Sitting of 22 May 1990

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 7 June.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. YeoTo ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received regarding TECs.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I have recently received a number of representations regarding training and enterprise councils covering a range of issues. I warmly welcome the interest that has been shown in the councils from all quarters, and I am particularly encouraged by the enthusiastic response from business leaders. The TEC programme is currently two years ahead of schedule, with 72 TECs already having received development funding. I can announce today that I have now approved the 13th TEC to enter its operational phase, the East Lancashire TEC.
  Mr. Yeo: Although I welcome the greater involvement of the private sector and the decentralisation of the management training schemes, in view of the crucial importance for the future prosperity of Britain of our industry remaining fully competitive with those overseas, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will monitor most carefully the performance of TECs in delivering to British employers the sort of highly trained work force that we will need in the 21st century?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of performance. TECs will operate a performance-based contract and will report regularly to me on their management and financial performance. The Department's training standards inspectors will monitor the quality of the training provided.
  Mr. Wallace: The Department's brochure issued last year called for people who were chairmen, chief executives or top operational managers at local level to be involved in TECs. That is good as far as it goes, but does the Secretary of State recognise that that may exclude people who have expertise in training? What steps is he taking to ensure that TECs and their counterparts in Scotland, local enterprise companies, have people involved in them with some expertise in training? Is not it important to have trainers involved?
  Mr. Howard: Of course, as the hon. Gentleman syggests, the involvement of trainers is important. There is ample scope for their involvement with training and enterprise councils, without necessarily serving on the boards of those councils. We now have about 1,000 chairmen and chief operating officers all over the country giving voluntarily of their time to the training and enterprise councils. They have the clout to make sure that those councils will deliver the results that I hope we all want.
  Mr. Hannam: Does my right hon. and learned Friend. accept that the TECs will play an important role in the training of disabled people for work, and that there is a danger that some of the existing schemes may be lost if there is no requirement that every TEC board includes someone with direct responsibility for the training of disabled people?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of providing adequate training for disabled people. That is a matter dealt with in the TEC' contract, and about which the TECs must satisfy me before approval is given.
  Mr. Blair: Will the Secretary of State confirm that according to his own Department's documents, cuts in youth training are expected of not just 7 per cent., but IS per cent. after inflation and, in some areas, 30 to 50 per cent., with the loss of thousands of training places and hundreds of trainer jobs? How can we begin Britain's training revolution by savaging Britain's training budget?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman constantly seeks to raise alarms about such matters. During the past four years, training spending by Government has increased in real terms by 60 per cent. at a time when unemployment has fallen by 50 per cent., so it is not surprising that some adjustment should be made this year. We are determined to maintain the guarantees on youth training and employment training, and the quality of training. But we have no commitment to ensure that every training provider who provided training last year should also do so this year, next year and for every year into the future. We believe in adapting to the needs of change and ensuring that those best able to provide the sort of training we want will do so.

  Self-employed People
  Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were self-employed in December 1989.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): In December 1989, there were 3·3 million people in self-employment in the United Kingdom, an increase of no less than 70 per cent. since 1979.
  Mr. Wilshire: Bearing in mind the fact that those are the last figures for the 1980s, how does the trend in the number of self-employed during the 1980s compare with the trend during the 1970s? Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no plans to reduce the number of self-employed by raising a levy on the payroll of the self-employed, by removing the

  155
  upper earnings limit on the national insurance contributions of the self-employed and by loosing the trade union bully-boys on the employees of the self-employed, all of which are the official policies of the Labour party?
  Mr. Eggar: In addition to that catalogue of the Labour party's official policies, the Labour party expects Brussels to play a significant role, with the added regulations and burdens that such EC intervention would impose on small businesses, all of which will be apparent if my hon. Friend cares to read the report of the debate in the House last night. Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen cannot get away from the fact that during the previous Labour Government the number of self-employed fell by 5 per cent. while under this Government it has risen by more than 70 per cent.
  Mr. McAllion: How many people entered the enterprise allowance scheme in 1987 and what percentage have survived as ongoing genuine businesses? Does not the Minister understand that such schemes do not provide a genuine means of starting up new businesses, but are simply financially more attractive than the dole in the short term and give rise to all kinds of scams, such as the one that I discovered in Dundee—a delivery service for condoms?
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is completely out of touch. We have just announced the 500,000th participant in the enterprise allowance scheme and yesterday I gave an award to a young lady who was the 10,000th EAS recipient in Nottinghamshire. More than 600,000 people are now working because of EAS who would not have been had it not been there.

  British Tourist Authority
  Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what resources he plans to provide in the current financial year to the British Tourist Authority.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The British Tourist Authority will receive £27·7 million in 1990–91, an increase of 11 per cent. over 1989–90.
  Mr. Stewart: Last year, Britain earned £7 billion from overseas tourism, £150 million of which was earned by Nottinghamshire from visitors attracted to our famous Sherwood forest. Does my hon. Friend agree that Nottinghamshire should be the site of the new national British forest?
  Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend will be aware that there was a consultation exercise earlier this year on the siting of the new national forest. That is a matter for the Department of the Environment, but I accept that while the discerning tourist may not expect to see Robin Hood and his merry men, he needs the reassurance that there were sufficient trees for them to hide behind in the first place.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister accept that we have four excellent tourist boards in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, and that the British Tourist Authority in many ways duplicates their work? Does he agree that there would be a considerable saving of public expenditure of £27 million if it were abolished?
  Mr. Nicholls: I cannot agree with that assessment. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the recent tourism review he will see that the fears that had been expressed about a possible duplication have been taken care of. The work of the British Tourist Authority abroad shows that there is no such duplication. If, in the light of his experience, the right hon. Gentleman does not accept that, he will let us know, but I urge him to look at what was said in the review.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my hon. Friend agree that Michael Medlicott, the chief executive, and his team at the British Tourist Authority do a vital job spearheading the marketing of an industry that contributes more to Britain's gross domestic product than the automotive industry? What plans does the BTA have for stepping up tourist revenue from other European Community countries?
  Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the work of the British Tourist Authority in promoting this country abroad. He may be aware that my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, the Minister with responsibility for tourism, recently went to America and saw for himself the value of the work being done. It is for the BTA to decide, on a day-to-day basis, how to promote this country abroad. This year, however, the Government have contributed about £27·7 million, an increase of about 11 per cent. on the previous year.
  Mr. Eastham: As the tourism is a multi-million pound industry, why is it denied equal treatment with other industries? Why has the Department of Trade and Industry denied grants to the industry to encourage it? I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that section 4 grants are being denied to tourism. They would help to improve the number and quality of hotels and other related matters that are so important to the industry.
  Mr. Nicholls: The curious thing about the Opposition is that whenever they see a successful industry they want to kill it off quickly by the dead hand of state support. Tourism is an extremely successful industry which generates many jobs. The pity of it is that the service jobs generated by the industry are so often decried by the Opposition. The industry is thriving and it will do much better without the measures that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
  Mr. Alexander: When my hon. Friend considers giving more grants to the British Tourist Authority, with which I entirely agree, will he lean on it and ask it to encourage restaurants to print their menus in English rather than in French? Is not it a fact that tourists and British people find it totally unacceptable to have to read menus in French rather than in English? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Nicholls: As my hon. Friend can hear from the bon viveurs on the Opposition Benches, there may not be complete consensus on that point. I do not believe that I should make generalisations upon it. I am sure that the British Tourist Authority, the English tourist board and the other tourist boards pay attention to the exchanges in the House and that they will take note of what my hon. Friend said.

  Low Pay
  Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on low pay.
  Mr. Eggar: The best way to help the lower paid is through continuing economic and employment growth and greater prosperity for all.
  Ms. Mowlam: What action has the Department taken on the 5,528 establishments that underpaid in 1989? How many of them have the Department prosecuted, and is it a record of which he is proud?
  Mr. Eggar: About 30,000 inspections were carried out by the inspectorate last year. About 97 per cent. of all the inspections revealed that proper payment was being made under the terms of the orders and that the ratio of pbhzcutions to establishments underpaying is higher now than it was in 1979.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that proposals for a national minimum wage will lead either to an ineffectual gesture or, if they are effective and enforced, to the pricing out of work of people from the weakest section of the community?
  Mr. Eggar: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. If one accepted the Opposition proposal that the national minimum wage should be set at half male average earnings, an estimated 750,000 people would lose their jobs.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why does not the Minister answer the question that he was asked? How many were prosecuted?
  Mr. Eggar: The inspectorate must take into account all the facts revealed, following the reviews that it makes after visits to premises. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the details.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that a minimum wage would be even more damaging if it were as proposed by the European Community in the social charter, which is supported by the Opposition? Would not that damage not just British but Community interests?
  Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We in Britain have been extremely successful in creating jobs—a great deal more successful than our European partners. The major reason for that is that we have followed a deliberate policy of deregulation which has led to more jobs than elsewhere.
  Ms. Short: Is not the truth that the Government are positively in favour of low pay? They have deliberately removed a whole series of protection and there has been an enormous growth in low pay in Britain. Low-paid work goes with low investment, poor training, high labour turnover and low technology and carries a large part of the responsibility for Britain's poor economic performance. Will the Minister confirm that every other country in Europe has a national minimum wage and that Britain would do better to have one?
  Mr. Eggar: In so far as I was able to count the number of questions that the hon. Lady asked, I am confident that the answer to all of them is no.

  Union Assets (Sequestration)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to restrict the power of courts to sequestrate union assets.
  Mr. Howard: No, Sir. Sequestration is a penalty which may be imposed by the courts, where appropriate, for any contempt of court. Any proposal to restrict that power would enable trade unions to flout the law with impunity.
  Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is essential that the courts should have full power to sequestrate the assets of trade unions if trade union law is to be enforced, and that any attempt to diminish those powers would draw the teeth of legislation that has served us so well in trade union reform since 1979?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not without significance that in the very week that Arthur Scargill calls once more for industrial action the Labour party will be introducing proposals to make it easier for him to put his bully-boys back on the streets of Britain.
  Mr. John Evans: But does not the Minister acknowledge that for any court to sequestrate all the assets of a trade union and thus prevent that union from paying its elderly members their pensions and superannuation benefits would be totally unjustified, and that any even-handed Government should legislate to make sure that that could not happen?
  Mr. Howard: All that a union need do to avoid those consequences is obey the law. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and all his hon. Friends will encourage trade unions to obey the law so that none of those consequencies ever arises.
  Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who wish to repeal the legislation are
  "frozen fossils locked in a time warp",
  to use the words of Eric Hammond, leader of the electricians' union?
  Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend, but there is perhaps one difference. Unlike frozen fossils, those proposals have the potential to wreak infinite damage on the British economy and on the economic prospects of every man, woman and child within it.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to change the 3 per cent. quota provision for the employment of disabled people.
  Mr. Eggar: All aspects of the quota scheme are being considered in the review of services to people with disabilities which my Department is undertaking. We expect to publish next month the consultative document giving the results of the review.
  Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that 250,000 disabled people who are able to work and available for work have no jobs? That is not because of the failure of the quota system, but because of the Government's failure to enforce it. Will the Minister study the West German system which imposes a 6 per cent. quota and a levy on employers who

  159
  evade it? Will he stop making excuses about disabled people not being available and follow the West German example?
  Mr. Eggar: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the consultative document will discuss, among other things, the quota system. Registration as a disabled person is voluntary, and only 1 per cent. of the work force have registered as disabled. So, by definition, it is not possible to meet the 3 per cent. quota. That will be explored in the document and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to contribute to the discussion that follows its publication.
  Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability of the disabled to take up the available jobs is as important as the quota? Does he agree that the employment premium for the disabled will be of enormous help, but that training is vital? Training for the disabled often involves a greater ratio of trainer to trainee than for the rest of the population. Will my hon. Friend ensure that that is taken into account when considering training for the disabled?
  Mr. Eggar: That is being and will be taken into account. That is also the reason why the Government consider it especially important to provide special aids to employment to get people into employment in normal workplaces. That has the general support of the community.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the fact that there may be weaknesses in the present quota system is not an argument for doing away with it altogether, but an argument for overcoming the weaknesses to ensure that disabled people are helped into employment? In that context, will he ensure that as the training and enterprise council system develops, enough money is earmarked for the needs of disabled people so that they can have adequate training without any negative effect on the targets set for those running TECs?
  Mr. Eggar: We very much look forward to the hon. Gentleman's comments on the consultative document on issues such as those he has outlined. I am sure that they can be explored within the context of the document. There are many different views and it is important that we move towards a better understanding of the arguments on every side. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know from my discussions with many TEC directors that they take their responsibilities for the disabled very seriously, and that is recognised in the contracts signed with the TECs that have gone operational.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that as the number of registered disabled people has declined in recent years, the number of disabled people obtaining work has increased? Will he say whether during his current inquiries he has examined the ability of Government Departments to meet the quota figure?
  Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have been fairly successful recently in helping people with disabilities into jobs. Last year, for example, 77,000 people with disabilities were helped by jobcentres to find jobs, and that compares with 66,000 three years ago. On Government Departments, I assure my hon. Friend that my Department tries hard to recruit and employ disabled people; 2·7 per cent. of the Department's employees are disabled.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: To return to training for the disabled, if the Minister is telling the House that the Government intend to maintain the quality and the guarantees, why did the Spastics Society recently withdraw from the employment training scheme because of underfunding and why are Share Community and Lambeth Accord likely to follow suit? If such providers are lost, where are the guarantees and the quality of training, and who will train the disabled?
  Mr. Eggar: There was an increase in expenditure on helping the disabled from £220 million in 1986–87 to £350 million in 1988–89—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen to the facts. Participation in training courses increased from 11,800 in 1983–84 to more than 19,000 last year. That is the record.

  Tourism (Black Country)
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the growth in black country tourism and the potential for job creation.
  Mr. Nicholls: There is every sign of an encouraging growth in tourism in the black country. A number of major projects are either planned or under construction. The black country tourism initiative has done much to help to develop tourism in the area.
  Mrs. Hicks: Although my hon. Friend will be only too well aware of the reputation of the black country as the heartland of traditional manufacturing industry, which is thriving under this Government, is he aware of its growing reputation for its major contribution to tourism? A number of exciting new projects are taking place and there is a huge amount of investment, with people putting their faith in the region. Jobs are also being secured and created. Will my hon. Friend do me the honour of allowing me to take him on a day trip round the black country—starting, of course, in Wolverhampton—so that I can show him some of the attractions and so that he can meet many of the employees who are doing their best to attract visitors to the black country?
  Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend makes me an offer that it would be churlish to refuse, and I look forward to the visit. I am well aware of the attractions of the black country. I think that I am right in saying that my hon. Friend was a member of the executive committee of the co-ordinating body that looks after tourism in the black country.
  My hon. Friend referred to the number of jobs that had been generated in the area. Black country tourism initiative staff estimate that, directly and indirectly, about 2,000 jobs will be created in tourism. I am certainly well aware of the work of the Heart of England board. From my tours in that part of the world, I can confirm that it is a delightful area, and its tourism potential has not yet been fulfilled.
  Sir John Stokes: My hon. Friend and I have crossed swords on this matter before, and he will know my view that while it is most gratifying to have an income from tourism and the job creation that it entails, there is also a danger of ruining parts of England, as other parts of the

  161
  world have been ruined. In the west midlands, for example, Stratford-upon-Avon is so crowded that it is getting near bursting point.
  Mr. Nicholls: I was not aware that I had crossed swords with my hon. Friend, but if he says that that is what happened, so be it. I accept that there is a paradox and that a dilemma arises: we want to attract people to particular areas because they want to see what is there but in the end tourism may destroy the very things that people want to see. My hon. Friend may have seen a perhaps slightly tongue in cheek article in The Daily Telegraph today by Lord Grimond, who draws attention to precisely the problems to which my hon. Friend refers. I cannot offer my hon. Friend an answer or solution, except to say that this is something that we shall certainly have to watch.

  Technical and Vocational Training
  Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the technical and vocational education initiative.
  Mr. Howard: The public expenditure White Paper shows planned expenditure in the TVEI of £134 million in 1990–91, £133 million in 1991–92 and £141 million in 1992–3. I am considering the future rate at which authorities can join the programme.
  Mr. Worthington: Do I understand from that answer that the Secretary of State is about to announce a cut in the rate of expansion of that service, which will mean that the six authorities in Scotland, including Tayside, Argyll, Ianark and Ayr, will lose out? This is an important matter because in Scotland children choose in June the subjects that they will study. They start the following year's programme in June and have already made their choices by then. A cut will demoralise teachers and pupils who have chosen courses that will not exist next month.
  Mr. Howard: The figures that I quoted are well known and in the public domain. It is always made clear that the rate at which new authorities can be admitted to the programme will depend upon the availability of resources, and that is what I am considering for next year.
  Mr. Madel: Some of the equipment installed in the early years of the TVEI is obviously in need of replacement. Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied with the speed at which that is being done?
  Mr. Howard: I dare say that my hon. Friend is right, and there is always room for improvement. After the initial five years, the funding of the TVEI is, of course, a matter for local education authorities.
  Mr. McLeish: Why does the Secretary of State intend to cut the TVEI budget by £300 million between 1990–93 and 1994–98? Will he confirm that he regards that as part of the cuts crisis that is swamping his Department, or does he think that it is merely an adjustment?
  Mr. Howard: There is no cuts crisis of any description. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his figures for the years from 1993 onwards. I have given the figures for the current public expenditure White Paper, and we are considering the pace at which we can admit further authorities to the programme.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the net increase in the number of businesses registered for value added tax in (a) 1978, (b) 1988 and (c) 1989.
  Mr. Eggar: Early indications are that the net increase in 1989 was around 80,000, compared with 64,000 in 1988. In the five years 1975 to 1979 together, the net increase was 85,000.
  Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does not it show, by whatever criterion one would care to take, that this Government's commitment to small businesses is in contrast to that of the previous Administration? Looking to the future, how will we get those small businesses to grow into medium-sized businesses? How can they develop? In particular, they need management training to expand and become the employers of the future.
  Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right. Almost as many businesses registered for VAT for the first time on a net basis last year as registered for the whole five years of the. previous Labour Government. My hon. Friend is also right to identify the critical importance to small businesses of management training. Most studies show that small businesses fail more as a result of poor or weak management than of any other factor. That is why my Department has put funding into businesses growth training to help small businesses and why we have played a major role in sponsoring open learning management packages.
  Mr. Ron Brown: Is not it the case that capitalism is poor and weak, at least at the lower levels and for smaller businesses, because nine out of 10 businesses fail in the first year due to the Tory Government's policies? We have learnt a lesson from that north of the border and that lesson has been learnt south of the border as well.
  Mr. Eggar: I know that this does not fit in with the hon. Gentleman's view of the world, but the fact is that well over 1 million more people work for themselves now than in 1979. That shows that the commitment to enterprise is alive and kicking.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to ensure that training agencies operating under the new TEC system will be able to provide adequate services for training under their post-1 April 1990 budgets.
  Mr. Howard: Training and enterprise councils set out their proposals for providing training in their corporate and business plans which they agree with me. Subsequently the standard and quality of the training being provided is regularly monitored by my Department.
  Mr. Speller: How close is that monitoring within the present tight budgetary controls? In Ilfracombe, which often has the highest youth unemployment in the country, a training establishment has been brought up, closed and the young people are now trained 12 miles away at great cost to a new training establishment. How does my right

  163
  hon. and learned Friend control the buying, closing and selling of businesses in that new growth industry—the training industry?
  Mr. Howard: As I said earlier, the pattern by which training is provided will inevitably change from time to time. We cannot expect the same training providers to be in business year on year on year. The training and enterprise councils' operating agreement provides that non-employed trainees on youth training must be paid at least those travel costs in excess of £3 that are incurred in connection with their training. The councils will take that obligation into account in assessing matters of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that earlier this afternoon the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary was engaged in a training scheme on the Government side of the House? He was trying to get planted questions put to the Prime Minister and was going around giving training to Tory Members so that the Prime Minister would be aware of the questions that would come up when she turns up in the House at a quarter past three.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Skinner: And the Prime Minister's PPS is not registered for VAT.
  Mr. Howard: I am sure that no amount of training would enable anyone to predict a question asked by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye later this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. and learned Friend liaise with his colleague the Secretary of State for Education and Science and encourage him to give greater autonomy to local education authority colleges of further education which, if given that autonomy, more self government and more responsibility for their budgets and employment policies, could market their wares far more effectively into a rapidly changing training market?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will doubtless be aware of our proposals for pilot training credit schemes. Those who obtain the training buying power that the credits will provide will be able to use them at colleges of further education and I believe that that will go a long way towards achieving the objective to which my hon. Friend referred.

  Training
  Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the numbers of employees receiving training in Britain.
  Mr. Eggar: Figures from the labour force survey show that, in the spring of 1989, 3·1 million employees received job-related training in the four weeks prior to the survey. That was an increase of more than 70 per cent. compared with the same period in 1984.
  Mr. Thompson: When will the Minister recognise that in the north-east of England the coal mining, shipbuilding and heavy engineering industries have now been decimated? They were the basis of good training schemes in the past. Such schemes need to be replaced by other means of training, which cannot be supported by the
  164
  market forces philosophy. They need Government support. When will the Minister bear in mind the pleas of the Engineering Council and the Machine Tool Technologies Association for training, particularly in engineering, to be considered as a national asset, as it is in other European countries, where it does not necessarily respond to market forces?
  Mr. Eggar: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that training is important to the future prosperity of the north-east, as it is in the rest of the country. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the splendid way in which the north-east has responded to the initiative to set up training and enterprise councils. Indeed, three of the first 10 TECs to be established were from the north-east.
  Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the demographic trough bites in the 1990s, it is important that the reducing number of young people leaving school should receive the fullest possible training? Will he therefore liaise with his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science to ensure that, as the national curriculum develops, children leave school with the skills that they need to take advantage of the training opportunities that his Department is making available?
  Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Liaison between schools and industry is extremely important. I pay tribute to the major contribution made by senior industrialists by going on to governing bodies of schools, by supporting the compacts scheme and various other schools—industry proposals that have been put forward, and are being put forward almost daily. They are extremely important. It is right that youngsters should be work-ready and training-ready when they leave school.

  Noise at Work
  Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department will commission any research into the effectiveness of the noise at work regulations.
  Mr. Nicholls: The Health and Safety Executive is already planning to evaluate those regulations. During 1991 and 1992 it will be undertaking a survey of the extent to which the required measures have been carried out in industry.
  Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that hundreds and probably thousands of people in St. Helens have had their hearing severely impaired by the dreadful noise levels that appertain in the glass industry and that they are still not covered by the noise at work regulations? Will the Minister accept an invitation from me to visit a glass factory in St. Helens so that I can convince him of the justice that those workers deserve?
  Mr. Nicholls: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in telling me that he wished to raise this issue. As I understand the position, the regulations apply to all places of work. I can see no reason why they should not apply to such a place of work. If the hon. Gentleman can tell me why he has been given that information or where the information has come from, I promise that I shall look into it at once.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Will the research into noise at work include the House of Commons? The noise here and the audibility of the system are such as to make work almost impossible sometimes.
  Mr. Nicholls: The powers of the Government may be great, but they are not sufficient to take care of the level or quality of the noise in the House. I am afraid that both may defeat us.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he received on low pay in the current year from the north of England.
  Mr. Eggar: Since 1 January 1990, my right hon. and learned Friend has received 13 representations on low pay from the north of England.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is it that more than 1 million people in the north and north-west of England earn what the Council of Europe defines as low pay? What possible moral justification can there be for a newspaper to publish advertisements offering people less than £2 an hour in the 1990s? People cannot live on that amount. What are the Government going to do about it?
  Mr. Eggar: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what the Government are not going to do. They are not going to do what the Opposition want to do—introduce a national minimum wage which will reduce the number of jobs available to the people of this country. The hon. Gentleman must remember that, if we were to introduce a national minimum wage of half average manual earnings, there is likely to be a loss of jobs of about 750,000 over three to four years. Low pay is a great deal better than no pay.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average annual number of working days lost in (a) 1970 to 1979, (b) 1980 to 1989 and (c) the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.
  Mr. Howard: On average, there were 12·9 million working days lost a year in the period 1970 to 1979; 7·2 million in the period 1980 to 1989; and, it is provisionally estimated, 5·1 million in 12 months to March 1990. The number of stoppages in 1989 was the lowest for over 50 years.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that good news has some relationship to the massive improvement in the performance of British industry in the past decade? Does he further agree that a return to unbridled secondary picketing would destroy all the progress that British industry has made and would return us to the days of the 1970s when British manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nothing would be more guaranteed to deal a death blow to this country's economic prospects than the Opposition's
  166
  proposals to make striking easier, which would lower output, lower prosperity and lower the living standards of everybody in Britain.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May 1990.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
  Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend spend a few moments today recalling the material damage done to this nation, and the damage to its reputation and to individual liberties, by the episodes at Saltley, Grunwick, Wapping and during the 1984 miners' strike? Will she give a pledge to the House that, despite certain proposals from certain other sources this week, no Government under her leadership would legalise secondary industrial action or secondary picketing?
  The Prime Minister: I am glad to give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. All who remember the scenes of the secondary picketing and the terrible intimidation recall also the admiration we felt for those who were determined to exercise their right to go to their place of work and who had the courage to go through the lines. I heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment say a few moments ago that since we brought in our revised laws on secondary picketing and trade union reform the number of industrial stoppage last year was the lowest for a very long time.
  Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm, as her Chancellor acknowledged earlier today, that under her Government the tax burden on British families is higher than it has ever been under any Government in history?
  The Prime Minister: I confirm—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister: I confirm that at all levels of income the rates of income tax have been reduced-on earned income, from 83 per cent., when we went into Downing street, to some 40 per cent. at the top rate, and, on the standard rate, from 33p in the pound to 25p in the pound. The people have done very well both as to increased income and reduced tax levels.
  Mr. Kinnock: Yes, and after that disposable income has been obtained, people are then faced with doubled VAT, higher charges and now the poll tax, which is the reason why, as the Prime Minister should admit, she is charging the highest burden of taxation of any Government in history. Why are the Government and the Prime Minister so reluctant to claim what is truly theirs—the record for being the biggest taxers ever?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman would put up taxes all right. [Interruption.] I doubt very much whether the British people want to go back to 83p in the pound on earned income and 98p in the pound on savings

  167
  income, or to have their taxes put up, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman would like to do. Their incomes have gone up tremendously and most of them—indeed, all of them—have had a substantial increase in their standard of living.
  Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall making the promise that the share of the nation's income taken by the state would be steadily reduced under her Government? She ratted on that promise, of course, but will she now admit that, after 11 years, and despite the oil revenues, the asset sales and the fiddle on the pensioners, her Government are still the biggest taxers in history?
  The Prime Minister: We have by far the biggest income in history and the lowest tax rates since before the war. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember that under Labour Governments, when the spending went up and up and up, the Chancellor had not the courage to finance it honestly and took a public sector borrowing requirement that was equal to 9 per cent. of GDP, an amount that would now equal a borrowing of £44 billion a year.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that her meeting last Saturday with President de Klerk of South Africa was extremely satisfactory and that she found him to be a man of integrity and courage and a man in a great hurry for reform? In those circumstances, will she continue to relax what few economic sanctions we have against that country, and withdraw from the innocuous Gleneagles agreement and resume sporting links with South Africa?
  The Prime Minister: I think everyone has been impressed with President de Klerk's integrity and courage. He has embarked on a reform that will bring an end—[ Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have conversations across the Chamber. The Prime Minister is answering a question.
  The Prime Minister: I shall start again, Mr. Speaker.
  I think everyone who saw or heard him has admired President de Klerk's integrity and courage. He has embarked on reforms which are irreversible, which will bring an end to apartheid and which will, through negotiation, bring about a democratic Government on a non-racial basis. I believe that he deserves to be fully supported for the courageous reforms that he is making. I believe that there is now no place for sanctions and that they are almost irrelevant. Those people who want South Africa to have a prosperous economy should not support sanctions in any way.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
  Mr. Lloyd: Is the Prime Minister aware that last year 514 fatal accidents were reported to the Health and Safety Executive, reversing the long-term downward trend in deaths at work? Given that background, can the Prime Minister explain why the HSE is seeking to make cuts in its establishment? Will she give the House the guarantee
  168
  that, if the HSE wants more money to maintain or to improve the level of services that it now provides, that money will be made available?
  The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we believe that health and safety are of prime importance in the work force. Last year there were one or two terrible accidents that may have added to the total. We shall fully support the Health and Safety Executive in its arduous and very important work.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: In view of my right hon. Friend's successful meeting last Saturday and the terrible killings in Palestine during the past few days, does she see any sign of an Israeli equivalent to Mr. de Klerk in Palestine?
  The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend is aware, two of the great problems of the Arab-Israel situation at the moment are, first, that there is no Government of Israel with whom to negotiate and, secondly, there are no signs of talks beginning. We have done everything that we can—and will continue to do everything that we can—to try to get those talks started. Events almost every day show the importance of that. We shall pursue the matter through our usual channels.
  Mr. Livsey: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
  Mr. Livsey: Does the Prime Minister agree that the subject of public health is above party politics and that the issue of BSE and beef has been subjected to the antics of politicians? Does she further agree that that issue needs to be tackled more firmly by the Government? Although British beef is indeed safe to eat, does the Prime Minister accept that she needs to consult further with scientists in the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and with independent scientists? Will she please make a statement on that?
  The Prime Minister: I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman heard or read the debate yesterday. If he did, he will have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture point out that we commissioned the Southwood report some time ago, and took action upon all its recommendations. We could not have used a more distinguished scientist. We then appointed Dr. Tyrrell of the medical research council to advise my right hon. Friend further, and any advice that he has given has been taken by my right hon. Friend. We can do no better than take the best scientific advice available. The chief medical officer has also given his advice. We foresaw some of the problems, we appointed the scientists and we have taken their advice. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask for more.
  Dr. Twinn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
  Dr. Twinn: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the disgraceful attack on graves in the Jewish cemetery in Edmonton? Will she send her sympathy to the family and friends of those who are buried there who have suffered?
  The Prime Minister: I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation, as would every hon. Member. Those attacks, wherever they occurred in the world, were appalling and should never have happened. We shall all do all that we can to ensure that they never happen again. We wish to express our sympathy for those who have suffered, and for all Jewish people everywhere who have been reminded again of such terrible events.
  Mr. Livingstone: Does the Prime Minister agree that she would not be prepared to retain any individual in her Cabinet if it could be demonstrated that that person had been prepared to advocate an armed coup against the last Labour Government? Will she take action in relation to the letter from General Sir Walter Walker, in which he recounts details of a meal at which he was present with several City financiers, along with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and had to reprimand the right hon. Gentleman for taking exactly that line?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman brings out all kinds of tittle-tattle that is not worthy of reply. The last Labour Prime Minister answered the fundamental part of his question, and I have nothing further to add.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that her Government will not increase taxes on people with relatively modest incomes—such as graduate and medium-ranking teachers with responsibility allowance, local government officers or nurses in grades H and I—and then turn around and describe them as high-income earners, as the Leader of the Opposition did in Bootle yesterday? He would skin them alive.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend puts her own view in her own way. I entirely agree that many medium-income people such as some teachers, nurses and policemen would be adversely affected by the increases in taxation proposed by the Labour party. I hope that it will never be put into office to implement those increases.
  Mr. Rees: Was not it very unwise, given the political situation in Northern Ireland, for the right hon. Lady to allow her Ministers in Northern Ireland—who do an excellent job within the community, far better than any other Minister—to campaign for a Conservative candidate who ended up in the last six in the election? That was lower than the Irish Independence party, Sinn Fein and the Workers party. Surely the Prime Minister cannot let that happen again.
  The Prime Minister: In a democratic system, people are not precluded from putting up for a by-election if they wish to do so-unless they have to have a licence to do so in the Labour party.
  Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
  Mr. David Evans: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with me that on this side of the House we have history and tradition on our side. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Evans: Does she think that it would be a good idea if we had a flag day to commemorate a day that is important to the Conservative party, such as the day on which Winston Churchill became Prime Minister—10 May 1940—or perhaps the day on which the task force set off for the Falklands to show the world that sovereignty and freedom came before everything else, or perhaps even the day that my right hon. Friend became Prime Minister? On the other hand, she might agree with me that the most significant day for the Conservative party was 1 October 1983, when the Leader of the Opposition became leader or the Labour party, went to Brighton beach and fell flat on his face. He has done just that every Tuesday and Thursday ever since.
  The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity and clarity of expression. I entirely agree with him that we are the party with the longest history behind us and the longest future before us, all in serving the people.

  Engagements

    NEW MEMBER
    The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
    William David Trimble, Esq., for Upper Bann.

    BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 8 JUNE
    Members successful in the ballot were:

    Mr. Ian McCartney

    Mr. Doug Hoyle

    Sir Trevor Skeet.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Ordered,
    That the draft Police (Dispensation from Requirement to Investigate Complaints) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,&c—[Mr. Chapman.]

Drug Testing (Schools)
3.33 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I beg to move,
That leave to given to bring in a Bill to allow random—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
Mr. Powell: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I get injury time for that.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow random drug testing of schoolchildren; and for connected purposes.
The opportunity to introduce this Bill would not have been afforded to me had it not been for the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who spent most of the early hours one morning patiently waiting to reserve this spot, for which I record my gracious thanks.
The Bill aims to assist the many people who, over the years, have vainly attempted to stop children and others ruining their lives, and, more often, the lives of their families, by taking drugs. We are thankful for all the efforts to fight this curse in society, but while consoling some, those efforts cannot resolve the problem. Something more positive must be done, and that is what my Bill aims to do.
Over the years many attempts have been made to introduce similar Bills. On 9 December 1970, my hon. Friend the then Member for West Lothian, now Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) introduced his bill, Medical Inspection (Evidence of Drug-Taking) (School Pupils) Bill, as reported in the Official Report at column 429. That Bill was introduced 20 years ago, but Parliament has not yet legislated to solve a problem that is a menace to our children and a tremendous strain on our teachers and headmasters—the educationists—medical officers, doctors, the Health Service and many others. Above all, that menace is a strain on the sick society that allows our young to be trapped in the drug nightmare.
The Serjeant at Arms is interested in this subject and in recent discussions with me he referred to an ode, "The Old Dope Peddlar". I shall quote one verse that is particularly relevant to the Bill:
"He gives the kids free samples because he
knows full well
That today's young innocent children arc
tomorrow's clientele".
That highlights the problem. That ode was no doubt written many years ago, yet we still have that old dope peddlar, and he is a greater menace in 1990 because of the harder and more dangerous drugs that he peddles. Please let us make efforts to stamp out the menace.
In April the Princess of Wales spoke at a conference on drug abuse among children. She said:
"we should catch them in the classrooms before the dealers catch them at the school gates".
The problem is how to catch them and how to stop children taking drugs before they are hooked. I am sure that the Bill will have all-party support in its efforts to license legally agreed random testing to diagnose the source of the problem. The children, once identified, would be treated with care and compassion. The Bill is a further attempt to eliminate drug abuse from among our children and our grandchildren.
172
Britain now has a major problem because of drug taking in schools. Drug abuse is increasing despite the best efforts of our police forces, doctors and customs officers. How many more ruined young lives are we prepared to accept before action is taken? The cost to our nation of drug-related crime and violence is enormous.
Something practical and reasonable can be done to prevent drug abuse. I propose to tackle the problem of drug abuse where it starts, in the schools. There are almost insurmountable problems in treating established addicts, so why not prevent and deter the addict to begin with? There is hardly a secondary school that has not had a drug problem. Because most addicts start on drugs while at school, the introduction of random drug testing is essential. If schoolchildren knew that they were likely to be tested at any time, they would be less likely to experiment with drugs. It is important to identify the children already on the drug train, and to offer them early help to minimise future problems.
Prevention cannot be left to schools and teachers. Their role is primarily to educate and not to police. Existing anti-drug, and indeed alcohol and tobacco, policies within schools are not working. Parents are often the last to know that their child has been abusing drugs.
Drug testing in sport has been established for years. Most of us recall the fight against it, based on the freedom and liberty of the individual, for which I have a high regard and which I support. The fine balance between protecting people's rights and freedoms and protecting them from a life of misery from drugs is a balance of conflicting freedoms, but with a full knowledge of the horrendous harm done by drugs, without hesitation I ask those who might want to oppose the Bill on civil liberty grounds to give the matter further thought or Parliament will still be trying to resolve the drug problem in schools, and perhaps quoting the Bill, in 20 years' time, with all the further drug misery that will have been caused.
I do not claim to be an expert. For information on research and dedication to fighting drugs in schools, I have relied on Dr. Hugh McCollum of Lynton, Staffordshire, who rightly claims that the problem can be reduced by certain methods, random drug testing being one. Random drug testing would involve only the collection of a urine sample. It would not involve asking private or personal questions or a medical examination, a body search, a belongings search or a blood test. Objection was voiced to testing in sports, but the principle is now fully accepted, without objection, by sports men, women and children. Let us remember that testing within sports is not limited to adults or the elite.
Testing would be done on the whole school or on sections, such as the fourth form upwards or those aged 14 upwards. There would be at least one test per school year. It is anticipated that a complete house would be tested at one go, together with an alternative group such as fourth year mathematics pupils, so that no one would be sure of not being tested at any time.
Testing would be done in such a way as to guarantee no errors. Pupils and parents should be convinced that there could be no errors. Samples would be split, with half being retained for parents and schools to double check the preliminary result. Samples would be tested only to a level where 100 per cent. concentration of the drug found could be assumed. Procedures would be such as to exclude any possibility of spiking or contamination.

