment tries to save companies having problems with industrial relations. The administrative costs are part of the problem, but they are not the main reason for the amendment. The main reason for the amendment is that, until now, in the relatively few cases for which an attachment of earnings has been required, courts have been able to obtain acquiescence from the person concerned before making the order for attachment of earnings. Everything has been all right because it has been agreed to.
Under the Bill, if my amendment is not accepted, it will be possible for courts to order people to pay through attachment of their earnings what they should pay in any case. However, if that is to happen on a relatively large scale within a company, people in the workforce will start to say, "Look, what on earth is my employer doing collecting that money which has nothing to do with the company?". The worry is an industrial relations worry, not a money worry.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I shall withdraw what I said and say instead that the amendment looks after the company's industrial relations at the expense of lone parents. Surely, if the liable person does not consent to the making of such an order, the lone parent will suffer. The Government will have to make that balance of judgment. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I find it difficult to go along with my noble friend because, as I read the amendment, it removes the principle which supports an attachment of earnings at any time.
Some people objected to PAYE being introduced as part of the tax system of this country. It was justified on the grounds that everybody must make his or her contribution according to his or her means in order that the country's bills could be paid. If we start moving away from the need in urgent cases for the ultimate sanction of attachment of earnings, we remove one of the weapons which enable us to get people to pay their just dues.
I understand exactly what my noble friend means. As an employer of labour I have a lot of sympathy with employers who have the onus of having to do things which are not their business. They have to do the Government's job. However, we accept it as a principle, as I said, with regard to PAYE and in
712
other cases. I do not think that at this stage we should start in a separate way to undermine the force of the principle of justice in having attachment of earnings as a way of sorting out matters.
Lord Mottistone: My noble friend misses the point, which is that hitherto in applying attachment of earnings the courts have always sought and obtained the acquiescence of the people who have to pay. My amendment simply preserves the status quo. Without it we fear that the status quo may not be maintained.
Baroness Seear: While I understand some of the objections that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, raises, it is of overriding importance to get the money to the woman. There are two reasons. In the first place she needs it and we know that in many cases she does not receive it. Secondly, if she does not receive it, the burden falls on the taxpayer.
If the Government can find some way of getting round this problem without troubling the employers, all well and good. But it is difficult to see straightaway how that can be done. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is that one has to have the consent of the people concerned. The very people who most need attachment to be applied are those who do not consent to it. Those who are willing to have the money sent might even send it without the employer having to do anything. That does not necessarily follow but it is more likely. The people who emphatically will not pay unless the employer does something about it are those who will not give consent if they are asked.
Employers are landed with doing all sorts of things which are the state's job. It is too bad but it is one of the many burdens that they have to put up with. If the Government can find a way round the difficulty, that will be even better.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My job has almost been done for me. This amendment seeks to reduce the scope for action available to the courts in proceedings taken by the Secretary of State to enforce a claimant's private maintenance order when it has fallen into arrears. We understand that employers may be concerned about the possibility that an increase in the number of attachment of earnings orders may increase their role in this sensitive area. But the changes proposed by Clause 8 will not have that effect. In addition, we think that the option that the court has of making an attachment of earnings order in cases where the debtor repeatedly defaults is too important a tool of enforcement to be given up lightly.
Clause 8 includes a number of measures to improve the action taken by the Department of Social Security to obtain maintenance under the current maintenance system when income support is claimed. These are interim steps while the Government examine the working of the maintenance system as a whole and possible alternatives. No decisions have yet been made.

713
While some maintenance payments are made fully and regularly without any special measures, unfortunately it is true that many fall into arrears. The new Section 24B enables the Secretary of State to take enforcement action on behalf of claimants whose private maintenance orders have fallen into arrears. The intention is that the Secretary of State should be able to take whatever action the lone parent could take to have payment enforced. That includes the possibility of an attachment of earnings order when the court thinks that it is appropriate to make one.
An attachment of earnings order can be made either with the debtor's agreement, or without it if 15 days have passed since the making of the maintenance order and the debtor has failed to make one or more payments due under the order and it appears to the court that default was due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect. Clause 8 does not change that. The court cannot make an attachment of earnings order unless arrears have built up.
The Government appreciate the co-operation given by employers in acting upon attachment of earnings orders. The present arrangements enable employers each time to deduct from salary 50p—as has been mentioned by my noble friend—which they retain themselves in recognition of the extra administrative costs they incur. The procedure is straightforward. They merely have to tell the employee in writing. I understand that arrangements for the charge are being reviewed and employers are being consulted.
It would obviously be preferable for absent parents to pay maintenance voluntarily without the need for courts and employers to be involved. But many absent parents do fail to meet their responsibilities. The cos: therefore of supporting their families falls on the taxpayer. That is wrong. It is precisely such a case where the amendment proposes to restrict the powers of the court. But it is also precisely such a case where the need for firm and effective action arises.
I must remind the Committee that attachment of earnings orders were introduced as a way of dealing with debt without resorting to imprisonment. Clearly that must remain a priority.
I should also point out to my noble friend that the drafting of the amendment itself does not serve his intentions. That is because maintenance orders—which are not the same as attachment of earnings orders—are not made under powers contained in the Attachment of Earnings Act but under other legislation.
While we understand the concern of employers we think it is important to achieve a proper balance between individuals' rights and their responsibilities. That was a point raised by Members of the Committee. This amendment does not do that.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone made reference to compensation from the Government for costs. In 60 per cent. of cases an attachment of earnings order is made because payments have fallen into arrears. It is therefore right that any administrative costs should fall to the debtor and not to the taxpayer.
714
The amendment is imperfectly drafted. If for no other reason I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I hope that he will also feel that the case against the amendment has been made.
Lord Mottistone: I am not altogether happy with what I regard as a "curate's egg" answer. I shall certainly come back at a later stage. At this stage I shall not bore the Committee by plcking to pieces what we have just been told.
I am not happy. I believe that there may be other ways round such provision. It is important to realise that if one makes companies charge the debtor (as he is seen by the state) the proper rate for the cost of administration he is not a debtor to the company. That is absolute nonsense in industrial relations terms. We must have another think on that. I am unhappy, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Amendments Relating to the Recovery from Damages etc of Sums Equivalent to Benefit]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to revert back to Schedule 1 to the Bill. I am advised that, following the failure of the Motion that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill, it was correct not to call Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 33, which were amendments to Schedule 1, but that I must still put the Question on Schedule 1. A note reads that the Question must be put on Schedule 1, the schedule left out as a consequence of leaving out Clause 7. In those circumstances I now put the Question.
Schedule 1 negatived.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 45:
Page 13, line 22, leave out ("20") and insert ("17").
Page 13, line 40, leave out ("this section applies, the Secretary of State shall") and insert ("by virtue of this section, the Secretary of State commences any proceedings to enforce a maintenance order, he shall, in relation to those proceedings").
Page 13, line 45, at end insert:
("(6A) Where, in any proceedings under this section, the court makes an order for the whole or any part of the arrears due under the maintenance order in question to be paid as a lump sum, the Secretary of State shall inform the Legal Aid Board of the amount of that lump sum if he knows—
(a) that the primary recipient either—
(i) received legal aid under the Legal Aid Act 1974 in connection with the proceedings in which the maintenance order was made, or
(ii) was an assisted party, within the meaning of the Legal Aid Act 1988, in those proceedings; and
(b) that a sum remains unpaid on account of the contribution required of the primary recipient—
(i) under section 9 of the Legal Aid Act 1974 in respect of those proceedings, or
(ii) under section 16 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 in respect of the costs of his being represented under Part IV of that Act in those proceedings, as the case may be.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to the amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 39. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Macleod of Borve: At this late hour I shall be brief. I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill because it was not fit and proper when only two amendments had been tabled. Since then we have had a reasonable debate which will continue at length on Report. I thank the Minister for a most helpful and comprehensive letter which I received today.