173
The method that we would use in schools is highly effective, 100 per cent. accurate and reasonably cheap. It can detect whether a child has been taking cannabis, cocaine, crack, heroin, morphine, LSD, ecstasy, barbiturates, some hypnotic drugs and pain killers. We must all be aware of the huge threat of crack, a relatively new drug to the United Kingdom. Fortunately, it is not yet widely available and is hardly used so far. Crack is so addictive that most people become absolutely hooked, often after only trying the drug once or twice. Crack is commonplace in New York and its terrible effect can be seen in some areas of the city. In the Bronx, for example, the life expectancy of a male born today is only 38 years. The reason is drugs and related problems, such as murder, violence, AIDS, suicide, hepatitis and overdoses.
I hope that the House will support me and agree that this policy must be introduced on a wide basis within schools for the good of society. We have not only an obligation to educate our children, but a duty of care and responsibility. To carry out those responsibilities, we must do everything reasonable and practical, especially where drugs are involved.
Drugs may not always cause death, but they destroy lives. I ask for sympathetic support in the light of the overwhelming positive response I have received from parents and the media. Therefore, if there is any step, however bold, radical or innovative, that we in the House can take to reduce the risk of anyone's child succumbing to the lure of drugs, we should grasp the opportunity and take the necessary steps now.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse. Mr. Stuart Bell, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. John McFall and Mr. Donald Coleman.

Drug Testing (Schools)
  DRUG TESTING (SCHOOLS)
  Mr. Ray Powell accordingly presented a Bill to allow random drug testing of schoolchildren; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

Points of Order
3.47 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, Ministers are answerable to the House and we are in a position to table questions to Ministers. What about the new situation that has arisen, whereby the Secretary of State for Energy has become the Government co-ordinator? Am I therefore in a position to go to the Table Office and table questions directly to him about that particular aspect of Government policy?
Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, that is an unofficial arrangement.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are well past the time of points of order. Mr. Donald Thompson.
Mr. Donald Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the next business. You will remember, Sir, that yesterday I asked you, on a point of order, what it would be in order to mention today with regard to some of the communities that had been community charge capped. I repeat, what are the parameters within which we can debate?
Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to clarify the position now that I have seen the motion on the Order Paper. In respect of today's motion, I see no need to relax the sub judice rule, which means that the legality of charge capping proposals should not be questioned. However, the general principle of charge capping may be referred to. Of course, when the individual orders are before the House, the sub judice rule will not apply.
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on today's business—yes? Mr. Dick Douglas.
Mr. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, last week you chided me for trying to speak from the Front Bench, and I understand that that is merely a convention of the House, and have no real disagreement with you about it. However, you will have noticed that Government Ministers restrict themselves to speaking from the Front Bench and do not take the opportunity to move to the Back Benches; they are not in suspended animation and do not become peripatetic. However, numerous Opposition Front-Bench Members live in an atmosphere of suspended animation, floating between the Front and Back Benches. I have no hesitation in accepting versatility, but I am seeking some understanding of the Speaker's restrictions on the use of the Front Bench. You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that there are extreme advantages in speaking from the Front Bench, particularly now that television is in the House.
Mr. Derek Foster: It is better sitting on the Back Benches.
Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend can go and sit there if he wants, but I notice that he occupies the Front Bench. There are extreme advantages, particularly now that television is in the House. Will you, Mr. Speaker, review

175
your views on restricting people from using particularly the Opposition Front Bench, and allow those in the minority parties, who choose to do so when it is their day, to take advantage of glasses of water, the lecterns and the other paraphernalia that the alternative Government think are their right?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman deserves an answer, and I am pleased to clarify the position. An hon. Member must speak from the place whence he has been called. I called the hon. Gentleman from his usual seat and he then moved to the Dispatch Box. Had he simply moved to another Back-Bench seat, I would still have called him back to his original position. That is the long-established rule of the House.
I am constantly enjoined not to take any notice of the television cameras, but when I see the House of Commons on television Members look rather better against the panelling on the Back Benches than they do on the Front Benches.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed that the Labour party has this morning denounced the All-Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation as being dominated by the Trotskyist Militant Tendency. Has the Leader of the Opposition asked to come to the House to make a statement on the withdrawal of the Whip from those Labour Members who support that Trotskyist Militant organisation and are refusing to pay the poll tax?
Mr. Speaker: I do not receive requests to make such statements from the Leader of the Opposition. With a little ingenuity, that is the sort of matter that could perhaps be raised in today's debate.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of concern to the House that hon. Members should be able to question the new Government co-ordinator who is responsible for Government funds. Before the previous election, Central Office increased fivefold the amount of money spent trying to explain Government policy. The legislature should be able to challenge the Executive on that expenditure through questions on the Order Paper to the Government co-ordinator.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that a probing question to the Prime Minister has already been put down on that matter and that it is in order.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For better or worse, I seek your guidance on whether an hon. Member has the right to propose amendments to a Bill which is to be scrutinised by the Select Committee on Unopposed Bills.
Mr. Speaker: Without knowing the particular Bill to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, it is difficult for me to give an instant ruling on the matter. Will the hon. Gentleman write to me or, even better, come and see me?
Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to your ruling on today's debate and the sub judice rule, may I take it from that that when the orders are laid each will be debated separately?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know, because they have not yet been laid. That will depend on whether any agreement is reached. The orders are statutory instruments, so they are not subject to the sub judice rule, which was the purport of my ruling.

Opposition Day
[13TH ALLOTTED DAY, 1ST PART]
Opposition Day

  Local Government Finance
  3.53 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that the Government should take immediate action to bring help to hard-pressed poll tax payers this year and backdate it to the introduction of the poll tax in Scotland, and should seek to change the tax so that from next year it is directly related to each individual's ability to pay.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Taylor: It would have been a tragedy had you not, Mr. Speaker.
  I welcome the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to his first debate on this important topic. I have been engaged in debates on the subject for a long time, having represented the Social and Liberal Democrats when the Local Government Finance Bill went through the House and subsequently. I hope that the Minister will find it an interesting topic, though it will be a difficult one for him.
  The Minister was appointed to his new post at a time when the local elections were a topic of immense debate among all parties. People were greatly influenced by the impact of the poll tax and believed that the Government were to blame for it. In the vast majority of cases, votes fell away from Conservative candidates, though not from all: it is interesting to note what happened in London.
  In the post-election period, as we survey the wreckage, it is important to consider what the Government said immediately before the elections about the need for change, and what is happening. Certain Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), had a lot to say on the subject before the local elections. They are noticeable by their absence today. I hope that that is not a reflection of opinion within the Cabinet. We are told that a special Cabinet committee has been set up to consider what urgent amendments to the poll tax need to be made to bring order and fairness to a system which, only two months after coming into force, has proved itself to be unaccountable, unfair and inefficient. According to reports last week in The Times, in some areas as many as 50 per cent. of those liable have not yet paid any poll tax. That is a measure of the difficulties and problems that face the Government.
  According to figures published by the Government and others, money has been transferred from those who could least afford it—the majority of the poor who have lost out—to the majority of the already rich who have gained from the imposition of the poll tax. However, when I spoke to people on their doorsteps during the local elections, I found that those who have gained are often the most embarrassed about the effects of the poll tax and that they do not support it. That is remarkable. I have heard Conservative Members say that that has also been their experience. It is unusual for a tax to cause embarrassment and to be rejected by those who have gained from its imposition.
  178
  The motion provides the House with an opportunity to consider the alternatives that may be put before the Cabinet committee and to debate them, rather than that a decision should be taken be the committee and sprung upon the House. The problems and drawbacks connected with some of the alternatives can now be aired.
  The official Opposition are supposedly taking the lead in suggesting alternatives to the British public. It is therefore worth turning to the Labour party's alternative, or lack of it, to the poll tax.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have dealt with the Labour party's alternative, or lack of it. He must first listen to what I have to say on the subject.
  The Labour party's alternative has proved sketchy in the extreme. No figures and no details have been given. Throughout the local election campaign no facts were put forward by the Opposition. It is at least an improvement that they have now put forward some general ideas, which is more than they did throughout the entire proceedings on the Local Government Finance Bill in 1988.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wanted to intervene on the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised a moment ago. He talked about substantial reductions in the rates paid by people in various parts of the country. Is he aware that the rates bill of thousands of households in Westminster, Kensington, Chelsea and central London has fallen from £2,000 or £3,000 last year to but a few hundred pounds and that it is not uncommon for their new poll tax bill to be only 10 or 20 per cent. of their rates last year? Is not that quite shocking?
  Mr. Taylor: It is certainly shocking. I have made the point that the poll tax transfers money from the already poor to the already rich.
  The Labour party's lack of an alternative is a genuine cause for concern as the Cabinet committee would undoubtedly consider an alternative had the Labour party produced one but it did not. In the Evening Standard on 6 April, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned a floor tax. We have heard about the possibility of a roof tax, which is seen as a modernised version of the rates, but it may be based on the cost of rebuilding houses and flats. In The Independent on 6 April the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) stated:
  "We are proposing a modernised version of the rating system, a locally based property tax in which the poundage will be set by the local authority in accordance with local property values, as with rates, but updated and made fairer by being related to ability to pay"—
  but he does not tell us how. He also confirmed that Labour was considering basing the valuation on the square footage multiplied by regional rebuilding costs as an alternative to house prices.
  Labour is still undecided about whether bills would apply to individuals or to households. All that is in addition to its rejection of its 1988 plans for a mixture of a local income tax system and a property system. Nobody could understand how that would work. It simply amounted to an attempt to impose two taxes where one would do.
  Mr. Robert Hayward: Is not it the clearest demonstration of the Labour party's embarrassment at its

  179
  inadequacy in producing an alternative that there are only nine hon. Members on the Labour Benches—the same number as are on the other Opposition Benches? The Labour party cannot produce the Members to put forward the alternatives.
  Mr. Taylor: I suspect that the Labour party prefers to stick with only nine different views rather than putting forward any more.
  I am afraid that there is no consistency among Conservative Members either. I suspect that most Conservative Members take the view that some change needs to be introduced. I have scarcely heard a Conservative Member who has not argued that the poll tax needs amendment. Some argue rather more than others and I shall concentrate on those who have put forward the most interesting or the most widely publicised alternatives.
  Certainly the most publicised alternative recently has been that put forward by the right hon. Member for Henley. He said:
  "most people in my party now agree that it"—
  meaning the poll tax—
  "needs considerable modifications."
  He outlined an extremely complicated set of amendments which few people believe to be practical. He argued for a fundamental reform of the local government system, including directly elected mayors and value-for-money audits. He suggested that local authorities would be free to set their own budgets, but that if those budgets exceeded a sum set by the Government they should immediately be subject to election. One wonders what would happen immediately following an election putting a local authority in power and it subsequently set a budget on the basis of that election. Would it go straight into another election? If the same council or one even more likely to exceed the Government's calculation of the need to spend is elected, does that solve the problem? I suspect that the Treasury would not feel that that was adequate simply because the electorate had put a high-spending council back in power. What action does the right hon. Member for Henley suggest should be taken when the electorate casts votes one way, but the council that is elected does not reflect the majority opinion in the council chamber as a result of the electoral system?
  More interestingly, the right hon. Gentleman also proposes specific changes to the poll tax itself. He makes suggestions about the transitional arrangements. Our motion refers to "immediate" short-term help to those in desperate need. The right hon. Member for Henley says that there should be no withdrawal of safety net support next year. He says that the transitional relief scheme must be improved and expanded, and calculated with greater reference to actual charges, not notional figures of assumed spending. I entirely support his comment that the Government's standard spending assessments must reflect reality in a wider range of authorities. We were told by Ministers when the SSAs were first developed that they were intended to simplify and make visible the local government support system, and to get away from the complications of the old rate support grant. We were told that, under that system, one fed in figures and got them out until the computer came up with a set acceptable to the Government, and that no one knew how the figures were
  180
  generated. The standard spending assessment has not achieved its aim, as the right hon. Member for Henley was right to point out.
  The most crucial element of the right hon. Gentleman's argument—and several other important Conservative Members have put the same argument—is for a form of banding and for a move towards a system that pays some attention to ability to pay above the very basic level of those who are entitled to rebates under the present system. The right hon. Member for Henley says:
  "Banding upwards can in practice, in the short term, only be based on income. There are no insurmountable obstacles, although there will be crudities and criticisms … The Government should instruct its civil servants to work up proposals based on the assumption that everyone will pay something, but that the significantly better off, by which I mean top rate taxpayers, will contribute more."
  Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that that is a long-term or a short-term solution? He says that a banding system should be used only in the short term. If it is not his long-term solution, what is?
  The fundamental problem with a banding system is, by definition, that it goes up in jumps. It is far closer to our proposals for a local income tax system than the Government's proposals, but it would go up in jumps in the same way as the national insurance scheme. If one is unfortunate enough to cross the barrier between one level of income and another, a pay increase will make one worse off. That is the inherent problem of a banding system.
  A banding system is only roughly related to ability to pay because no attention is paid to the variation in income within each band. The right hon. Member for Henley seems blissfully unaware of those problems, or perhaps he simply dismisses them as "crudities" and "criticisms". If the right hon. Gentleman believes that a system should be tied to the ability to pay, why does not he simply adopt a policy for a local income tax system, which is the logical extension of that position?
  Mr. Derek Conway: I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) will never hesitate to bow to the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). We accept the hon. Gentleman's expertise in the matter. Will he tell the House therefore, when he is considering the available alternatives, where his party stands on unitary local government and where it stands on the ability of the electorate to get its hands on county councils through the introduction of a third rotating annual election? Those matters are crucial for my constituents in Shrewsbury, who have been handled in a most duplicitous way by his party's supporters. They want to know where the parliamentary Liberal party stands because they have been unable to find out where the local Liberal party stands.
  Mr. Taylor: We are about to publish a document that will answer the hon. Gentleman's question about local government tiers, and I recommend that he reads it. There is only one way of making local authorities accountable, and that is proportional representation. In numerous areas, although the majority of people voted for one party, another party is running the local authority, and while that remains the case, no one can argue that there is genuine accountability, because the wishes of the people are not being reflected in the way in which the local authority is constituted.
  Mr. David Harris: I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is not the case in Cornwall, which is his county and mine. In effect, the Liberal Democrats are the leading party on the county council. Does he really think that the Liberal Democrats were accurately reflecting the wishes of the people in Cornwall when they increased their budget by more than 18 per cent., with all the consequences that that brought for the charge payers of Cornwall?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have one of the lowest poll tax rates in the country—substantially lower than in neighbouring Conservative-controlled Plymouth and Devon. Moreover, it is pretty rich for the hon. Gentleman, who only a few days ago shared a platform with me and argued that we needed to spend more on our local schools, to press for cuts in the local authority's budget, which would have meant school closures in our area. The hon. Gentleman knows that I would love to have a debate on Cornwall, but now is not the time for it.
  Two Other Conservative Members have argued for banding.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I want to make progress, if I may. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) tabled the amendment which almost succeeded in introducing a banding system when the poll tax arrangements were originally debated. He said:
  "To tinker at the margins will only make a bad situation worse."
  I agree with him. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is in his place at the moment, said:
  "If one believes the concept is structurally flawed, as I do tinkering does not tackle the problem. The basic problem is that it is not a charge for services at all; it is a tax."
  I agree with him, too.
  Both hon. Members have argued for a graduated or banded tax.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I will give way to the hon. Lady when I have finished my point.
  The hon. Member for Acton is present. Why does he argue for a banding system, which would create poverty traps and all the difficulties that we now have at the low end of the national insurance scale, when we have the opportunity to introduce a local tax system? I heard what the hon. Gentleman said in an interview on the radio this morning, in which I was also involved. He suggested that there would be no accountability because a local income tax would be levied through the tax system. But under the system that we propose, at the end of the year every local income tax payer will either receive a rebate, if he lives in a low-spending area or pay the difference, if he lives in a high-spending area. Few things are more likely to make a local authority accountable than a system that resulted in a local income tax payer in one area receiving a bill while his next-door neighbour in another received a rebate.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that sheer bureaucracy adds much to the costs of extravagant councils such as Lancashire county council? Is he aware that, although Hampshire county
  182
  council has 125,000 more people in its area, it manages to run it with 10,000 fewer staff? Does not that highlight the appalling burden on the people of Lancashire, whose Labour-controlled county council has increased its expenditure by 176 per cent. since 1981? This year alone, the council has increased its budget by £123 million, or £81 per inhabitant.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady pleads a special case, and I do not want to comment in detail on that part of the country. However, she should consider the needs of those areas and the services that are provided. She should also consider the support among the public for what is happening there. She must remember that the cost of introducing and administering the poll tax, including the tens of thousands of people required to implement it, amounts to between £650 million and £750 million.
  I want to consider the options available under the Government's review of the poll tax. The Government have canvassed the possibility of increasing central Government's grants to local authorities. However, an extra £1 billion would save each adult only £28. It would also miss those people most in need of help. It is hard to believe that the Government will follow that route. The cost of making that option effective on any scale would put the Government off.
  The Government could also consider transferring the control and financing of the police, education and fire services. However, that would have a knock-on impact on income tax levels nationally. It would also centralise education, which is a service that most hon. Members believe should remain at the discretion of local authorities and be able to respond to local needs.
  The Government could also improve the transitional relief scheme which is currently very limited in its application. If that relief were extended now and retrospectively in Scotland, it would target money more effectively than increased grants. When the Government announced the transitional relief scheme, they said that no one would be more than £3 a week worse off. That has not happened because local authorities have not been able to set poll tax levels at the level that the Government argued that they should. If the Government are to respond to the needs of the most hard up, they should consider extending transitional relief. They could also extend it to all adults.
  The Government have also considered improving the benefits system which targets money, although less efficiently. Under that option, the minimum poll tax payable could be reduced from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent. However, the problem is that all those options simply tinker at the margins and do not tackle the fundamental problem, as the hon. Member for Acton has said.
  Mr. David Nicholson: I do not want to apologise for the standard spending assessment system of which I have been critical in my constituency, particularly with regard to its impact in the shire counties. I am sure that Cornwall and Somerset have similar problems with the SSA system. However, will the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) acknowledge that both the noble Lord who initially made the statement in another place and my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Wales, but who previously had responsibility for the community charge, made it clear that the £3 a week limit extended only in so far as local authorities spent in terms of the somewhat fictitious SSA limits?
  Mr. Taylor: The problem is that, when the public heard the announcement, they did not see the fine details. That was inevitable. Whether intentionally or otherwise, they were grossly misled and that is one reason why hon. Members have been attacked by the public, who have said that they thought that they would be protected. The public did not understand what was happening. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) said, the SSAs are fictitious and very few of us believe that they amount to anything more than that.
  The Government could also relate the poll tax to income in some form, perhaps through a banding system. However, I have already explained why I believe that that option would not be effective.
  Sir George Young: The motion that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) moved asks the House to relate the poll tax to ability to pay from next year. He must know that in no way could the kind of system that he advocates be introduced next year. However, it is possible to move away from the present system, with the flat rate, to a banded rate from next year. Whatever the arguments against the scheme put by the hon. Member for Truro—and there are powerful ones—there are strong arguments in terms of realism for accepting the present position and changing that instead of trying to turn the whole system upside down and starting again with the hon. Gentleman's proposal. We can overcome the objections to which the hon. Gentleman referred by having more than three bands to remove the discontinuities in the system.
  Mr. Taylor: The more bands there are, the closer we get to a local income tax system. However, as we move from one band to the next there is a problem in that people end up worse off. That may be to a lesser degree, but that problem remains. Nevertheless if the hon. Member for Acton is right and a local income tax system could not be in place for next year, the Government should consider that option. However, our advice is that setting aside the legislative process—of course, in Scotland with the UBR it was done extremely quickly—the introduction of local income tax and providing absolutely accurate income figures district by district would take only about six months. The process is not as long as the Government have claimed.
  The final alternative canvassed by the Government is the capping of most or all authorities. On average, 1 per cent. of local spending would reduce the charge by 3 or 4 per cent. To reduce the total poll tax bill to the £10 billion suggested would require cash cuts of about 7 per cent. in local budgets in 1990. Cuts in real terms are nearer 15 per cent. Such capping would be a disaster for local services and would take away the very principle that local government exists to defend—local flexibility—and would be a grotesque centralisation of power.
  I have referred to several matters that we could introduce in the short term. I was interested in the point raised by the hon. Member for Acton, but let me now tackle the local income tax system and the specific criticisms that have been made about it. I do not wish to go into great detail, but I shall refer to the four or five criticisms that have commonly been made and say why I believe that they are based on a fiction of what a local income tax system would be.
  Mr. Allen McKay: I assume that a local income tax system would be based on a person's income or ability to pay, just as the national income tax system is. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe in equalisation rates, how do we come to terms with the problems of an area such as mine where there is low earning and high unemployment? A local income tax system without equalisation rates would be disastrous.
  Mr. Taylor: My answer is very simple. As with the present poll tax system or the old rates system, we would have a central Government grant system that would be specifically tailored to a local income tax system, the major element of which would be to ensure that we levied the same levels of income tax to provide the same levels of service in different areas. In other words, we would take account of income levels in each district. That is what our figures are based on. The calculation could be refined further by an expanded Inland Revenue survey of 500,000 individuals to make sure that the basis was accurate. That is not difficult to do and it is similar to the present grant support system.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the local income tax that the hon. Gentleman's party is proposing be based on taxing income after national tax allowances have been claimed?
  Mr. Taylor: It would be based on precisely the same tax allowances as the national income tax system.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: After allowances?
  Mr. Taylor: After allowances. The basis of the local income tax system that we propose—it is not the one that the Government talk about, which comes as no surprise, because ours makes more sense—is that we would set a local income tax rate to provide services. Under our system, the range is between 3 and 8 per cent., and the average is 4·7 per cent. across the nation. We would then levy nationally a standard local income tax of 5 per cent., the nearest full figure to the average. That would be collected through the existing PAYE taxation structure with no local variation at all. It would simply be collected at the national rate. At the end of the year, on the basis of the tax paid and the relevant local area details that are already held by the Inland Revenue—people would receive a letter saying, "You live in an area that has a higher than average income tax, and this is the amount that you owe," or, "You live in an area with a lower amount, and here is your rebate cheque." That is the basis of the system.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not there a flaw in that? I did not realise that there might be a flaw of this nature. The flaw is that one is taxing income after one has been able to use all one's allowances on the great number of Government schemes that have been introduced, such as small business investment or whatever, after those tax allowances have been taken into account. Is there a danger that, in effect, people might fix their income after tax by way of using all those mechanisms to reduce their ability to pay local income tax to local authorities?
  Mr. Taylor: That is a criticism of the income tax system and the allowances that operate under it, and it applies equally to national and local income tax. It is for the Government to decide the allowances, and a Government

  185
  run by the hon. Gentleman would set different allowances from a Government run by Conservative Members or by me.
  It is said that our system would drive people out of the inner cities. That is not a relevant criticism because the grant support system would ensure that it did not happen. It is said that the administration costs would be unduly high. We would use the existing Inland Revenue structure and save the £750 million that is involved in the bureaucracy of the poll tax, and in the process get rid of all the bureaucrats involved. The extras needed for the Inland Revenue would be small because the basic structure already exists.
  Sweden and Canada already operate such combined systems. The collection costs in terms of the tax take are 30 per cent. in one case and 50 per cent. in the other—lower than the costs in this country because of the introduction into the system of an incentive for individuals to make their own tax returns.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I will tackle some of the likely questions that hon. Members may have, and then give way if they still wish to intervene.
  It is said that the system of collection would be complex. But our proposed method is already being used simply and cheaply in many countries. Moreover, it is also already being used simply and cheaply in this country for national income tax, so that a new complex system would not need to be introduced.
  It is claimed that local income tax would be difficult to enforce. Those who are introducing the poll tax can hardly argue along those lines because they have allowed for much higher default rates than occurred under the old rating system, for example, and we are experiencing the much higher default rates that are occurring in Scotland.
  Mr. Michael Jack: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument thus far, but two points arise. First, he has not addressed his remarks to anything concerned with the efficiency of local government. In Lancashire, for example, we identify the fact that the community charge would be £60 a head lower if the local authority had pursued a prudent and efficient budget. What pressures would the hon. Gentleman's party bring to bear on a local authority to improve its efficiency?
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says that under his system people would get a supplementary bill if a council overspent. How could somebody plan a domestic budget with such an open-ended commitment to spend? Let us remember that some Labour authorities love to spend public money.
  Mr. Taylor: People will not receive a supplementary bill if a local authority overspends. The amount is taken from the local income tax rates, so people know the amount in advance, because they know at what rate the local income tax has been set. If one is paying 5 per cent. and the local income tax rate is 5·3 per cent., one will have to pay that 0·3 per cent. of taxable income at the end of the year, a bill which for most people will not be nearly as significant as the poll tax bill.
  An example of that is that in the Minister's constituency of Enfield, Southgate the average household is currently being asked to pay a poll tax bill of £658. Under our system of local income tax, which has been fully
  186
  set out, that same household with average income would pay in total £356. In Southampton, ltchen, an average household poll tax bill of £614 would become a local income tax bill of £303.
  Those figures show the advantages that would accrue to people, although some would, of course, pay more. Hon. Members would pay more and the Minister would pay a lot more, but he can afford to pay. Judging from the smile on his face, he, too, thinks that he can afford it. That is the nature of a system which is based on ability to pay. We ask for less from those who can afford less and more from those who can afford more. We retain local accountability through end-of-year adjustments, as I have explained, and at a stroke we get rid of the bureaucracy of the system that has been introduced by the poll tax.
  4.29 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'believes that most adults should contribute towards the cost of local services with relief for the less well off; welcomes the embodiment of those principles in the community charge and notes in particular that 10 million people have received bibs reduced by rebates whilst 7·5 million have been protected by transitional relief; welcomes the willingness of the Government to listen to constructive suggestions for further improving the new arrangements; and contrasts the fairness and clarity of the community charge with the injustice and impracticability of a local income tax favoured by the Social and Liberal Democrats and the total lack of any clear proposals from the Labour Party.'.
  I begin by saying a warm "thank you" to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), both for his kind words of welcome and introduction and for what I thought was a thoroughly entertaining speech. I also thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) for writing to me to welcome me to this new subject.
  The title of this debate, chosen by the Social and Liberal Democratic party, invites the House to consider amendments to, and alternatives to, the community charge. I am glad to do both. I intend to demonstrate that the community charge is the best of the options for raising that part of local authority funding that should be raised locally. Moreover, the House will know that the Government are considering whether any amendments to the operation of the charge should be made to improve its working.
  I should like today to take the House through the options for raising local authority finance. Our discussion must begin with the rates. Labour is supposedly against the rates. The SLD describes them in an early-day motion as an "injustice"; I thoroughly agree—and we have abolished them.
  Perhaps on a subject where we are unanimous I need not dwell too long, except to make a couple of points. First, the rates were grossly unfair. I make that point because it may help us to colour our view of the fairness. of the community charge. Secondly, the unfairness of the rates derived mainly from the fact that property values are no proxy for wealth or income and any system based on property will repeat the injustice of the domestic rates.
  Mr. John Lee: Many of us, especially those of us from the north of England, remember my hon. Friend's success in saving the Settle-Carlisle line, so we take an optimistic view of his new appointment. One reason that

  187
  hon. Members such as myself, who represent constituencies in the north-west, are particularly unhappy about the present community charge is the gap between the amount that a household may pay collectively under the community charge, despite transitional relief and the safety net, and the very low rates that we have paid historically. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that aspect, during his speech, but especially during the review.
  Mr. Portillo: I intended to continue by telling my hon. Friend that we shall, of course, listen to suggestions that are made to us. Indeed, I have been listening to suggestions already. My hon. Friend well knows that part of the problem in Pendle, which has a community charge of about £299, is that Lancashire increased its spending by 20 per cent. and Pendle increased its income by 22·8 per cent. I know that my hon. Friend understands that, and recognises that it has added to the problems that his area faces.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When he is considering amendments to the community charge, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that it is absolutely no good giving more money to extravagant councils such as Lancashire county council? Does he accept that any money that is dispersed must go direct to the charge payers, such as pensioner wives or the mothers of young children, so that they get the benefit because, if it is not, those bandits in county hall in Preston will simply swallow the loot and will not give any abatements whatsoever in community charge? The benefit must go directly to the charge payers.
  Mr. Portillo: I understand my hon. Friend's point. As she has said, Iancashire has increased its spending by about 20 per cent. My hon. Friend knows that Lancaster has increased its income by nearly 28 per cent. by comparison, the other council with which my hon. Friend deals, Wyre, which is under Conservative control, has been more moderate in its increase, which was just under 14 per cent.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Should we not be fair and put the figures in the proper perspective? The Minister has referred to Lancashire and to the increases there. If the standard spending assessment for Derbyshire had been calculated on the same basis as that for Westminster, we would not have had any poll tax in Derbyshire; we would have handed out £309 to every single poll tax payer. We would not have been collecting money. Because of the different political complexion in Derbyshire, our poll tax is much higher than Westminster's. Let us all have the same calculation as the one that resulted in the bribery at Westminster and Wandsworth; then there will be no complaints.
  Mr. Portillo: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. The standing spending assessments were worked out on the same basis throughout the country, and, as he will know, in Bolsover the SSA is nearly 15 per cent. higher than the grant-related expenditure figure under the old system. The increase in income in Derbyshire is 19·5 per cent., while Bolsover has increased its income by 17·3 per cent. That is what has made the difference.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Is not the point that, in local government, as in national government, the Labour party is always highly profligate with public money? The rates in Ealing in 1987 increased by 65 per cent.—
  Mr. Quentin Davies: What was the money spent on?
  Mr. Greenway: It was spent on, for instance, homosexual activities and parties for lesbians. Certainly no letters to the town hall were answered. While the rates and the community charge have increased in Ealing under Labour—[Interruption.] Labour Members may shout, but, despite those increases, efficiency went down, the streets were not properly swept, expenditure on education was reduced and people had a disgraceful deal. They always do from Labour.
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. The latest increase in income in Ealing appears almost moderate in comparison, at some 14·5 per cent. My hon. Friend does well to point out that that increase was on top of the horrendous increase in the previous year's rates, which resulted in a community charge in Ealing of £435. My hon. Friend will be satisfied that those who were responsible for those increases have received their come-uppance.
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: My hon. Friend the Minister made his reputation in the Department of Health and Social Security by targeting public assistance on those most in need. Many people in low-spending areas such as the one that I represent, who are just above the line of eligibility for rebates but by no stretch of the imagination well off, now have substantial difficulty in paying their community charge because of low rateable values leading to their previous light contributions. Surely that has major implications for transitional relief, and for next year's rebate. Can we look to the Minister to help those people, who are finding it difficult to make ends meet?
  Mr. Portillo: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall weigh carefully what he has said. I shall continue to listen to him, and to other hon. Members who intervene. He referred to targeting. I ask him to go to his local authority and target this point on it: at present his local charge payers are contributing £44 a year each to the safety net. It would be excellent if that money could be used to bring the community charge down next year, which would greatly help all Chichester's community charge payers.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister should ignore the blandishments of his hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who is the only hon. Member for Lancashire who publicly advocates cuts in public services in her constituency, and stands condemned throughout the community for so doing.
  I have done some work on the question of the Westminster settlement. Why was that settlement inflated by a substantial amount of money for flood relief? Is not the calculation on enhanced population for Westminster grossly inflating its central Government grant? Would not an inquiry reveal that the Westminster settlement was nothing but a fix to get Lady Porter out of a corner?
  Mr. Portillo: The criteria used for flood relief works were applied nationally. It is true that, in the first year, the criteria are particularly helpful to Westminster. They will

  189
  not be particularly helpful to Westminster in the second year. The criteria were given to us by local authority associations and certainly were not skewed to any particular authority. That still leaves the hon. Gentleman with a great deal of explaining to do about why other Conservative authorities that did not have the benefit of flood damage relief, such as Wandsworth, set such low community charges and are so commended for their good management.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: It is time that the Labour lie was nailed. It is undeniable that both Wandsworth and Westminster received substantially less external aggregate grant than any other inner-London borough. The net result was that an authority such as Lambeth, which is Labour-controlled, and which received grant of £324 a head more than Wandsworth, set a community charge of £350 more than Wandsworth.
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right that Wandsworth and Westminster were towards the bottom of the list of the amount received from Government by inner-London boroughs. That is a perfectly valid point and I am glad that my hon. Friend has made it.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows that I have respect for him. I ask him to think of a new way of calculating standard spending assessments. Could he not suggest that, instead of the Government coming up with the formula—which would be open to the allegation of fixing, whoever was in government—they could offer the local authorities the chance to agree it? If they can agree on a formula, that should be the one by which grant is given to local authorities. If they cannot agree, the Government will, as always, have to make the decision. Would that not be a fairer system, less open to allegations that the Government had distorted the figures?
  Mr. Portillo: The method that the hon. Gentleman suggests is that which we attempt to use. We get together with all the local authority associations and try to agree the criteria with them. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that different local authorities have different views. Even the local authority associations, which represent different sorts of local authorities, have different views. We do our best to agree on the criteria. I am listening to representations made to me about standard spending assessments that seem to fall short of expectations or perceived reality in some way.
  The problem with the rates was that 40 per cent. of those in properties above average rateable value had incomes below the average. A person on low income could, and often did, pay more to the local authority than other people on higher incomes in the same area. Under community charge, that simply cannot happen.
  Furthermore, the rates were paid by only half the adult population and that half was selected arbitrarily—so arbitrarily that it consisted largely of widows and pensioners, but excluded many wage and salary earners. It was therefore possible for some local authorities to follow expensive, and expansive, policies knowing that they would be paid for by that ill-chosen minority of the population.
  The second major option for local government funding which I ask the House to consider is the community charge, with any amendments which the Government may
  190
  propose. The basic principle of the community charge is that nearly every adult should contribute to the costs of local services. As the charge has settled down in Scotland and is settling down in England and Wales, I believe that that basic principle that everyone should contribute is well accepted. We do not seek that the charge payer carry all the costs of the local services provided. In principle, we look to the charge payer in England, for example, to contribute only about a quarter on average. The balance comes from revenue support grants, the uniform business rate and the £2·75 billion worth of community charge rebate, transitional relief and income support payments, all funded from central Government. So businesses and national taxpayers meet three quarters of the cost. That is the measure of the subsidy from the common pot to the individual.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Minister accept that the tax has settled down in Scotland to be a costly, ineffective, bureaucratic mess which is hated by the population and not paid by almost I million Scots? If he is worried about the burden of extra costs on poll tax payers, should he not worry about the burden of the poll tax itself? In Scotland last year, there were about 2 million changes in the register in one year alone. That is a foretaste of what is to come in England. In London, annually updating the register will be a bureaucratic mess. That puts extra unnecessary costs on poll tax payers.
  Mr. Portillo: My information from Scotland is that the number of people who have paid or started to pay the community charge—
  Mr. John Home Robertson: For last year?
  Mr. Portillo: Yes, for last year—is comparable with the number of people who paid rates. Collecting the rates was no easy matter either in Scotland. The extra burden of expenditure for collecting the community charge is well worth it, as we have achieved a fairer and more widespread system.
  Mr. David Blunkett: First, will the Minister clarify the statistics that he just gave on the amount of local authority spending met from the poll tax? He said that it was a quarter. The figures that I have been given in written answers show that it is almost a third. Secondly, he said that three quarters of the spending is funded from central Government, but he has included the aggregate external funding, which is part of the uniform business rate.
  Mr. Portillo: My response to the hon. Gentleman's second point is explicit in what I said. On his first point, I said that we sought that the charge payer should contribute a quarter. I recognise that, with the overspending which has occurred among local authorities and which has raised community charges, the percentage is a little higher than the Government looked to raise from the community charge payer.
  We have often made the point that the citizen who pays income tax and full community charge can pay many times more towards local authority spending than his neighbour on maximum rebate for the community charge who pays no income tax. We have repeated that a household in the top 10 per cent. of income will pay 15 times as much as a household in the bottom 10 per cent. of income.

  191
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) is not in his place today. He suggested a most fruitful and graphic way of illustrating my point in an article published recently in the Daily Mail. In the article, he showed what various typical people in our society would contribute to local government finance, on the assumption that part of income tax is used to finance the local authorities.
  Of course, the figures cannot be exact. However, I have no reason to believe that they are far from the truth. My hon. Friend found that the student paying a 20 per cent. contribution would pay £57·20 if the full charge were £278. The gasman earning £12,000 would contribute nearly £1,000 in tax and community charge. The airline pilot on £50,000 salary would pay in about £3,250. The barrister on £100,000 would pay more than £7,500. The advertising agency chief on £200,000 would contribute more than £15,500.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister knows that this is a good debating point. Is it not equally the case that local government central support grant comes out of VAT and Customs and Excise payments? In that case, the figures would show that those on the lowest incomes paid rather more than they appeared to pay under the poll tax.
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West made an allowance for the proportion of Government revenue represented by income tax. He included only those figures. If he went on to include VAT, on the assumption that people who are better off buy more goods, the proportion that came from the better-off would tend to rise. Certainly the absolute cash sums would tend to rise. That would support my point, rather than the hon. Gentleman's.
  I firmly believe that the community charge fulfils the widely recognised need for a system in which nearly everyone contributes. With its rebate system, which is much more generous than the predecessor which applied to rates, it provides for 10 million people on the lowest incomes. With transitional relief, it softens the change for 7·5 million people. With the contributions from the taxpayer and non-domestic rates, providing a large subsidy to the community charge payer out of the national graduated tax systems, I believe that we have a system which is soundly based.
  Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister has had a great deal of advance publicity about being a whiz kid. Can he explain how a 20 per cent. minimum payment of the community charge can be more generous than a 100 per cent. rebate on the rates that some people once got? That was the scheme previous to the scheme introduced by the Minister's predecessors, which allowed for a 20 per cent. minimum rebate on the rates. Why is an 80 per cent. rebate more generous than a 100 per cent. rebate?
  Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate, I asked Mr. Speaker about speakers from the Front Bench. I know that Opposition Members are extremely flexible, but how can an expert in foreign affairs who speaks from
  192
  the Opposition Front Bench suddenly become an expert on local government finance when sitting on the Back Benches?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is a matter for the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), not for the Chair.
  Mr. Portillo: Some time ago, we changed the maximum rebate on rates from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent., as we rightly recognised that everyone should make a contribution to local authority finance. At the same time, we made a contribution to the income support system—from memory, an extra £500,000 went into the income support system—to cover the average 20 per cent. of rates.
  The community charge will succeed too in its aim of establishing local accountability. That has already happened, mainly in those places where there are unitary authorities, where the councils faced elections and where Conservatives offered a low community charge to their electorate. Such local accountability was also established in one area, where the SLD offered a reasonable community charge to its electors in Tower Hamlets.
  Local accountability has moderated community charge increases in the second year in Scotland. As the workings of the charge are better understood, it will bring improved accountability everywhere. Next year in England and Wales, with none of the distractions that we have had this year in changing the system, the electors will know that the level of community charge imposed by their local authorities is down to those local authorities alone.
  Mr. Allen McKay: As the Minister is talking about the electorate, he should consider my area. The council stands for election every year, so it is accountable. Every councillor attends his surgery each Saturday and is therefore accountable. That council ran its election campaign against the poll tax and poll tax capping—and it won 22 seats out of 22.
  Mr. Portillo: Because the authority of which the hon. Gentleman speaks is subject to a capping proposal, I must be careful about making any comment about it. The hon. Gentleman and the council have had the opportunity to make representations to us about that proposal and I am glad that they did so. When the people voted, they knew about the proposal to impose a cap on the authority. One simply cannot know what effect that had on the electors.
  Mr. McKay rose—
  Mr. Portillo: If I have upset the hon. Gentleman, I shall, of course, give way.
  Mr. McKay: It takes a lot more than the hon. Gentleman to upset me. We ran the council election campaign against poll tax capping and we won 22 seats out of 22. Such is the effect of poll tax capping.
  Mr. Portillo: I enjoyed my opportunity of discussing this subject with the hon. Gentleman when he visited me, but I do not want to be drawn further into a debate about an authority for which a capping proposal has been made.
  The introduction of the community charge, the uniform business rate, the standard spending assessments, the transitional reliefs and the entire new structure represents a major new change—a change from something that all parties in the House argued was wrong, but which only the Government have been willing to put right. I am not

  193
  surprised that in such a major upheaval there are many who think that there are things that need to be adjusted and put right. I have listened to what my hon. Friends, as well as those in local government, have said about that. I shall listen again today, and in doing so I shall attempt to distinguish between those points that are just a symptom of change, which can and should sort themselves out, and those points which represent genuine anomalies. I thank my hon. Friends for their help in that process.
  The third option for local authority finance is not to pay the community charge, and to break the law. That policy is espoused by 28 hon. Members in the Labour party. How legislators in a democracy can advocate breaking the law is beyond my comprehension. I understand one thing, however: non-payment by some will mean higher payments by others Those who do not pay will often not be the poorest, and those who must pay more will often not be the richest. If there is any concern about justice, that cause will not be advanced by non-payment, because non-payment is the biggest injustice of them all. When the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) comes to speak for the Labour party, I would appreciate it if he set out his party"s attitude to non-payment, to those non-paying Members of Parliament and to those hon. Members who attend rallies organised by the Anti-Poll Tax Federation.
  The fourth option for local government finance is the roof tax. The House and the country are waiting upon Labour's alternatives to the community charge. Before the hon. Member for Brightside gets up to tell me that it is a modern property tax related to the ability to pay or whatever other sugar-coated, all-things-to-all-men phrase is currently in vogue, what we are looking for today from him is detail. I do not mean complicated details, but simple ones such as who is meant to pay it.
  The last time that that question was posed to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), he replied enigmatically that that would be a matter of "maximum choice". Suppose the hon. Gentleman and I went out to dinner, the bill arrived and we tried to decide who would pay it. If that was left to a matter of maximum choice, we would be there all night trying to decide who would pay. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to hear the Minister, but I cannot because of the traitor below the Gangway.
  Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Please ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The wording used by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is unacceptable to me, and I am sure that he will rephrase his remark.
  Mr. Foulkes: Someone who gets elected as a Labour Member of Parliament, who then leaves the Labour party and refuses to allow a by-election is here under false pretences, and "traitor" seems to be a perfect description. Because of my respect for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall certainly withdraw that remark, but I know you understand what I mean.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Can we now proceed in good order?
  Mr. Douglas: That from the party of idealism.
  Mr. Portillo: When the hon. Member for Brightside speaks, I hope that he will tell us about the Labour party's proposal for the roof tax. Will he explain how it will be related to ability to pay? What is the Labour party's way out of the obvious pitfalls such as the burden that will fall on pensioner widows, the effect of home improvements or the simple fact that the value of a person's home is a wholly unreliable indicator of the owner's means?
  Mr. John Maxton: In Scotland in the non-domestic sector, the Government have drawn up a scheme to give some relief on revaluation. However, when it comes to improving property in the non-domestic sector, whoever owns the business will have to pay the full amount of the new rate imposed as a result of those improvements. What is the difference? I do not understand why the Minister has made a difference between the new rates in the non-domestic sector and the old rating system in the domestic sector.
  Mr. Douglas rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat and let us proceed with this debate in an orderly fashion.
  Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to be perfectly fair—
  Mr. Foulkes: It will be for the first time.
  Mr. Douglas: On the Government Benches, it is well known and clearly defined as to who speaks from the Front Bench.
  Mr. Foulkes: They are the Government and they are paying, idiot.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that Mr. Speaker dealt with all that earlier. We should be able to continue the debate now. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is being disruptive, and unnecessarily so.
  Mr. Douglas: Further to that point of order, Madam: Deputy Speaker. It is well and clearly defined: we have institutionalised opposition. What I ask you to do—perhaps after further consultation with Mr. Speaker—is to get as clearly defined as it is for the Government who may speak from the Opposition Front Bench. Already we have had, from the Back Benches, interventions from an expert on foreign affairs, a Scottish Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. May the matter be cleared up for the benefit of those of us who are eternal Back Benchers?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that Mr. Speaker dealt with the matter earlier today.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), having withdrawn the word "traitor", then to refer to his former colleague as an idiot?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I did not hear that. I think that we ought not to behave like fifth formers. We should get on with a serious debate.
  Mr. Portillo: I do not want to delay the House much longer. If the hon. Member for Brightside cannot deal

  195
  today with the matter that I have put to him, it may appear in the policy document which the Labour party is to produce later this week. Unfortunately, the rumours suggest that it will not be in the policy document. If it is not, we shall consider ourselves swindled out of an explanation to which we feel entitled.
  In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the great unfairness about a roof tax is that a person whose means do not change at all could find that the value of his or her property suddenly rises because the area around it goes up in value; perhaps it becomes yuppified. That is a wholly different position from a business seeking to invest in its own premises and improving the premises thereby.
  The fifth option for local government finance is the local income tax put forward by the SLD. I congratulate the party on putting it forward consistently but not on the proposal itself. I do not know how the hon. Member for Truro can explain the fairness of a system which would allow one third of the adult population to make no contribution at all. The burden of the contribution that millions of people would otherwise make would have to fall on the unlucky two thirds.
  Not only has the SLD come up with a policy; it has also come up with figures. Unfortunately, those figures are badly flawed. They have to be flawed in order to support the fantasy contention that most people would be better off under a local income tax than under the community charge. Anyone who looks carefully at the SLD figures will see the basic flaw. The amounts of money that the SLD seeks to raise are a year out of date. They are based on the 1989–90 figures. Since then, local authorities have chosen to increase their spending by £4·5 billion; therefore, the figures considerably underestimate what would need to be raised.
  The SLD's figures have been set to raise just £7·2 billion in England, whereas councils in England this year are raising £10-·4 billion from community charge payers, after allowing for the contribution from central Government via benefit and transitional relief.
  As it happens,we have set out the correct figures in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). They show that a person in Yeovil on average male earnings would pay a local income tax bill of £955 compared with a community charge of £363; that is over two and a half times as much. Even a single person on £5,000 of taxable income, which I think most of us would agree is not excessive, would pay more in local income tax than in community charge in Yeovil.
  In Truro, the story is similar. A person on national average male earnings would pay £888, which is two and three quarter times the current community charge. A person on £5,000 of taxable income—say, a farm worker—would still have to pay more if his own Member of Parliament got his way. It is at the level of average earnings and above that the local income tax really begins to do its damage. The author of the original SLD proposals admitted that couples with a joint income of £12,000 or above would be worse off under local income tax than with the community charge.
  I do not want to detain the House too long on a local income tax, but I should like to address one point raised by the hon. Member—namely the cost of administration.
  196
  He used a figure of £750 million for the community charge. I do not recognise that figure. The correct amount is nearer £400 million; £750 million would be right for collecting a local income tax. The Inland Revenue has estimated that it would take 55,000 more staff to administer it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said very accurately, the great problem with a local income tax, like a roof tax, is that it would do nothing to increase local authority accountability, the absolutely vital point which we have addressed in bringing in the community charge.
  In considering what improvements we can make to the community charge, we will not dilute its effect on local accountability. To do so would not be an improvement. It would be bad for the national economy, for local government and, above all, for the people who had to pay the bill. None of the alternatives that I have mentioned—not rates, not a roof tax, not a local income tax—can match the community charge in fairness, simplicity or accountability. I urge the House to reject the motion and to support the Government amendment.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: I repeat my welcome to the Minister on inheriting a bed of nails. All his predecessors have been promoted, one of them out of what we might describe as mad cow disease into mad cow disease in terms of what he has inherited. I apologise to the House because I shall have to leave shortly and return later in the debate.
  There is no doubt that the issue of the next two months will be the alternative to the poll tax, whether it is the version that the SLD has chosen to adopt and to which it is sticking through thick and thin—mostly thick—or the adaptation that the Government are seeking to introduce while maintaining the principle that they claim is the fundamental basis of the poll tax.
  I should like to take up the question of what the principle is. The Government amendment suggests, as the Minister did, that the real principle is that most people should contribute something to local services. But we all know that that is not the basis of the poll tax. Its basic principle, to which we object, is that we have a flat-rate tax that does not take account of ability to pay above rebate levels. A large and growing number of the Government's Back-Benchers also object to that principle. That is why only a fair and progressive alternative could meet the myriad of anomalies that present themselves as the Government attempt to dig themselves out of the hole which all Opposition Members—Labour, SLD and others—spelled out as the poll tax went through its parliamentary stages.
  Whatever the Government do in the next two months, they will make administrative matters worse and they will cause even greater confusion. Let us take the statements over the weekend about the sudden resurgence of a commitment to the family and to the community. Let us assume that the Government introduce an exemption for non-working wives and mothers looking after children. All Opposition Members would welcome that. It would be a progressive and sensible step that the Government should not tax people who do not have income. It is such a common sense step that it is blindingly obvious to anyone who is the least caring about what the Government are doing. It would be right because it would encourage parents to stop at home to look after their children, rather

  197
  than having nannies or sending the children to private schools—something, of course, of which Tory Members know nothing. Having established that there is a sudden resurgence of commitment, with parents looking after their children at home, which we welcome, we have to ask—who pays for it?
  Under a progressive tax that takes into account the ability to pay, takes more from the better off, exempts those with no income and relieves those with little income, it is fair to exempt people who stay at home. However, would it be fair to retain a flat rate tax that took exactly the same from everyone above rebate levels? That would mean that a person on two thirds of average income would be treated the same as the person with five times the average income. It would mean that a wife looking after the children of a very rich man with £100,000 a year coming in would be exempt, whereas the woman living next door, who looked after her children at home, went out to work part time and earned wages that took her—or jointly her and her partner—above the rebate level, would not be exempt. It would mean that the person who got up early in the morning, went out cleaning to keep the bread on the table and make ends meet and ensured that the family were not entitled to benefit but stood on their own two feet, would be penalised by the poll tax, whereas the rich woman in a detached house nearby would be exempt. What nonsense there would be under a flat rate charge.
  The same anomalies arise in the cry—which is understandable from those who know nothing about holiday cottages and second homes—that those who have second houses should also be exempt. They say that the standard poll tax, which is really a property tax, should be lifted from the shoulders of those struggling to maintain two homes.
  All Opposition Members—including, I presume, those in the minority parties—accept that there is a good case for alleviating the second charge of standard poll tax where people are obliged by their job to be in residence as part of their employment contract. We accept that where people are attempting to sell their homes, their tax should be alleviated. There are anomalies. However, we can never accept that those who can afford weekend cottages should have their dustbins emptied, roads maintained, streets lit and communities protected for them at the weekend, or the occasions when they visit their homes, at the expense at the rest of the community. It would not be right if everyone else paid more so that they paid less.
  Mr. Peter Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an estimate of the percentage of the average community charge that goes on the services he has just mentioned? Does he agree that the vast proportion of community charge goes on education and social services, which are paid for the area in which a person lives? Therefore, someone with a second home would be paying a much bigger contribution for services that he will not use.
  Mr. Blunkett: Even with the Government making a 50 per cent. contribution for protection services such as the police, the fire and road maintenance services which notch up a large percentage of the revenue spent by local government—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about education?"] Conservative Members shout, "What about education?" but this is supposed to be some sort of charge for services
  198
  received. That is what the Government have said in the past three years. Most of us accept that education should be met through a tax.
  We accept that the quality, availability and provision of education and training for the children of our neighbour and our community is as important to our well-being, as well as of moral importance, as it is to the children that we bring up ourselves. Therefore, it is not a charge for services received for ourselves and our family, but an obligation, a responsibility, for the whole of society. That is why we believe in tax, not this notional charge.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I feel particularly strongly about second homes, given my constituency. I found the remarks of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) extraordinary. There are many villages in my part of the country where 50 per cent. of the homes sold are second homes. It is bad enough for local people to lose the opportunity to be housed locally, without losing the money for the local school, bus service and the rest, which is, effectively, what he suggested.
  Mr. Blunkett: That is a helpful intervention because it reminds me that £5 million of this year's income of the well-known London borough of Westminster came from the standard poll tax. That says a great deal about the flats of business people in Westminster, and about what the relatively poor would have to pick up if the standard poll tax were abolished. Therefore, it is an interesting point—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the Labour party going to do?"] Conservative Members shout, "What is the Labour party going to do?" We made it clear that we believe that it is necessary to have a tax that takes into account the property that people occupy and therefore, as I have already spelt out, the service that they receive when occupying that property.
  There is a range of potential anomalies which the Government, if they stagger into them, will regret at leisure. It is helpful for us to be able to read the articles printed in right-wing newspapers like the Sunday Express that spell out the sort of shambles that we are in for in the months ahead if the advice given by Conservative Back-Benchers is taken.
  That raises the issue of the meaningful alternative to the poll tax that replaces unfairness with equality and justice, and ensures that the anomalies that we can all see round us are swept away once and for all. The alternative cannot be a local income tax, which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) attempted to persuade us was a good idea. That is not because such a tax is not progressive or does not have attractions. It is partly because it does not take into account the provision of services to property, even if only partly occupied. It is partly for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman's speech illustrated. If this debate could only be seen on television tonight, I think the issue about having a single, local income tax as a replacement for the poll tax would go by the board for ever. The idea of having a percentage flat rate, adjusted at the end of the year so that people received a penalty while facing an increase in their tax—as a buoyant tax, a percentage would automatically increase their liability—would be a killer for people. It would penalise those who fell just inside the tax threshold.
  If Conservative Members are trying to peddle the idea that the fact that most people pay is a key principle, they will not find us unreceptive. We accept that it is important

  199
  that people who have an income that entitles them to pay tax, or which can be shown to be of a sufficient level to enhance their earnings to a point where they should pay tax, should pay. Only those who have no income or a low income should have an amelioration in their tax.
  Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the position? If I understand correctly, the Labour party is in favour of a property tax plus an additional element that takes into account ability to pay. How long would it take to bring that into operation, given Layfield's estimate of five years?
  Mr. BlunkettThe Layfield committee, operating in 1976, did not have a great deal to say about the technology 14 years—by the time we are able to implement our taxes, more like 17 or 18 years—later. Clearly it will take time to change the position that we inherit.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has spelt out clearly the timetable that we would adopt after taking office. I give the pledge that the introduction of our alternative tax will not only be more speedily implemented than the poll tax has been, as it has been foisted on the people of Britain, but we shall ensure that the anomalies that we are now debating week after week, in the press as well as in the House—which all Conservative Members know exist—will not be present. We shall consult about it first, listen to what people are saying, iron out those anomalies and ensure that, whatever happens, people's poll tax burden will be alleviated as quickly as is humanly possible. We shall welcome the aid of all hon. Members in the speedy introduction of an alternative tax.
  All Conservative Members who want banding; all who want to maintain safety nets, as they will when they discover what will happen to their seats if they do not; all who believe in fairness: and all who have an inkling that if they do not change their minds the electorate will help them to do so will be reminded by the next Labour Government that we want their assistance in getting rid of one of the most unfair and unprincipled inventions that has ever been inflicted on the British people.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the Labour party did not adopt a local income tax not because of its inherent defects, not because there is not a huge body of support for it, but because the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and the Labour party's environment team received an instruction from the Leader of the Opposition that a local income tax had to be excluded from their alternatives because it had already been proposed by another party?
  Mr. Blunkett: It is difficult to take seriously a question which presumes that the Labour party operates in the same way as the Social and Liberal Democratic party where, when an instruction comes down from above, everyone jumps to adhere to it. No one could ever accuse the Labour party of not engaging in full and open debate on its policies. We are notorious for that. We have lost the past three elections in our endeavour to engage in open and democratic debate. We shall certainly not engage in it again. We have every intention of uniting behind a fair and just alternative which does not have the disadvantages of the poll tax, the anomalies of a single income tax or the
  200
  inanity of those hon. Members who leave the party and think that it is great fun to have a few jokes about who should be sitting on the Front or the Back Benches.
  Those who pose the question "What about the non-payment of tax?" must address themselves to their own friends and supporters. How can Conservative Members have the audacity, in the media or through their summer offensive today, to accuse a handful of Labour Members of breaching the law by not paying their poll tax when the National Audit Office has just issued a report showing that the Government are allowing £5 billion—not million—of tax to remain uncollected and encouraging such evasion by cutting the inspectorate which should be preventing that? They should put their money where their mouth is and increase the inspectorate so that that uncollected income tax can be chased up.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman makes an extraordinary point. Is he aware that the Labour-controlled Ealing council, so summarily dismissed by the electors a few days ago, has not had a single year's accounts passed by the district auditor since it was elected in 1986?
  Mr. Blunkett: I imagine that it is taking steps to ensure that it collects all its income, which is more than can be said of the Inland Revenue. The hon. Gentleman may be euphoric about the result in Ealing, and I make no bones about it being a bad one for the Labour party, but he should bear it in mind that the Labour party polled more votes than the Conservative party in Ealing on 3 May.
  Mr. Greenway: That is not true.
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, it is.
  The Conservative party, which preaches about being a low-tax party but does not collect tax and national insurance, causing the rest of us to pay more, has this year increased the amount of tax which we pay as a nation from 33·8 per cent. to an estimated 37·6 per cent. of gross domestic product. The Government have the cheek of the devil to proclaim themselves the tax reliever of the poor and the benefactor of those who are badly off. The Conservative party has taxed the poor more, hit middle-income earners harder, assisted the rich and ensured, through the poll tax, that there has been a transfer of income from the poor to the wealthy; from those who can least afford to pay to those who can afford to pay more. That is the scandal of the Conservative party's tax policy. That is why we are not only against it but will replace it with something which will receive universal support for its fairness and equity.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Peter Fry: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) sought, rather oddly and illogically, to justify a campaign of breaking the law by complaining that in another area the law was not being carried out effectively. Despite the Leader of the Opposition's statement dissociating the Labour party from the anti-poll tax campaign, it is evident to anyone who knows the leading members of the anti-poll tax campaign in his locality where their political allegiance lies. They are composed of Labour party supporters and are even headed by at least one hon. Member. It is high

  201
  time that those Labour Members who feel so strongly at least resigned their seats and offered themselves for re-election on that basis.
  However, I do not want to spend too much time talking about the Labour party, for the simple reason that we have considered what it intends to do for a length of time which can be compared with the gestation period of an elephant, except that it has not even produced a mouse. Therefore, we are talking about a void.
  It is much more important this afternoon to debate the policies of the Social and Liberal Democrats. It is interesting that once again the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and his party have got their figures wrong. Their figures and estimates are based on last year's expenditure. That is hardly surprising, because the Social and Liberal Democrats spend all their time dealing with the world as they would like it to be, rather than as it is, which is the Government's province.
  The crucial point, which has not been made often enough, is that it is completely wrong to equate the level of the rates last year with what the level of the rates would have been this year if there had not been a change. Wellingborough district council has a modest community charge of £288, but even its spending showed an increase. A comparison of its rates last year with what its rates would have been this year shows a 22 per cent. increase. Northamptonshire is not a tremendously high spender, but throughout the county the rates would have been about 30 per cent. higher. If many of those who write to hon. Members realised that their rates would have been 30 per cent. higher, they would not have been so critical of the community charge.
  But that is not the only point that I want to make about the proposal. It is interesting that it is assumed that a local income tax will give the accountability that is claimed for it. It is true that some European countries have a local income tax. I was fascinated to hear an interview with a Danish person. He was asked, "How do you pay for your local government services?" The answer was, "By means of a local income tax." The next question was, "How much is your local income tax?" The answer amounted to the Danish equivalent of 28p in the pound.
  If local authorities were to be given the right to impose a local income tax, costs would escalate before we knew where we were. If the argument is then advanced that central Government must cough up the money in the form of grant in order to ensure that the local income tax is not too high, local accountability would become very difficult to enforce.
  Rates were a most unsatisfactory form of local government taxation. I entered politics because I could see no justification for the rating system. Can those Opposition Members who say that the community charge is unfair tell me why it was fairer for one person living alone in a house to pay the same in rates as four or five people earning money in the house next door? The rating system was totally discredited.
  Sir Cyril Smith: Then why did it take the Government 10 or 11 years to do something about it?
  Mr. Fry: A sinner who repents is better than one who never repents.
  Neither the official Opposition nor the other Opposition parties have said anything this afternoon that makes me believe that the system that the Government
  202
  have introduced is wrong. However, as with all great innovations, there are defects in the Government's proposals. I, and most of my hon. Friends, accept that there are defects. Therefore, we welcome the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others, which demonstrates that the Government are prepared to listen to sensible proposals. The main point of the debate is to air a number of alternatives. I give the hon. Member for Truro credit for listing some of them. Some of the other contributions have been less helpful.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has reminded the House that the Prime Minister is prepared to listen. Does he have any suggestions to make to her about amending the poll tax so as to benefit his constituents and people throughout the country?
  Mr. Fry: I was about to do just that. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will listen to what I am about to say.
  Mention has already been made of the fact that the sudden imposition of the full community charge on married women with no income of their own can have a drastic effect on the family's finances. I am aware of the fact that transitional relief and other benefits are available, but many people live in what was comparatively low-rated property. Therefore, when the community charge was introduced, they found that the bill increased sharply and that they could not obtain transitional relief.
  All people should, in principle, contribute towards the cost of local government services, but the Minister ought to consider whether married women with no income should pay the full community charge. The cost or complete exemption would be exorbitant, but the community charge bears heavily upon the mothers of small children who have no income of their own. All hon. Members would welcome anything that the Minister could do to help them.
  Mr. Allen McKay: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point, but who will pay the bill in those areas where three quarters of married women do not work?
  Mr. Fry: Under the rating system, the husband paid for his wife and himself. We are talking about an additional amount of transitional relief for married women who do not go out to work. I said that I did not believe that full exemption could be afforded, but some exemption could, and it ought not to fall on the other community charge payers. The money would have to come from central Government.
  The hon. Member for Brightside did not fully appreciate the extent to which the community charge is bearing heavily on people of comparatively modest means who have second homes. He suggested, as did the hon. Member for Truro, that everyone who owns a second home is exceedingly wealthy.
  Mr. Chris Butler: A constituent came to see me in my surgery at the weekend and told me that he had bought a chalet in Wales which has no electricity, gas or water. He is disabled and earns £79 a week. The rates on the chalet were £140; he is now being asked to pay two standard community charges. The system does not enable him to qualify for transitional relief. He is in receipt of no community charge rebate. Ought not that anomaly to be corrected?
  Mr. Fry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had intended to refer to a similar case in my constituency. People who have worked hard all their lives and whose incomes are modest may choose not to have Mediterranean holidays but to invest their money instead in seaside chalets. They feel that they are being penalised.
  Mr. Home Robertson: All those hon. Members with Scottish constituencies who had the poll tax and all the other anomalies inflicted on them a year ago, just because of votes cast for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, find it quaint to hear them squealing about all these problems. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of poll tax concessions. Would he go a step further and say that such concessions should be made retrospective by the addition of a further year for Scotland?
  Mr. Fry: The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech in his own way, should he be given that opportunity. If he will allow me, I shall get on with mine.
  Sir Cyril Smith: I strongly support what the hon. Gentleman says. I have had more trouble with second homes in my constituency than I have had about the rest of the poll tax put together. I have written to the Prime Minister and the Minister giving details of specific cases and requesting that they should be part of the review. The council in my constituency has decided to charge twice the rate of poll tax on second homes—about £800. I am delighted that the Government have rate-capped Rochdale. The council has indulged in gross extravagance.
  A constituent of mine, a woman of 91, went to live with her daughter four years ago. She said, "I'm only coming so long as I can keep my home." The daughter kept her mother's home for four years rather than upset the old dear. Suddenly the daughter was faced with having to pay 800 quid, although she is caring for her mother and keeping her home going.
  A fortnight ago, a full-time officer in the Royal Air Force told me that he had bought a second home in Rochdale ready for when he comes out of the RAF and he has suddenly been faced with an 800-quid poll tax. I strongly support the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Fry: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Simon Burns: My hon. Friend is as interested as I in the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith). I put it to him that a number of my constituents are also suffering because they own second homes. They are not beautiful holiday homes; they are second homes for work, or other reasons. My constituents have to pay two community charges. May I suggest that the hon. Member for Rochdale has a word with his colleagues, the Liberal councillors of Chelmsford borough council who have imposed two community charges on second homes?
  Mr. Fry: This is rapidly becoming a debate on interventions rather than on the motion before the House.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fry: No. If we go on like this, my hon. Friend may know where she is, but I shall not.
  One of the greatest problems is that many councils which never previously rated empty properties too readily accepted the formula of imposing two standard charges, so
  204
  people who were paying nothing suddenly had to pay two standard charges. I know that allowances are supposed to be made for the first three months and that then charges on a rising scale from nothing up to two standard charges could be imposed. However, certain categories of people have been badly caught when councils have imposed the full charge.
  One such category comprises young people who have bought old properties because they could not afford a new property or one in a good state of repair. A young man and woman who want to get married in a year's time and have bought an old property now discover that they are being charged a standard charge where they live and a double charge on the empty property which they are repairing and renovating. Instead of having to pay one charge each, they are having to pay four charges between them.
  I assume that it was never intended that people who are trying to help themselves and who could not afford to buy a house in good repair should be penalised. The present safeguard of three months is totally inadequate; even a year would probably be inadequate. Local authorities need to apply much greater discretion in taking such cases into account.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wish to draw attention to two particular cases. First, somebody who loses an elderly parent may subsequently receive an immediate community charge bill. There is no three months' leeway. Secondly, empty farm cottages are relieved of community charge in Scotland but not in England. However, the cases involving deceased parents are really quite tragic.
  Mr. Fry: The three-month period started at the beginning of the year, so it was over before the community charge came into force.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has the ability to put right the anomalies that have been raised. The injustice that has been outlined by hon. Members on both sides of the House causes deep resentment. People on modest incomes who can pay their own community charge strongly resent being asked to pay more.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be delighted to know that I do not propose to read out a list of suggestions for him to follow.
  Sir David Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is another anomaly, involving farm workers? Those who suffered a large increase in their community charge compared with the rates that they paid will be eligible for concessions, but that applies only to those who previously paid rates. Farm workers in tied cottages did not pay rates, so they are not eligible for the concession. I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that that is another anomaly which should be drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister.
  Mr. Fry: I am coming to the end of my remarks and from now on hon. Members will have to interrupt someone else. I have suggested two main concerns and no doubt hon. Members will make other suggestions. However, in all seriousness, I stress that the two anomalies that I have mentioned this afternoon will make a great difference to the ultimate acceptance of the community charge. The electorate are fully aware that the Government intend to do something, but what they do will decide how that electorate will react.