Although Clause 8 was not discussed in another place it is most important. For more than 25 years I have tried to administer the law in separation orders and so forth. One of the problems related to the amount of money that should be paid by a father whether through an attachment of earnings order or any other means. During that time so much has changed in this country. No longer do we have married couples separating and divorcing but we have young people living together and then separating. That is one of the problems. To my certain knowledge a number of mothers do not know or remember the fathers of their children. They then live with someone else and have other children by that liaison.
The clause is most complicated and when I read it I thought that the drafting was almost impossible to follow. However, having heard the debate tonight, having read the Minister's letter in which he says that the whole maintenance system will be investigated, and despite the fact that there will be many anomalies, I can do no better than to sit down. The night has been long and if I continue I shall be tedious.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend is never tedious. I am grateful not only for her remarks about the long and involved letter but also for agreeing not to oppose the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 is complex but, as my noble friend has said, very important. The measures form a practical package of short-term improvements to our arrangements. The Government are looking more widely at the whole system and later this year will be bringing forward proposals. In the meantime I hope that the Committee will accept the fact that Clause 8 makes a worthwhile contribution and I commend it to Members of the Committee.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Earnings from employment
In section 22(8) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be added the words, "provided that, in calculating a person's earnings from any employment, including self-employment, there shall be deducted the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred by him without reimbursement, to enable him to carry out his duties in connection with that employment, in respect
716
of the making of reasonable provision for the care of another member of the family".").
The noble Earl said: The effect of Amendment No. 46 is to introduce a child care disregard for income support for single parents who work part time. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is no longer in his place because earlier I promised him a further answer to his questions about priorities.
The second priority which I wish to follow throughout this Bill is that it seems to me important to use the benefit system in ways which help people to get back into employment. It is a necessary conclusion from our income support figures that too high a proportion of the population is not in productive employment. In many ways the consequences of that are unfortunate.
By giving a little help at the crucial moment, it is of ten possible to make it easier for people to work if they wish to do so. No one says that single parents must work. We agree with what Mrs. Shephard said in another place on that. The point is not to push people into work but to make it easier for them to work if they so wish. It is to be strictly a matter of choice.
In this amendment we are arguing that the way in which the benefit system is working at present is creating a disincentive to single mothers to work. That is unfortunate. It is keeping people out of productive employment and creating a new poverty trap. The cost of child care is inescapable. If the mother is working the child must be cared for. The proportion of our population who have grandmothers on tap is regrettably lower than it was. That is a necessary result of the mobility of labour and cannot be reversed.
Because the cost is there and because there is inevitably a loss of income when child care costs are to be paid, the result can be that a woman is worse off working part-time than if she were not working at all. I take an example. A woman has part-time earnings of £40. She spends £16 on child care. That is not a particularly generous estimate and it may well come to more. She spends £5 on fares. That estimate was probably arrived at before the latest round of fare increases. There is also a loss of benefit because of earnings. The result is that the woman is £11 worse off because she is working.
The Government do not like poverty traps. We do not like poverty traps. We think that the effect of discouraging people from working is unfortunate and something should be done to change it.
We have discussed the matter in this Chamber before and we have received the reply that this is uncomfortably like the old single payment system. I hope that the Government are capable of thinking beyond that. Here we have a more general way of thinking about tax and benefits which we have come across in other debates in the past.
This Government have an avowed hostility towards allowances. Also, they have an avowed hostility to provisions like single payments which take account of special circumstances. That results from a philosophical hostility to the principle of distorting the market. I can understand what the Government are getting at, but it is worth thinking about who is distorting the market. It seems to me

717
that if you are assessing peoples' incomes, you really should be thinking about the disposable income, the net income, the amount which is free to be spent. That is what makes the difference.
Therefore, if you take necessary expenses out of the calculation, you end up taxing unequally people who have equal incomes. That is a distortion of the market and has unfortunate effects. We have an example of that here. Therefore, I hope that the Government will go somewhat beyond the philosophical framework and look at what is happening.
One can quantify what is happening. Married women rely on their husbands for child care, as I remember. Some 36 per cent. of married women work part-time. Widows do not lose benefit if they work part time. If we compare widows with single parents we have a controlled experiment. Forty-two per cent. of widows work part time, but in the case of single parents who lose benefit, only 24 per cent. work part time. That is a significant discrepancy. It marks the extent to which current policy keeps people oat of employment. That may be costing the Treasury money, which one hopes might concern it. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: We on these Benches support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I do not intend at this time of night to add to the arguments that he advanced in such detail, so specifically and so well, except to point out to the Government that a number of their own statements and documents recently before both Houses indicate that they are concerned about the provision of child care and wish to encourage women back into the labour market on a part-time or even a full-time basis where appropriate. One of the objectives of the amendment is to put flesh on the bones of that intention. I hope that the Government accept it.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment does not address anything in the current Bill; rather it seeks to amend the way in which certain employment expenses, are treated across the income-related benefits. More specifically, the amendment proposes to disregard any costs of caring for a child or another member of the family if these are reasonably incurred in connection with employment.
The Committee will be aware that the current earnings rules were thoroughly debated in both Chambers when the reforms were introduced, and again last year during the Committee stage of what became the Social Security Act 1989. On both occasions Parliament decided that it was sensible for the income support scheme to be in line with the housing benefit and family credit schemes, neither of which has ever had a statutory disregard of any employment expenses.
That was the proper approach then and it remains so today. People in work who do not receive any income-related benefit are not generally protected from employment expenses. To make such provision for people receiving benefit could create
718
disincentives for them to leave benefit and move into work. For example, a claimant on income support might be tempted to limit the hours he or she works, and so their wages, to remain on income support. Similarly, on family credit, such a disregard could have a negative effect, discouraging independence and improvement so as to remain within the benefit system. That would be taking a backward step.
I suspect that Members of the Committee are particularly concerned about the position of lone parents as they may be the most likely to incur child care costs if they were to take up work. The Government are concerned that lone parents who want to work should be helped to do so. We believe the current structure of benefits goes a long way to achieving that by giving special help to lone parents. The present structure of disregards in income support, housing benefit and in community charge benefit helps lone parents by disregarding the first £15 of their earnings. That gives them a sizeable lead over other claimants, most of whom receive a £5 disregard on their earnings if they are on income support.
In addition, as we have already announced, for lone parents receiving housing benefit or community charge benefit the earnings disregard will be increased from £15 to £25 a week from October. We also increased the lone parent premium in housing benefit and community charge benefit in April, as part of the uprating, from £8.60 to £9.70 a week. For lone parents on family credit there are also special measures. They receive the same adult credit as a two parent family, and their one parent benefit is ignored in the calculation of their income.
I should also mention one other very important issue for lone parents, which is maintenance. Absent husbands and fathers are liable to maintain their dependants and it is quite unfair that the burden so of ten falls upon the taxpayer. Regular payments of maintenance can give a substantial measure of help to lone parents wanting to work and facing perhaps child care costs. Maintenance payments may be the boost that many lone parents need to take up work. Members of the Committee will know that we have announced a review of the maintenance system as a whole; and we are also taking action in the meantime to improve the amount of maintenance recovered. We believe this is good news for lone parents.
The various provisions I have mentioned within the benefit system help all lone parents who wish to work, including those with child care costs. On child care itself, we believe parents are the ones best placed to make decisions and choices about the care of their children. The Government's role is to help them have the greatest possible choice of child care provision and to ensure standards. Voluntary organisations and employers have an important role to play here and employers are increasingly recognising that help with child care can help them recruit and retain staff. The Budget measure recently announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor which exempts from tax nursery places provided by employers should help to improve availability of child care.

719
The Committee will also be aware that the Ministerial Group on Women Issues, of which my department is a member, has shown particular interest in child care and has announced a set of proposals to promote the provision of good quality affordable child care. These included the encouragement of partnerships between employers, the voluntary sector and others and encouragement of employers to use the tax reliefs available to provide child care.