  205
  I am aware that there is not untold money to throw at the problem, and I am not suggesting it, but when my hon. Friend completes his deliberations and produces a number of sensible proposals that do away with the worst anomalies, he will receive not only the gratitude of Conservative Members and perhaps some Opposition Members, but the thanks of the electorate.
  Finally, even when the worst anomalies have been removed, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is fully aware that that will not be the end of the story. The major problem is that the charge is too high. Whether the community charge is £288, as in my constituency, or £350 or £400 as in other parts of Northamptonshire, anyone who has to pay more than they paid in rates will regard it as excessive. Will my hon. Friend re-examine the way in which central Government grants are distributed? For example, in Northamptonshire we have many of the costs that arise in the south-east of England, but those extra costs were not recognised in the grant that the council received. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that factor, as it could make a considerable difference in future.
  Local authorities must examine their budgets. We are often told that no savings can be made and that there can be no more cuts. After the introduction of local management of schools, are the Government determined to ensure that local education authorities cut their central administration? Certainly real savings could be made and passed on to the community charge payers. We should ensure that county councils initiate thorough cost investigation exercises, because ultimately county councils are the deciding factor.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not here, as he had so much to say about Derbyshire. One of the most interesting local election results was not Westminster but Derby. Derby was marginally held by the Conservative party and everyone thought that it would be lost, but it was not, because anyone who has been to Derbyshire recently knows that Derbyshire county council is clearly marked out as a mighty overspending authority. When the electorate can clearly identify the overspenders, people will vote accordingly. In my view, that justifies the Government's policy.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fry: No.
  Before I sit down, I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that he has a mighty task ahead of him. I welcome him to his new position, knowing how well he did in his previous post in the Department of Transport, and I wish him well, but the hopes of many Conservative Members and the hopes of our party rest heavily upon his shoulders.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I welcome the Minister to his new post. Let me say with some diffidence that when he was elected to the House he was one of the younger Conservative Members that I marked out for stardom. I do not want to condemn him by saying that. I recognise that he has enormous ability, but he has an enormous task because he has to attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable.
  The criteria that the Government adopted for the poll tax were accountability, fairness and efficiency. However,
  206
  the more one tries to achieve fairness, the more one moves away from accountability. Therefore, I do not apologise for referring particularly to the Scottish experience.
  It is probably difficult to carry out a policy of a local income tax for the whole of Britain. I recognise the administrative difficulties, as did Layfield a long time ago. However, in Scotland, it is perfectly possible to have a local income tax. If the proposals accepted by the Opposition parties for a Scottish Parliament are carried out, it is eminently desirable that that Parliament is elected on proportional representation, and that it carries out discussions on how we reform local government in Scotland and how we apportion taxation, on both a Scottish and a local authority basis. If we cannot do that for 5 million people in Scotland, we had better give up advising people on how to govern themselves. The basic difficulty for the Opposition parties is how we should move towards that position. The Labour party especially has got itself on the horns of a dilemma.
  The Government talk about accountability and say that everyone has to pay. If one accepts that, extreme problems are encountered, as in Scotland. What does one do about the mentally handicapped? One has to make concessions. We were told repeatedly that concessions could not be made for those with Alzheimer's disease, yet concessions were made. There is an enormous anomaly in relation to care of the aged. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) gave an illustration of it. He spoke about a lady who had left her home temporarily to be cosseted in the bosom of her family. The family had to pay their own poll tax and twice the standard charge for the home that the old lady had vacated, although they were looking after an aged parent. I have many experiences of such cases in my own family. If our elderly parents had been put into nursing homes, they would not have paid the poll tax, yet they would have made a greater charge on local government services. Those are considerable anomalies, but they relate to fairness.
  It is a farce that we loosely speak of "local government finance". There is no such thing, as the Minister reveals in his speeches. If local government finance means anything, why does the poll tax account for 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of local revenue in England and Wales, whereas in Scotland it accounts for 15 per cent? The reason is that the Exchequer transfers resources in one form or another from central Government revenue to local government on a basis that is not, and cannot be, equitable. In Scotland, the poll tax accounts for 17 to 18 per cent. of local revenue in some authorities, whereas in others it accounts for as little as 4 per cent.
  Some have referred to accountability in electoral terms. I defy any Scottish Member—and I must be careful as there are four here at present—[HON. MEMBERS: "There are five "] Yes, there are five if I include myself. I defy any Scottish Member to go out into the street in his authority and to ask 100 electors which authority—district or regional—is responsible for the various services. They would not know.
  I stood in a local election. I now have stabs in the front from the Labour party instead of stabs in the back. For me, the issues in the local election were the poll tax and fighting the Tories. The issue for the Labour party was fighting Dick Douglas. I have been called a traitor in this House. I was called far worse by so-called Labour supporters in the election campaign. However, as my old mother used to say in Govan, "Sticks and stones will break

  207
  your bones, but names will never hurt you." If that is all that will happen to me here and elsewhere, it will not worry me too much.
  There is a problem of distinguishing between the services and between the responsibility of local authorities for those services. In a system where 75 to 90 per cent. of revenue is redistributed by central Government, it becomes a farce to talk about local government finance. In Scotland, it is eminently suitable and desirable that we move towards a system of local income tax. There is no gainsaying that. We have had the poll tax for 14 months. All the Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), who pronounce for Scotland on the poll tax, who now cavil about having to pay it because it has hit their constituencies and who walked through the Government Lobby should now recognise that, if we call ourselves a United Kingdom Parliament, we must have regard to national circumstances—and Scotland is a nation. As was illustrated yesterday over Ravenscraig, this House and the Tory Government are putting great strains on the Union, and nothing is putting greater strains on the Union than the issue of the poll tax and local government finance.
  I want to deal with the Labour party's so-called alternative. The hon. Gentlemen who were calling me names are absent now. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), that great whiz kid—and I have called him a dunderhead, which is a term of endearment—and others propose that we should have a roof tax. A roof tax is just the rates in another guise. We have had some answers from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), but they were guarded and cryptic non-answers. It would take by any estimate three to five years to introduce such a tax. What will happen to this great party, the guardian of the Scottish people?
  A few months ago, we all signed the "Claim of Right" and said that we believed in the sovereignty of the Scottish people—a valuable and historic concept. If one believes in that, the votes of the Scottish people count not only in British terms but in Scottish terms. The overwhelming majority of the Scottish people, in regional and general elections, voted against the poll tax, yet it was still imposed on us.
  Labour Members have been careful to say that they will repeal the poll tax, but that may take three to five years if and when there is a Labour Government. What happens in the interim? Will the poll tax roll on? I predict that the vast majority of the Scottish people will cease to pay the poll tax the Monday after a Labour Government are elected. What does one do then? What are the contingency plans of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)? They have a dilemma. Having marched us up to the top of the hill and having said how much they disliked the poll tax, they are being very careful.
  I am called a traitor by the Labour party because I say that I will stand beside those who cannot pay. I am proud to be a traitor on that ground. When the leader of the Labour party came to Scotland in January 1988, he said, "Pay up." He said that for good reasons from his electoral point of view, but he was neglecting the history of the Labour party in defending the poorer sections of the population. We must have cognisance of that. The great
  208
  party of idealism now says, "You can have a conscience clause and you can refuse to pay, but, for goodness sake, do not tell anyone you are doing it. Keep it secret. If you appear on a platform with other supporters and say that you are not paying, that is a terrible crime." That is a great position for the party of idealism to adopt, is it not?
  There is no way that we can reform the poll tax. We can ameliorate it and, in all humility, I shall suggest some ways in which we might do that which have occurred to me since I was elected honorary president of the students' union at Stirling university. Students are especially severely handicapped by the tax. If we start pursuing students for non-payment of the poll tax, we will lose more money than we collect. The Government should realise that. I am not necessarily pleading; I am fulfilling a responsibility by suggesting that the Government might consider excluding all students, and certainly all those under 21.
  There is a good democratic reason for that suggestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has taken time to analyse these matters and has discovered that young people do not want their names to appear on the electoral register because they see a correlation, which the Government do not see, between registering for electoral purposes and registering for poll tax purposes. That is a persuasive argument for saying that—
  Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend argued that the tax could not be reformed. The reason for that is that there is a relationship between the electoral register and the poll tax register. Current figures show that at least 600,000 people over the age of 18 are missing from the electoral register. The average is 1,000 per constituency, although the distribution is uneven. Nearly 10 per cent. of those eligible are missing in Finchley, the Prime Minister's constituency. Whatever banding arrangements we introduce, we shall not alter that. The tax bills are directed to individuals in their homes and that links the poll tax and electoral registers.
  Mr. Douglas: I accept what my hon. Friend says. That is why I plead for a local income tax in Scotland and why I have made my feelings clear. But I am being cautious and my concern at present has to do with the interim period and what the Government might do. I realise that certain sections of the population are severely imperilled by the poll tax, and students are certainly among them. Theirs is a pressing need for which the Government could cater more quickly and easily than they could cater for non-working spouses.
  The Minister has an enormous task ahead of him. The Government have a self-inflicted wound which he must heal. No one asked the Government to introduce the poll tax. What makes the poll tax such a farce is that it does not result in the collection of more revenue. No one forced it on the Government; they panicked about Scotland. I suggest that the Minister is wrong in thinking that opinion about the tax is settling down in Scotland. It is not. It is difficult to get hold of the figures because local authorities are not clear about them, but it appears that we may have between half a million Scots who have not paid and who have been in default for a whole year and 1 million who have not paid part of the tax. Personally, I have not paid for 14 months. I do not know what will happen to

  209
  non-payers—it may be the arrestment of wages, the poinding of furniture or warrant sales—but the Scots are resisting, and will continue to resist the poll tax.
  In the end, Labour-controlled local authorities will have to decide between poinding and warrant sales to enforce the legislation. What will Labour councillors do then? Should they echo the words of the Labour leader and say that the non-payers are terrible and are embarrassing local authority workers, or should they stand up and be counted? I do not know which way it will go, but I can assure the Minister that resistance in Scotland will not disappear. If hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) call me a traitor for continuing to stand my ground, I will take the epithet from them. I know that the view by which I stand is the view that will have support in the long run. I suppose it will be said that, in the long run, we are all dead, but in the long run the people of Scotland will certainly respect those who stand by their view on this issue of principle.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Donald Thompson: I did not intend to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) down the ways and glens of Scotland, but I agree with him on one point. The Government should have introduced the community charge in England and Wales at the same time as it was introduced in Scotland—at least a year ago and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) suggested, perhaps even four or five years ago. We were in error in not introducing the tax earlier across Great Britain. With his wise and disparate views, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West seems to have spent his time in the wrong party. Had he been a Conservative Member he could have held those views and no one would have noticed; he would not have ended up being called a traitor at all.
  I join hon. Members in welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to his new post. He and I have been friends for a long time and hope to remain so for a long time.
  In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said that the Liberal Democrats had tabled the motion so that the Government would not spring anything on the House—unlike the Liberal Democrats, who sprung the motion on us. Twenty-four hours ago, the motion was not even written; they had no idea what they wanted to say. They crept into the Table Office at dead of night and tabled the motion because if they had tabled it earlier I should have been able to report its contents to people in my area and we should have been able to win more than the two seats that we won from the Liberal Democrats in the local elections.
  The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asks for aid with future policies. Had the Government had help from Labour Members and local government representatives at all levels during the past three years—the gestation period for the community charge—we should have had a stronger and better community charge now. Instead, they have ruthlessly taken every opportunity to terrorise those sections of the community about whom they bleat the most—the old, the sick, the disabled and the young.
  Mr. O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thompson: No, I shall not give way.
  210
  Labour Members have gone about their constituencies exaggerating the effect of the charge and minimising the effect of rebate. The amendment to the motion states that
  "10 million people have received bills reduced by rebate whilst 7·5 million have been protected by transitional relief".
  In my constituency there have been bitter rows about rates ever since I began serving in local government. Since 1967, the issue on every doorstep at every election has been the rating system and its unfairness. The same applied to elections for the county councils—God bless their absence; we ought to get rid of them if we possibly can as, like Caesar, they are remembered only by their misdeeds—and to local elections. We have heard nothing from the Opposition about what they would put in place of the rates.
  Mr. O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thompson: I am not giving way.
  Having said that, I express my genuine thanks to the officers in Calderdale—Malcolm Fearnley and his team—for their efficient implementation of the community charge in my constituency. They have managed to deal with 32,000 applications for rebates and 40,500 applications for transitional relief. They have done that efficiently and speedily and they have also dealt with extra help. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are poll tax capped."] It is not a poll tax—it is a community charge, and it provides the biggest cushion to help the old and the disabled that we have ever had.
  Mr. O'Brien: What about capping?
  Mr. Thompson: I will consider capping in a moment. In a poll run by the local paper, people in my area voted 3:1 in favour of it.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend said that his local council had processed 32,000 rebates and some 40,000 transitional reliefs. How many staff were required to process that work? My local council is asking for extra staff because it claims that it is behind with claims. I should like to be able to tell my local council that it ought to have been able to cope without extra staff. How many staff were needed in my hon. Friend's constituency?
  Mr. Thompson: Quite honestly, I cannot answer that and I do not wish to give a dishonest answer. Whether or not extra staff were recruited, the council had the foresight to act as it did rather than sulking, and the chief officer told me today that the money is rolling in.
  I want to translate what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said about the vast amounts that we are spending in local government support into what happens in a local government area. My figures are taken from the minutes of a meeting of the metropolitan borough of Calderdale in March 1990. For the year 1990–91 in my area the total expenditure per person on the Labour budget would be about £1,020. On the Conservative budget it would be £969 per person. The revenue support grant from general taxation is £277 per head—not an inconsiderable sum. The unified business rate from the business community is £293 per head. That gives a real community charge under the Labour figures of £450 per head and under the Conservatives of £398. However, the Government in their wisdom have left a safety net of £137 less a low rateable value grant of £25. That reduces the real community charge to £296 under Labour and £245 under the Conservatives.

  211
  The hon. Member for Normanton asked me about capping. The £245 is the figure that the Government expect under a capped system.
  Mr. O'Brien: I raised a couple of anomalies with the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) in a discussion on Radio Leeds a few weeks ago and he said that they would be amended. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that I asked about properties not connected to a main sewer, which received a concession under the rates system but no concession under the poll tax system. People in those properties will have to pay the full poll tax in addition to charges for entering the sewer. I also asked about corner shops where the person living above the shop will have to pay poll tax as well as paying the business rate for the shop. The hon. Member for Calder Valley said that those anomalies would be amended. What has happened about those anomalies?
  Mr. Thompson: I have put those points to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am pleased that in this new spirit of glasnost Labour Members are now making sensible and reasonable suggestions. Had they done that three years ago, we should have had a much better tax. It is a shame that Labour Members are not in the Chamber tonight—they have run away from this debate in their masses, leaving only the Labour Whips.
  Mr. Allen McKay: If the hon. Gentleman cares to examine the reports of the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill which introduced the poll tax, he will discover that all those amendments were suggested, but the Government arrogantly refused even to consider them.
  Mr. Thompson: I think not, Sir.
  I hope that Calderdale council will accept one of the two budgets to which I have referred. Unfortunately, the safety net—£137 this year—will be unwound perhaps over three or more years. Although the business rate will rise with inflation and we expect revenue support grant to increase in the same way, the safety net will unwind giving us less and less.
  Therefore, it is imperative that all councils should do as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) suggested and constantly re-examine spending that in the past they have taken for granted without having regard to the ratepayer who seems to have been a hidden person.
  Reference has been made to married women who do not work and the poll tax. How do people budget their accounts? Surely couples sit down together and say, "Look, love, we've got the electricity bill to pay, the rates bill to pay, the water bill and then there's the car—are we going to Malaga or Malta or are we going to our pal's little place in Bridlington?" Apparently it is a revelation to Labour Members to learn that that is how people budget their accounts. One wonders whom Labour Members are visiting at the moment.
  The safety net and the rebates have left anomalies which are difficult to explain to people in our surgeries and advice centres. There is a sewing shop in Todmorden in which every lady pays a different community charge. They told me that they had thought that they would all pay the same but because of transitional relief and rebates they all pay a different charge. Anomalies will crop up everywhere.
  212
  We have already heard about farms. I received a letter today from Mrs. Janet Nelson of Todmorden asking me about Methodist ministers and the way in which they receive remuneration. I will pass the letter to my hon. Friend the Minister and discuss it with him. Indeed, I have several hundred other letters to give him and I am sure that we shall be able to reach some kind of accommodation.
  The double rating of holiday homes seems to be causing a great deal of distress, as the hon. Member for Rochdale explained, but my hon. Friend the Minister should not let local authorities off in relation to their void houses. Local Government should not be allowed to avoid being charged twice, three times, four times or even five times for those houses. They should be charged as much as possible for the empty houses that have led to so much homelessness.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West referred to students and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough mentioned double charging. Much still remains to be done to get this revolutionary new community charge right, and we shall press on and do it.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) believes that the poll tax can be reformed. I do not agree. It cannot be reformed; it can only be abolished. The poll tax is fundamentally flawed and is not based in any shape or form on the ability to pay. Any such taxation must be unfair and must throw up a series of anomalies. That is precisely what the poll tax has done.
  The Government had no mandate to introduce the poll tax in Scotland. It is one of the most hated taxation systems of modern times. The Government have not learned from the Scottish lesson and England is now adjusting to the fact that the chickens have come home to roost. There have been a series of demands for changes or improvements in the poll tax. Those calls come as a great irony to the Scots who have had to live with the tax. There was no talk of improvements when Conservative Members inflicted the ghastly tax on the Scottish people more than a year ago. Now that the reality is dawning in England, Conservative Members will feel the full force of public opinion as people discover exactly what the tax is and what it does.
  Scotland has been the guinea-pig for the poll tax and it has proved it to be wrong-headed and disastrous. It is callous and unfair for all the people on whom it is imposed, and it does absolutely nothing to assist local government funding or finance. The Scottish National party warned that the tax would be a bureaucratic nightmare. In Scotland, staff morale is low and there is stress among those who must impose the tax.
  The poll tax is unworkable. The people in local government are paying the penalty for it. In Scotland there have been more than 2 million changes in the registers. That will be as nothing when the tax is imposed on English cities such as London, which has a large transient population. The tax is bureaucratic and expensive to implement. Computers in Scotland have been spewing out ever-increasing numbers of poll tax books and other bits of paper. The rebate application forms are massive and their demands for information about private citizens are impertinent and deter people from applying.
  The poll tax is costly, inefficient and massively bureaucratic. The SNP warned about in-built expense and

  213
  the difficulties of collection. It cannot be otherwise with annual updates and clumsy rebate systems to try to iron out the inherent unfairness of the tax. Again, my party warned about anomalies and unfairness in a tax that is not based on ability to pay. Scotland has suffered—
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman has said that.
  Mr. Welsh: It cannot be said enough, as the hon. Gentleman will find in his own constituency as anti-poll tax feeling in England grows. The hon. Gentleman helped to inflict this tax upon my country and did nothing to change the anomalies in it. That is what I find objectionable. It is well worth repeating that.
  Anomaly after anomaly was thrown up by the tax as it was implemented in Scotland, as English hon. Members have been finding out. There are problems for students, student nurses, people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and other diseases, housewives who are fully charged and are unable to earn income, and so on. That circumstance could have been foreseen by the Government as they introduced the tax over a year ago in Scotland.
  This taxation system is riddled with unfairness and anomalies. The Scottish experience gives fair warning of the problems to Wales and England. Annually updated registers have been a bureaucratic disaster. It is a highly expensive tax to collect. If Conservative Members are worried about expense to poll tax payers, they should think about that very expense of the collection of the tax being imposed on poll tax payers.
  Again. the scope for poll tax non-payment campaigns, which have led to about 1 million Scots paying little or nothing in protest against this ghastly tax, will be as nothing compared with the effect of and the opportunities for non-payment in English cities. No amount of ministerial mumping or accusations about law breaking will prevent that from happening as people take the protest into their own hands in the only way that is open to them as free citizens in a free country to protest against a tax that they totally abhor. The poll tax is not based on ability to pay and merely transfers the unfairness of rates. Rates were unfair in terms of property, and the poll tax is unfair in terms of people. Both taxes are levied without reference to ability to pay, and the Government must tackle that problem. No amount of banding or any other messing around will replace the need for a local income tax.
  I contrast the anomalies, unfairness and callousness of the poll tax with our belief that ability to pay must be the criterion of any taxation system. On all counts, a local income tax scores. It has a low cost of collection. Unlike the poll tax, it would use the existing tax collection machinery. If a person has little or no income, he or she will pay little or no income tax, which is fair. Assessed on the same basis as national income tax, local income tax could easily be integrated into the existing system. With LIT there would be no need for the present Government's panoply of sheriff officers, warrant sales, local bureaucrats, annual registers, and a complicated structure of rebates. Indeed, there would be no need for massive collection costs and the other paraphernalia of the poll tax or of the roof tax.
  We believe that people should pay for public services according to their means and be able to use them according to their needs. People who are too poor to pay income tax would not have to pay local income tax either.
  214
  Local income tax would also guarantee civil liberties because there would be no registration forms, no Tory snoopers checking the value of a person's house, and no means-tested rebate applications. All the information required for local income tax is already collected by the Inland Revenue. There would be no need whatsoever for council officials to know the financial circumstances of an individual. A local income tax system would not need to be implemented from scratch because relevant information on employment and wages is already stored in national income tax records. Certainly an SNP Government would abolish the poll tax immediately, as indeed could a Labour Government if they had the courage of their convictions and the will to do so.
  Our calculations show that a basic local income tax would be about 5·5p, and the higher rate of about 10p in the pound would be sufficient to replace current poll tax levels. No amount of fiddling with gross amounts and the other aberrations that the Government have tried to introduce into the debate will change the fact that local income tax is cheaper to collect, efficient and fair.
  Mr. Bill Walker: How will the hon. Gentleman do that?
  Mr. Welsh: With the figures that I have mentioned-5·5p and l0p in the pound, the higher rate level. They are maximum figures. They reflect a situation in which this Administration have slashed their contribution to local authorities from 75 per cent. down to 55 per cent.
  We propose major changes in central Government support for local authorities, which would substantially reduce the burden on local taxation. Our proposed responsibility grant, needs element and equalisation grant would mean that local income tax contributions would focus on purely local expenditure and would obviously mean minimal variations in local income tax levels throughout Scotland. Unlike other parties—the exception is the SLD, which has done something on these lines—the SNP proposes a package of local government finance measures allied to the reform of the structure of local government, and in-built guarantees of the independence, status and standing of local authorities in Scotland.
  Too often those problems have been viewed in isolation. Finance is reformed without any thought of the structure or status of local authorities. Structure Is reformed without any thought of the finance or status of authorities. It is time that local authorities were given their due standing, status and importance within our society and given a package of measures that considers them in the round and within their context as part of the democratic process of providing services for the people.
  Our income tax system would take Scotland into the mainstream of European local government finance, along with countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and West Germany. In joining with Labour Members in opposing local income tax, the Tories have taken us into the mainstream of only one other comparable country', Papua New Guinea, and even that country is now retreating from the poll tax. The SNP proposes that, by adopting a local income tax, the United Kingdom and Scotland would join the mainstream of European methods of financing local authorities. We propose a package of measures to restore local government to independence, status, structure and finance, which will let it do its proper work on behalf of the people of Scotland. Anything less

  215
  would be a betrayal of Scotland's interests. That is precisely what the Labour and Tory parties have been doing for too long.
  It is about time that local government finance were treated properly, with a sensible, fair system for domestic local taxpayers and a much-needed reform of business taxes. The Government have got themselves into a massive fankle over local government finance, which is not good for local authorities or for the people whom they serve. Let Wales and England be warned. The Scottish example clearly shows what a disaster the poll tax is. Be warned and dump this unwanted and unfair tax.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I shall not adopt the line advocated by the SNP, which is the non-payment of the community charge. That line advocates illegality, and that must be wrong.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: Certainly not.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider exempting people under 25 from the community charge? [Laughter.] Perhaps that is a radical suggestion. Up to the age of 25, young people are getting married and are required to save money and to establish themselves. That often entails the purchase of a home. Additionally, such people are new in their jobs and are usually on low pay and therefore are not equipped to make the contributions to local expenditure that people over 25 can. We should do all we can to encourage people at all ages, but certainly up to the age of 25, to take time out to improve their qualifications. The exemption of under-25s from the community charge would greatly assist youngsters to improve themselves in that way.
  I have told the Minister in writing that I welcome the separation of husband and wife for taxation purposes, but that we should carry that principle into the community charge. We could do that in terms of savings by couples and individuals. For example, a man and wife could be assessed separately for savings and not have them amalgamated. I appreciate that such a system might be difficult to implement and could be open to abuse, but savings should be assessed separately because husband and wife are charged separately for the community charge. While I envisage difficulties in applying my suggestion, the principle of it is right and fair.
  Difficulties lie in the way of any form of local taxation, bearing in mind the way in which local expenditure generally is administered by Labour compared with Conservative authorities, leaving aside any SLD-controlled authorities. Local taxation, like national taxation, as implemented by the Labour party is always high. Indeed, Labour supporters pride themselves on that, and to illustrate it one need only consider what has happened in my borough of Ealing.
  Up to 1986, the Labour party was describing Ealing's rates as a disgrace, since they were the lowest in west London. We were proud of that, and the services provided in Ealing were as good as those provided anywhere. The Labour party was ashamed of the fact that on one side, the Conservative represented side, of Whitton avenue east, in
  216
  my constituency, the rates were half those levied on the other side of the road, which then lay, as it still does, in the then Labour-controlled borough of Brent.
  Mr. John Carlisle: I remind my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is not in his place, said it was shocking that people were now getting much lower bills. In other words, the desire for increased charges is still part of Labour philosophy. Ratepayers or charge payers in Labour-controlled areas must remember to vote accordingly at the next elections.
  Mr. Greenway: The nation must heed the attitude of Labour supporters, who expect the community charge and local taxation to be high. They will see that it is high. In Ealing, from 1986 until Labour was rejected a few days ago, that was their attitude, and they would continue to adopt it nationally if they were elected to government.
  The Labour party, while in control in Ealing, increased the rates by 65 per cent. at a stroke in 1987. Happily, the authority was rate-capped by the Government, following a campaign conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who I am glad to see in his place, and me. That obliged the authority to reduce the rates in 1988 by 25 per cent. But the authority put the rates up again last year by 32 per cent.—the moment it got the opportunity to take such a step—and Labour's community charge in the area this year represents an increase, in the view of most of my constituents, of about 55 per cent. in rates equivalent. In other words, Labour is always high-spending and high-charging.
  The same Labour council increased industrial rates in 1987 by 57 per cent., and it is worth considering the effect of that. It meant, for example, that Taylor Woodrow had to pay £315,000 more in rates. The company had to earn an extra £15 million simply to stand still, providing no extra profits or jobs.
  That Labour council added £450,000 to the rates of Ealing hospital—so much did it care for the sick and disabled. About £750,000 extra in rates was charged to the Lyons group of companies, which employs 2,500 people. That increase resulted in some of them losing their jobs because the company had to find the money to pay that extra sum to the local Labour council. The company's prices were forced up, with all that that entailed.
  When industrial rates were increased by 57 per cent., people locally had to pay more in the shops for everything, including haircuts. Domestic rates having also gone up by 65 per cent., no wonder my pensioner constituents either could not pay or were having to go without food to finance the high rates forced on them by the then Ealing Labour council.
  I cannot understand why Labour supporters are so inhumane as not to care about the matters that I have described. They go on forcing up rates and charges. But this year, in the local elections, they paid the price, having forced on my constituents a community charge of £435. Its own estimate was that last year the community charge equivalent to the rates was about £300, but despite that it forced on the local people a community charge of £435.
  The Labour authority wanted to inflict a community charge of about £500, but happily, having campaigned strongly against that, we managed to force the authority to reduce it to £435, which is still an outrageous charge for my constituents, who are being forced to pay 250 per cent.

  217
  more in local taxation than they were paying under the former Conservative council four years ago. No wonder the people of Ealing threw out that Labour council with such relish.
  We are invited in this debate to consider the system. In doing that, I must highlight an abuse of the system by Ealing Labour council. It did not send out people's rebates at the same time as the demands for £435. It sent out a full demand for that sum, thereby causing consternation to many people. Some of them came to my surgery and said in effect, "Harry, I have been asked to pay £435. Look at my building society book. I have £1,500 saved and I am on income support. Surely I am entitled to a rebate."
  I discovered, as a result of careful questioning of staff at the town hall, that 6,000 rebates in the area would not be processed until after 3 May. Let us remember that the elections took place on 3 May. The Labour party, then in control of Ealing, wanted to frighten the people of Ealing into believing that the community charge would be higher for everyone than it needed to be for many of them. That was a nasty and wicked abuse. It was totally heartless and showed that Labour does not care. I am happy to say that rebates are now being processed fast by the new Conservative administration in Ealing, and many of my constituents will receive good news.
  While Labour was in control in Ealing, services deteriorated in many respects. Many letters went unanswered by town hall officials, and I was repeatedly told, "I have written to the town hall and not received an answer." The quality of street cleansing, the expenditure on education and the regularity of refuse collection services have all be reduced. In no way have extra services been provided commensurate with the additional charges that people were asked to meet.
  It is reasonable to ask where all the money went. Some of it went on an equal opportunities unit which, I am happy to report, is now being abolished. It must have been wrong to put money into race equality and women's committees of various types, because such steps advantage only a section of the community. The same applies when money is put into committees concerned with gays and lesbians: it seeks to advantage, as the Labour council did—this happened not only in Ealing but in many parts of the country—some sections of the community compared with the rest. Lord Justice Scarman described that as the surest way to cause unrest, for such actions take away any sense of fairness that people have. Not only is such mis-expenditure of money wrong, but it causes social unease.
  What happened in Ealing is typical of the Labour party, nationally and locally. The way in which the Labour council acted was appalling. Consider, for example, appointment panels for head and other teachers. A headmaster seeking to appoint a teacher would have a representative of the local women's committee on one side of him and another from the race unit on the other. They would sit there on either side of the headmaster marking the interviewer for such things as bad body language or any other action or comment by which he might display prejudice.
  Prior to the election of the Conservative council, Labour-controlled Ealing council had established 44 steps that had to be followed to secure the appointment of a head teacher. No wonder it took so long to fill such posts and no wonder so many posts were vacant, not only in
  218
  schools, but in the borough's departments as a whole. It was an absolutely hopeless and impossible system. That sort of abuse had to come to an end, and it is now ending.
  Finally, Opposition Members might like to know that the new Conservative Ealing council has, among the other flags that used to be run up above the town hall, the flag of the African National Congress, which it wants to sell cheap. The Labour council used to run up flags in support of causes in which the Ealing ratepayers and now the community charge payers have no interest whatsover. That sort of abuse is now ending—thank God.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This has been a productive and interesting debate, not least because of the number of Conservative Members who have pleaded for changes to the poll tax in a way that has helped to emphasise the stupidity of it and of the way in which it operates.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) welcomed the Minister to his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in this capacity. In the circumstances, I do not blame the Minister for speaking almost entirely from a prepared text. When dealing with this subject, it is extremely wise for a Minister to ensure that he has first received advice from his lawyers. However, the Minister made a fair point about the injustice of the rating system and the need for it to be reformed. For many years, my party and the Conservative party have agreed that the rating system should be changed, but we do not agree with the Government's solution.
  The Minister then referred to the various options that have been put forward. In seeking to discredit local income tax, he made some play of the calculation of equalisation grant, as if the equalisation grant would be calculated differently for a local income tax than for rates or the poll tax. The equalisation grant will apply in all cases and will be drawn from the same source in every case—from general taxation. It is therefore disingenuous of the Government to try to attack one form of local government financing on a basis that could be considered valid for every other form in exactly the same way.
  Mr. Bill Walk rose—
  Mr. Bruce: No, I cannot give way, because I have only a few minutes in which to speak and I should like to reply to many points.
  The Minister made the reasonable—although not entirely fair—point that everyone should pay for local government services. The principle that people should pay is generally accepted, but surely everyone should pay according to their ability to pay. People who do not have an income cannot reasonably be expected to contribute but, of course, they are unreasonably expected to do so by a Conservative Government. They expect people to pay even if they do not have the means to do so. The Government have failed to address that point. They have created a rebate scheme which is extremely cumbersome and bureaucratic, and which approaches the problem from the wrong end. It would be much better if income was the first factor to be taken into account.
  The Minister then drew out what we are now quite familiar with from the Government—a load of bogus figures about local income tax to try to discredit that idea. Anybody can produce any figures out of the air to try to

  219
  discredit any tax. I remind the Government that, when they first proposed the introduction of the poll tax, we were all expecting to have to pay less than people are having to pay. The Government are therefore in no position to lecture any other party about the inaccuracy of its forecasts. I digress a little by referring to the Government's failure accurately to forecast the rate of inflation, the balance of payments or the level of interest rates. We need no lectures from the Government on how our system should be determined.
  Local income tax is a simple system. The mechanism that we propose is based on a year-end settlement, the level to be determined by equalisation grants that would be calculated in exactly the same way as for rates and the community charge.
  With a local income tax, we are effectively talking about persuading central Government to give up some of the tax they take and to allow the local authorities to take that tax directly to ensure that they have access to the revenue from the public at large—[HON. MEMBRS: "Oh."] Yes, certainly—rather than the money being transferred back from central Government, who then pretend that it is their money. It is the people's money that is being recycled by central Government who want to have absolute control over every form of public service in the country. That is a matter of principle for them.
  No hon. Member has referred to the buoyancy that would be produced by a local income tax or to the total lack of buoyancy that exists with the poll tax. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) made absolutely clear what she thinks of local government, which is basically that it should be abolished and that central Government should control everything—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose
  Mr. Bruce: No, I shall not give way.
  The poll tax has no buoyancy whatsoever, and because it accounts for only 20 or 25 per cent. of the total revenue of the local authorities—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose
  Mr. Bruce: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Conservative Members would do well to listen to this. That means that, if a local authority wants to increase its overall budget by 5 per cent., it must increase its poll tax by 25 per cent.—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Bruce: Over 10 years, that would cause—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman deliberately to misrepresent what I said? I have never said what he said I said.
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that allegation is frequently made across the Chamber.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) should give way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Bruce: Over 10 years, the lack of buoyancy of the poll tax will destroy all effective local government. The
  220
  Conservative party knows that that is true—and that is its fundamental objective. I believe that the buoyancy of an alternative system is far to be preferred.
  The Minister's other argument related to accountability. He appeared to argue that a local income tax would not make the local authorities accountable to their taxpayers. That is extraordinary. One of the great planks upon which the Conservative party has campaigned around the country during the past 10 years has been their commitment to lower the standard rate of income tax. If Conservative Members do not believe that income tax is a tax based on accountability, why have they spent so much time campaigning for such a reduction? They know that income tax is by far the most accountable form of tax. A local income tax seems to us to be a good and fair system. If it is good enough for central Government, it should certainly be good enough for local government.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) spoke on behalf of the Labour party. I waited with interest to hear Labour's answer to the problems, but I continue to wait, because the answer never came. The question that is left hanging in the air is: if the Labour party were to win the next election—which is by no means certain yet—what would be its first measure to try to deal with the poll tax? Would it not be to reintroduce the rates? Is that not what we really expect the Labour party to do? If that is not the case, the Labour party should explain what it would introduce to carry it through the first Parliament. The hon. Member for Brightside did not give us an answer to that point.
  The Labour party has two policies—one for England and Wales, and one for Scotland. There is nothing wrong with that in principle, but from what we have heard of the roof tax, I must conclude that it is a roof that is full of flaws. I do not believe that that idea will gain much support. Indeed, opinion polls in Scotland have shown that it is even more unpopular than the poll tax, which is some achievement for the Labour party.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) called for temporary relief from the poll tax for married women who do not work. That is all very well, but why should the relief be only temporary? Either married women have an income and can pay, or they do not have an income and should not pay. To suggest that they should not pay the poll tax for a year but that thereafter they should pay seems simply a plea for some device to get the Conservative party through a general election—nothing more, nothing less. If the Government are seriously considering such a relief, they should remember what happened in the Budget in relation to Scotland and the poll tax. Married women in Scotland who do not work have been paying the poll tax for 14 months.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) made the fair point that there is no effective local system for financing local government and that we should be addressing a means of securing that for the future. He also said that local income tax was about getting central Government to give up some of their revenue to local authorities. I agree with that.
  The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) referred to rebates and to transitional relief. He boasted about his local council's efficiency in administering them, but the figures that he gave demonstrated that the poll tax is an absurd system. He mentioned the Government amendment, which refers to some 10 million people

  221
  receiving rebates and 7·5 million receiving transitional relief. If they were assessed on the basis of a local income tax, that bureaucracy would not be necessary.
  In his peroration, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made the extraordinary plea for all people under the age of 25 to be exempted. That takes no account of their income. If they were working in the City and earning £100,000 a year, they would not pay the poll tax. What an absurd idea. Does he want to exempt them from income tax as well?
  Everything that I have heard from Conservative Members proves that they know that this is a lousy poll tax that will destroy their political base in this country. The only fair system to deal with the problems to which they have alerted us is a local income tax.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Today the Social and Liberal Democrats have taken the opportunity provided by a debate initiated by them to publicise and subject to scrutiny their policies for paying for local government. What a contrast that is with the Labour party which, in a full-day debate on 25 April, refused to discuss its alternative of a roof tax. The Labour party had another chance today to lift the veil on its policy and perhaps give us a glimpse preview of what is to be revealed on Thursday, but where are the Labour Members? Has Labour taken that opportunity? No, it has not. Will it reveal its full alternative on Thursday? We think not. Will it ever reveal its alternative policy on what opinion polls tell us is one of the major issues of the moment—how to control and pay for local authority spending?
  Clearly, if the Labour party is to have any credibility with the electorate, it must come clean with its policy. As early-day motion 1028 makes clear, the pressure is now on from both sides of the House for the Labour party to announce its proposals. Is it that it cannot say, that it will not say, or that it dare not say? I think—particularly after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)—that the truth is that it dare not say. It is as frightened of disclosing its alternative to the community charge as it is of condemning unequivocally the 28 Labour Members who are refusing to pay.
  To deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the debate has shown major flaws in the proposal for a local income tax. In Scotland, 44 per cent. of adults would not pay a local income tax, so it would be a soft option for them, but for everyone else it would he a crippling burden. Those unfortunate enough to bear the remaining burden would face unacceptably high and punitive tax bills. Taking the hon. Gentleman's district in Grampian as an example, this year's community charge is £252, whereas the local income tax bill for a single person on average earnings would be no less than £732—almost three times as much. Across Scotland, local income tax levels of 10·4p in the pound would be necessary to maintain the revenue from community charges this year. Clearly, a local income tax would be a direct attack on the ordinary working people whom Conservative Members seek to protect.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) made useful contributions—
  Mr. Douglas: I am intrigued by the inter-relationship between the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) and the Conservative Front Bench. He gave the impression that conversations between himself and Front-Bench spokesmen could solve virtually everything. Can the Minister enlighten the House as to how that mysterious process takes place?
  Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley commands massive respect on the Conservative Front Bench. I am sure that that explains the position. He made a witty and informed speech to the House today, and everyone listened to it with interest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North reminded us how awful the previous Ealing council had been. He must take much of the credit for ridding Ealing of that council. He reminded us how heartless that administration was.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough also participated in the debate. I was to have visited his constituency today, and I am disappointed that I could not keep the appointment. My consolation is to have heard my hon. Friend's thoughtful and forceful contribution, his ideas for improvements in the community charge system and his unequivocal rejection of the alternatives—local income tax and domestic rating.
  My hon. Friend referred particularly to the problem of high-spending local authorities. He said that in his area of Northamptonshire community charges this year represented the equivalent of a 30 per cent. increase in the rates. It is the level of the community charge which causes most concern, but some community charges are high because local authorities have massively increased their spending this year. There has been a 20 per cent. increase in net revenue spending by local authorities in real terms between 1979 and 1989, but between 1989–90 and 1990–91, there has been a 7 per cent. increase in real terms. That is why community charges are so much higher than we would have wished and why, if the domestic rating system were still in place, rates would have soared. That is why we hope that local authorities will start getting a grip on their expenditure and will try to make the real savings that are possible.
  The debate has again shown how cynical the Labour party is. A former Labour Member, Mr. Kilroy-Silk, said only about three weeks ago:
  "Today's Labour party has no ideological purpose, no philosophy, no coherent policy and, sadly, no principles…It is instead motivated almost exclusively by a ruthless drive for power that has compelled its leaders to twist and turn, to duck and dive, to wheedle and weave".
  In no area of policy is that more apparent than it is in local government finance. The Labour myth is that high community charges cannot be avoided; fortunately, recent evidence shows that they can. If that is true, how is it that in Hillingdon the incoming Conservative administration can cut its charge by no less than £77 per adult—£24 more than the cap proposed by the Government? In Ealing the Conservatives have managed to make massive savings in a. short time by cleaning out the Augean stables—and what trash they have uncovered! In Merton, where the local electors chose a Labour council, they have already been given notice by the new Labour leader of the council of the price that they will have to pay for that decision—an additional £255 per adult. That is just for a start. While blaming the previous Conservative administration for the necessity for such a charge, the new Labour council is busy

  223
  increasing the bureaucracy, with more committees, more staff, an expanded press and publicity department, and more editions of the council newspaper, but it will need more than editions of the council newspaper to justify the massive increases in spending that are proposed. Labour's local government policies have never changed—they are in favour of high and frivolous expenditure. Only today, a report in one of our most widely read national newspapers stated:
  "Loony councillors were under fire last night after forking out poll tax money on a party for deaf lesbians".
  Do we need to conduct a poll about which councils were responsible for that? Labour's Hackney council has contributed £10,000 and Haringey and Camden are chipping in £3,000 each.
  In some respects, the Labour party is changing. Certainly, it is trying to change its image. In general, however, it is back to its old evil ways, wasting the community charge payers' money. We have seen—
  Mr. James Wallace rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 266.

  Division No. 221]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Kennedy, Charles

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Kilfedder, James

  Beggs, Roy

  Livsey, Richard

  Beith, A. J.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Cartwright, John

  Wallace, James

  Douglas, Dick

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Howells, Geraint

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mrs. Ray Michie, and Mr. Ronnie Fearn.

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bowis, John

  Amess, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Amos, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Burns, Simon

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkins, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Butler, Chris

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Churchill, Mr

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

  Boswell, Tim

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  224

  Conway, Derek

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Knowles, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Couchman, James

  Lang, Ian

  Cran, James

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Critchley, Julian

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

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

  Lightbown, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lilley, Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Devlin, Tim

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lord, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Dover, Den

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Bob

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Maclean, David

  Evennett, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Madel, David

  Favell, Tony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Malins, Humfrey

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Mans, Keith

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Maples, John

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Marland, Paul

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marlow, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Franks, Cecil

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  Mellor, David

  French, Douglas

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Fry, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Gale, Roger

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gardiner, George

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gill, Christopher

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gorst, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Gow, Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Neubert, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gregory, Conal

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ground, Patrick

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Grylls, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hague, William

  Norris, Steve

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hayward, Robert

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hind, Kenneth

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Price, Sir David

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Redwood, John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Riddick, Graham

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jack, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jackson, Robert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Janman, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jessel, Toby

  Rost, Peter

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  225

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Trippier, David

  Sims, Roger

  Trotter, Neville

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Speed, Keith

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Speller, Tony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Walden, George

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Steen, Anthony

  Waller, Gary

  Stern, Michael

  Ward, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Watts, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stokes, Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wood, Timothy

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Thorne, Neil

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  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 252, Noes 69.

  Division No. 222]

  [7.13 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Amess, David

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

  Amos, Alan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Conway, Derek

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkins, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Cran, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

  Baldry, Tony

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Day, Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Devlin, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dover, Den

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dunn, Bob

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Boswell, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Favell, Tony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brazier, Julian

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Burns, Simon

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric

  Butler, Chris

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Franks, Cecil

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Freeman, Roger

  Carrington, Matthew

  French, Douglas

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Gale, Roger

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gardiner, George

  Chapman, Sydney

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  226

  Gill, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Gregory, Conal

  Norris, Steve

  Ground, Patrick

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Grylls, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hague, William

  Page, Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Paice, James

  Harris, David

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hayward, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Portillo, Michael

  Hill, James

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Price, Sir David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

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

  Redwood, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jack, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Janman, Tim

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jessel, Toby

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ryder, Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shelton, Sir William

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knowles, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lang, Ian

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Latham, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Speller, Tony

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lightbown, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lilley, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Stern, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lord, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stokes, Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maclean, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Madel, David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thorne, Neil

  Mans, Keith

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maples, John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Marland, Paul

  Tracey, Richard

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Trippier, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Trotter, Neville

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Mellor, David

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mills, Iain

  Walden, George

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waller, Gary

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Ward, John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Watts, John

  227

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad, and Mr. Tony Durant.]

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wood, Timothy

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Alton, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ashton, Joe

  Janner, Greville

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Kilfedder, James

  Barron, Kevin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Battle, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Beith, A. J.

  McFall, John

  Bell, Stuart

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Blunkett, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Meale, Alan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Cartwright, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Nellist, Dave

  Cousins, Jim

  O'Brien, William

  Cox, Tom

  Patchett, Terry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Dixon, Don

  Rogers, Allan

  Douglas, Dick

  Skinner, Dennis

  Eastham, Ken

  Spearing, Nigel

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Walley, Joan

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Foster, Derek

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Winnick, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Hardy, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Haynes, Frank

  Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. George J. Buckley.

  Home Robertson, John

  Howells, Geraint

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House believes that most adults should contribute towards the cost of local services with relief for the less well off; welcomes the embodiment of those principles in the community charge and notes in particular that 10 million people have received bills reduced by rebates whilst 7·5 million have been protected by transitional relief; welcomes the willingness of the Government to listen to constructive suggestions for further improving the new arrangements; and contrasts the fairness and clarity of the community charge with the injustice and impracticability of a local income tax favoured by the Social and Liberal Democrats and the total lack of any clear proposals from the Labour Party.'.

  Local Government Finance
    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order.)
    Read a Second time and committed.

  London Underground (Victoria) Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Mr. Thorne.]
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: I will be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I wish to make some comments on the Bill. The Bill may have some merit; I want to take the opportunity to find out whether it has.
  All hon. Members who represent London constituencies realise the importance of the underground. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), but I do not see any other hon. Members from south London in the Chamber. Hon. Members who represent constituencies and live in south London know about the appalling transport services which our constituents have to live with day after day. I want to speak specifically about the Northern line. Hon. Members, irrespective of party, have taken up with London Regional Transport the problems faced by our constituents—the irregularity of services, the condition of the trains, on-going problems with escalators that are not working—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but I must point out that this is a narrow Bill which deals purely with the construction of a new passenger concourse and subway at the underground station at Victoria. It is restricted to that.
  Mr. Cox: I note your comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I said at the outset that I wished to speak on the Bill. I wish to develop the points because cost is involved in the Bill. Surely we are not being asked to approve something that does not involve expenditure. I am open to correction by the Minister or by someone else, but if the development involves expenditure, I assume that that expenditure will be made via LRT.
  I and my constituents, as well as the constituents of many other hon. Members, would like to know why priority has been given to development at Victoria station. I do not see any figures in the Bill, but we know what work costs, and no doubt considerable expenditure will be incurred. I want to know how much the work will cost and who has given approval for it. Where has the money been found when I and other hon. Members who represent constituencies in south London, particularly constituencies through which the Northern line runs, are always being told by the authorities, "We know you have problems, but we do not have any money to make improvements"? We have been told that repeatedly during transport questions. When we have asked the Secretary of State for Transport what will happen to improve certain lines, especially the Northern line, he has said on countless occasions "Yes, I am aware that conditions are not good, and that there are staffing problems on stations, and escalators that do not work."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is familiar with the constituency I represent because for a long time he was the Greater London council member for that area. He has dealt with the problems that I am seeking to raise in this debate, and he will know about them. I want to find out how this money has been found.

  229
  Why is this matter regarded as such a priority when there are hon. Members who know of greater priorities in their constituencies, through which the Northern line of London Regional Transport runs? We are repeatedly told by Ministers in this House, and in correspondence with officials of London Regional Transport, that they would like to help us, but do not have the money to do it.
  What can I say to my constituents when they write to me complaining about the story I have told them about no money being available, although the supposed concern is there, when they get to know—as they will over the next few days—that we in the House tonight have discussed a Bill that makes improvements at the Victoria underground station? Apparently, there is no problem about finding money for that. My constituents have problems that have not merely arisen during the past few weeks or months, but have existed for years and years. What am I supposed to say when my constituents ask me what I was doing in Parliament when a Bill was being discussed which, in the eyes of the officials of London Regional Transport, was of such priority and importance when conditions on the Northern line, which they are forced to use to go to work, are so bad? They will say to me, "All we are ever told by you as our Member of Parliament—you tell us that it is what you are told by the Secretary of State for Transport—is that there is no money."
  I shall not pursue the matter too far because I appreciate the generosity that Mr. Deputy Speaker has shown me, but it is a crucial issue. The problem for hon. Members, irrespective of party, is that there are far too few occasions when they can bring up issues related to the London Underground (Victoria) Bill. I believe that I have a duty to raise certain points, and it may be that other hon. Members will seek to raise other issues. We have a duty to the people we represent.
  On the Jameson show—a popular show on Radio 2—I heard someone talking about the Northern line, which is apparently the oldest line of the entire London underground service. Jameson said that he used it, but it was an utter disgrace and passengers were treated like cattle. That was what the presenter of a popular radio programme said this morning. Therefore, what I am saying now is what is generally accepted in many parts of south London. There may be hon. Members who represent other parts of London who can make comments similar to mine. It is up to them to do so.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because he is obviously concerned about the Northern line, going through his constituency as it does. Is he certain of his facts in one respect? I ask this as a genuine question because I am not altogether certain of my facts, as happens from time to time. Is he certain that the Northern line is the oldest line? I always thought that it was the Bakerloo line. I thought that the Northern line tunnel was the longest tunnel in Europe, but I did not think it was the oldest line. I thought that the oldest line was the Bakerloo line. However, my hon. Friend is slightly older than me, so perhaps he can remember.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) will know better than I, but I do not think that the Northern line goes through Victoria.
  Mr. Cox: I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. I will try to contact Jameson to ask him whether he got his facts right. Without pursuing the matter too far, I think I have made my point.
  Mr. John Fraser: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that there are considerable problems with the interchange at Victoria station between the Victoria line, which runs through my constituency, and the District line in the main railway. I am concerned about possible loss of life and limb because of the crush. I assure my hon. Friend that the Bill is needed for that reason, and I hope that he will give us an assurance that he is not going to do a Livingstone on the Bill.
  Mr. Cox: In view of the bitter attack that I made on my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) about his behaviour in the House two weeks ago over a Bill to which I was committed, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that I shall not attempt to do that. I take his point, made from his own experience, about the improvements needed.
  I am not questioning my hon. Friend's point or what the Bill's promoter is saying. I want some assurance that the Minister will outline why he believes that it is a priority, bearing in mind what I have said several times, that I and other hon. Members, irrespective of our parties, know that there are the most appalling problems for our constituents who have to use the Northern line service. I want some assurance that I can convey to my constituents so that I can say, "Yes, the matter has been looked at, but the feeling is that the Bill is the priority."
  I am not aware of how you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have to come to work in the House but, without doubt, there are times when you have to use London underground services. I am sure that you, like many hon. Members and their constituents, feel utter despair at the conditions in which you have to travel—and they do not improve. In stations in my constituency there are escalators because of the depth of the services to which people have to walk, and when those escalators are not working, elderly people or mothers with young children face enormous problems. Sadly, we never get over those problems.
  I have tried to make it clear that I do not wish to obstruct the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood asked me about that—but I have a duty to my constituents. When a Bill comes under the auspices of London Regional Transport I have a duty to make forcefully known in the Chamber the grave dissatisfaction of my constituents, and I am sure of other hon. Members representing adjoining constituencies, at the deplorable service and the lack of any meaningful improvement.
  I hope that the Minister will not simply say, "Yes, I have heard what the hon. Member has said and I shall pass on his views." I hope that he will say, "Yes, we are actively working, in conjunction with London Regional Transport, to consider the sort of improvements that the hon. Member for Tooting has sought to develop in this evening's debate."
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: The Victoria line serves my constituency of Walthamstow, and many of my constituents use it. They come down to Victoria and then disperse among the other lines or go to work in office developments around Victoria.

  231
  As the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said, the crush at Victoria station during the rush hour is often extremely dangerous. I am sure that hon. Members know that there are occasions when the entrances to the underground at Victoria station have to be closed. People are not admitted because there is already overcapacity on the platforms and a danger that they may even be pushed under trains by the crush.
  I support the Bill. I am sure that it will eventually result in a better service for those using the Victoria line and for my constituents. Doubtless there will be grumbles and complaints while the work is being done, but we must look forward to the time when the work is completed, when the station is safer and more pleasant and the Victoria line is once again efficient and a pleasure for my constituents to use.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) was short and to the point. It is always a great pleasure to follow Neville Chamberlain's Parliamentary Private Secretary.
  I do not wish to delay the Bill, and I do not intend to try to talk it out. That would be a formidable task, since we would have three hours all but 40 minutes in which to do it. However, I want to ask a few questions about the Bill and the procedures whereby it appears before us.
  I remember when the Victoria line was opened. It is still the most reliable line, with some of the best techniques and technology, on the underground, and it is surprising that after 25 years the same technology has not been used on other lines.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) talked about the Northern line, or the misery line as it is called. Everyone who uses the Victoria line and Victoria station knows the difference between that and the Northern line. I would not like your learned Clerk, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to lean too near to you to suggest that I am out of order.
  The Victoria line was extended to Brixton when I was a member of Lambeth borough council, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I well remember when that line was opened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was present on that occasion. I find it strange to look at the great Chancellor of the Exchequer today because all I can see is the vice-chairman of Lambeth housing committee, as he was then.
  The Victoria line carries many people, and Victoria station is a great interchange which causes considerable concern for those who have to use it. Its layout is not good and many people have complained. Many tourists turn up there. People have to struggle through to the ticket points surrounded by people with back packs. They are welcome in our city—it is good to see young people here—but I wish that they would not all turn up with back packs and congregate at Victoria station. However, those hon. Members who say how uncomfortable Victoria station is make good and telling points with which all who use the Victoria line will sympathise.
  Will the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) say whether the Bill will cover the ticket barriers? The ticket barriers play an important part when it comes to
  232
  easy entrance and egress at Victoria station. Those ticket barriers have upset many hon. Members. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is not here. He seems to be peculiarly upset by them. He is almost of a stature to slip underneath them. However, we all understand his point. I know of no other railway system in Europe where a ticket has to be put into a barrier in order to get in and to get out. That is nonsense. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will be able to offer us some relief on that.
  Part II, page 4, clause 5(1) says:
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Company may, for the purpose of constructing the works, enter upon, open, break up and interfere with so much of the surface of Victoria Street in the city of Westminster as lies within the limit of deviation."
  I do not have the plans before me, so I do not know what the limit of deviation is, but will the hon. Gentleman assure us that Victoria street will not be completely disrupted by the work described in the Bill? I do not say that as a Member of Parliament who might find access to the Palace of Westminster hindered by roadworks. That would be a silly and elitist attitude to take. I use the London underground and I travel on the streets of London as much as any hon. Member, and one thing that I have noticed in recent years is the regularity with which our roads are being dug up, filled in and dug up again. It is appalling.
  The Minister is new to his Department. It is good to see him again so soon after our excellent debate on Friday on the channel tunnel. But he must know that in his Department lies the Home report which desperately needs implementation in legislation. That could cover the sort of disruption to Victoria street that is proposed in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he replies. If he could tell us that the Horne report will form the basis of legislation at some early juncture, he would receive approbation and support from the Opposition Benches. The problems of the roads in our capital city need to be dealt with.
  The Bill proposes more disruption in a street close to the Houses of Parliament. I assume that, because it is an important thoroughfare, the inconvenience will not be too great. From time to time, important people walk up and down it. Only the other day, I saw Lord Wilson of Rievaulx ambling along Victoria street. I would not like him to fall into a hole that had been dug there, perhaps especially for him. It could be a devilish Tory plot. I would not want him or anybody else, whether they are of great grand name or of no great name at all, to be beset by problems as they walk down Victoria street. But that is an important point. Because it is so close to this place, I am sure that the work will be done quickly and with the minimum of disruption.
  That contrasts with the attitude taken by the statutory undertakers and others who have the power to dig up our roads. There seems to be a never-ending list of organisations, companies and individuals who have the right to dig up London's roads. I am sure that the attitude that will be adopted in Victoria street will contrast with that adopted in the east end of London, where the roads are dug up and left for two or three weeks. We in the east end are used to having to put up with the second-rate, other than in my representation of Newham, North-West.
  It is assumed that we are not greatly worried about the manner in which our streets are left, but we in Newham are

  233
  very angry about the way in which we are treated. I trust that the people of Victoria will not be treated as we are in the London borough of Newham. I am sure that, if there is a great deal of disruption in Victoria street, the formidable Lady Porter will be banging on somebody's door in order to let the Minister know that that is the sort of thing up with which she will not put. Will the hon. Member for Ilford, South assure us that the disruption to Victoria street will be kept to a minimum?
  I am also worried about part III, which gives the promoters power to acquire land. That lies close to my interest in the provisions of the Bill and the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. I was a member of the Committee. We reported to the House in July 1988. Our report included recommendations about changes to the private Bill procedure. There has still been no debate to enable the House to vote on the Committee's recommendations to improve the private Bill procedure. Every hon. Member admits that that procedure is unsatisfactory. I do not blame London Regional Transport for using this method to circumvent Westminster city council's planning committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will be able to say what discussions took place between London Regional Transport and Westminster city council's planning committee. Is that committee completely happy with the Bill's provisions?
  One of our complaints about this and other Bills is that they allow promoters to circumvent the normal planning procedures that were devised by Parliament to protect everyone, particularly those who wish to protest about a compulsory purchase order or about plans. A number of promoters, including London Regional Transport and British Rail, are using the private Bill procedure to get round all the awkwardness of having to go before a local authority, being rebuffed by its planning committee and then having to face a public inquiry and make their case before those who are protesting about the proposals. This Bill, like other private Bills, allows the promoters to circumvent all the safety valves that Parliament has built into the legislation that applies to planning applications.
  The first recommendation in the report states:
  "Promoters of a private bill should be required to prove before the committee on the bill that private legislation is necessary to secure the primary purpose of the bill."
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say whether the Bill is necessary. That question would have to be answered in Committee, but if the Bill is not opposed tonight, it will not be considered by an opposed Bill Committee and the question will not be asked. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to confirm that powers are not provided for elsewhere that London Regional Transport could have used to secure its objectives. The first recommendation in the report is that the promoters must prove that they need a private Bill in order to secure their objectives.
  The second recommendation states:
  "Where the primary purpose may be authorised through other means, the committee on the bill should insist that those means be pursued first, and that the approval of Parliament be limited only to the specific components which require its authority."
  I have sat on many private Bill Committees, and have chaired a number of them. It was an interesting experience in terms of learning about parliamentary procedure. However, it takes hon. Members away from the Floor of the House where all the action is.
  234
  No publicity or kudos is attached to being a member of a Committee that considers a private Bill. We all thrive on having approbation heaped upon us by our colleagues. No kudos is attached to doing good work by considering private Bills. If hon. Members knew that there was no need for the private Bill procedure and that the objectives of a Bill could be achieved by the promoters using other means, we should lose our temper if it became known that they were maximising their convenience while maximising the inconvenience of hon. Members, who are often forced to sit for many days on private Bill Committees. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will assure the House that London Regional Transport needs the private Bill procedure and that, if it does not, it has pursued all the other means of achieving what it wants to achieve, as set out in the Bill.
  I refer also, in the context of the Bill and the report, to recommendation 14, which states:
  "Each House should incorporate environmental impact assessment into private bill procedure by making new Standing Orders."
  I have referred to the disruption in Victoria street. I do not know what the extent of the disruption will be. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer that question. We are interested in his answer because of the proximity of the Palace of Westminster to Victoria street.
  An environmental impact assessment would have assisted the House if it had been presented with the Bill. We should have known that the promoters had done their work—that they had consulted residents in the Victoria street area and the local planning authority. The assessment would have assisted us to gauge the disruption that hon. Members are about to inflict on the people who use Victoria street—shoppers, business men and women, and those who use both public and private transport.
  The report's recommendations are extremely useful. I have sat on various private Bill Committees and listened to the arguments both for and against the Bill. One can never be absolutely certain that one has reached the right decision. The role of those who sit on private Bill Committees is to listen to all the facts and to make the best decision they can in the light of all those facts. If they knew that an environmental impact assessment had been made, lengthy proceedings in Committee would be unnecessary. Committee members would be much happier if they knew that somebody had considered all the points that have to be borne in mind when major works are carried out which cause great disruption.
  I reiterate that the House must have the earliest possible opportunity to discuss the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. It is a substantial report, which brings together the work of members of both Houses of Parliament over a long period. The Committee was asked to study the problem and to make recommendations in the light of criticism of the private Bill procedure. The Committee applied itself with enthusiasm to its task. It deserves something better from the business managers than that its report should sit around for about two years, the House never having been given an opportunity to vote on the recommendations. What is the point of asking Members of Parliament to sit on a Committee after a problem has been identified and then pigeonholing the Committee's report and not bothering to deal with the recommendations? It is discourteous to hon. Members to treat them in that way and it is not an efficient way to conduct our business.

  235
  One could ask many questions about the Bill, and answers ought to be given to them. I should not have had to ask questions if the recommendations in the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure's report had been debated, agreed and implemented. All the recommendations may not have been implemented, but I am sure that the House would have been favourably inclined towards a number of them. They would have ensured that promoters such as London Regional Transport and British Rail did not come to the House to ask it to do things that would enable them to duck all the other planning requirements that other developers have to meet. We should not give favour to a private corporation or a public corporation unless we are absolutely certain that that organisation is not using Parliament as a way of ducking its public responsibility to those who will be most affected by the works proposed in the Bills that we have to consider, including this one.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will be able to address some of the questions that I have raised. His young runner, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), has been going backwards and forwards most diligently passing him small pieces of paper, so I am sure that he is in a better position to answer my questions. I hope that he will give the House assurances, especially that the disruption in Victoria street will have minimal impact on the millions of Londoners who use that busy thoroughfare as pedestrians, drivers, passengers, shoppers or business people. How long will it take to complete the work? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address those questions in his usual fair and frank fashion.
  8 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I crave the indulgence of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for a few moments while I recite some of the essential features of the Bill. I assure the hon. Gentlemen that I will do my best to answer the questions that they have raised.
  In terms of passengers starting and finishing their journeys, Victoria is the most heavily used station on the underground network. A total of 73 million passengers used the station in 1989 and approximately 270,000 people use it every day. That total comprises commuters, persons using Gatwick airport and tourists. During the morning peak 86 per cent. of passengers originate from the British Rail terminal. During the morning peak hour from 8.15 to 9.15, more than 33,000 people can be expected to pass through the underground station. During the evening peak hour that number rises to 35,000. During the morning peak hour 29 per cent. of the passengers use the Victoria line northbound; in the evening peak hour the pattern of movement generally represents a reversal of the morning peak, and the predominant flows are from the underground to British Rail, particularly from the Victoria line southbound and from the street to the underground. The main evening peak problems occur on the Victoria line exit from the southbound platform.
  The main purpose of the powers sought in the Bill is to relieve congestion on the approaches to the platforms serving the Victoria line, especially the northbound platform. The congestion arises due to the fact that a large number of passengers wishing to travel on the Victoria line
  236
  use the ticket hall and escalators which provide an interchange to Victoria mainline station. Those escalators descend to a concourse at low level containing short passageways leading to the platforms. The concourse is situated at the southern end of those platforms.
  There is a tendency for passengers wishing to travel to Green Park and beyond to congregate around the southern end of that platform. Despite announcements asking them to move further along the platform, the accumulation of passengers is frequently such that it is necessary to close the station several times each morning peak until the platform is clear and safe to use again. The current situation is unacceptable from the customer's point of view and in relation to safety objectives. Therefore, in the short term, at the very least, positive action is needed to alleviate what must be one of the worst examples of station congestion on the underground network.
  The short-term congestion relief package comprises an extended lower concourse to the main escalator from the Victoria line ticket hall, additional access to the platforms being provided by an extra cross-passage and an extended lower concourse to the interchange escalator with additional access to the Victoria line platforms with an extra cross-passage. The package also comprises an additional escalator in the existing District-Circle to Victoria line interchange escalator shaft, replacing the existing stairs. Perhaps more importantly, it is proposed to construct an additional subway between the eastbound District-Circle line platforms and the concourse at the head of the Victoria line interchange escalators.
  When the works are constructed, passengers will have an alternative means of reaching the Victoria line by using the existing subway between the Victoria and District line ticket halls and proceeding to the Victoria line through the new subway. The entrance to the platform from that route is much further to the north on each of the Victoria line platforms. That will allow a much better distribution of passengers along the platform than at present.
  The short-term works will reduce the frequency with which blocking back of passengers occurs at the southern end of the northbound platform and, in turn, station closures will be less frequent. The new relief subway will provide an evacuation route via the District-Circle line ticket hall which avoids the District-Circle line eastbound platform. In addition, in times of service disruption, the relief subway will ease the dangerous levels of congestion which can occur at the eastern end of the eastbound District-Circle line platform. That is why the promoters ask that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
  The hon. Member for Tooting raised a number of important points regarding the underground network, particularly his concern about the Northern line. Many commuters will sympathise with his remarks because the Northern line has acquired a poor reputation. I have good news for the hon. Gentleman, however, in that no special Bill is required to improve the Northern line service. Signal alterations have reached the planning stage and I understand that new railway carriages are being constructed and that money has been allocated to improving facilities on the Northern line service.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the costs involved in the Bill. I know that they have increased since last year and are currently estimated at £6,100,000. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, in view of the importance of the measure for safety reasons, it is money well spent

  237
  and we cannot really allow the possibility of people being pushed on to the line. That is why the service has been disrupted so frequently by the entrances being closed, and that is why it is important that the work should proceed as quickly as possible.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West raised a number of points. He asked about ticket barriers, about the effect on Victoria street, and about the private Bill procedure. The hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do that I am in no position to answer the points that he raised about the private Bill procedure. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and for Parliament.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the disruption to Victoria street. The works will cause obstructions outside Victoria underground station at the top of Victoria street, where there are four lanes of traffic. The work is likely to obstruct two of them for up to two years. That has been done in the past without too much difficulty, but clearly some congestion is inevitable in anticipation of the work to be carried out.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The CBI estimates that congestion costs London about £7·5 billion per year. The proposed works will obviously add to that. Reducing the road width by half for up to two years will cause enormous traffic congestion, not only in Victoria street, around Buckingham Palace gate and down Vauxhall Bridge road, but all the way to Parliament square and probably down Whitehall to Trafalgar square. That will be an enormous imposition on this part of London. Is the hon. Gentleman wholly satisfied that everything possible has been done to minimise the disruption to London that these important works will cause?
  Mr. Thorne: My information is that it is essential that that part of the roadway be used for this purpose. However, it should clearly be used for as short a period as possible and London Underground is conscious of that. The position is not quite so serious as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West suggests. There have been obstructions here in the past and the limiting factor is the traffic lights. On the best information available from the traffic engineers, the congestion should not be unduly great. There will not be the present completely free flow outside Victoria underground station, but the traffic flow will not be so disastrous as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West suggests.
  Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman is frank in explaining to the House what he has been informed will be the problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has said, the problems will be massive. I have two questions for the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). First, what consultation has there been with businesses in the area? Are they aware of what is about to happen to them? Secondly, what will the hours of work be? The hon. Member for Ilford, South has said that the work will take two years. The longer the working hours that can be put into the project each day, the shorter will be the overall time span. If the work will take two years, we must ensure—as is done on the continent and in other parts of the world—that there is round-the-clock working so that the work is done as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Thorne: The usual notification has gone to the appropriate bodies, which would, of course, include the
  238
  business community as a whole. The business community can object to the Bill when it is in Committee, if it so wishes. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Tooting about the length of working hours and I will write to him as it is an important point.
  I also accept the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that it is time that we built into the cost of any project the cost of the disruption to London generally. We have put up with the disruption for far too long, so we should now take it into account and not dismiss it as a fact of life.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I referred to the Horne report, which took that point on board. It suggested that an element of rental should be paid by developers for the amount of road they use when undertaking work. That would add to their costs, but it would encourage them to speed up the work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) described, to minimise their own costs. At present, there is nothing to discipline builders and developers in London in relation to the disruption they cause because no great cost is charged to them for the congestion that they cause and the road space that they use.
  Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The problem is to be able to assess accurately what the figures should be. Research is taking place, but it is not easy to lay down a general figure which would apply equally to all areas. However, I am aware that some developments cause unnecessary congestion. So long as residential occupiers are not disturbed—they want some rest at night and will be especially anxious that noisy work should not stray into the hours of darkness—the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is valuable. I understand that night-only work will be carried out on the platform. The rest of the work will take place around the clock.
  I stress to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that there is a need for the Bill. The House has laid it down that private Bills are required for railway works, especially where they trespass on land, whether under ground or on the surface. The construction of the tunnel undoubtedly trespasses on land. I commend this important safety measure to the House and I hope that the House will speed it on its way towards its Second Reading.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: All of us who use Victoria station, whether the main line or underground area, are aware of the considerable congestion for much of the day. We should support any measure to alleviate that congestion. However, I readily understand and sympathise with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) who pointed out, quite properly in view of the present scarce resources—unaccountably scarce for public transport—and given a Government whose enthusiasm for public transport expenditure is less than total, the failings of the Northern line among others, and how those failings affect his constituents. I hope that the reply from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will go some way towards satisfying my hon. Friend that some action is being taken to deal with the delays on what is commonly called the "misery line" of the London underground.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) appears unaccountably to have flitted from his usual place. He caused some consternation earlier.

  239
  When I arrived in the Chamber I found him sitting on the Government Front Bench. I thought that while I had been away for a couple of days the nation had come to its senses and had properly elected a Labour Government and that, predictably, and understandably, my hon. Friend was playing a prominent role in that Government as he is about to do again in this debate.
  Mr. Tony Banks: When will the leader of our party come to his senses and elevate me to the Front Bench?
  Mr. Snape: That had better be a matter for private consultation between my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). If my hon. Friend feels that my personal endorsement would be of any great value, I assure him that I will relay the welcome and glad tidings to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn as quickly as possible.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, South, in his customarily thorough manner, described the intentions behind the Bill and the need for the works outlined in it. He mentioned the congestion caused, especially on the northbound platforms, as a result of passengers wishing to proceed to Green Park and beyond. If the works help to alleviate that sometimes dangerous congestion, they will be more than welcome.
  There is also a problem for southbound passengers, which the hon. Member for Ilford, South did not mention. I do not expect an immediate reply, but I should be grateful if he would use his habitual contacts with London Underground management to see whether anything can be done about the problem. As a regular traveller on the Victoria line, it seems to me that more and more southbound trains are stopping in the tunnel outside Victoria station for up to two or three minutes. That is caused, no doubt, by trains in front crossing from one line to another to return to north London. The hon. Member for Ilford, South will be aware that many trains on the Victoria line terminate at Victoria station. Presumably, that is what is causing the hold-ups.
  The build-up of passengers for Pimlico and beyond to Brixton which takes place on the southbound platform is considerably worsened by delays involving southbound trains having to be held for a considerable time before they reach the platform. That seems to be happening more and more frequently these days. Whether it is caused by the increasing number of passengers who use the Northern line, I do not know, but I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Ilford, South would find out about that, because regular travellers on the line would certainly appreciate a solution to the problem.
  The Victoria line was opened as far back as 1968 and was regarded at the time as being in the forefront of underground railway technology. It is strange that we have not seen similar developments in other parts of London. New underground lines are expensive but so, too, are new roads and the present Government appear to regard the funding of new roads as a more palatable prospect than the funding of public transport, including the under-ground. I extend a belated welcome to the new Minister for Public Transport, and I hope that he will consider that argument.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has miraculously reappeared yet again. He pointed out to
  240
  the hon. Member for Ilford, South the likely costs of the congestion that will result while the work is taking place and suggested that if two lanes are closed around Victoria station the tailback of traffic is likely to reach Parliament square. I think that I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest because if the Jubilee line is extended as promised we shall not have to worry about congestion in Parliament square because for a couple of years it will be a building site anyway. I can well understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about the prospects of any of us getting in or out of the Palace while the work is taking place.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I do not see how we can possibly avoid major congestion around Victoria station and down Victoria street as a result of the works. I know that my hon. Friend will not necessarily be able to answer this question, but I hope that when he is Minister for Public Transport or Chief Whip, whichever post he is trying for today, he will ensure that if such works take place there will be close co-ordination between the developer—in this case, London Underground—the police, the traffic warden service and the local authority. Unless all parking meters in the area are to be suspended for the duration of the work and illegal parking descended upon with all the ferocity that Plod can muster, an awful lot of additional problems will arise. What does my hon. Friend think about that?
  Mr. Snape: That is a very good idea. Whatever lies ahead in my career, I know that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the reinstatement of a strategic transport authority for London would take care of a great many of the problems that he has outlined. The lack of co-ordination between the various organisations has arisen directly from the abolition of the GLC and from the fact that the different organisations have no central planning procedures to bring their work together. My hon. Friend may well be Minister for London in some future Labour Government—we shall then have the enormous pleasure of listening to him speak from the Dispatch Box and explain away any difficulties that may occur even under the aegis of the thorough and detailed planning body that he, as Minister, will head.
  I welcome the proposals, and I hope that the congestion which will result from their implementation will be minimised.
  8.25 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I shall be extremely brief in commending the Bill on the Government's behalf. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on their support for the Bill and the hard work that they have put in to its preparation.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the Horne report. The Government support the recommendations in that report and look forward to its early implementation. The hon. Gentleman also asked about congestion in Victoria street, and I shall pursue that matter with representatives of London Regional Transport next time I meet them. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South will also do that, but I shall certainly ask about the length of time and the degree of congestion involved.