Some examples will help to show what is actually happening. First, as the Committee will be aware, the Children Act has now received Royal Assent. The Act should lead to a general improvement in child care standards. The Department of Health is giving £2 million over three years to voluntary organisations to set up and run new projects for pre-school children.
I should also mention here the interest shown by the private sector in child care, including, for example, the Midland Bank. The private sector is probably the fastest growing sector in child care at the moment and a new national association for commercial child care provision has recently been set up.
There is also the Budget measure of my right honourable friend the Chancellor which exempts workplace nurseries from tax as a benefit in kind. This will remove what many employers have argued is an obstacle to the growth of nursery provision by employers. It will help increase the supply of good quality nursery care by employers. That in turn will make it easier for parents at all income levels to combine parenthood and paid employment should they wish to do so. My department too is making headway. In March its first nursery for the children of staff at our local office in Hertford was opened by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security.
For all those reasons, the Government believe this amendment is neither necessary nor helpful. It would hinder, not help, claimants who want to move from benefit to greater independence. The benefit system already contains a number of provisions to help lone parents who work and we believe that improvements in the maintenance system will help them further. The Government are active in promoting choice for parents of child care of proper standards. In addition, this amendment would introduce a complexity into the benefit system which needs to be as simple as possible. It would also have considerable benefit and administrative costs. I invite the Committee accordingly to reject the amendment.
Earl Russell: I should deceive the Committee if I said other than that I am disappointed by that reply. Perhaps I would not deceive the Committee but I would certainly surprise it. I am perfectly aware of course that this amendment has previously been debated. I thought that a very powerful case had been made out of it and I brought it back to see whether it might seem a little more persuasive for the Government with the passage of time.
720
The noble Baroness made a considerable issue of the point of disincentive; that at the ceiling level—the cut- off point, wherever it is—there might be a disincentive to working those few extra hours which involve coming off benefit. Does not that involve conceding the point I made that the loss of money by going to work at all could act as a disincentive? That is a most important point.
The most important point is the first step back into the labour market. It is a step which takes a certain amount of courage and there is the temptation to have cold feet. That is particularly so if the mother has any reason to doubt whether the care the child is receiving is thoroughly adequate. It is something which any responsible mother will thoroughly question.
The noble Baroness also made a great deal of the issue of leaving the matter to employers. I know that employers are doing more than they were and I warmly welcome that fact, but it is still not very much. I also remind the Committee that we are discussing part-time work. Most employers who are concerned to lay on child care are thinking first and foremost of their full-time workers. Here we are thinking of people who, just because they are single parents, are not of ten in a position to undertake full-time work in the labour market particularly in the first few years. They are people who are likely to be moving in and out and who may be undertaking short periods of work. For them it would not be efficient for employers to organise child care. That does not meet our concern in relation to the present case.
The noble Baroness also complained that the burden falls on the taxpayer, and of course it does. However, the argument that I am offering here is that the Government are cutting off the taxpayer's nose to spite his face and that they are actually making it harder for people to come off benefit.
There is another real philosophical difference here. The Government regard benefit very much like smoking in that once one has started one wants to go on. We on this side of the Committee are much more inclined to think that benefit is in the category of a leg up; it gives one the opportunity to get out of an awkward situation; to get moving again; to get back on one's feet and to start looking after oneself. That is a very big difference in our attitudes towards benefits.
We shall have to discuss the matter further, but at this time of night I do not think it is worth pushing it further now. I hope that the Government will think about the matter again. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 9 [Income support in respect of accommodation charges for certain persons in residential care and nursing homes]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 14, line 24, at end insert ("and shall ensure, as far as is practicable, that the amounts prescribed by him are sufficient to meet the cost of any such accommodation which would be met by a local authority in the case of persons other than qualifying persons".)
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 48 and 202 which are also in my name and that of other noble Lords. Amendments Nos. 49 to 53 are grouped with these amendments. They are government amendments and I am sure that the Minister will speak to them when he responds.
These amendments seek to address the problems which we now know are being faced by many elderly and disabled people in homes where the charges are in excess of the income support limits. The amendments seek to provide a structure for ensuring that the department has power to make additional payments to individuals to top up the current income support limits where it is reasonable to do so. The debate will have echoes of the debate that we had on the community care aspects of the NHS Bill.
Clause 9 of this Bill was introduced in response to the significant level of concern expressed about the inadequacy of income support limits to meet the charges of many residential and nursing homes. Although the National Health Service and Community Care Bill alters the funding arrangements for residents entering homes after April of next year, it does not address the problem faced by existing residents who are excluded from the provisions of the Bill and who will continue to have to meet the charges from income support.
We know that Clause 9 will help to address this omission by ensuring that the Secretary of State, when setting income support limits for existing residents, will take into account information from local authorities about the level of fees which they have negotiated with homes for residents entering under the new arrangements.
That is a broad-brush approach and, while we think that it will prevent many residents being faced with a shortfall, it is not adequate to ensure that no elderly or disabled person already resident in a home will be faced with receiving a lower standard of care and/or the fear of mounting arrears and perhaps eviction because his or her income support is inadequate to meet the fees charged. We know that Clause 9 will not address the very real problem faced by residents in the period up to April of next year.
The amendments seek to refine the mechanism proposed in Clause 9 to allow for individual assessments to be made, if requested, of the sufficiency of the benefit to pay a reasonable charge. We have been briefed by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux which has quoted to us details of some harrowing cases of elderly or disabled people who face very real problems. I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee by reading out details of these cases although they indicate the very serious situation which exists in certain instances.
We feel that the Government's approach will not do and that they should not be able to shirk their responsibilities to existing residents who are trapped between the effects of market forces on the costs of residential care and the Government's current policy on the containment of public expenditure. As we have said on a number of occasions, if nothing is
722
done, from April of next year these residents will be trapped and forgotten in the cul-de-sac of what is termed preserved rights, which in fact is preserved insecurity.
We know that the residents we are talking about are the poorest of the poor. They qualify for income support because they have low incomes and savings under £6, 000. Many are using up their small savings to meet the shortfall or are relying on family or friends for top-ups. They are terrified of what will happen to them if they can no longer meet the shortfall or if the charges increase still further. We feel that the amendment provides a mechanism which would enable the Government to keep the limits more or less at their current levels and thus avoid the increase in prices about which I know the Government are concerned. In addition, it would provide a mechanism that allowed individuals who were in hardship because their fees were well above the limits to apply to the local Department of Social Security. We feel that that it is a good way to meet the problem.
I know that the Government are aware of it but I fear that their answer will be to leave it to the local authorities as they have a residual authority. I expect that that is what the Minister will say when he comes to reply. The Government know that after April next year the local authorities will be forced to pick up the pieces and accept the financial responsibility for distressed and evicted residents. We feel that that is not the right way to go about it. The amendments are intended to deal with that problem. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: It is a pity that these important amendments are being discussed in a thin Chamber at a late hour. I know that they affect, for instance, Cheshire Homes and also Servite House, a housing association rather well known to me. There is about the country quite a substantial volume of residential homes and nursing homes. They have been provided over a long period of years. They have been upgraded consistently to meet fire regulations and so on. It would be a great waste of resource, if, because of the financial provisions in respect of them, they were running at much less than capacity. We have to remember also that they cater particularly for the frail elderly and for people with a whole variety of disabilities. The sums provided by local authority top-up payments are still not sufficient to meet the necessary level of charges even when income support has been taken into account. I hope very much that the Government will not brush aside these amendments.
Lord Henley: As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we are on familiar territory. Members of the Committee will remember the important debate on this very subject during consideration of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill only 10 days ago. On that occasion the Committee decided quite rightly not to go ahead with the amendments. I hope that, as before, I shall be able to persuade the mover of the amendments to withdraw them because. I believe that the measured steps the Government are taking in this matter are the right and proper response. In doing so I should like to

723
repeat that the Government share the concern shown by the noble Lord who moved the amendment and recognise the importance of protecting the position of those who will not be covered by the new community care arrangements.
The Committee will by now be familiar with the reasons why the Government have decided to continue the income support system for people who are resident in homes at the point of change to the new arrangements. This decision has met with the approval of most, including the representatives of the local authorities. The Committee will also be familiar with the separate themes in the Government's response to concerns expressed about the position of those with a preserved entitlement. With the leave of the Committee and for the benefit of those who perhaps were not present during our earlier debates, I shall briefly reiterate what we are doing.
First, we have increased the weekly benefit of virtually all existing claimants in homes by £10 a week, at an additional cost of £100 million. Secondly, we have also decided to introduce a second stage to the increase in the limits in 1990-91. So, in addition to the changes already made, there will from 13th August be further targeted increases to all the income support limits to help maintain their value during the coming year. More than 200,000 people will benefit from these additional increases. Thirdly, we have been considering how to carry out future upratings of the income support limits. We aim to get more and better information on the true costs of running residential care and nursing homes.
The fourth part of our strategy is, of course, Clause 9 of this Bill itself. We want to be able to use the information that will become available as a result of practical decisions and negotiations by local authorities after 1991. The new provision confirms powers to set local limits for income support taking into account evidence supplied by local authorities about the charges they will be meeting for residents in homes under the new arrangements.
As I have explained, for real and sensible practical reasons we shall not be able to use this new source of information from April 1991 but we shall want to start to use this in reviewing and setting the limits as soon as it is sensible to do so. We are mindful of the burden that could be imposed on local authorities and of the time it may take to obtain proper information from them. The noble Lord obviously feels that we cannot wait until this provision comes into effect.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been considering how he should carry out future upratings of the income support limits, including the next one. He has undertaken to make a thorough assessment of the position and to look carefully at the levels and structure of income support limits as they would apply from 1991. He expects to approve the commissioning of the necessary research in the near future. Moreover, I have announced the interim upratings which take effect in August. I repeat what I stated on a previous occasion: they do not in any way pre-empt the usual upratings which will be considered in October to take effect, presumably, next April.
724
I shall turn now to deal with the amendments in detail. The government amendments tidy up the drafting of Clause 9 to include Scotland by referring to the provisions to be introduced by Clause 54 of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. They also extend the scope of Clause 9 to ensure that my right honourable friend is able to prescribe income support limits for those people who are also being helped by local authorities, in the same manner as for all other existing residents. I am sure that Members can accept that these amendments are necessary.
The first amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord would require the Secretary of State to ensure when prescribing income support limits for people in homes that the amounts are sufficient to meet the same cost as would be met by a local authority for any such accommodation.
The second amendment would require the adjudication officers who decide on social security claims to refer claims in homes to a social security appeal tribunal for a review on the grounds that the amount payable was insufficient to meet a reasonable charge. The social security appeal tribunal would then have to adjudicate on what was a reasonable charge in the case in question and, possibly, authorise a higher amount. Adjudication officers could dispense with referral to a tribunal if the question could be settled based on previous tribunal decisions in the same home or by seeking advice of the local authority with knowledge of the home in question. The effect of the third amendment would be that Clause 9 would come into effect on Royal Assent and hence be operative before April 1991.
The first of these two amendments is impractical and would place undesirable restrictions on future decisions of the Secretary of State when he sets the income support limits. As the Committee will know, my right honourable friend is committed by Clause 9 as it stands to take account of information supplied to him by local authorities. What this amendment would do would be to force him to structure the income support system so as to match fairly and precisely the actual amounts paid by local authorities in individual cases. For every income support case we would have to find a more or less perfect twin among cases being funded by local authorities.
I must stress that there cannot be this direct read-across between the levels of support given under the new and the old systems because the two are so very different. Local authorities will be tailoring the amount of support they give to the needs of individuals. They may, for example, pay different amounts for people in the same home. There is in fact no way in which the DSS will be able to mirror all the differences and disparities in treatment that will be a feature of the new arrangements. Moreover, the new system will take some time to settle down. That is why the Secretary of State needs to be able to make judgments about the information he receives from local authorities. He will need to ensure that the system of different limits that results is actually workable by DSS local offices. He will need to watch for possible anomalies between local authorities.

725
He will need to ensure that other factors, such as evidence from home owners, are also given due weight. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The second of these amendments would place serious difficulties before social security appeal tribunals. They will have to ask, what is a reasonable charge? Is "reasonable" whatever is the going rate in a particular area? The amendment allows proprietors to seek reviews on behalf of their residents. That is merely a further variant on the blank cheque signed by the taxpayer to which I referred previously. I made the point then that DSS offices were not staffed by accountants; nor are the appeal tribunals.
With this proposal, homes would merely be able to increase fees knowing that there is no workable definition of "reasonable". Meeting all "reasonable" fees will lead to a huge escalation of costs with very little control, and we must remember our responsibilities towards all the groups of elderly and disabled people needing care, not just those in homes.
That brings me to the third amendment. I recognise the concern which prompted it: it is to help people who have a shortfall now. However, the new provision in Clause 9, which confirms my right honourable friend's powers to set local limits for income support, is designed to allow him to use, if need be, the information that will become available from local authorities after April 1991. Clearly such information will not be available until after then. The amendment therefore cannot help now. As I have said previously, the upratings announced, together with the new clause in the Bill, constitute a substantial and proper response to the anxieties that have been expressed. The Government's approach is the best way forward. The amendments are unnecessary and impractical.
11 p.m.
Lord Hylton: The Government's reply is depressing and unacceptable. The Minister did not once refer to voluntary bodies providing residential or nursing homes. They are by definition not-for-pr of it organisations. To put them together with commercial operators is unfair and unreasonable. I hope that we can have something better.
Lord Henley: I touched upon that matter in the previous debate, at which the noble Lord may not have been present. It was put to me by one of the noble Lards opposite that evidence provided by the voluntary sector was by definition, because it was not provided for pr of it, evidence of the true cost. I do not necessarily accept that point. Merely because a body does not make a pr of it does not mean that it provides the most efficient and cost-effective service. That is not necessarily the evidence that we need. We must seek proper evidence after April 1991 when local authorities will be negotiating not just with the voluntary sector but with the private sector and any other sector that there happens to be. At that stage we shall obtain the true costs.
Lord Carter: I am obviously disappointed by the Minister's reply. He referred to the measured steps that the Government are taking. Some people feel that the steps are not just measured; they are funereal.
The uprating in April and the proposed uprating in August will merely reduce the shortfall—which can be between £30 to £60 against increases of £15—between income support levels and the fees charged. The Minister said that 200,000 people will benefit. of course they will if they receive some benefit. But in many cases it will merely reduce their shortfall. When we debated this point on the other Bill I asked when the information would be available. We heard again tonight that there will be some research as soon as is sensible in the near future. I propose to finish there.
On the last reply the Minister gave about evidence, I must quote from the briefing we received from the citizens advice bureau. It states:
"A CAB in Yorkshire undertook a survey of 55 residential and nursing homes in the area, asking about fees charged, of service and projected levels of service for income support claimants. The CAB concluded from the evidence that unless action were taken, homes with a large proportion of income supported residents would be forced to close, particularly those newly established with large mortgages. Some homes would respond by refusing to take in income support claimants. Alternatively, homes would develop the already existing practice of providing different levels of care according to residents' ability to pay, with income support claimants receiving a more basic provision such as shared rooms".
That is the kind of evidence which is now available to the Government if they are prepared to act on it. I found the Minister's answer deeply disappointing. I feel that we shall have to return to this at Report stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 14, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert: (" "local authority"—
(a) in relation to areas in England and Wales, has the same meaning as it has in Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948; and
(b) in relation to areas in Scotland, has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; ").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 53:
Page 14, line 29, leave out ("such as is mentioned in") and insert ("who falls within—
(a)").