  241
  The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) asked about the Northern line. As he probably knows, a major modernisation of the Northern line is included in the programme. That will follow the modernisation of the Central line, which will cost more than £700 million. I plan to visit the Northern line and, following the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I shall certainly go down to the south of that line. I intend to visit the Angel, where a major programme of modernisation is in hand.
  Mr. Cox: I welcome the Minister's assurance that finance will be made available for the modernisation of the Northern line. I hope that he will visit the line during the rush hour, rather than during the late morning or early afternoon. Unless he goes then, he will get no feel for the enormous problems that commuters who use that line have to endure daily.
  Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to his point about congestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) talked about a tailback from Victoria station to Parliament square and beyond to Whitehall. That may well happen, and the Minister must be aware of the area to which we are referring and of the enormous amount of traffic that comes over Vauxhall bridge and makes its way around the Victoria area. We are talking about congestion not just along Victoria street and in Parliament square and Whitehall. The whole area is already enormously congested not only during the rush hour but throughout the day. I beg the Minister to take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West made. We are talking not just about one area but about several major routes to various parts of London which will be seriously affected.
  I close by saying—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh: if they represented areas such as mine, they would realise that it is no good saying in six months or a year, "We never thought that the work would cause so much congestion." We know that there is already congestion and the Government should do as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West suggested: they should get their act together and reduce the congestion as much as possible.
  Mr. Freeman: As I said, I will visit the Northern line, and I shall certainly do so during the rush hour, as that is the right time to see it at work.
  Mr. Tony Banks: As the Minister is here, I should like to put in a bid. At some stage during his ministerial odyssey round the various stations of London, will the ministerial loins find themselves at Stratford station?
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman must have forgotten our debate on Friday, when I said that I would visit Stratford. That and my commitment to visit the Northern line are the only two commitments that I have given at the Dispatch Box, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied.
  The Government take seriously the congestion on the underground—not only on the Northern line. That is why London Regional Transport has an investment programme of £1·7 billion over the next three years, which will bring relief, not only to Victoria but to the Northern line. I commend the Bill to the House.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I apologise for not being in the Chamber for most of the debate. I did not realise that we would reach this stage of our proceedings so quickly. Indeed, there was appalling congestion en route.
  I have previously objected to the Second Reading of this Bill. I tabled a blocking motion which, after discussions with London Underground Limited, I withdrew. I share the concerns of my colleagues about the congestion in Victoria street and the surrounding areas as the building work progresses. The reason for my blocking motion and why I had discussions with London Underground Limited was that I was concerned about: access for the disabled on to the Victoria line and other lines in London.
  I understand that London Underground has an informal policy of permitting wheelchairs and prams on the sub-surface lines, the lines that run in shallow tunnels such as the Metropolitan line, Circle line, District line and Central line. However, wheelchairs and prams are discouraged on the deep-bore lines. That policy cannot be enforced because if someone wants to carry a pram or pushchair down to a deep line, he can do so. However, London Underground discourages that strongly.
  In London as a whole the transport facilities for the disabled are not good. The changes in the dial-a-ride system have made it very difficult for people to get around and few buses are designed to make easier transport for people with disabilities. The Careline system is limited and covers only certain areas. Therefore, many disabled people use the underground system, and they find that very difficult.
  I want to ensure that, as Victoria station is revamped and its interchanges altered, there are proper facilities for people with disabilities of all sorts—not just people in wheelchairs, but people with hearing difficulties or sight problems. They should be able to get around the station more easily than they can at the moment. Most of the London underground network is not geared to meeting the needs of the disabled. Disabled people are often placed in danger because of the crush and the crowds.
  I hope that either the sponsor of the Bill or the Minister, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will respond to my points. Although the Bill is limited in that it deals only with the changes to Victoria station, there is a case for considering the transport problems facing the disabled around London and on the underground network as a whole.
  London Underground Limited frequently presents Bills to the House promoting changes to the network. Indeed, a Bill on the Hackney to Victoria line will be presented to the House some time in the future. Unless we have clear assurances from London Regional Transport about its policy towards passengers with disabilities, we may feel minded to delay or obstruct those Bills until we get the assurances. Why should transport around London be made more difficult for the disabled than it already is?
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, I will reply to hon. Members' comments. I have taken note of the points raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr.

  243
  Snape) about the problems with the lines that go into Victoria. I will investigate that and write to him, as he suggested.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred to the disabled. We are becoming more aware of the need to provide adequate facilities for the disabled in buildings and on transport. London Regional Transport is aware of that concern. The hon. Member for Islington, North will be aware of the amount of work that has been carried out on the docklands light railway to ensure that every possible consideration is taken, and provision made, for the disabled. Obviously it is a little more difficult to make provisions for the disabled in existing stations and on existing concourses where facilities are being renewed and changed. However, wherever that can possibly be done, it is being done.
  Mr. Corbyn: I accept the point about the docklands light railway where the facilities for the disabled are better than anywhere else. Clearly a lot of thought has gone into that, and I welcome it.
  I use the Victoria line every day when I travel from Finsbury Park to Victoria and then on to Westminster. With the changes at Victoria station, I hope that there will be escalator connections to the Victoria line from all the lines that enter the station. There is not a complete escalator connection for some lines at Victoria. For example, if one changes platforms from the District and Circle lines to the Victoria line, or vice versa, half the descent is made via an escalator—when it is working and frequently it is not—and the other half is made on a rather steep extremely busy curving staircase. Someone with a walking problem or a disabled person in a wheelchair would have enormous difficulty changing platforms in that way.
  Disability could happen to any of us tomorrow, and we should consider the matter more carefully. I hope that London Underground Limited will do that and will consider that transport should not simply be for the ambulant.
  Mr. Thorne: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We must be very careful and give every possible consideration to the disabled. We should include facilities for them wherever possible.
  I said earlier that one of the proposals for the present scheme at Victoria is to remove one of the staircases and to install an additional escalator. Hopefully that will obviate some of the inconveniences caused by breakdowns that occur from time to time. With more escalators, not all of them are likely to be out of action at the same time.
  244
  The hon. Member for Islington, North made a very good point about providing escalator transport from all levels. I cannot give him an assurance about that at the moment. We are talking about essential improvements to Victoria from a safety point of view because of the danger of people being pushed on to the line. The hon. Gentleman has made his point well and I will ask LRT to consider the matter urgently to make the kind of alterations that he has requested as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Corbyn: I have taken this matter very seriously, and I spent a morning at Victoria station observing the safety of passengers through the television monitors. I witnessed the difficulties facing passengers and the need to control the flow of people on to platforms. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) would ask the promoters and the developers to consider the steepness of staircases, their width and also better signing on them. They must be aware of the problems facing a slow walker, perhaps with a walking frame or a stick who might be crushed from behind or slow up the flow of people on narrow staircases.
  Mr. Thorne: I will ensure that that point is considered over the next few weeks. I hope that the House will give the Bill a unanimous Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  London Underground (Victoria) Bill (By Order)

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any increase by or under that Act in the sums payable; and

    (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

    PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Planning, (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase by or under that Act in the sums so payable.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Orders of the Day

  Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  8.40 pm
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): As this is a consolidation measure, if the Committee agrees, in the normal way I shall put the clauses en bloc until we get to the amendments.
  Clauses 1 to 170 agreed to.

  Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords]
    Clause 171

      GENERAL INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER II
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 115, line 46, leave out 'I' and insert II'.
      This amendment creates a reference to compensation under part II of the Land Compensation Act 1961, substituting "II" for "I".
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 171, as amended, agreed to.
      Clauses 172 to 318 agreed to.

    Clause 319

      APPLICATION OF ACT TO ISLES OF SCILLY
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 215, line 34, leave out `102(5)' and insert `102(8)'.
      This is a minor drafting amendment.
      Mr. Tony Banks rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with a consolidation measure, so that any remarks must be very restricted.
      Mr. Banks: Indeed, they will be, Sir. I shall attempt to consolidate my remarks into the shortest possible amount of time and space.
      I want the Solicitor-General to explain in a little more detail. I am not doing this to be awkward at this early point in the evening; I am doing it because it follows on from the previous debate. We need to know a little more. The Committee is being asked to agree something. I am sure that the Solicitor-General would not try to work a flanker on us—he does not look like that sort of person. He is the sort of chap whom one would be quite prepared to have defending one in the courts, or whatever else he does when he is not here. I should like him to explain precisely what the amendment means so that I shall know that, at some later time, no hon. Member will be brought to account for having made some terrible mistake at 8.41 pm in a sparsely attended Chamber. That would colour my whole attitude to the remainder of the Bill.
      The Solicitor-General: In clause 319 there is a reference to clause 102(5), which should be a reference to clause 102(8). I hope that that elucidates the matter for the hon. Member.
      Mr. Banks: How did that error occur? It is quite clear that it was sloppy draftsmanship—or draftspersonship, I should say. The Committee should not pass a matter like this willy-nilly without making a comment. How does it happen? Is the Solicitor-General in charge of his Department? Does he know what is going on? Why did he let that happen? Why did it slip through the net? Surely, with all his civil servants buzzing around getting him cups of tea and tending to his every whim, something like this should never have been allowed to occur. It is a matter for resignation.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 319, as amended, agreed to.
      Clauses 320 to 336, agreed to.
      Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Sir Paul. We have just agreed many clauses. Would it be possible for the clauses to be called out clause by clause? Is it possible to vote clause by clause?
      The First Deputy Chairman: It would be possible. Whether it would be popular with the Committee is a different matter. I am following the customary procedure with consolidation Bills, which is to put blocks of clauses and schedules together, but if the hon. Gentleman feels at any time during our proceedings—
      Mr. Banks: No; I just want to know.
      The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman appears to be satisfied.

    Clause 337

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      8.45 pm
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 230, leave out lines 36 to 39.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will understand when I say that this amendment would remove the privilege amendment moved in another place.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This Bill has been rushed through. Some hon. Members expected more time to prepare. [Interruption.] Indeed, I did not even have time to dress for dinner this evening; I was forced to appear like this.
      The amendment would remove the provision
      "(4) Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge."
      Those words are important to the Bill. I ask the Solicitor-General seriously to answer my question.
      There is much in planning legislation that requires public expenditure. There is also much in planning legislation that is rechargeable to applicants. I have some knowledge of planning legislation as a former chair of a borough planning committee, so I have looked into the details of the matter. I was also the chair of the London Labour party committee that drew up the planning policy for the Greater London council.
      Mr. Tony Banks: If my hon. Friend can chair that, he can chair anything.
      Mr. Corbyn: As my hon. Friend says, if one can chair that, one can chair anything.
      Is an informal subsidy being proposed through not fully charging planning applicants, particularly when major developments are involved, or is the matter to do with the enforcement of planning restrictions? I give an example that is very pertinent and of great concern in my constituency.
      We have advertising hoardings all around London. Some of them are put up legally—some of them have planning permission. Some have historical planning permission in that they existed as advertising sites before the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. There is also in London a big business whereby people are making a great deal of money by putting up illegal advertising hoardings. Companies exist solely to go around fly-posting advertisements for pop concerts, holidays, loan sharks, bits of merchandise and so on. It is big business. Those hoarding companies operate an illegal trade in that they are illegally fly-posting or illegally advertising across London. It falls within the purview of planning law to exercise control over the disfigurement of our streets.
      Some parts of London are very beautiful. Some parts of London are made unnecessarily ugly by the imposition of unauthorised fly-posting and advertising. For example, I drove along Kingsland road the other day. Potentially it is a very beautiful road. It is a broad street with nicely proportioned buildings on either side. It has been absolutely ruined by hoardings. Some of them are legal, but a large number of them are illegal. The area I live in in Finsbury Park is plagued by such hoardings. In many parts of London—I hesitate to say in the poorer working class areas of London—there is disfigurement of our environment by such hoardings.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with a consolidation measure. I have allowed him to develop some of his arguments, but he must now come to the main point, which is whether the law should be consolidated.
      Mr. Corbyn: The amendment states:
      "Clause 337, page 230, leave out lines 36 to 39."
      I read out clause 337(4) for the convenience of hon. Members who may not have a copy of the Bill or the amendment in front of them. The amendment would leave out the guarantee in the existing town and country planning legislation that
      "Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge"—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. We are discussing a purely technical device.
      Mr. Corbyn: I understand that. I do not want to create any problems for you, Sir Paul, or for the Solicitor-General. I am sure that he is well briefed, although the Civil Service Box appears to be empty apart from one person. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) assures me that there is one person in the Box.
      We are told that there will be no charge on public funds through removing a piece of legislation. What is behind what is being done? Will a massive bill descend on local authorities or even on central Government? I am endeavouring to raise a matter of great concern to me, which is illegal fly-posting in London and the
      248
      disfigurement of the capital by unauthorised and illegal hoardings. Can they be removed and, if so, would that become a charge on public funds?
      The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Member took a closer interest in planning matters and parliamentary procedure, he would appreciate that the provision which we are removing was inserted to prevent the Bill from being a money Bill in the House of Lords. It has nothing to do with fly-posting.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 337, as amended, agreed to.
      Schedules 1 to 15 agreed to.

    Schedule 16

      PROVISIONS OF THE PLANNING ACTS REFERRED TO IN SECTIONS 314 TO 319
      Amendment made: No. 4, in page 310, line 24, leave out `(5)' and insert `(8)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
      Schedule 17 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
      8.52 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: I am attempting gently to demonstrate that much of our legislation goes through in this fashion, virtually on the nod. As I make that statement I see the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), shaking his head in dissent. He shakes his head and he is welcome to it. I would not want to be seen wearing it.
      There are a number of points in the Bill that are worthy of consideration. I put it to the Solicitor-General that this is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the Bill, even though it is a consolidation measure. It should not pass without any attempt being made to raise some issues. He was at one point courting disaster by treating the points that we raised in an offhand and laid back fashion, although that seems to be the style in his Department.
      I remind him that, had we persisted, we could have been voting all through the night on the amendments that were before the Committee. I hope that he will remember that when he brushes us aside, as he will, no doubt, do again in the future. He must also remember that there is infinite possibility for retribution to be heaped upon his balding pate by irate Back-Benchers who may feel that they have not been treated with the courtesy and seriousness that their points warrant.
      8.54 pm
      Mr. Corbyn: I raised in Committee some points of concern to me arising out of this legislation and the answers I received were unhelpful. I was told that a provision was being deleted to facilitate ease of passage for the measure through the House of Lords. That was not a satisfactory answer to a legitimate question and—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We have dealt with the Committee stage. We are now on Third Reading and the hon. Member must address his remarks

      249
      to that. I repeat that we are dealing with a consolidation measure. The only question in order on a Bill such as this is whether consolidation should or should not take place.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am not happy that consolidation should take place, for the reasons I outlined in Committee. I fear that the Bill may incur a greater charge on the public purse in the long run. I wish that I were able to debate many aspects of the Bill, because we in this country do not have a particularly democratic planning system. Under our system, local authorities consult on a planning application, make a decision—appropriate or otherwise, based on that local consultation—and then the power to impose that decision is taken from them either by the process of calling in by the Secretary of State, referred to in clause 44 of the Bill, or by the applicant, a developer—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Member is not taking notice of the advice that I have been giving him. He is now attempting to discuss the merits. That is an abuse of our procedures when we are dealing with a consolidation measure. He must bring himself in order, otherwise I shall he obliged to ask him to resume his seat.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am in some difficulty because I wanted to talk about the lack of democracy in our planning procedures. You are telling me, correctly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that because this is a consolidation measure, only narrow issues may be raised. That being so, may I ask you to advise me of the matters that can be raised, remembering that I have serious concerns to express about planning procedures and the effect they are having, with wealthy developers trying to destroy part of my constituency?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot advise the hon. Member more than I have done already.
      Mr. Corbyn: I hope that when the Solicitor-General replies he will bear in mind the remarks I made about many people's anxieties about the need for proper consultation and the right of local authorities and local people to have a real say in planning decisions, rather than those decisions being made over their heads by a cabal involving powerful commercial interests lobbying for their planning proposals, and the Secretary of State overriding the decisions made, after careful consideration, by local authorities.
      8.58 pm
      The Solicitor-General: I hope that the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will acquit me of discourtesy if I gave short but accurate answers to their technical questions on highly technical amendments.
      What we are debating is a process of immensely careful consolidation which, if the hon. Member for Newham, North-West had had the time—I am sure that he will wish to take the time later tonight—to study, he would have realised that, in preparing the consolidation, the House had had the benefit of a report from the Law Commission which contained a number of recommendations of a minor and clarificatory nature for amending the existing legislation.
      Those amendments appear in the Bills. We are dealing with four Bills tonight, all of which were referred in the
      250
      usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills &c. during their passage through another place. The Committee reported that the recommendations of the Law Commission were necessary and produced a satisfactory consolidation of the law. The four Bills, taken together, amount to a single consolidation.
      The hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Islington, North have said that many aspects of planning deserve discussion in the House. However you, M r. Deputy Speaker, have explained that we are not permitted to go into the merits or wider aspects of consolidation measures. I am sure that the House will agree that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the parliamentary draftsmen and to all those who have played their part in the earlier stages of the Bill's passage, and in the Committees of this House and another place, in helping to get this measure right.
      Mr. Corbyn rose—
      The Solicitor-General: I shall give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman as a matter of courtesy, but then I shall conclude.
      Mr. Corbyn: Now that the Solicitor-General has explained the derivation of the Bill—I understand that it is a consolidation measure and incorporates many other pieces of legislation—surely he is aware that there is much concern about the balance of power in planning matters and planning decisions. Is this Bill to form a definitive town and country planning Act for a long time to come, or do the Government have something in mind to address the real and rapidly growing concerns of people throughout the country about the way in which planning decisions are made, often irrespective of the wishes of small local communities, and these days much more in favour of big commercial interests? I am sure that many hon. Members of all parties echo that legitimate concern.
      The Solicitor-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the proper carrying out of planning procedures is very much in the Government's mind. Although one must not anticipate future legislative programmes, this matter may turn out to be more in mind than the hon. Gentleman realises.
      If the hon. Gentleman had been here for earlier debates, or if he were to look at the statute book, he would realise that all the Acts that are now being consolidated have been given time to pass through both Houses during Conservative Administrations, although they span a period going back to 1971, which covers some Labour Administrations. Town and country planning is extremely important, and I am glad that legislation relating to it is being given the time for consolidation now—
      Mr. Corbyn: What about the Town and Country Planning Act 1947?
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the 1947 Act, but that is not one of the Acts that is being consolidated today.
      I commend the Bill to the House.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  9.1 pm
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): The Committee will realise that this is a consolidation Bill also. Therefore, with the agreement of the Committee, I propose to put the clauses en bloc until we come to the Government amendments.
  Clauses 1 to 12 agreed to.

  Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [Lords]
    Clause 13

      DUTY TO NOTIFY SECRETARY OF STATE OF APPLICATIONS
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 9, line 1, at beginning insert 'If'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
      The Solicitor-General: These are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 2 would insert the word "If"; amendment No. 3 would leave out the word "and" and would insert the word "or"; and amendment No. 4 would make a rather more substantial change and remove the word "shall" and insert the words
      "intend to grant listed building consent they shall first".
      All the amendments relate to the duties of a local planning authority to which an application may be made for listed building consent.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 3, in page 9, line 2, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
      No. 4, in page 9, line 4, leave out 'shall' and insert
      'intend to grant listed building consent they shall first'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
      Clauses 14 to 93, agreed to.

    Clause 94

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 57, leave out lines 41 to 44.
      This amendment would remove the privilege amendment that was necessary to prevent the Bill from being a money Bill in another place.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
      Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered. Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
      9.4 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: Can the Solicitor-General explain why it is necessary to insert the provision that makes the Bill a money Bill before it goes from this House to another place? Why is it then necessary
      252
      for us to remove that clause? This is a serious question: the more that people see of our procedures, the more questions they ask about them. To hon. Members, what is going on this evening may be wholly explicable—although I am not sure that that can be said for all of us. However, we should bear in mind that, now that the television cameras have been introduced and our procedures have become more accessible, those who may stumble across this incident on their television screens would appreciate a further explanation from the Solicitor-General. Perhaps he will use his well-trained and expensive legal brain to provide a few words of elucidation.
      9.6 pm
      The Solicitor-General: There is a well-known saying that legal advice is worth exactly what one pays for it. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of some constitutional importance. As he will know, the other place can play only a limited part in a money Bill. If it is to play a full and valuable part in such legislation, it is necessary for the Bill not to be a money Bill. Therefore, to achieve that theoretical position, it is customary in another place to put in an amendment that says that nothing in an Act should impose any charge on the people or on public funds, thereby preventing it from being a money Bill. However, as the Bill may have that effect, when it returns to this House the clause is taken out. That is a constitutional device that enables the other place to play its important role as a revising Chamber that scrutinises legislation—something of which Conservative Members strongly approve.
      Given that the Labour policy review is now under consideration, it is timely to note that the Labour party proposes to abolish the other place as we know it, and to put in its place a limited elected assembly with greatly truncated powers. Whether those constitutional arrangements would find favour in the country is uncertain, but at present the other place has an important constitutional role, and that is why the clause has been inserted; however, we take it out so that the constitutional proprieties are not infringed.
      9.8 pm
      Mr. Corbyn: That is an interesting reply. As I understood it, the Solicitor-General was saying that the Parliament Act 1911, which was passed after the people's Budget had been knocked back by the House of Lords—even though the powers of the House of Lords had been reduced following the 1910 election—is in effect circumvented by this device. It seems that one minute it is a money Bill, and the next minute it is not. We are saying that there may be an unqualified charge on public funds through this legislation, although the House of Lords was told that there would be no charge. That is the only way that the other place could have discussed it.
      I should be grateful if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would consider the propriety of that device. I realise that it is a device that is regularly used by the Government, but it seriously undermines the principle of legislation enshrined in the Parliament Act 1911.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 41 agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I think that you were present during the Committee stage of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not seek to intervene in that process. I realise that the Bill is a consolidation and, therefore, narrow measure. We must be narrow in our remarks. That is a great shame in view of the deep anxiety of many people about the transport of hazardous wastes by road, rail, through the channel tunnel or in other ways, and the pollution caused, such as the pollution of the Devon beaches.
  I wonder whether the Solicitor-General, who is clearly privy to all that is going on at the centre of the Government, can inform the House when there will be a new piece of legislation to give greater protection to our environment and our population from the dangers—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We must deal with this Bill. It is not in order to invite Mr. Solicitor-General to comment on another Bill that may or may not be introduced.
  Mr. Corbyn: I appreciate your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I could put it another way through you. When the Solicitor-General replies to this, probably short debate—although other hon. Members may wish to speak—perhaps he could tell the House whether he is entirely satisfied with the existing forms of protection for the general population and our environment and the protection in the Bill in the matter of the transport and disposal of hazardous wastes.
  The Solicitor-General must be aware that there is deep anxiety throughout the country on that matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As skilful as Mr. Solicitor-General is, he would find it difficult to comment on that and remain within the rules of order.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): You do me almost more honour than I deserve, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The only point that I wish to make—I doubt that I shall remain within the rules of order in making it—is that the Government have taken particular care of the environment. I commend to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) the White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is likely to produce later this year.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
  Schedules I to 4 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.15 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Since this is a strange procedure that must be extremely odd to anyone watching on television or to anyone else not familiar with our proceedings, it is right to explain that we have now consolidated four Bills and brought into a modern and accessible form the general law on town and country planning and related matters. We want to express our thanks to the Law Commission and to the draftsmen for their excellent work in helping us to bring about that change.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is, as usual, a serious point of order.
  Normally, when speaking in the Chamber it is not in order to refer to people sitting in the Strangers' Gallery. Any reference to them is specifically out of order. In the past few months, however, there has been a growing practice for hon. Members to refer to the effect that their speech or someone else's speech will have on television viewers. If it is not in order to refer to people sitting in the Galleries—in constitutional terms they are referred to as "Strangers"—logically it should also be out of order to refer to television cameras, television audiences or programmes. Such references are an intrusive influence on the running of the Chamber.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point. He might like to ask the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House to consider it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Educational Initiatives (Government Funding)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Chris Butler: Something extraordinary is happening in the tiny village of Moore near Warrington, something unique in the United Kingdom. Something has been created by children aged four and upwards which displays so much creativity that the whole business has burst on to the international scene and has gained recognition in countries as far apart as Norway, Japan and even the Lofoten islands. That something is "In Our Own Words", a magazine started in one small school.
  The magazine is written, designed, laid out and edited almost exclusively by the children. It began as a school project in the constituency of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), and he may try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss the origins of the project. In five years the circulation of that magazine has grown from 1,600 copies, produced by six schools, to a total production last year of 300,000 copies with contributions from 1,000 schools.
  The driving force behind the project is a school teacher by the name of Frank Melling. If enthusiasm and commitment were enough, the project would not be facing any problems. But it faces the problem of funding, which is on a shoestring. The project reflects great credit on Cheshire and Cheshire schools. I try to be as objective as I can about an authority of a different political nature to myself, but I find it hard to give the authority great credit for the attitude taken by its officials to the project, particularly when the county increased its precept by £82 million in the last year alone. Apparently officials in the county are planning to reduce the payment to Mr. Melling so that it covers only 60 per cent. of his salary, quite apart from the expenses that he has in introducing the magazine. In the following year, the threat is that he may get no salary at all. I understand that elected members of all political parties may be taking a more sensitive view of the project, particularly in the light of the Adjournment debate. We shall see whether it produces the result that we would all like.
  Mr. Melling has with great ingenuity exploited many sources of plural funding. As co-author with me just before the last election of a Conservative Political Centre booklet, "The Arts—the Next Move Forward" my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I spent many hours of lucubration, will recognise the importance of plural funding. Mr. Melling has been successful in getting sponsorship from private companies such as Canon, which provides copying machines, BNFL and others. Unfortunately, it is not enough. As my hon. Friend knows, private sponsorship is obtained much more easily if private sponsors believe that official sponsorship is at the right level and that sponsorship is not being left entirely to private companies.
  Unfortunately, the level of official sponsorship which we would all like to see is lacking. Mr. Melling applied to the Department of Trade and Industry for help, but it was denied on the basis that the project was art and had nothing to do with industry. So he went to the regional arts
  256
  authority, North-West Arts, which thought that the project was very good but denied him sponsorship because it did not regard the project as art—or at any rate thought that it might be literature and thus not worthy of support. As a consequence, Mr. Melling cannot get help from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts. To qualify for that scheme, a project has to be recognised as art.
  Mr. Melling approached the Department of Education and Science, which thought that it was a good scheme but denied it support and recommended that he go to North-West Arts, where he had already been. The Department also recommended that Cheshire might apply for section 28 funding. I gather that the project already receives an element of such support in terms of supply teachers. That support is not suitable for direct funding.
  I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider some pump-priming support from the DES. The project is talking the Government's own language, and it is cultivating excellence in the arts. I do believe that literature is an art form. The project is based on self-help and on a partnership with industry. It is developing vocational skills and it is raising standards throughout the whole school community. In addition, it is within the spirit and the letter of the national curriculum at every key stage that I can identify. It has a remarkable fit with a number of the requirements of the national curriculum.
  "English in the national curriculum—No. 2", which was issued in March, refers to key stage 4. It states:
  "Pupils should have opportunities to write in a wider range of forms including … newspaper articles … consider features of layout e.g. headings, side headings, the use of columns of indentations etc."
  In the section on standards of attainment at level 6 it talks of the importance of pupils being involved with computer printouts, computer graphics and desk-top publishing. At level 8 there is a reference to the necessity for children to produce additional columns for a broad sheet newspaper and a tabloid. The project is fully in tune with the most modern and exciting developments in education today. It encourages and promotes the use of English, not only nationally but internationally. It deserves and needs official recognition so that it can flourish and grow.
  To be fair to officials and Ministries, they seem to appreciate the value and creativity involved in the project. However, because of its formulation it seems to be falling between all stools so that it is all too easy for officials to claim that, much as they like it, it is not their ministerial responsibility but some other Ministry's responsibility. I hope that my hon. Friend will adopt the project and bring it in from the cold.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: I am deeply indebted to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) for allowing me a few minutes of his Adjournment debate. He has done so because, while the project is now in his constituency, it started in mine at Bewsey high school in 1985, albeit in a modest way, and its popularity has grown.
  I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about the project director, Mr. Frank Melling, and would extend that to the staff who work on the project with such enthusiasm. Not only was the project successful from its small beginning in Bewsey, and moved to a school in the hon. Gentleman's

  257
  constituency—it spread throughout Cheshire and, indeed, throughout the country. It also spread internationally to Brussels, and is now spreading overseas to the developing world. I think that the Minister would agree that a project of this nature which has spread in that way is vital. It is also important for the future prosperity of this country that English is spoken by those in the developing world.
  I have three letters which were written to Frank Melling. The first is from Croydon. It talks about the direct results and involvement, and asks for advice. The second is from Humberside county council, and the third is from Strathclyde. The three letters show the national appeal of the project.
  The project also has an international appeal. The hon. Member for Warrington, South and I had the pleasure earlier this year of entertaining school children here who had come from Brussels. It also appeals to the European Community.
  I shall read what has been said by the deputy editor of "British Overseas Development", Amanda Hewett, when writing to Mr. Frank Melling, project director of the now well-known magazine, "In Our Own Words". Her letter states:
  "Dear Mr. Melling,
  Further to your recent correspondence with Mr. David Marder, Editor of British Overseas Development, I am writing to introduce myself and express my interest in your highly innovative project.
  Having only recently entered the post of Editor of the Schools section of BOD, I am keen to make contact with students in schools and other centres of education, with a view to improving the dialogue between us and sharing ideas. With this in mind, I should welcome feedback from the 'In Our Own Words' participants themselves".
  The letter continues, showing British Overseas Development's interest in the magazine.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the magazine is helped and financed by Cheshire county council. It is also helped by businesses, which see the project as being educationally useful. We need national backing from the Department of Education and Science. That is essential. The Minister has given up his time to come to the House tonight to reply to the Adjournment debate. If he could look at ways and means of helping to finance the project nationally, it would help to solve the magazine's difficult financial situation and enable Mr. Melling and his dedicated staff to appeal not only nationally to schools and internationally in the EC but overseas to the developing world with the full backing of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I hope that the Minister will be able to find a way for us.
  9.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) for giving such a full and lucid account of the work being done by the Cheshire schools magazine project. He has evidently taken a great personal interest in the development of the project's newspaper, "In Our Own Words", and is an eloquent and enthusiastic campaigner on its behalf. He is to be congratulated on securing the debate.
  I have listened with great interest to what he and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) have had to say. I was already aware of the project through correspondence that we have had with other hon.
  258
  Members and between officials and the director, but it has been helpful to be brought more fully into the picture. It is clear to me from all that I have seen and heard that the development of the newspaper has been carried out with verve and imagination, and I add my congratulations to those already offered to Mr. Frank Melling.
  The copies of "In Our Own Words" that I have seen were extremely interesting, well presented and professionally produced. The director of the project must be delighted with the newspaper's steady increase in circulation and with the contact that he has established with schools in other areas and in other countries. I applaud his efforts and those of all the pupils who have contributed in whatever way to the newspaper. I hope that others will be inspired by their example.
  The Government are interested in such initiatives and would like to see more of them spring up around the country, as already seems to be happening. There is much interest nationally in the Cheshire schools magazine project. Hon. Members will be aware that competitions exist, organised on a national basis, to encourage schools to write and produce their own newspapers and magazines. Several local education authorities produce occasional collections of children's creative writing, as do individual schools. All those initiatives are very much in keeping with the spirit of the national curriculum for English, which was laid in an order before the House on 6 March. Through editing and contributing school newspapers and magazines, pupils can gain experience in a variety of writing, reading, speaking and listening skills which are incorporated in the order.
  I hope that I have made it clear that the aims and objectives of the Cheshire schools magazine project are not at issue. I think that we all agree that it is doing an excellent job, but I am sure that the organisers will recognise, albeit ruefully, that that does not automatically qualify the project for Government funding—which, as I understand it, is the underlying reason for the debate.
  As my hon. Friend knows, the Department of Education and Science does not have unlimited resources. Rather, we have minuscule resources which we use at the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We receive far too many applications to be able to fund more than a small fraction of them. That means that we cannot consider them just on their individual merits. However sympathetic we may be to an individual project, each one must be looked at in relation to Government policies and must be subject to decisions about priorities for funding out of limited resources. It goes without saying that our underlying aim is to ensure that public funds are used in the most productive and effective way possible.
  Virtually all the Department's resources currently available for school curriculum development are being used to ensure that the national curriculum is introduced and implemented efficiently and effectively. We consider this to be of paramount importance. Many aspects of the national curriculum attainment targets and programmes of study reinforce the good work which is already going on in schools and should therefore be familiar to teachers. However, relatively new and developing areas of study will require more careful preparation and guidance. We are concentrating our resources on these areas. In English, for example, our main concern at present is to ensure that teachers have the knowledge and expertise to be able to deliver the language aspects of the national curriculum. To achieve that, we are funding the development of training

  259
  resource materials and, through education support grant and the local education authority training grant scheme, a major three-year training programme for all teachers of English, including primary teachers.
  We have also made substantial provision for local authorities to meet their own local needs and priorities in relation to national curriculum implementation. The education support grant for the basic curriculum and assessment will support expenditure of some £19·3 million on advisory support, staffing and resources in this financial year alone. It would be open to the Cheshire local education authority, or even to several of the LEAs whose schools contribute to "In Our Own Words", to allocate some of this grant to the Cheshire schools magazine project, if they considered that the project was contributing to the implementation of the national curriculum and had priority in this respect over other national-curriculum-related activities. That option is available to the Cheshire local education authority. It is entitled to use resources which have been made available to it by the Government, through a specific grant.
  Another key initiative which is particularly relevant to this debate is the Government's education support grant for information technology in schools. That is due to result in the expenditure of some £75 million on IT equipment in schools in the three years beginning April 1988. The increased availability of desk-top publishing facilities which my hon. Friend mentioned will greatly improve opportunities for schools, classes and even individual pupils to produce their own high-quality printed publications.
  In the light of those initiatives and our other priorities, we decided, regretfully, that we were unable to offer
  260
  financial support for the production of "In Our Own Words." I emphasise that the local education authority system is decentralised. This Cheshire project, of which Cheshire is proud because of all the interest that it has engendered elsewhere, is for Cheshire to finance.
  I hope that those who are running the project, and Mr. Melling in particular, do not find this decision too discouraging. It is certainly not meant to be. I hope they will take encouragement from the positive views that have been expressed in the debate and the strong support that they can command from my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Butler: Naturally, I am extremely disappointed by my hon. Friend's reply, but will he please have a word with his colleague, the Minister for the Arts? If we could obtain a small amount of money from official sources, it might unlock much more money from the private sector. Will my hon. Friend give me at least that assurance?
  Mr. Howarth: With pleasure, I give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will draw this debate to the attention of the Minister for the Arts. I fancy that my hon. Friend's advocacy in that quarter would be even more persuasive than mine, but I willingly give the assurance that I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider the case as sympathetically as he possibly can. I appreciate why my hon. Friend would like the Office of Arts and Libraries to support the project.
  I know that my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Warrington, North and all other Members of Parliament with Cheshire constituencies will continue to do all that they can on behalf of the project. I have been grateful for the opportunity to hear more about the project. I am sorry that I have had to give a reply which hon. Members have found discouraging, but I hope that I have been able to explain the difficult position in which the Government find themselves.