Page 14, line 30, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the National Assistance Act 1948").
Page 14, line 34, at end insert ("or
(b) subsection (1) of section 86A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (the corresponding provision for Scotland),
or who would fall within either of those subsections apart from any regulations under subsection (3) of the section in question; ").
Page 14, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert:
(" "relevant premises"—

727
(a) in relation to areas in England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 26A(2) of the National Assistance Act 1948; and
(b) in relation to areas in Scotland, has the meaning given by section 86A(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 14, line 36, at end insert:
("(2) In paragraph 6 of column (2) of Schedule 7 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after the words "regulation 17(l)(a)" there shall be inserted the words "and (d)".").
The noble Earl said: With this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 73, 192 and 197. The common factor in these amendments is that they deal with board and lodging for people in hostels for the homeless. Amendments Nos. 173 and 192 deal with the amounts available for meals. Amendment No. 197 deals with charges for breakfast.
We debated this at length last year. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on behalf of the Government, said that he had accepted that the problem existed. We have heard no more about it since; nothing has been done. Like many other noble Lords, I regret that we have to continue so late at night on this Bill, but if year after year we bring out major problems which are accepted as such and nothing is done about them, it has the effect of clogging up the parliamentary timetable. If it happens again this year, it may put some pressure on the time set aside for the Bill next year.
The situation in hostels for the homeless is thoroughly unsatisfactory at present. In 1989 the Department of the Environment found that 90 per cent. of those in bed and breakfast accommodation either had no cooking facilities or inadequate sharing facilities. There used to be an eating out allowance, which was abolished from April 1989. In addition, people in these hostels normally face a collection of amenity charges. They are told by the Government that this is because they must learn to budget like everyone else. However, if they were like everyone else they would not have the heating on unless they wanted it, they would not pay for it when it was not working and they could send for somebody to repair it if it was not working. But these matters are not under their control. They cannot limit their expenditure in that way.
The effect of the amenity charges is to leave people in board and lodging on average £11.75 per child below income support levels. That does not provide for an adequate diet, particularly in a situation where they find they are eating out regularly. The British Medical Association has reported adults and children suffering from malnutrition—not, one would think, a situation that the Government would wish to continue.
The Government tell us regularly that they are monitoring the effect of changes under the Social Security Act 1986. However, there comes a point beyond which, if nothing is done, one finds this claim increasingly hard to take seriously. I know we shall be told that some people have cooking facilities. But the sharing arrangements are on a scale which
728
is not really very practical. I shall take two typical cases. One concerns 39 families sharing 12 gas rings. That means a round-the-clock shift system. It is quite difficult to get children in particular to wait for their lunch until five in the afternoon. They tend to fuss. Another case involves 35 families sharing one cooker and one fridge.
On the question of cost, the money available simply is not adequate. I shall take a typical case of two adults and five children receiving £112 income support plus £36 child benefit minus £15-90 for amenity charges. That comes to £132 all told which equals £18-91 per week per head. Would any Member of the Committee set out to live, eating out in London, on that amount of money and can he imagine how hungry he would be? The money is not adequate.
On the question of charges for breakfast, a good many complaints are made on the lines of breakfast consisting of rancid eggs. People report regularly that even when they are in a state of extreme hunger they cannot eat such breakfasts. To force people to pay extra charges in that situation when they do not have much money available in the first place does not seem to me to be entirely reasonable. It seems to be an exploitation of a captive market.
We shall, of course, be told about cost. I have tried to do my own costings on this. I am sure they are not entirely accurate and I am sure I shall be cut down for that. However, as far as I can calculate, the cost of the provision is unlikely to be over about £2 million. One has to set that against the cost of not accepting it. Malnutrition is not good for health. If the Government are determined to save these sums on the cost of board and lodging, they will probably find themselves spending those sums and a great deal more on the health service. Malnutrition, high blood pressure, particularly in the case of pregnant women, children born with low birth weights and possibly also clinical depression are things which are likely to cost the Government considerable sums of money.
There is also a concealed loss of money in that such things make it more difficult to float people off benefit and get them back into employment. That has to be the long-term object of the exercise. Floating the water-logged is a very difficult operation. There is also, in not accepting this provision, the possibility of a concealed cost through crime. I have not forgotten that St. Thomas Aquinas, with whom I am not sure I agree, said that it is no sin for the destitute to steal from the rich in order to support themselves. I am not encouraging anyone to do any such thing and I would not dream of doing that. But mothers with very hungry children tend to feel that they have to get them food by hook or by crook.
Anything that encourages crime is unfortunate and expensive. Keeping someone in one of Her Majesty's prisons no doubt means that that person is fed adequately. However, I believe that it costs in the region of £16, 000 a year. That is a great deal more expensive than income support. I think there is a real possibility that if the Government accepted this amendment they might find it a net economy. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: The noble Earl has described the situation extremely well and has drawn attention to the harrowing cases that we all know about which lie at the root of the problem. This amendment is designed to try at least to reduce the number of those cases. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is greatly to be congratulated on moving this amendment in addition to the many others to which he has his name attached. It deals with one of the most deprived sections of the population. Anyone who has thought about the problem would readily agree that no family with children should be placed in bed and breakfast accommodation. We are not in an ideal world. It does happen. Therefore, the only way to approach the problem is for the Government to adopt a generous policy on allowances and benefit;. That is what the amendments seek, and that is why I support them.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may start with the question of costs. My noble kinsman estimated costs at about £2 million. I am not sure how he arrived at that figure. Obviously, it would depend on the additional amount to be paid, but I suggest that costs could be considerably higher.
Amendments Nos. 192 and 73 both suggest increasing income support allowances for people who have to buy meals prepared outside their accommodation. Amendment No. 192 is widely drawn while Amendment No. 73 specifically concerns homeless people housed by their local authorities in bed and breakfast accommodation without self-contained cooking facilities.
The Committee may recall that the matter of allowances for meals for people in board and lodging was debated at some length at both Committee and Report stages of last year's Social Security Bill. I do not propose to rehearse again all the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. It was clearly right for the Government to introduce changes last year to remove the perverse incentives which existed under the old scheme. The changes brought boarders into line with the majority of other claimants who looked to housing benefit for help towards their accommodation and income support for help with normal day-to-day living expenses.
Amendment No. 73 refers particularly to the position of homeless families living in bed and breakfast accommodation. However, I must make it clear that responsibilities in that area lie fairly and squarely in the hands of local authorities. Guidance issued to local authorities by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment makes it clear that local authorities should place homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation only as a last resort when other more suitable accommodation is not available and, if they must, to keep them there for as short a time as possible. It has been possible for some local authorities to avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation altogether.
730
I have every sympathy for the problems found by homeless families. But the answer to their difficulties lies in the hands of local authorities and the steps which the Government have taken to make additional funds available for a concerted programme of action to get families out of bed and breakfast accommodation.
Amendment No. 73 is more tightly drawn than Amendment No. 192, but it would nonetheless reintroduce the complications and anomalies of the old system. Even if I were predisposed to accept Amendment No. 192 in principle, I could certainly not accept it in practice. I wonder, for example, on what basis the adjudicating authorities would be expected to decide when someone is in the position of having to buy meals outside the home. Would it be the complete absence of cooking facilities or the fact that those facilities were considered inadequate? If the latter, I should be interested to know exactly how one might judge what is or is not to be regarded as adequate in any particular case.
Earl Russell: If that is so difficult, how could it be that the Department of the Environment has already done it?
Lord Henley: Would the noble Earl care to elucidate?
Earl Russell: I referred at the beginning of my speech to the survey of cooking facilities in homes for the homeless carried out by the Department of the Environment. The department found that 90 per cent. of them were inadequate. We are quite happy to accept the department's criteria.