  Professional Association of Teachers
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I owe my hon. Friend the Minister a double debt of gratitude, first, for allowing me this short Adjournment debate tonight, and, secondly, for his excellent and most helpful visit to Bolton last Friday which produced the subject for tonight's debate.
  My hon. Friend will remember that we visited a primary school and two schools for handicapped children and had a meeting with secondary school headmasters. We then met some members of the Bolton branch of the Professional Association of Teachers, at the home of Dr. Brian Cartwright in Sweetloves lane. Dr. Cartwright is chairman of the Bolton federation of the Professional Association of Teachers which now has about 250 members. My hon. Friend will agree that we had a most useful, helpful and constructive discussion with members of the Professional Association of Teachers, who displayed a positive attitude towards their job as teachers and the role of teachers in society.
  As a result of that meeting and the opportunity of tonight's debate, I contacted Mr. Peter Dawson, the general secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers, who was re-elected last year to the union which he helped to found in 1970 in Derby and which improved strongly during the period of militancy by other unions. It was granted recognition nationally by Lord Carlisle, although there is a problem with recognition locally. My hon. Friend will remember that Bolton council unfortunately does not recognise the Professional Association of Teachers. However, the association now has more than 40,000 members and 236 branches nationally.
  It is striking that the total membership of the teachers' unions adds up to more than the total number of teachers. There are six teachers' unions, with the National Union of Teachers claiming some 180,000 members. It had more than 200,000 members but membership has declined as a result of its militant attitude. I am glad to learn that it has closed its publication, "Teacher", after spending more than £1 million. The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers has some 120,000 members. Both those unions have stated that they would never give up their right to strike even in return for new negotiating rights.
  The other two main unions, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and the Professional Association of Teachers, with some 130,000 and 40,000 members respectively, would be interested in the possibility of a no-strike deal in return for new negotiating rights. That is certainly the position of the Professional Association of Teachers and could be the view of the AMMA between whom there were some merger rumours last year.
  There is a total union membership of more than 500,000 including the 36,000 members of the National Association of Head Teachers and the secondary heads union, so the number of members is in excess of the 400,000 teachers.
  I mentioned the question of recognition for the Professional Association of Teachers in a parliamentary question, which was answered on 10 November 1989 as follows:
  262
  "governors will acquire more extensive responsibilities for employment matters and will be free to recognise unions not recognised by the local education authority."—[Official Report, 10 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 791.]
  I very much welcome the new realism among the teaching unions since the Education Reform Act 1988. I am glad that all the teaching unions are now urging their members to compete for election to governing bodies and to consider constructively what can be done about teacher shortages.
  I contacted Mr. Peter Dawson today and he sent me a short message by facsimile—I should be glad to give my hon. Friend a copy—in which he raised various points that he wished me to mention in tonight's debate. I will briefly go through his points.
  Mr. Dawson says:
  "The Professional Association of Teachers has very much supported the government in the way in which it has, with successive employment acts, removed the closed shop.
  The removal of the closed shop has given the individual employee freedom to belong to the trade union of his choice."
  I must add how much I welcome the fact that our teachers are no longer constrained by the closed shop. Of all people, those teaching future generations should understand the importance of freedom and should not be constrained by the need to belong to a trade union imposed on them from above.
  Mr. Dawson continues:
  "Experience has shown that there are those who see little point in the individual being able to exercise personal freedom, if the union he wants to join is not allowed to represent his interests.
  The Professional Association of Teachers has often experienced the scenario where a weak LEA management has kept us out of the negotiating structure simply because the traditional unions have leant on it to keep a status quo.
  In other situations the LEA has said that it would like to recognise us but has no say as to who sits on the teachers side of the negotiating committee and therefore we should apply to the employees side.
  This kind of weak management approach is most unhelpful to the developing unions, since it is practically impossible to break into the employee private club."
  I was most disturbed to read the reference to a "private club" in that connection. It sounded almost like the old dock workers' agreement which, thankfully, we swept away last year. Let us hope that there will be far more freedom in the future for the representation of teachers
  Mr. Dawson continues:
  "There are ways of getting round this problem and in some cases (eg Birmingham and Leicestershire) the LEA has been persuaded to recognise PAT, and then has agreed to operate a separate procedure for consultation.
  The fact that pay and conditions will be brought together in a new negotiating structure, possibly for the 1991 pay round, is most helpful.
  Under this new situation PAT will be able to argue that our inclusion at national level in a national negotiating structure that includes conditions of service should be reflected at Local Authority level. The fact that the Education Reform Act 1988 enables individual schools under local management to recognise us whatever the view taken by the LEA is also useful to us.
  Some Local Authorities eg Staffordshire, have told PAT to wait until a new permanent negotiating structure has been established before applying for recognition.
  In Bolton we will be making an application for recognition as soon as the new negotiating machinery is established at national level.
  The difference between Staffordshire and Bolton is that while Staffordshire can determine who occupies the various seats of the JCC, Bolton cannot, since the teacher membership of the JCC is determined by the Joint Teacher

  263
  Committee (JTC) which has its membership determined by the teacher unions themselves and thus we are back to the `private club' problem.
  There are thirty-eight Local Authorities in England and Wales that currently fail to give any recognition to PAT, even though PAT is one of the six nationally recognised teacher unions with 10 per cent. of the overall teaching force in its membership.
  The Professional Association of Teachers would like the government to look at the problem of recognition in terms of the current Employment Bill.
  While we accept that it would not be appropriate for a government to be involved directly in recognition issues between an employer and a trade union, we do think that a proper framework should be established to enable a developing trade union to obtain recognition from an employer.
  As a member of the Council of Managerial and Professional Staffs … the Professional Association of Teachers has given its support to the proposal developed by COMPS, that would enable a trade union's case to be properly evaluated.
  If the government wishes to encourage non-striking unions, then it should give every support within its powers of legislation to the growth of PAT."
  That note was sent to me just this evening. I want to finish by quoting briefly from an article written by Peter Dawson on 25 March 1988. The article is headed "A Vision for Teachers" and Mr. Dawson begins by saying:
  "The Book of Proverbs saith: 'Where there is no vision, the people perish.' We live at a time when what is most needed in education is a visionary approach to the role of the teacher."
  We should commend Mr. Dawson and the PAT for their work. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to comment on that work.
  9.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on having secured this debate. It is a pleasure to debate with him so soon after our visit to Bolton last Friday, which I enjoyed enormously. I place on record my appreciation of the imaginative efforts that my hon. Friend made to ensure that I had an interesting and varied programme during the day, and my appreciation, too, of the local education authority and its help. We visited some excellent schools and had some useful meetings. One of the most interesting and valuable of all our meetings was with Dr. Brian Cartwright and his fellow officers at the Bolton federation of the Professional Association of Teachers.
  My hon. Friend has raised a number of matters of concern to the PAT. I shall not comment on every one of them, but I am glad to have the opportunity to comment on some of these important matters. I stress that it is the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the PAT has an equal right to have its voice heard in our debates on education issues and, more particularly, in the negotiations which take place on teachers' pay and conditions. My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with representatives of the PAT and seeks their views on exactly the same basis as he seeks those of the other five teachers' organisations.
  I echo the tribute that my hon. Friend paid to Mr. Peter Dawson, who is one of the most thoughtful and, I think, influential commentators on education issues in this country. My hon. Friend alluded to his article, "A Vision for Teachers", for which we certainly have great respect.
  264
  My hon. Friend asked about the new national arrangements for pay determination. We envisage that the PAT will have equal rights to representation on the new negotiating body. We have always made it clear that the teachers' side in any new negotiating machinery would need to be properly representative of the teachers covered by the negotiations. We said that in the Green Paper. That representation must certainly include the views of the PAT.
  The question of recognition by local education authorities then arises. My hon. Friend stressed the disappointment of the PAT at the failure of some local education authorities, including Bolton, to recognise the association. I stress that recognition has to be a matter for local education authorities. But it seems to me deplorable and shortsighted of local education authorities to be unwilling to recognise the PAT. They thus deprive themselves of the opportunity of entering into a dialogue with the association. It is one of the employer's tasks to decide what staff organisations he wishes to recognise and for what purposes. I certainly hope that the pattern of national arrangements—which include recognition and participation by the PAT—will be reflected in the local arrangements for recognition, and negotiations on local aspects of education and matters of more particular concern to teachers in terms of their employment.
  Given the damage caused to education and to the standing of the teaching profession in consequence of the resort by some other teachers' organisations to strike action and disruption in previous years, I am surprised that some employers are unwilling to recognise the PAT. I deplore any partisan and ideological decision to withhold recognition from teachers' chosen representatives.
  I have said how valuable and interesting I found my meeting with the PAT in Bolton. I was deeply impressed by the serious commitment to professional standards of the PAT officers whom I met and I found my discussions with them extremely illuminating. It was pleasing that instead of starting by talking about money and then moving quickly on to express concerns about what other people might be doing or receiving, the representatives based their discussions on what was happening in their own schools. They based their discussion on their personal teaching experience and they conveyed to me how proud and glad they are to be members of the teaching profession and how committed they are to the well-being and educational good fortune of the children whom they teach. Of course, resource implications arose in our discussions, but they arose in a spirit of generous concern for the children they teach and not in a spirit of jealousy or resentment, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East will agree.
  I was asked whether we regarded it as appropriate to ensure that all local education authorities should recognise a particular trade union or this particular association. I have already said that that must be a matter for individual local education authorities. We believe that it would not be appropriate for the Government to require an employer to recognise a particular union or staff association. That view is based on experience in the 1970s, when it was found that statutory recognition arrangements proved unworkable.
  A further question arose about recognition by individual schools and that is an important issue under the new arrangements for the local management of schools. Under delegated budgeting, schools are required to recognise all unions which are recognised by the local

  265
  education authority. However, the Professional Association of Teachers will consider it an important and valuable point to learn that, under LMS, schools are not precluded from recognising other unions or associations if they so wish. That arrangement gives the PAT a fair opportunity at least to play its part in the discussions about detailed arrangements in schools. I believe that that is the arrangement that the PAT wanted and we were concerned that matters should be established on that basis.
  It is sad that in some areas other unions are unwilling to sit down beside the PAT. It is a shame that that is the case. I believe that that is sometimes the case despite the fact that the local education authority has recognised the PAT. Where that is so, the House would agree that that is preposterous and against the best interests of the teaching
  266
  profession. The divisiveness and negativism of that attitude must be damaging to the reputation of the profession. I am sure that it does no good at all to the atmosphere in which the profession conducts its affairs and must therefore be damaging to the children.
  I am glad that that is not the case at national level and that all the major teachers' unions and organisations are prepared to sit down together in discussions with the Secretary of State. I hope that it will be only a very short time before the history of ostracism and refusal on the part of individual local education authorities to recognise the PAT becomes a thing of the past.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Ten o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Racial Equality
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has to promote racial equality in the civil service.

  Mr. Luce
  I have today introduced a programme for action to strengthen equality of opportunity in the civil service for people of ethnic minority origin. Copies have been placed in the Library.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Malawi
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will detail the total funding by his Department of the Vipyha forestry project in Malawi; and if he will make a statement about its future.

  Mrs. Chalker
  British aid for the Vipyha plantation in Malawi started in the 1950s when the Commonwealth Development Corporation established pilot pine plantations. British Government loans were first made in 1964.

  Figures for earlier expenditure are not available except at disproportionate cost, but since 1978 almost £3,000,000 in capital aid has been committed, and we have also provided technical and advisory support. The sum of £200,000 for fire-fighting vehicles and equipment was approved in February 1990. The future of the plantation is a matter for the Malawi Government. I understand that a number of possible ways of utilising the timber on a viable and sustainable basis are being considered.

DEFENCE

  Mine Warfare Training, Ostend
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what co-operation exists between the Royal Navy and the Belgian navy over the mine warfare training centre at Ostend.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Royal Navy personnel regularly attend courses at the Belgian Navy's Ecole de Guerre des Mines (EGUERMIN) near Ostend. Through our contribution to the NATO infrastructure central fund, the

  Cheese imports into the United Kingdom

  (000 tonnes)

  Country of Export

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Republic of Ireland

  43

  48

  52

  61

  48

  62

  44

  France

  10

  11

  13

  14

  17

  24

  30

  Belgium/Luxembourg1

  7

  13

  15

  15

  14

  16

  14

  Netherlands

  23

  21

  23

  25

  21

  25

  23

  94
  United Kingdom will provide a share of the costs of the proposed minehunting simulator to be installed at EGUERMIN. We will continue to seek opportunities for co-operation in mine warfare training with our NATO partners wherever practical and beneficial.

  Military Exports
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which African countries the United Kingdom has exported arms and military equipment since 1979; and what has been the total value of these exports in present-day prices.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to publish such detailed information for reasons of commercial confidentiality and national security. However, statistics of United Kingdom defence sales from 1948 to 1989 by broad geographic terms are set out in volume 2 of SDE 90.

  HMS Warspite
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current condition of HMS Warspite and the progress of work on the nuclear reactors of British nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Warspite is currently undergoing refit. The programme of inspections of our nuclear-powered submarines is continuing.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has given any consideration to extending payments made to farmers inside environmentally sensitive areas to include farmers operating within national parks generally.

  Mr. Maclean
  Payments under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme can be made only to farmers within the boundaries of the designated ESAs. I have no plans at present to extend these boundaries, but I will be reviewing the scheme during 1991. A number of the ESAs are in national parks.

  Cheese
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much Irish, French, Belgian, Dutch, German, Swiss and Greek cheese respectively, was imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 1983; what proportion this was of the cheese market in each year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is shown in the table:
  95

  Country of Export

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Federal Republic of Germany

  16

  23

  28

  26

  27

  36

  33

  Switzerland

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Greece

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  100

  117

  132

  142

  128

  164

  146

  Above total as proportion of total United Kingdom domestic uses per cent.

  29

  32

  35

  37

  32

  37

  34

  1 not separately identified

  2 less than 500 tonnes

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Bereavement Damages
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Attorney-General how many of the 265 replies he has received to his consultation paper on bereavement damages were in favour of(a) increasing the limit to (i) £5,000 and (ii) £10,000 or (b) leaving the limit unchanged.

  The Attorney-General
  All the responses to the consultation are still being evaluated and the Lord Chancellor hopes to make an announcement before the summer recess.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Training
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland where were the number of apprentices in Northern Ireland in(a) engineering, (b) plumbing, (c) joinery and (d)bricklaying, in the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: The number of apprentices registered for training in the specified occupational trades were as follows:

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  (a) Engineering

  232

  306

  396

  (b) Plumbing

  42

  104

  130

  (c) Joinery

  638

  777

  933

  (d) Bricklaying

  333

  461

  575

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young people attended each Government training centre in Northern Ireland in 1987–88, and in 1988–89; and what percentage of those from each centre, on completion of their training, went to(a) jobs and (b) self-employment.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: The table below shows the number of young people trained at the various training centre in Northern Ireland in 1987–88 and 1988–89 and the percentages of such young people who entered employment. There are no figures available for the percentages entering self-employment; as the young people trained at the centres would have completed initial training only in the skills required for apprenticeships etc., it is unlikely that many would have entered self-employment.
  96

  Number of young people trained

  Percentage entering employment

  Year

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Centre

  Ballymena

  223

  294

  85

  83

  Boucher road

  110

  135

  54

  64

  Craigavon

  232

  272

  86

  91

  Dundonald

  278

  300

  82

  93

  Enniskillen

  83

  102

  78

  82

  Felden

  173

  228

  79

  78

  Lisburn

  89

  108

  76

  93

  Maydown

  135

  148

  57

  80

  Newry

  183

  240

  93

  94

  Omagh

  105

  153

  74

  96

  Springtown

  89

  86

  78

  91

  Grant Aid
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much grant aid M. Kernan (Compost) Limited of 270 Battleford road, Benburb, Dungannon, received during 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (2) how much grant aid McAnallen Group of Companies of 259 Battleford road, Benburb, Dungannon, received during 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989;

  (3) how much grant aid Donnelly Bros. of 201 Killylea road, Caledon, received during 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: Grant aid received by these companies in each financial year since April 1985 was as follows:

  M. Kernan (Compost) Ltd.

  McAnallen Group

  Donnelly Bros.

  £

  £

  £

  1985–86

  50,328

  7,301

  1,400

  1986–87

  13,971

  182,538

  —

  1987–88

  5,536

  59,664

  —

  1988–89

  327,606

  21,433

  —

  1989–90

  28,126

  578,751

  —

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Saving
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent suggestions he has received to encourage saving.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has received a number of suggestions on how saving might best be encouraged. This year's Budget included a series of measures to help the small saver, reinforce the habit of savings and further encourage wider share ownership. In addition, he announced an increase in the interest rates paid on some DNS products.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what value added tax duty is payable on transactions involving nuclear waste.

  Mr. Ryder
  Transactions involving nuclear waste are liable to the standard rate of VAT.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what excise duty is payable on nuclear waste(a) imported to and (b) exported from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  None.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what level of divergence between United Kingdom inflation and the European average he assesses it would be appropriate for the pound sterling to enter the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Ryderz
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on the 1990 Budget—questions 304 to 307.

  Tax Deferral
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters have been received by his Department suggesting the implementation of a tax deferral scheme allowing firms to reinvest their profits for a three-year period.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor received one such suggestion before his Budget this year; and from time to time he receives letters proposing favourable tax treatment for profits retained in a business.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the establishment of the European bank for reconstruction and development.

  Mr. Major
  The Government warmly welcome the decision to establish the European bank for reconstruction and development in London. It is particularly welcome that London will be the centre of the international effort to help eastern European countries build on the reforms they have made and to assist them in their move to market economies. We shall be working closely with the president designate to ensure that the bank can begin its operations as soon as possible.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Classical Languages
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many entries were made for A-levels in 1989 in Latin and ancient Greek, respectively; and how many grades A and B in each subject were attained.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The following table shows information for school leavers in England in 1988:98

  Number of school leavers in 1988

  Thousands

  A-level Latin

  Entered

  1·76

  Achieved grade A

  0·56

  Achieved grade B

  0·35

  A-level Ancient Greek

  Entered

  0·43

  Achieved grade A

  0·23

  Achieved grade B

  0·11

  Comparable information is not yet available for 1988–89.

  School Meals
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average price of a school meal in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The average price of school meals in primary schools in England in October 1988, the latest date for which information is available, was 65p. It is not possible to give a figure for secondary schools as most operate a cash cafeteria system.

  Information relating to Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the number and percentage of free school meals provided in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many and what percentage of children in England and Wales took school meals in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In January 1989 the number and percentage of pupils provided with school meals in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in England are as follows. Information relating to Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Pupils

  Number of pupils provided with free school meals

  779,131

  as a percentage of all pupils on roll

  11

  Total number of pupils taking school meals

  3,006,710

  as a percentage of all pupils on roll

  43

  Local education authorities are empowered to provide at their discretion refreshment and facilities for the consumption of refreshments in the middle of the day for pupils in schools maintained by them. The Social Security Act 1986 requires that pupils whose parents or who themselves are in receipt of income support should receive such provision free of charge.

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures have been taken to ensure that practising school teachers are represented among the membership of working groups established by the National Curriculum Council, whether there is a practising school teacher among the membership of each subject working group; and if he will make a statement.
  99
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Subject working groups are established by the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales to advise them on national curriculum attainment targets and programmes of study. Task groups are set up by the National Curriculum Council for specific tasks such as advice on consultation and non-statutory guidance. All past and existing groups of both types have included practising teachers among their members.

  School Closures
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many schools were closed in each of the past five years in the Greenwich education authority area;

  (2) how many schools were closed in each of the past five years within the constituency of Peterborough.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Greenwich local education authority came into being on 1 April 1990. Information on school closures in Greenwich is not readily available before this date.

  Information for parliamentary constituencies or other areas within education authorities is not available centrally.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the value of(a) domestic sales and (b) exports of furs from factory-farm animals; how many animals he estimates this represents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Figures relating specifically to factory-farmed furs, or the number of animals involved, are not available. Nor do domestic sales figures distinguish between furs and other animal skins. The total value of United Kingdom exports of all furs in 1989 was £132 million.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the companies so far commissioned by Her Majesty's Government to provide professional assistance under the terms of the enterprise initiative;

  (2) how much the Government have so far spent in the form of direct payments to companies under the terms of the enterprise initiative;

  (3) how many requests for assistance the Government have received under the terms of the enterprise initiative; and what proportion have enjoyed Government support;

  (4) if he will list the names of all those companies which have so far received more than (a) 10, (b) 50 and (c) 100 commissions from the Government under the terms of the enterprise initiative.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Between the launch of the assisted consultancy scheme under the enterprise initiative on 13 January 1988 and 31 March 1990, 47,994 applications were received of which one third had at that date completed their consultancy projects. The Department's contribution to the cost of these projects was £49·9 million.100
  Payments are made via independent scheme contractors to the consultants commissioned to undertake projects, and not directly to the client companies.

  It is not our practice to provide details of the consultancy firms used by scheme contractors to undertake assisted consultancy projects. This is to avoid the risk of appearing to bestow a form of Government approval or endorsement, to the unfair disadvantage of practices no less competent but which for one reason or another are not associated with the scheme.

  Packaging Industry
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of plastic production is now used by the packaging industry.

  Mr. Forth
  Appoximately 35 per cent., measured by weight.

  Bergen Conference
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration his Department intends to give to the implications for United Kingdom industry of the results of the Bergen conference on the environment.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department will be giving careful consideration to the outcome of the conference and its implications for United Kingdom industry. These will be covered in our day-to-day contacts with industry.

  Product Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to support the European Parliament's amendments to the draft product safety directive at meetings of the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The amendments suggested by the European Parliament will of course be taken fully into account during further negotiations on this directive. However, I can give no commitment to supporting their amendments, some of which are directly contrary to the motion supported by the House following the debate on 10 May.

  Renault
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the effect on the competitiveness of the British car industry of the refusal of the French Government to reclaim substantial sums from messrs Renault, as instructed by the European Economic Community Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I understand that the Commission has made a decision on this case only today. I do not know what the considered response of the French Government will be. I will continue to watch the case closely.

  Tear Gasr
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requirement there is for sales of tear gas to be notified to his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 15 May 1990]: There is no requirement for sales of tear gas to be notified to my Department. It is the practice to require a licence to export tear gas to any destination.

  Jordan (Arms Purchases)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the cost to the Exchequer of Jordan reneging on payment for equipment supplied by British companies under the £275 million Jordan defence package.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: I do not expect the Exchequer to incur any losses in connection with defence exports to Jordan.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support was required from the Export Credit Guarantees Department for the recent arms deals with the Jordanian Government.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose information about individual cases.

  National Council for Environmental Waste Policy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the responsibilities of his Department in the establishment of the National Council for Environmental Waste Policy in April; and what role his Department will play in the work of the council in future.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: My Department has had no involvement in the establishment of such a council. However, under its environmental programme, the Department is seeking to promote greater recycling of waste and higher standards of waste management and waste minimisation within business and is always prepared to consider co-operating with other organisations pursuing similar objectives.

  Japan (Visit)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech in Tokyo to Japanese business men on 14 May.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: I have placed a copy of my speech at the inward investment seminar in Tokyo on 14 May in the Library of the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  MPs' Travel
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the total payment made on account of Members of Parliament travel during 1989–90, analysed by(a) travel by rail, (b) travel by car and (c) travel by air, with respect to travel within their constituencies, or between London and their constituencies.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Payments made from the House of Commons Members Salaries etc. vote (class XX, vote 20) during 1989–90 in respect of travel by Members between their homes, Westminster and their constituencies and within their constituencies amounted to £5,913,667.

  The analysis of this cost relating to the method of travel is as follows:

  £

  Travel by rail

  820,827

  Travel by car

  4,374,286

  Travel by air

  718,554

  102
  Detailed figures in respect of Members' travel within constituencies or between London and constituencies a re not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT

  Contaminated Land
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects to receive the departmental working party report on the feasibility of establishing registers of contaminated land; whether he will place a copy in the Library; whether he intends the registers to be compulsory or voluntary; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will place in the Library a copy of the report by the departmental working group on drawing up registers of contaminated land.

  Mr. Trippier
  Following receipt of the departmental working party report on 25 April, I announced during the Commons Report stage of the Environmental Protection Bill on 30 April that the Government proposed to introduce an amendment placing a duty upon district councils in England and Wales to compile and maintain registers of potentially contaminating land uses. That amendment is to be tabled in the Lords, following consultation with the local authority associations on the detailed implications and practicalities involved.

  I have placed a copy of the working party report in the Library.

  Genetically Engineered Organisms
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from Greenpeace in respect of his plans to regulate the release of genetically engineered organisms.

  Mr. Trippier
  Greenpeace made representations in a letter dated 24 August 1989 in response to the Department's June 1989 consultation paper on proposals for the control of genetically modified organisms which now form part VI of the Environmental Protection Bill currently before Parliament.

  Pollution Inspectors
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution are currently responsible for the west midlands area.

  Mr. Trippier
  There are currently six pollution inspectors in post discharging Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regulatory responsibilities in the west midlands area.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on morale within Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Morale in HMIP is high, and staff are preparing with energy and enthusiasm for integrated pollution control and the other new responsibilities proposed for them under the Environmental Protection Bill.
  103
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on staffing levels within Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how far Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is below its full staff complement;

  (2) how many of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inspectors have been appointed as a result of the recent recruitment round.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  There are currently 206 staff in post in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, compared with 148 when HMIP was established in April 1987. The staff complement has recently been increased further to 250. HMIP therefore has 44 vacancies within the increased complement. Twenty-five of the vacancies are for professional staff, of which seven are reserved for successful candidates to date from the current recruitment competition. We are continuing to recruit actively to fill the remaining posts.

  HMIP has also introduced an additional assistant pollution inspector recruitment grade, for candidates with full professional qualifications and at least two years industry experience, who will qualify as pollution inspectors through further training and experience in the inspectorate. This will widen the recruitment for future pollution inspectors, while fully maintaining the present professional standards. The first recruitment competition for APIs is now in progress.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made an assessment of staffing and inspection levels within Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution necessary for the effectiveness of the enforcement powers contained within the Environmental Protection Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inspectors will be required to undertake(a) the writing of IPC (IPR) authorisations under the Environmental Protection Bill, (b) the writing of new Batneec notes under the Environmental Protection Bill and (c) routine site inspections of scheduled processes.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: I am committed to ensuring that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will effectively discharge its responsibilities and the new duties proposed for it in the Environmental Protection Bill. The level of resources required to accomplish this is kept under continual review.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inspectors are available in the field to undertake inspections of scheduled processes.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer, 17 May 1990]: There is currently a total of 69 inspectors posted to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's regional field force.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the proposed inspection rates for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in MINIS 9 and MINIS 10 have been achieved.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer, 17 May 1990]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution came close to meeting
  104
  most of the proposals for inspection activity set out in MINIS 10, bettered a number, and did not fully achieve some others. The figures are as follows:

  1989–90 Performance

  MINIS 10 Target

  Air:

  Inspections

  7,350

  7,550

  Samples taken

  1,350

  1,900

  Water:

  Inspection of sewage treatment works

  545

  500

  Discharge consents issued to water authorities

  1,302

  800

  Radioactive Substances Inspections:

  Nuclear premises

  259

  270

  Non-nuclear premises

  606

  680

  Waste:

  Visits to Waste Disposal Authorities

  1154

  350

  Inspections of major hazardous waste facilities

  2267

  3100

  1 of which 22 programmed

  2 50 programmed

  3 programmed

  A full account of the year's activity will be given in HMIP's MINIS 11 return, which will be published in due course.

  As I described in the answer I gave today we have recently increased HMIP's complement to 250 posts, and are actively recruiting professional staff to bring the inspectorate up to the increased strength.

  The MINIS 10 return, available in the Library, reported on achievement of MINIS 9 proposals.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what inspection rates are proposed for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in MINIS 11; and what were the proposed rates in MINIS 9 and MINIS 10.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: The Department's MINIS 11 directorate returns will as usual be published when ministerial colleagues and I have completed consideration of them. The MINIS 9 and 10 returns are available in the Library.

  Satellite TV Dishes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the cost to public funds of installing satellite television receiving equipment in the House; and where it will be located.

  Mr. Chope
  At the request of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee the Parliamentary Works Office is at present looking into the options for providing satellite television services to the House. It is hoped to provide a report, including costs, before the spring Adjournment.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of English local authority expenditure is devoted to(a) fulfilment of statutory duties, and (b) discretionary expenditure.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Councillors(Personal Interests)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dispensations to speak and vote he gave in 1989 to local councillors with personal or pecuniary interests.
  106
  Mr. Portillo
  In 1989, 1,318 councillors with pecuniary interests were given dispensation to speak and vote.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations to which he has given(a) an increase in grant and (b) a decrease in grant in 1990–91 compared with 1989–90 under the system of grants to voluntary organisations working in the field of homelessness together with the actual change and percentage change in each case.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him yesterday.

  School Meals
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of administration to provide school meals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The cost of administration of school catering is provisionally estimated at £33 million in 1988–89, which is the latest year for which information is available. This estimate excludes any local authority general administration costs recharged to individual services.

  Sovereign's Entrance
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the work to be carried out to allow the Sovereign's Entrance in the Palace of Westminster to be used for the line of route.

  Mr. Chope
  The contract for the work has been let. Subject to the manufacturer achieving the quoted delivery period for the railings, visitors should be able to use the Entrance before the end of June.

  Housing Grants
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment of the impact on the homeless was made prior to his decision to stop section 73 funding to CHAR;

  (2) what representations he has received about CHAR losing section 73 funding; if he will reconsider this decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: We have increased the resources available for grants to voluntary bodies under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 from £680,000 in 1989–90 to £2 million for 1990–91. Half that total is allocated to a national homelessness advice service involving citizens advice bureaux, the Shelter Housing Aid Centre and Shelter; half to practical projects providing direct help to homeless people. Twenty-six bodies have been offered grant in respect of specific practical projects. I believe that this approach will provide more direct help to homeless people than the previous use of section 73 funds for core funding voluntary bodies. I have received a number of representations on behalf of CHAR, but I will not raise hopes of further funding this year: all the funds are earmarked.

  "Football Spectator Violence"
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will issue copies of the 1984 Government report "Football Spectator Violence", of which his officials were members, to all police forces in the United Kingdom;
  108
  (2) if he will (a) reissue his 1984 departmental report, "Football Spectator Violence" published by HMSO, ISBN 0 11 751749 6, and (b) distribute copies to the Football Association and the Football League.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: The report on football spectator violence was issued in 1984 and copies were sent to the football authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers among others. One of its recommendations was that high-risk clubs should not play away at major seaside towns on or during public holidays. Following the disgraceful scenes of football hooliganism in Bournemouth on 5 May, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has secured an undertaking from the Football League that in future it will give proper regard to a chief constable's assessment of the prospect of disorder when determining fixtures.

  Landlords
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett),Official Report, 16 March, column 389, on the gains made by private landlords, if he will make it his policy to set up an inquiry into profits made by landlords in (a) Manchester and (b) England from not reducing rate-inclusive rents by appropriate amounts following the introduction of the poll tax.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: No.

  Toxic Wastes
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what dangerous chemicals included on the red list are being deposited in landfill sites in west Yorkshire.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: Information on deposits of red list substances in landfill sites in west Yorkshire is not held centrally. Consent for such deposits is a matter for the waste disposal authorities concerned acting in consultation with the NRA.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the inflationary factor used when determining the new infrastructure charge limits agreed for the new water companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: In determining the infrastructure charge limits it was assumed that construction costs would move relative to the RPI as follows

  Per cent.

  1990–91

  +3·6

  1991–92

  -0·2

  1992–93

  -3·7

  1993–94

  -4·6

  11994–95

  0

  1 and subsequent years.

  and that the RPI would increase by 5 per cent. in 1990–91. After 1990–91 the limits may increase by the RPI unless they are subject to review by the director general in the context of a review of the general charges limits.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the cost of permitting married women who do not undertake employment, and have no investment income, to pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge.

  Mr. Michael Portillo
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin).

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to bring forward his alternative proposals for the operation of the poll tax.

  Mr. Chope
  We are looking to see whether any improvements could be made to the operation of the community charge. If and when any such improvements are identified they will be announced at the appropriate time.

  Conservation, Islay
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from parties who feel that they have been disadvantaged by the decision to protect Duich Moss on Islay.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  No representations have been received since the agreement to protect Duich Moss was announced on 13 May 1989.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Council of Europe
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the 86th session of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 10 May.

  Mr. Maude
  The 86th session of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe focused on the interest in the Council shown by the countries of central and eastern Europe and on the contribution the Council could make to further progress in the CSCE process. The United Kingdom was represented by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  A copy of the final communiqué of the meeting is being placed in the Library.

  Fiji
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on whether the Fijian Government intend to hold a referendum on the basis of one person one vote before accepting any new constitution; what contacts Her Majesty's Government have had with the Fijians on this matter; and if he will make a statement.
  110
  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no information on whether the Fiji Government intend to hold such a referendum. We have had no contacts with the Fiji Government or the Fijians on this matter.

  Embassies
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list British embassies according to the grade of the ambassador.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not our policy to disclose the grades of our ambassadors.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will discuss with the Governor of Hong Kong(a) the conditions and state of health of the Vietnamese refugees confined in each of the camps in Hong Kong, respectively and (b) recent riots in each of the camps in Hong Kong, respectively.

  Mr. Maude
  Yes. The best way to improve conditions in the camps and to remove the risk of riots is for those found after status-determination procedures not to be refugees to be returned in safety to their own communities in Vietnam.

  Diplomatic Relations
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the dates on which diplomatic relations with any member state of the United Nations were severed, indicating in each case whether it was Britain or the country concerned which severed the relations.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Following is the information:

  Cases in which the United Kingdom has initiated a break in diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom since 1946

  Country

  Dates

  1.

  Albania

  1946

  —

  2.

  Uganda

  28 July 1976

  21 April 1979

  3.

  Argentina

  2 April 1982

  19 February 1990

  4.

  Libya

  30 April 1984

  —

  5.

  Syria

  31 October 1986

  —

  6.

  Cambodia

  6 December 1979

  —

  Cases in which other countries initiated a break in diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom since 1946

  Country

  Dates

  1.

  Iran

  1951

  December 1952

  7 March 1989

  —

  2.

  Saudi Arabia

  17 November 1956

  28 July 1963

  3.

  Yemen

  16 February 1963

  December 1967

  4.

  Somali Republic

  18 March 1963

  4 January 1968

  5.

  Guatemala

  Reduced to consular level 31 July 1963

  Consular relations broken September 1981

  Resumed August 1986

  Full diplomatic relations resumed December 1986

  111

  Country

  Dates

  6.

  Algeria

  18 December 1965

  10 April 1968

  7.

  Congo (Brazzaville)

  16 December 1965

  10 April 1968

  8.

  Ghana

  16 December 1965

  5 March 1966

  9.

  Guinea

  15 December 1965

  20 February 1968

  10.

  Mali

  16 December 1965

  10 April 1968

  11.

  Mauritania

  17 December 1965

  10 April 1968

  12.

  Sudan

  18 December 1965 6 June 1967

  16 April 1966 25 January 1968

  13.

  Tanzania

  15 December 1965

  4 July 1968

  14.

  UAR

  17 December 1965 1956

  12 December 1967 1959

  15.

  Iraq

  8 June 1967 1 December 1967

  1 May 1968 resumed by 5 September 1974

  16.

  Syria

  6 June 1967

  28 May 1973

  17.