Lord Henley: I was asking whether it would be purely a question of the complete absence of cooking facilities or of cooking facilities being available but inadequate. The noble Earl said that the Department of the Environment spoke of 90 per cent. being inadequate. Obviously there would still be borderline cases where someone would have to judge what was adequate and what inadequate. The noble Earl said that on that occasion it was 90 per cent. There is the other 10 per cent. There will be cases which are borderline between the two.
I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that this amendment would not only be unworkable in practice but would introduce into the benefit system all the complexities and perverse incentives which existed under the old arrangements.
Turning to Amendment No. 197, this would have the effect of preventing local authorities from making any deduction from housing benefit on account of meals for people living in board and lodging accommodation where the only meal provided is breakfast. It is an established principle of the social security system that housing benefit is designed to help meet reasonable accommodation costs, whereas, as I said before, income support is available to help with day-to-day living expenses. For that reason, the cost of meals included in a board and lodging charge has always been ineligible for housing benefit.

731
As the Committee is no doubt aware, until April last year the majority of people living in board and lodging accommodation had their rent and living expenses met through special rates of income support. But boarders who were not entitled to income support, such as those in full-time work, could not get help with their housing costs through housing benefit on the same basis as anyone else. In those cases local authorities had to make a judgment about the value of the meals included in the boarding charge and deduct that amount from the rent eligible for housing benefit.
Because of the wide variation in the nature of meals provided by landlords and to help local authorities in the administration of benefits, it was decided to introduce standard weekly amounts to be deducted from housing benefit where meals are provided. For a person over 16 these currently range from £13.15 a week for full board to £1.60 where breakfast only is provided. That £1.60 weekly deduction for breakfast in hardly draconian. But it makes proper recognition of the fact that people living in accommodation on a bed and breakfast basis receive, as part of their rent, a service for which most people have to pay out of their earnings, income support or other benefit income. It is not unreasonable to expect people in bed and breakfast accommodation to pay £1.60 weekly from their income support or other income for the breakfasts that they receive. It would be inequitable and illogical to give double provision for the cost of meals by allowing housing benefit to meet bed and breakfast charges in full.
Turning to Amendment No. 54, successive governments have taken the view that people without accommodation should be entitled to basic benefit to provide for their immediate needs. In April 1988 those without accommodation became entitled to claim the personal applicable amount of income support instead of a meals allowance. Most gained financially from the change. They are not entitled to premiums nor indeed were they entitled to additional requirements under the pre-1988 system.
Premiums replaced the plethora of additional requirements allowances which so complicated supplementary benefit. Premiums are appropriate for the special extra needs of particular groups, such as pensioners, when they are in a settled environment. They are inappropriate for people without a fixed pattern of expenditure and might militate against resettlement efforts. Vulnerable people, such as the disabled and the elderly, generally fall into the priority category for rehousing under the homelessness legislation and would then be entitled to claim premiums.
For those reasons and those I outlined earlier, I hope that the noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Earl decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may refer to an answer given by the Minister which I found extremely puzzling. The noble Earl referred to a survey conducted by the Department of the
732
Environment which found that 90 per cent. of the facilities were inadequate, which presumably implies that 10 per cent. were adequate. The noble Lord said that a borderline existed between them. Would he agree that such a borderline would fall somewhere between 90 per cent. and 90.1 per cent?
Lord Henley: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, quoted a Department of the Environment report which stated that 90 per cent. of services were inadequate. One still has to decide as regards the others whether or not the facilities are inadequate. There is always a borderline. That is all. The noble Lord may try to be clever with percentages. I am trying to suggest that it is a difficult matter of judgment.
Earl Russell: I become very puzzled by this doctrine of perverse incentive. If my noble kinsman suggests that the homeless have faced a perverse incentive in putting themselves in such accommodation, he is crediting them with a good deal more masochism than is the norm. What evidence do the Government have that anybody has voluntarily chosen to go into board and lodging accommodation rather than remain in their own home? We have a large theoretical superstructure erected on a foundation of evidence that has not been made known to us. I should like to hear it.
I also find it surprising to blame local authorities for the housing shortage. Local authorities which could perfectly well provide accommodation for some of these people are not allowed to spend their capital receipts for that purpose. Local authorities are subject to capping. They are subject to spending limits.
This is not the moment to discuss those matters. However, the Government should not reproach local authorities for not doing what they have stopped them doing. That is what John Stuart Mill described as "the inability of the unanalytic mind to recognise its own handiwork".
The Minister spoke at great length about difficulties of administration. That applies to income tax; it costs a great deal to administer. I do not believe that the Government propose to withdraw it for that reason, although I sometimes wonder.
We were told that proper recognition must be given to the cost where breakfast is provided. That is fair enough if breakfast is genuinely provided. In that case there must be a mechanism of regulation. There must be an equivalent mechanism to that with regard to the National Rivers Authority. However, that would be immensely cumbersome. It seemed to us simpler to remove the charge for breakfast.
We have heard a great deal about how difficult the position is for the Government. I do not think that we have heard much in the reply about the difficulties for the families concerned who live in board and lodgings and who are not getting enough to eat. I thought that the system was in place to prevent that.

733
It would not be an answer simply to divide the Committee. However, I warn my noble kinsman that the issue will not go away. It will take up a great deal more of our time until we get something done about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Carer's premium. In section 22 of the 1986 Act, after subsection (9) there shall be inserted—
"(10) In respect of a carer, the applicable amount shall include a carer's premium.
(11) For the purposes of subsection (10), a "carer" is a person—
(a) who is entitled to invalid care allowance ie including a person who would receive invalid care allowance except for the provisions of the Social Security (Overlapping Benefits) Regulations 1979; or
(b) who would be entitled to invalid care allowance if he were not of pensionable age".").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 56. I am very sorry indeed that these amendments are being discussed at this hour of the night with so few people in the Chamber. The amendment raises a large issue. I hope that the Government—if they are listening to what I am saying—will say that they are prepared to give the issue of the invalid care allowance very serious consideration.
The Committee will be aware that the Crossroads organisation—a very responsible and valuable body—has only today produced a very alarming report about the conditions under which carers are trying to do the job of caring and the extremely devastating situation in which a large number of carers find themselves. I do not wish to exaggerate. Many carers are coping. But far too many are operating under very great restraints and limitations which put a quite unbearable burden on them.
It is important that the Government consider this issue. The burden will become a great deal heavier as the Government's policy of emptying the institutions and sending people into community care is carried out. It is clear that those who will carry the burden are the families, people in their own homes and of ten women on their own, attempting to cope with people who are unable to look after themselves. Presumably the individuals coming out of institutions will be more difficult to look after and a greater burden on the carers than the kind of people they are looking after at present, because one must assume that they are more seriously handicapped.
The Crossroads report has reemphasised the fact that one of the greatest difficulties—by no means the only one—under which carers operate is sheer shortage of money. Looking after infirm, frail and confused people in an expensive business. It is expensive in terms of money, energy and stress. As Joad said, money does not make for happiness but it does ease the pain. It would ease the pain of a number of
In the past the attitude towards a community care allowance was that it was to some degree a replacement for the lost earnings of the carers. Behind the amendments is the claim that carers are entitled to remuneration for their work. It is not just a matter of income replacement. I recognise that, if accepted, the amendment would mean a change of policy. However, if the Government are serious about community care and accept the burden that they are putting on the carers, it is a change about which they must think seriously.
The amendments propose that in cases where benefits are already paid—that is, income support, housing benefit, community charge rebates and so forth—there should be a carer's premium, say, of £10. That would ease the burden laid on the carer and give a larger spending power to people operating under such extreme difficulties. It is also suggested that the invalid care allowance should be made available to any carer and that the limitation which was previously placed on it—that they should not receive it if they are over pension age—should be removed. Carers over pension age are not losing earnings. We are asking for a return for the work being done and not merely compensation for the loss of earnings. Therefore, carers over pension age who do not at present receive any invalid care allowance can be in straitened circumstances. They may be receiving a pension or some form of income support but they will receive nothing more. The costs and the additional payments that they must make are the same, whether they begin caring when they are over pension age or younger. In our view, the question of age should not be taken into account.
In tabling the amendments, we take the view that the well-established principle, much beloved of governments, that it should not be possible to benefit from two kinds of state payment should be ignored in this case. Certain people will not be eligible for a premium on additional benefits because they are above the income support or housing benefit level. However, they too have heavy costs. In Amendment No. 57 we ask that the invalid care allowance should be uprated along the lines suggested for those who are not eligible for any other kind of benefit. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I am pleased to support this amendment, which is also in my name. The noble Baroness referred to the survey which has only been published today, Caring for Carers, conducted by the Sunday Times and Crossroads Care and which highlights the urgent need for better support facilities. The survey was of 1, 000 carers. It says that carers want a decent income on which to live. They want to be heard and to have the resources to care. Two-thirds of the respondents felt that no one ever listened to them or cared for them. Nearly all wanted extra resources to continue to care and care effectively for their loved ones. They were pessimistic about obtaining those vital resources. These amendments go some way towards overcoming that pessimism and dealing with the problem of income and resources. I hope that the Government will accept them.
Lord Henley: I have not yet had an opportunity to read the report which has been referred to but I shall do so as soon as possible. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendments, but I should like to say something about the Government's proposals for carers. The new carers premium worth up to £10 per week will provide significant extra help for less well off carers. As the sponsors of this amendment propose, the money will go to people entitled to receive invalid care allowance or who have a more valuable benefit which overlaps it.
However, it is not possible to support the second string to this amendment which would provide the premium to people who start caring after pensionable age. The significance of that proposal is that such carers cannot obtain invalid care allowance. The reason for this is that invalid care allowance is an income maintenance benefit intended to compensate carers of working age who have lost earnings opportunities. Once people reach pension age the relevant income maintenance benefit is of course retirement pension. Once people have already claimed and received that benefit, they cannot then obtain in addition another income maintenance benefit such as ICA. The carers premium will not be available to people who start caring after they reach pension age.
We will of course be monitoring the impact of this new premium once it is introduced and will listen to what people say about it. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw Amendment No. 55.
Amendment No. 56 seeks to increase the weekly rate of invalid care allowance to the basic rate of retirement pension. It seems to me that this amendment is seeking an independent income for carers to be achieved by a substantial increase in invalid care allowance. Aligning non-contributory invalid care allowance with contributory retirement pension would mean an increase in the rate of invalid care allowance of 40 per cent. The problem is one of cost. With 120, 000 people currently receiving ICA, the cost of accepting this amendment could be very high indeed. In the current year the net cost, even after allowing for savings on other benefits, would be over £100 million. That sort of expenditure is not an option given the competing priorities in the area of social security benefits. Bearing that in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
Lord Hylton: I ask the Government to think rather more deeply about the situation of elderly parents of pensionable age who are continuing to care for sons and daughters who are either physically or mentally handicapped.
Lord Henley: As I said, we shall continue to monitor the situation.
Baroness Seear: I am extremely disappointed by the Government's reply. I said that I had no intention of pressing the amendment at this hour. I beg the Government to think again. It is a basic
736
principle which I was asking the Minister to reconsider. An invalid carer premium should not be regarded as a replacement for earnings but should be seen as a payment made to those who are doing the caring. I repeat that it will be an extremely heavy burden, especially as the community care programme of emptying institutions becomes more of a reality. I do not wish to be dramatic, but if we leave carers with extremely limited resources, we shall be killing them. They will not be able to continue under the new additional burdens being imposed upon them.
As I said at the beginning, I ask the Government to look again at their attitude that it is only replacement of earnings. Will they not recognise that the people caring are doing a substantial job? If these frail, infirm, confused, difficult, and elderly people were in institutions, the taxpayer would be paying for them. Surely some of that taxpayers' money can be diverted to the people who are doing the work of caring in their own homes. It would not be full payment or anything like it; but there could be something.
I have no intention of moving Amendment No. 56, but I assure the Minister that I shall return to it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 55.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Disregard of income support
.—(1) Section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation of income related benefits) shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in subsection (2) below.
(2) Where a person has been provided with accommodation under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 in premises managed by a local authority or a person other than a local authority or is a patient in hospital or nursing care but it is reasonable to consider that he may at some future date be able to return to his previous home, the Secretary of State shall prescribe that the following shall be disregarded in calculating his entitlement to income support
(a) the capital value of that previous home;
(b) a sum of income equivalent to such charges as are necessary for the retention of that previous home, as the authority considers appropriate;
(c) a sum of income equivalent to any proportion of a personal or standard community charge which remains payable by that person after all community charge benefits and any exemptions from payment have been obtained for such period as the local authority deems appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to ensure that when people enter hospital or go into residential care, they have sufficient income to cover the overheads on their home in the community until it is clear that they will never return to that home. When people are away from home temporarily they can claim housing benefit to cover rent payments. There are also a number of charges on their home for which they continue to remain liable—water rates and other fixed charges. Those weekly charges can be quite substantial, particularly when the individual lives in sheltered accommodation. They can amount to as much as £15 or £16 per week.
Without the amendment the income support regulation will act as a disincentive to the Government's objectives on community care. It is

737
essential that where elderly or disabled people are admitted into residential care or hospital, every step is taken to ensure that if possible the individual will be able to return to independent life in the community. It is important therefore that their home in the community remains available to them.
I turn to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. When someone claims income support the value of any home which they no longer occupy is taken into account and treated as a capital asset. While someone is in a home or hospital on a temporary basis the value of their home is disregarded, because it is assumed that they will want to return there. The difficulty arises when someone who owns their own home needs the care to be permanent. In that case the home is immediately treated as a capital asset which will push the assets of the person over the limit. That can be a tremendous problem if a carer is living in the home. The carer may be a friend or relative who has given up their own home to live with and care for the person.
The income support and the present legislation allows the home to be disregarded as a capital asset if it is occupied by the claimant's spouse or someone who is elderly or incapacitated. That disregard, however, does not apply to a carer who is under pension age and is neither chronically sick nor disabled. The practical effect is that the value of the home prevents the carer from receiving any income support. The carer is faced with either providing financial support for the resident or moving out of the home so that it can be sold and the value realised.
The amendment is intended to ensure that the value of the home is ignored when it is owned by a claimant but a carer living there had been caring for the claimant before the admission into care or into the long-stay hospital. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I should like to add a brief word in support of the amendment. A house is a capital asset, but the point about the asset is that it is extremely difficult to realise. The amendment is abbreviated in my notes to "not selling house" which is really what it is all about.
If carers who have perhaps given up a good deal of their life looking after a relative, saving the state a good deal of money in the process, are forced to sell the house, then they are put into a position where they are more likely to become dependent. I do not believe that that is in the Government's interests. A house is a notional asset. Its financial value comes into effect only after one's death. It is of value to your descendants but not to yourself.
On Amendment No. 58, I should like to remind the Committee that local authorities are trying to draw up their public expenditure bids for community care without knowing how the system involving housing benefit is to be calculated and with the distinct possibility that it may result in something very like the old rateable value; a notional market rent which, like every other spending limit fixed by this Government, is a great deal too low to be useful. There is a problem which needs to be addressed with some urgency. I am happy to support the amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: As the noble Earl has spoken to Amendment No. 58 and said all that I had intended to say, perhaps it would assist the Minister if he replied to Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 together.
Lord Henley: Provided my voice survives I shall reply to both amendments. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord and the noble Earl had to say on the amendment which seeks to introduce further concessions for people in income support. I say "further concessions" because I think the Committee will want to know the full nature of the help already provided to people in these circumstances. I can assure the Committee that people entering this type of accommodation are not immediately required to give up their previous home. Indeed many, if not all of them, will have every intention of returning home to take up where they left off before they moved. Quite understandably they or their relatives on their behalf may not want to commit themselves too quickly to living permanently in residential accommodation, so for some their stay in that accommodation may at first be temporary.
During this period their property can continue to be regarded as their home and as such it is fully disregarded for income support purposes. Only when the adjudicating authority has evidence that their stay has become permanent does this particular disregard cease to have effect. Even then the value of the property can be ignored under other provisions; for example, where it is occupied by a partner. Meanwhile, if they are responsible for any charges on the property help can be given towards their mortgage interest and certain other housing costs for up to 52 weeks provided they intend to return home and have not sublet that part of the home they normally occupy.
I believe these concessions are both generous and sensible. The amendment before us today seeks to extend those concessions. Its starting point is to impose on adjudicating officers a test of reasonableness to decide whether the resident may be able to return home some time in the future. I am sure the Committee will agree that this test is itself a difficult one which can only complicate the present scheme and perhaps give rise to uncertainty and dissatisfaction especially among the elderly.
The suggestion is also that the charges on the previous home should be set off against any other income the person may have provided the adjudicating authority considers these appropriate. The Committee is asked to compare this suggestion with the current rule which enables the outgoings on the property to be met for up to 52 weeks.
There is another reason why the disregard is not a good idea, and that is one of equity. I do not think it would be right to treat some people living in Part III accommodation, hospital or a nursing home more favourably than others sharing that same accommodation but with no income to cover the outgoings on their previous home, or more favourably than people in similar circumstances but living with friends or relatives. Nor would the

739
amendment be fair to the taxpayer, who would have to pay for these disregards and subsidise empty housing for what could be an indefinite period.
Many of the arguments heard today apply equally to the proposal that people's liability to community charge should also be offset against any other income they may have. It is a fundamental principle of the community charge that almost all adults should make a contribution to meeting the costs of local services and in that way local authorities should be made more accountable to the whole electorate. Exemption is granted only where accountability clearly cannot work—in the case of severe mental impairment, for example, or where particular groups of individuals have for one reason or another no income and no access to state benefits and so could not be expected to pay the community charge.
The effect of this new clause would be to exempt anyone on income support from the personal community charge. That would run counter to the principle of the community charge and it is wholly unnecessary. I hope that I have said enough on that amendment. I am sure that noble Lords would not wish to press it at this time of night.
I now turn to Amendment No. 58. An amendment identical to this new clause was debated recently during the Committee stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Its purpose is to prescribe the way in which housing benefit should be calculated after April 1991 in cases where people are provided by the local authority with a place in a private or voluntary residential care or nursing home.
Housing benefit helps to meet reasonable accommodation costs. Broadly, that means rent and any compulsory service charges which are clearly related to the provision of accommodation. If the rent includes ineligible items such as meals, fuel or personal care, their value must be deducted to work out how much benefit is payable. Where a claimant occupies accommodation, such as a residential care home, which provides a wide range of services that are ineligible, calculating the amount of benefit payable can become a complex operation requiring a detailed apportionment of the fee between eligible and ineligible items.
The Government made a commitment in the White Paper Caring for People to consult with the local authoritiy associations on the way in which housing benefit should be calculated for this new category of cases from April next year. Those consultations are still under way. Bearing in mind the complexity of assessing housing benefit for this type of accommodation under the normal rules, we propose that housing benefit for people in residential care and nursing homes should be based on a notional rent. That means that maximum housing benefit in such cases would be a fixed sum, perhaps based on the average cost of rented accommodation in the area. There would be considerable administrative advantages in such an approach. The amendment before the Committee prescribes a way of arriving at a notional rent for homes not run by a housing association. For the housing associations the normal rules would continue to apply.
740
I appreciate the concerns behind this amendment. Housing associations are anxious about any discrepancy between the basis on which housing benefit is awarded to their tenants and their actual rent costs. We are aware of these concerns and intend to address them in our final decision on this subject.
The method proposed for assessing housing benefit in other residential care homes is to place a notional rent on average eligible rent and services for all residential area and nursing homes in the relevant area. I still believe, as I did when we last discussed this proposal, that that approach will not be viable in practice.
I appreciate the continuing concern that the housing benefit paid to people in residential care and nursing homes should reflect the actual rent charged. But many of the examples cited by critics of the concept of notional rents concern extra costs connected with things which clearly relate to care rather than accommodation.
As I said during the Committee stage of the National Health Service Bill, we are currently considering all these points as part of the process of consultation with the local authority associations. That is still the position and I do not think that I can go further at this stage. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. He is aware that as regards the second amendment the main purpose is to bring home to the Government the urgent need for the housing authorities and associations to plan for the resources that they have to provide after April of next year. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefits
Regulation 7(1)(o) of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Earl said: I shall not detain the Committee for very long on this amendment, which concerns the unemployment benefit means test. It deals with the regulation by which anyone earning more than £46 a week is not eligible for benefit. That sum is not a living wage. The effect is to create a disincentive to part-time work. As I have been reiterating all evening, our concern is for floating people off benefit and getting them into employment. It is unfortunate that we have a benefit system which thrusts people back into benefit, but it is something that can be changed.
There is a point of some importance here. We do not believe, as the Government seem to believe, that people are going to run around trying to get benefits because they crave them. The Government overrate the attractiveness of their benefits. It is worth while giving people a leg-up because we believe that they are capable of taking advantage of it and getting back into work. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: At this time of night I do not intend to say any more than that we on these Benches fully support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The effect of this amendment would be to remove the weekly earnings rule from unemployment benefit. The purpose of the rule is an important one. It is to ensure that unemployment benefit is paid only to those who are unemployed. That is a reasonable proposition and one which I think commands general support.
In order to establish whether or not a person is unemployed it is necessary to have a measure of that person's return to employment. There has to be a point at which a person is considered to have returned to work and is no longer entitled to unemployment benefit. That measure should be fair, objective and easily understood. Prior to the introduction of the weekly earnings rule a person's return to work was established using the "full extent normal" rule—known in the jargon as FEN. This was a clumsy rule which could result in some very unfair disallowances. It was widely criticised by a number of authorities, including noble and learned Lords. I refer, for example, to the case heard by Lord Justice Templeman of Blunt v. Chief Adjudication officer and to two cases heard by Lord Justice Glidewell—Whelans v. Chief Adjudication officer and Worthy v. Chief Adjudication officer.
This rule relied on establishing at what point a pattern of work had become normal for a particular person and paid no regard to the level of earnings. This meant that some people earning very little could be disallowed benefit while others earning larger sums could continue to receive benefit. Earnings, on the other hand, provide an objective measure of return 1o work and allow different people to be treated in a fair and consistent manner. The level at which earnings affect benefit is aligned with the National Insurance lower earnings limit. This again is consistent and means that a person is regarded either as employed and liable for contributions or unemployed and able to claim benefit.
We are aware that this rule is not the complete answer to the complex problems involved in the relationship between unemployment benefit and work. We are continuing to monitor its effects and to consider options for a more complete solution. It has, however, been a step forward and I would therefore urge the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Hylton: Is the £46 weekly earnings rule reviewed annually; and, if not, will it not very soon become out of date and obsolete?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, it is.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has raised the point that I was just about to make. At the next up-rating order I shall ask the Government to think very hard about this limit. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Lord Denham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Hasmonean High School Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at one minute before midnight.

  ASSISTED PLACES SCHEME
  ASSISTED PLACES SCHEME
  NORTH-SOUTH RESOURCE FLOWS
  NORTH-SOUTH RESOURCE FLOWS
  INFANT MORTALITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
  INFANT MORTALITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
  EXPORT PROMOTION SERVICES
  EXPORT PROMOTION SERVICES
  FISHING VESSEL LICENSING: PROPOSED CHANGES
  FISHING VESSEL LICENSING: PROPOSED CHANGES