  Iceland

  19 February 1976

  2 June 1976

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries with which Britain has diplomatic relations but where there is no resident ambassador in the country to which he is accredited, indicating in each case where the ambassador resides.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have full diplomatic relations on a non-resident basis with the following countries (the country of residence of Her Majesty's ambassador/high commissioner is shown in parentheses after each):

  Antigua and Barbuda (Barbados)

  Benin (Nigeria)

  Burkina (Ivory Coast)

  Burundi (Zaire)

  Cape Verde (Senegal)

  Central African Republic (Cameroon)

  Chad (London)

  Comoros (Mauritius)

  Djibouti (Yemen, North)

  Commonwealth of Dominica (Barbados)

  Dominican Republic (Venezuela)

  El Salvador (Honduras)

  Equatorial Guinea (Cameroon)

  Grenada (Barbados)

  Guinea (Senegal)

  Guinea-Bissau (Senegal)

  Haiti (Jamaica)

  Laos (Thailand)

  Maldives (Sri Lanka)

  Mali (Senegal)

  Mauritania (Senegal)

  Nauru (Fiji)

  Nicaragua (Costa Rica)

  Niger (Ivory Coast)

  Rwanda (Zaire)

  St. Kitts, Nevis (Barbados)

  St. Lucia (Barbados)

  St. Vincent and The Grenadines (Barbados)

  Sao Tome (Angola)

  Surinam (Guyana)

  Togo (Ghana)

  Tuvalu (Fiji)

  Western Samoa (New Zealand)

  112
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the member states of the United Nations Organisation with which the United Kingdom does not have diplomatic relations.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The following is the information:

  Albania

  Bhutan

  Cambodia

  Iran

  Libya

  Syria

  International Organisations
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the international organisations of which Britain is a member, indicating in each case the date of joining, the cost of membership, and the number of British nationals employed by the organisation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There is no central list of all the international organisations to which the United Kingdom belongs. The information could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request the Japanese Government to investigate allegations, made by British ex-service men, of war crimes against Kiyoaki Tanara and Shigeyuki Hashimoto; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no evidence in our records to support these allegations and do not, therefore, feel justified in raising this matter with the Japanese Government.

  Mrs. Maroof Jan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on the application made to the British high commission in Islamabad by Mrs. Maroof Jan, whose date of birth is 1958, ref. IMM/43953, to enter the United Kingdom.

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

  Border Checks
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 15 May,Official Report, column 380, if he will specify the sections of the debate on inter-community frontiers on 4 May 1989 which set out the border checks on individuals which are to be removed in consequence of the European Economic Community arrangements described in the pamphlet "Europe in the 1990s", issued by his Department.

  Mr. Maude
  As stated in my answer on 15 May, c.380, my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary set out our position in full in the debate on 4 May 1989. Discussions continue with our partners.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 11 May, what factors have led to the increase in the United Kingdom net contribution to the European Community for 1989 to £2,315 million.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to paragraphs 23 to 27 of the statement on the 1990 Community budget which was presented to the House on 26 April.

  Assize of European Parliamentarians
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the assize of European parliamentarians comprising 50 per cent. Members of the European Parliament and 50 per cent. national Members of Parliament, scheduled to be held in Italy in the autumn, setting out what knowledge he may have of its status, the terms and conditions under which it is established, how it is to be funded and the authority and standing of any conclusions that it may reach.

  Mr. Maude
  We understand that the Italian Chamber of Deputies has agreed to host the meeting with national parliaments in Rome in October which had been advocated by the European Parliament. The European Parliament has not yet made clear what organisational or financial arrangements it proposes. Such a meeting would enjoy no status under the treaty and the authority of any conclusions reached would derive from the support of those present.

  Single European Act
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the operation of the Single European Act.

  Mr. Maude
  We will publish our observations on the report at 1530 hours on 22 May 1990.

WALES

  Trunk Road Improvements
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent on trunk road improvements in Gwynedd in the last 12 months excluding the A55 expressway.

  Mr. Roberts
  Estimated expenditure in 1989–90 on new construction and improvement in Gwynedd, excluding the A55 north Wales coast road, is £5·4 million.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (a) the latest average unemployment rate in development areas in Wales and (b) the unemployment rate on the same date for each travel-to-work area which had an unemployment rate higher than the average for development areas in Wales, denoting which of the areas have in their territory a development area.
  114
  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Per cent.1

  Status

  (a)Average for development areas in Wales

  7·1

  (b) Travel-to-work areas with a higher unemployment rate than the average for the development areas in Wales:

  Aberdare

  10·3

  DA

  Holyhead

  9·7

  DA

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  9·4

  DA

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  9·0

  IA

  Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenny

  8·5

  DA

  South Pembrokeshire

  8·1

  DA

  Llanelli

  8·0

  IA

  Pwllheli

  7·6

  IA

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  7·5

  DA

  Haverfordwest

  7·4

  IA

  1 Workforce-based unemployment rate, per cent., April 1990.

  DA denotes development area.

  IA denotes intermediate area.

  Note: Development areas are defined in terms of "Travel-to-Work areas".

  Schools (Spending)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total capital spending in Welsh schools in current prices in each year from 1979–80 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Roberts
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Total capital expenditure on Welsh schools in 1988–89 prices

  £000

  1979–80

  32,906

  1980–81

  41,026

  1981–82

  34,726

  1982–83

  36,810

  1983–84

  34,823

  1984–85

  30,323

  1985–86

  26,767

  1986–87

  32,786

  1987–88

  38,393

  1988–89

  37,568

  Source Capital Outturn Returns.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many school leavers in Wales in total and in percentage terms entered(a) further and (b) higher education in 1979, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Roberts
  The latest available data on the first destination of school leavers are for the academic year 1987–88. They are not however available in the form requested. The following table gives the number and percentages of school leavers entering degree and teacher training courses and other further and higher education.

  1979–80

  1987–88

  Number of school leavers with intended destination1:

  Degree and teacher training courses

  3,850

  3,970

  Other further and higher education courses

  7,005

  9,620

  Leavers' destinations as a percentage of all leavers1:

  Degree and teacher training courses

  9

  10

  Other further and higher education courses

  15

  24

  1 School leavers survey. This is a 10 per cent, sample survey and therefore the data will be subject to sampling error.

  North Wales Expressway
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total cost of constructing the north Wales expressway; and if he will publish information on the anticipated traffic volumes on this road, after completion, by category of users.

  Mr. Roberts
  Total expenditure on dualling the A55 is estimated at around £620 million. Estimates of anticipated traffic volumes for 15 years after opening have been or will be published for each section of the route as part of the evidence put before the public inquiry. Current annual average daily traffic flows on the A55 range between 15,000 and 30,000 vehicles, of which 8 to 10 per cent. are heavy goods vehicles.

  Care and Repair Schemes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many care and repair schemes are currently operative in Wales; and if he will make a statement on the future funding of such schemes.

  Mr. Grist
  Since March 1987 our Department has helped to establish 15 home improvement agencies in Wales. Ten schemes are funded by our Department under the care and repair agencies initiative and the remaining five from other sources of Welsh Office funding. Two further agencies are operating independently.

  The performance of home improvement agencies has been monitored over the past three years by the school for advanced urban studies in Bristol and we are currently studying its conclusions. We will decide shortly on the future of existing agencies and their possible further development.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much assistance his Department gave by way of grant to the Motor Neurone Disease Association during 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  None.

  Physically Handicapped People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing, in current money equivalent terms, the spending by social services departments in Wales on services for registered physically handicapped people during 1988–89 and for each of the previous 10 years, together with the number of such people who were beneficiaries of these services in each year and the corresponding average spending per assisted case.

  Mr. Grist
  The information available on spending is given in the tables:

  Local authority expenditure on physically disabled1

  £ million at 1988–89 prices

  1978–79

  4·7

  1979–80

  4·4

  1980–81

  4·2

  1981–82

  4·1

  1982–83

  4·0

  1983–84

  4·8

  116

  £ million at 1988–89 prices

  1984–85

  2—

  1985–86

  3·8

  1986–87

  4·1

  1987–88

  34·6

  1988–89

  34·8

  1 Excludes expenditure on day care. Data for 1978–79 and 1986–87 are estimated from outturn information shown in the Local Authority Social Services Planning Statements for Wales. These figures may include some expenditure on the elderly.

  2 Not available.

  3 Information for 1987–88 and 1988–89 was collected on a different basis and is not strictly comparable with earlier years.

  Information relating to the receipt of services provided by social services departments is as follows:

  Number of residents under the age of 65 supported by local authorities1 2

  Cases of assistance provided by Social Services Departments 3 4

  1979

  720

  28,707

  1980

  689

  28,418

  1981

  634

  25,293

  1982

  630

  26,920

  1983

  583

  31,290

  1984

  599

  41,659

  1985

  548

  39,312

  1986

  417

  42,423

  1987

  416

  44,510

  1988

  404

  45,285

  1989

  418

  47,730

  1 In local authority, private and voluntary homes. Some of these residents may not be physically disabled.

  2 As at 31 March.

  3 Telephone rentals, personal equipment, adaptations to property, holidays etc. Information given relates to cases as opposed to beneficiaries (an individual beneficiary may receive more than one case of assistance). Figures quoted include all age groups and relate to assistance provided to both physically disabled people and other client groups.

  4 Year ending 31 March.

  It is not statistically meaningful to calculate average spending per assisted case because of the differing natures of the various services provided. These services vary from smaller forms of assistance, such as the provision of personal aids, through to the long-term support in residential care.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many school leavers in Wales have entered full-time employment annually in total and percentage terms for each year from 1979.

  Mr. Roberts
  The numbers and percentages of those school leavers in Wales entering full-time employment are given in the table:

  School leavers intending to enter the labour market1

  Number

  Percentage of all leavers

  1979–80

  34,270

  76

  1980–81

  32,040

  73

  1981–82

  32,195

  71

  1982–83

  31,410

  69

  1983–84

  30,950

  70

  1984–85

  30,610

  69

  1985–86

  29,840

  69

  117

  Number

  Percentage of all leavers

  1986–87

  29,915

  68

  1987–88

  27,015

  66

  1 Including leavers whose destination is unknown.

  Source: School Leavers Survey. This is on a 10 per cent. sample and therefore the data will be subject to sampling error.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what redress there is if a health authority that is counselling the closure of a hospital fails to conform with the provisions of planning paper V, entitled "Procedure for Consultation on the Closure and Change of Use of Health Buildings".

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 16 May 1990, column 479–80. In addition, it is open to people or bodies who consider that they have not been properly consulted under the terms of service planning paper 5 to make an application to the High Court for a judicial review of the health authority's actions.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the maintained school pupil population in Wales and by local education authority, in separate tables for primary, secondary and all pupils(a) in 1988 and (b) projected for 1995 and 2000.

  Mr. Roberts
  The information requested is given in the following tables:

  Number of pupils in maintained primary schools in Wales (thousands)

  Welsh Counties

  1988–89

  1995–96

  2000–01

  Clwyd

  38·7

  41·9

  44·3

  Dyfed

  31·9

  34·4

  36·0

  Gwent

  41·4

  44·9

  47·3

  Gwynedd

  20·0

  20·2

  22·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  54·1

  57·3

  60·7

  Powys

  10·2

  10·8

  11·3

  South Glamorgan

  36·0

  39·9

  43·1

  West Glamorgan

  36·2

  37·5

  39·1

  Male Teachers

  LEA

  Salary Scale

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glam

  Powys

  S. Glam

  W. Glam

  WALES

  Head

  236

  255

  166

  187

  208

  96

  118

  140

  1,406

  Deputy

  146

  99

  145

  99

  190

  32

  117

  131

  959

  2nd M&M

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Main Scale & E

  85

  16

  78

  21

  92

  9

  63

  44

  408

  Main Scale & D

  197

  156

  163

  79

  172

  35

  155

  137

  1,094

  Main Scale & C

  14

  13

  49

  3

  1

  1

  7

  17

  105

  Main Scale & B

  345

  304

  319

  232

  533

  125

  314

  287

  2,459

  Main Scale & A

  34

  18

  61

  26

  1

  22

  41

  38

  241

  Main Scale & None

  404

  390

  533

  301

  809

  149

  383

  433

  3,402

  Other

  1

  1

  1

  2

  6

  1

  3

  0

  15

  Total

  1,462

  1,252

  1,515

  950

  2,014

  470

  1,201

  1,227

  10,091

  Female Teachers

  LEA

  Salary Scale

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glam

  Powys

  S. Glam

  W.Glam

  WALES

  Head

  88

  126

  127

  45

  180

  42

  94

  73

  775

  Deputy

  163

  159

  149

  78

  245

  50

  140

  106

  1,090

  2nd M&M

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Main Scale & E

  10

  5

  15

  5

  30

  1

  11

  14

  91

  Main Scale & D

  72

  37

  60

  24

  62

  5

  62

  42

  364

  118

  Welsh Counties

  1988–89

  1995–96

  2000–01

  Wales

  268·5

  286·9

  304·0

  Number of pupils in maintained secondary schools in Wales (thousands)

  West Counties

  1988–89

  1995–96

  2000–01

  Clwyd

  27·4

  27·4

  28·6

  Dyfed

  23·7

  24·7

  25·9

  Gwent

  29·2

  29·6

  31·2

  Gwynedd

  16·4

  16·3

  16·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  37·5

  37·1

  39·0

  Powys

  8·0

  7·8

  8·0

  South Glamorgan

  26·6

  27·9

  30·3

  West Glamorgan

  23·2

  23·6

  24·3

  Wales

  192·0

  194·4

  203·8

  Numbers of pupils in all maintained schools in Wales1 (thousands)

  Welsh Counties

  1988–89

  1995–96

  2000–01

  Clwyd

  66·4

  69·7

  73·2

  Dyfed

  55·8

  59·3

  62·1

  Gwent

  71·8

  75·7

  79·6

  Gwynedd

  36·3

  37·1

  38·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  92·9

  95·8

  101·1

  Powys

  18·2

  18·7

  19·3

  South Glamorgan

  63·4

  68·7

  74·3

  West Glamorgan

  59·6

  61·4

  63·6

  Wales

  464·4

  486·4

  512·0

  1 Includes maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools.

  Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the full-time equivalent number of teachers in Wales and in each Welsh local education authority, by Burnham scale and sex.

  Mr. Roberts
  The number of teachers receiving incentive allowances at March 1988 is given in the following table.

  The Burnham scale has been replaced in schools by the school teachers pay and conditions document.
  119

  Salary Scale

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glam

  Powys

  S. Glam

  W.Glam

  WALES

  Main Scale & C

  7

  5

  35

  3

  2

  0

  4

  6

  62

  Main Scale & B

  403

  339

  345

  177

  430

  75

  303

  410

  2,482

  Main Scale & A

  89

  30

  110

  46

  5

  29

  121

  121

  551

  Main Scale & None

  1,110

  1,246

  1,540

  874

  2,284

  457

  1,365

  1,353

  10,229

  Other

  3

  1

  4

  2

  12

  4

  4

  1

  31

  Total

  1,945

  1,948

  2,385

  1,254

  3,251

  663

  2,104

  2,126

  15,676

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, by education authority and for Wales as a whole, what is the number and percentage of teachers by sex with(a) less than one year, (b) one year, (c) two years, (d) three years, (e) four years, (f) five years, (g) six to 10 years,(h) 11 to 15 years and (i) over 16 years teaching experience in their current school.

  Teachers in primary schools

  Experience in present school1

  Local authority

  Less than I year (per cent.)

  1 year (per cent.)

  2 years (per cent.)

  3 years (per cent.)

  4 years (per cent.)

  5 years (per cent.)

  6–10 years (per cent.)

  11–15 years (per cent.)

  More than 15 years (per cent.)

  Total (per cent.)

  Total (thousands)

  Male

  Clwyd

  4·5

  7·9

  7·4

  15·8

  4·0

  6·7

  25·7

  11·4

  16·6

  100

  0·4

  Dyfed

  6·6

  12·3

  16·2

  6·3

  6·9

  6·3

  15·0

  12·9

  17·4

  100

  0·3

  Gwent

  12·5

  8·7

  16·3

  9·4

  3·4

  6·5

  15·2

  17·0

  11·0

  100

  0·4

  Gwynedd

  4·5

  10·4

  7·5

  4·5

  10·1

  5·2

  28·0

  9·7

  20·1

  100

  0·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Powys

  7·5

  6·7

  8·2

  11·2

  8·2

  4·5

  20·1

  16·4

  17·2

  100

  0·1

  South Glamorgan

  9·5

  8·7

  12·0

  7·4

  8·7

  14·0

  17·4

  12·0

  10·3

  100

  0·2

  West Glamorgan

  14·7

  13·5

  6·9

  5·8

  5·8

  3·7

  23·1

  15·0

  11·5

  100

  0·3

  Total2

  8·9

  9·8

  10·9

  8·9

  6·0

  6·8

  20·6

  13·6

  14·4

  100

  2·7

  Female

  Clwyd

  7·0

  7·1

  10·2

  5·6

  4·7

  5·4

  29·2

  13·5

  17·3

  100

  1·3

  Dyfed

  14·9

  8·3

  7·5

  5·9

  6·0

  6·1

  18·6

  16·2

  16·5

  100

  1·2

  Gwent

  11·2

  10·2

  10·9

  8·1

  6·3

  4·4

  16·9

  17·1

  14·8

  100

  1·5

  Gwynedd

  11·2

  8·1

  8·2

  7·6

  6·3

  3·4

  19·7

  16·9

  18·6

  100

  0·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Powys

  12·6

  13·1

  7·7

  5·4

  5·6

  4·2

  17·1

  16·6

  17·6

  100

  0·4

  South Glamorgan

  20·9

  8·4

  8·4

  6·9

  4·8

  3·8

  19·0

  15·3

  12·4

  100

  1·4

  West Glamorgan

  19·8

  8·0

  6·3

  6·0

  6·7

  4·7

  14·3

  18·7

  15·7

  100

  1·5

  Total2

  14·5

  8·6

  8·5

  6·6

  5·9

  4·6

  19·1

  16·5

  15·7

  100

  9·9

  1 These figures are based on primary school staffing survey carried out in March 1987. Only 32 per cent, of teachers responded to the survey and thus figures shown are estimates based on grossed data.

  2 No data is available for Mid Glamorgan but the Wales totals include an estimate for the county.

  n/a=Not available.

  Teachers in secondary schools1

  Experience in present school

  Local authority

  Less than 1 year (per cent.)

  1 year (per cent.)

  2 years (per cent.)

  3 years (per cent.)

  4 years (per cent.)

  5 years (per cent.)

  6–10 years (per cent.)

  11–15 years (per cent.)

  More than 15 years (per cent.)

  Total (per cent.)

  Total (thousands)

  Male

  Clwyd

  8·3

  5·3

  5·7

  6·6

  3·7

  5·5

  21·1

  20·4

  23·4

  100

  1·0

  Dyfed

  5·8

  5·0

  4·5

  5·3

  5·9

  6·9

  20·7

  23·2

  22·7

  100

  0·8

  Gwent

  5·2

  3·7

  5·4

  5·1

  3·9

  4·8

  22·0

  26·2

  23·9

  100

  1·0

  Gwynedd

  5·8

  5·3

  4·2

  4·1

  6·3

  4·5

  24·7

  17·0

  28·1

  100

  0·6

  Mid Glamorgan

  5·4

  4·4

  3·6

  2·8

  4·1

  6·4

  21·2

  23·5

  28·5

  100

  1·3

  Powys

  12·6

  4·5

  4·9

  5·5

  4·9

  6·5

  14·9

  16·8

  29·4

  100

  0·3

  South Glamorgan

  6·2

  7·4

  3·9

  4·4

  4·0

  3·8

  17·2

  23·3

  29·9

  100

  0·8

  West Glamorgan

  5·6

  4·3

  6·1

  7·8

  4·3

  3·3

  19·3

  23·2

  26·3

  100

  0·8

  Total

  6·3

  4·9

  4·8

  5·0

  4·5

  5·2

  20·6

  22·4

  26·3

  100

  6·6

  Female

  Clwyd

  13·4

  7·1

  7·1

  5·8

  6·8

  5·8

  26·3

  18·1

  9·7

  100

  0·8

  Dyfed

  18·0

  7·7

  6·1

  6·3

  4·7

  6·5

  18·8

  15·7

  16·1

  100

  0·8

  Gwent

  14·8

  8·3

  7·4

  4·5

  4·6

  4·1

  22·7

  17·9

  15·7

  100

  1·0

  Gwynedd

  13·4

  7·3

  4·4

  5·3

  4·5

  7·1

  25·6

  15·4

  17·1

  100

  0·6

  Mid Glamorgan

  8·5

  8·7

  5·1

  5·0

  3·8

  6·4

  23·6

  20·1

  18·7

  100

  1·1

  Powys

  22·4

  8·3

  5·8

  8·7

  2·5

  5·1

  20·6

  8·7

  18·1

  100

  0·3

  South Glamorgan

  18·1

  10·1

  7·0

  4·7

  5·6

  4·2

  20·5

  16·9

  12·9

  100

  0·8

  West Glamorgan

  15·4

  4·9

  7·0

  5·0

  4·6

  4·0

  19·9

  19·9

  19·3

  100

  0·8

  Total

  14·6

  7·8

  6·3

  5·3

  4·8

  5·4

  22·4

  17·5

  15·8

  100

  6·2

  1 These figures are based on secondary school staffing survey carried out in February 1989. Seventy-eight per cent, of teachers responded to the survey and thus figures shown are estimates based on grossed data.

  120
  Mr. Roberts
  The information requested is available only in the form of estimates produced from the 1987 primary schools staffing survey and the 1989 secondary schools staffing survey, and is provided in the following tables:

  Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 724, if he will provide the latest available figures on trainees undergoing employment training and training scheme vacancies by county.

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

  County

  Total numbers on employment training at 31 March 1990

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,975

  South Glamorgan

  1,975

  Gwent

  2,536

  Dyfed

  2,466

  West Glamorgan

  2,125

  Clwyd

  2,196

  Powys

  493

  Gwynedd

  1,163

  The figures given in my right hon. Friend's reply of 11 January on unfilled places are the latest available.

  Urban Aid Grants
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make suitable financial arrangements to ensure(a) that successful applicants for urban aid grants in 1990–91 have adequate time to undertake the work set out in their application and (b) that carry-over arrangements arising from this year's late grant decisions are (i) sympathetic to the problems that applicants may have and (b) funded in full by his Department.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on Monday 21 May.

  Homelessness (Grants)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the organisations to which he has given(a) an increase in grant and (b) a decrease in grant in 1990–91 compared with 1989–90 under the system of grants to voluntary organisations working in the field of homelessness together with the actual change and percentage change in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Our Department has given substantial increases in grant to the three voluntary organisations which tackle homelessness on a strategic level. Not including any supplementary grants given in 1989–90, the figures are as follows:

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Differences

  Per cent, increase

  Shelter

  59,115

  114,684

  +55,569

  48

  Welsh Womens Aid (WWA)

  41,832

  63,286

  +21,454

  34

  Swansea

  Accommodation for the single homeless (SASH)

  35,591

  71,150

  +35,559

  50

  Further resources have been made available for this financial year specifically for new initiatives by voluntary bodies in helping to tackle homelessness on a strategic level.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the convictions for river pollution in Wales and, in each case, show the contravention, the polluter and the river polluted.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the National Rivers Authority.

  Cheese
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the marketing of Welsh cheese.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I take every opportunity to urge all Welsh producers to improve the marketing arid presentation of their products. The Welsh Development Agency, through its Welsh food initiative, assists food producers to market their products. "Good Food from Wales", compiled by the Welsh food initiative, includes 28 cheese companies.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria are used by his Department to measure the efficiency of health authorities, and facilities within health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to section VI of the "Corporate Management Programme for the Health Service in Wales", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  The corporate management programme is currently being developed to take account of the changes proposed in the White Papers "Working for Patients" and "Caring for People".

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners there are in each health district in Wales on the latest available information; and how many registered patients there are in each such area.

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

  Family Practitioner Committee

  Number of principals1

  Registered patients2

  Clwyd

  214

  415,469

  Dyfed

  206

  354,261

  Gwent

  241

  456,739

  Gwynedd

  147

  242,277

  Mid Glamorgan

  295

  560,040

  Powys

  76

  123,820

  South Glamorgan

  226

  426,692

  West Glamorgan

  194

  380,580

  1 Unrestricted principals as at 1 October 1988

  2 Number of patients on lists of unrestricted principals for whom the FPC was responsible.

  Registered Child Minders
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered child minders there are in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of registered child minders in Wales as at 31 March 1989 is 3,448.

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

  Mr. Grist
  The available information is shown in the following table, for 1987–88 and 1988–89. Figures for the years before 1987–88 are not readily available.

  1987–88

  1988–89

  actual £

  constant1 £

  actual £

  Clwyd

  1·49

  1·60

  1·63

  East Dyfed

  1·64

  1·76

  1·50

  Gwent

  1·64

  1·76

  1·77

  Gwynedd

  1·66

  1·78

  1·73

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·85

  1·98

  1·83

  Powys

  1·46

  1·56

  1·69

  South Glamorgan

  1·49

  1·60

  1·57

  West Glamorgan

  1·63

  1·75

  1·83

  Pembrokeshire2

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  1·60

  1·71

  1·67

  1 Revalued to 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator.

  2 Not available as catering is 'contracted out'.

  Cardiff Shooting Range
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) on what date the factories inspectorate was called to visit the national sports centre for Wales; when the visit took place; and what reports were made;

  (2) on what dates the Health and Safety Executive was called to visit the national sports centre, Cardiff shooting range; for what reasons it visited; and what reports were received.

  District health authorities revenue formula shares Resource formula for distribution in Wales

  Recurrent allocation

  Residual allocation (after removal of "protected" services from formula assessment)

  Formula assessment

  Over (-) Under (+) provision relative to formula assessment

  £

  percentage

  £ million

  percentage

  1984–85

  Clwyd

  71·686

  59·848

  61·934

  13·32

  +2086

  +2·9

  East Dyfed

  44·318

  36·215

  36·603

  7·87

  +0·388

  +0·9

  Pembrokeshire

  14·485

  13·958

  15·548

  3·34

  +1·590

  +11·0

  Gwent

  89·021

  75·972

  71·868

  15·45

  -4·104

  -4·6

  Gwynedd

  43·689

  39·277

  36·873

  7·93

  -2·404

  -5·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  102·483

  81·544

  82·580

  17·75

  +1·036

  +10

  Powys

  20·432

  13·203

  13·340

  2·87

  +0·137

  +0·7

  South Glamorgan

  117·123

  78·186

  78·489

  16·88

  +0·303

  +0·3

  West Glamorgan

  74·381

  66·872

  67·840

  14·59

  +0·968

  +1·3

  577·618

  465·075

  465·075

  —

  —

  1984–85 prices

  1984–86

  Clwyd

  76·323

  64·226

  64·451

  13·21

  +0·225

  +0·3

  East Dyfed

  47·598

  38·748

  38·029

  7·79

  -0·719

  -1·5

  Pembrokeshire

  16·167

  15·658

  17·055

  3·49

  +1·397

  +8·6

  Gwent

  93·328

  76·283

  75·515

  15·47

  -0·768

  -0·8

  Gwynedd

  45·988

  39·952

  38·892

  7·97

  -1·060

  -2·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  108·250

  85·455

  84·639

  17·34

  -0·816

  -0·8

  Powys

  21·475

  14·484

  14·837

  3·04

  +0·353

  +1·6

  South Glamorgan

  124·125

  82·600

  85·127

  17·45

  +2·527

  +2·0

  West Glamorgan

  78·640

  70·654

  69·515

  14·24

  -1·139

  -1·4

  611·894

  488·060

  488·060

  —

  —

  1985–86 prices

  124
  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: Staff of the factory inspectorate, an arm of the Health and Safety Executive, visited the shooting range at the national sports centre, Cardiff on 6 May 1988 and subsequent occasions. The recommendations by the inspectorate and subsequent action taken are matters for the Sports Council for Wales, and I have arranged for the hon. Gentleman's questions to be drawn to the attention of the council.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales under what circumstances safety inspections of the back plate at the shooting range at the national sports centre for Wales at Cardiff are carried out.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: This is a matter for the Sports Council for Wales which is responsible for the management of the shooting range at the national sports centre, Cardiff and I have arranged for the hon. Gentleman's question to be drawn to the attention of the council.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the relative over or underprovision of revenue to each of the nine district health authorities in Wales for the five years 1984–85 to 1989–90 relative to the RAWG formula, expressed in both money terms and as percentage variations.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 15 May 1990]: The information requested in respect of the RAWG revenue formula assessments for the years 1984–85 to 1989–90 is as follows:
  125

  Recurrent allocation

  Residual allocation (after removal of "protected" services from formula assessment)

  Formula assessment

  Over ( - ) Under ( + ) provision relative to formula assessment

  £

  percentage

  £ million

  percentage

  1986–87

  Clwyd

  77·850

  65·212

  64·797

  13·37

  -0·415

  -0·5

  East Dyfed

  48·262

  38·755

  40·890

  8·43

  +2·135

  +4·4

  Pembrokeshire

  16·725

  16·227

  17·636

  3·64

  +1·409

  +8·4

  Gwent

  94·148

  73·673

  73·907

  15·25

  +0·234

  +0·2

  Gwynedd

  46·984

  41·429

  38·878

  8·02

  -2·551

  -5·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  110·210

  86·449

  86·554

  17·85

  +0·095

  +0·1

  Powys

  21·806

  14·582

  15·054

  3·11

  +0·472

  +2·2

  South Glamorgan

  126·507

  77·561

  79·145

  16·33

  +1·584

  +1·3

  West Glamorgan

  10·385

  70·810

  67·847

  14·00

  -2·963

  -3·7

  622·877

  484·698

  484·698

  —

  —

  1986–87 prices

  1987–88

  Clwyd

  82·067

  67·919

  69·443

  13·65

  +1·524

  +1·9

  East Dyfed

  51·397

  41·314

  42·593

  8·37

  +1·279

  -2·5

  Pembrokeshire

  17·806

  17·119

  18·828

  3·70

  +1·709

  +9·6

  Gwent

  99·272

  76·428

  77·607

  15·25

  +1·179

  +1·2

  Gwynedd

  49·510

  43·416

  41·533

  8·16

  -1·883

  -3·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  117·097

  91·857

  91·077

  17·89

  -0·780

  -0·7

  Powys

  23·52

  15·662

  15·664

  3·08

  +0·002

  —

  South Glamorgan

  134·535

  81·424

  80·413

  15·80

  -1·011

  -0·8

  West Glamorgan

  86·684

  73·758

  71·739

  14·10

  -2·019

  -2·3

  661·520

  508·897

  508·897

  —

  —

  1986–87 prices

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  87·962

  72·259

  74·448

  13·69

  +2·189

  +2·5

  East Dyfed

  55·641

  44·365

  45·896

  8·44

  +1·531

  +2·8

  Pembrokeshire

  20·441

  19·246

  20·314

  3·74

  +1·068

  +5·2

  Gwent

  106·049

  81·616

  83·380

  15·34

  +1·764

  +1·7

  Gwynedd

  53·399

  46·065

  44·386

  8·16

  -1·679

  -3·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  124·949

  98·184

  98·465

  18·11

  +0·281

  +0·2

  Powys

  24·799

  16·371

  16·393

  3·02

  +0·022

  +0·1

  South Glamorgan

  144·113

  86·787

  84·741

  15·59

  -2·046

  -1·4

  West Glamorgan

  92·390

  78·776

  75·646

  13·91

  -3·130

  -3·4

  709·743

  543·669

  543·669

  1987–88 prices

  1989–90

  Clwyd

  101·760

  83·408

  84·663

  13·58

  +1·255

  +1·2

  East Dyfed

  65·444

  52·105

  53·802

  8·63

  +1·697

  +2·6

  Pembrokeshire

  24·198

  22·839

  23·254

  3·73

  +0·415

  +1·7

  Gwent

  121·691

  94·752

  95·386

  15·30

  +0·634

  +0·5

  Gwynedd

  61·411

  51·914

  51·244

  8·22

  -0·668

  -1·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  143·180

  111·655

  113·153

  18·15

  +1·498

  +1·0

  Powys

  28·382

  18·181

  19·202

  3·08

  +1·021

  +3·6

  South Glamorgan

  164·856

  98·776

  96·196

  15·43

  -2·580

  -1·6

  West Glamorgan

  105·570

  89·805

  86·533

  13·88

  -3·272

  -3·1

  816·492

  623·435

  623·435

  1988–89 prices

  Note: Formula assessments taking into account all outstanding funding for this revenue costs of new hospital development.

  It should be noted that the authorities' target percentage formula shares have changed over time as a result of demographic changes and also changes to the structure of the formula.

  It should also be noted that the assessments are made before the determination of revenue provision for the years in question and therefore each assessment is based on allocations in the year immediately preceding that for which the assessment is made. The assessments are then taken into account in determining allocations for the years in question via the distribution of such funding as is made
  126
  available for equalisation purposes. This is shown in the following tables which express initial revenue allocations for the years in question in terms of distance from the percentage formula targets given in the previous tables and thus show the impact of equalisation funding in reducing the range of difference from target as between authorities.
  127

  Resource formula for distribution in Wales

  District health authority

  Recurrent allocation

  Residual allocation (after removal of "protected" services from formula assessment)

  Formula assessment

  Over ( - ) Under ( + ) provision relative to formula assessment

  £

  percentage

  £ million

  percentage

  1984–85

  Clwyd

  72·819

  60·981

  62·587

  13·32

  +1·606

  +2·2

  East Dyfed

  44·816

  36·713

  37·023

  7·88

  +0·310

  +0·7

  Pembrokeshire

  15·359

  14·832

  15·711

  3·34

  +0·879

  +5·7

  Gwent

  89·133

  76·084

  72·622

  15·45

  -3·462

  -3·9

  Gwynedd

  43·717

  39·305

  37·261

  7·93

  -2·044

  -4·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  103·159

  82·220

  83·451

  17·75

  +1·231

  +1·2

  Powys

  20·509

  13·280

  13·480

  2·87

  +0·200

  +1·0

  South Glamorgan

  118·024

  79·087

  79·317

  16·87

  +0·230

  +0·2

  West Glamorgan

  75·015

  67·506

  68·556

  14·59

  -1·050

  +1·4

  582·551

  470·008

  470·008

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85 prices

  1985–86

  Clwyd

  77·337

  65·240

  65·583

  13·20

  +0·343

  +0·4

  East Dyfed

  47·904

  39·054

  38·755

  7·80

  -0·299

  -0·6

  Pembrokeshire

  16·591

  16·082

  17·353

  3·49

  +1·271

  +7·7

  Gwent

  94·041

  76·996

  76·837

  15·47

  -0·159

  -0·2

  Gwynedd

  46·768

  40·732

  39·572

  7·97

  -1·160

  -2·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  110·182

  87·387

  86·128

  17·35

  -1·259

  -1·1

  Powys

  21·678

  14·687

  15·097

  3·04

  +0·410

  +1·9

  South Glamorgan

  125·886

  84·361

  86·623

  17·44

  +2·262

  +1·8

  West Glamorgan

  80·134

  72·148

  70·739

  14·24

  -1·409

  -1·8

  620·521

  496·687

  496·687

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86 prices

  1986–87

  Clwyd

  82·063

  68·856

  68·741

  13·37

  -0·115

  -0·1

  East Dyfed

  51·239

  41·304

  43·400

  8·44

  +2·096

  +4·1

  Pembrokeshire

  17·858

  17·710

  18·710

  3·64

  +1·372

  +7·7

  Gwent

  99·396

  78·000

  78·407

  15·25

  +0·407

  +0·4

  Gwynedd

  49·417

  43·612

  41·245

  8·02

  -2·367

  -4·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  116·477

  91·647

  91·817

  17·85

  +0·170

  +0·1

  Powys

  23·002

  15·453

  15·971

  3·11

  +0·518

  +2·3

  South Glamorgan

  133·578

  82·429

  83·972

  16·32

  +1·543

  +1·2

  West Glamorgan

  85·615

  75·609

  71·985

  14·00

  -3·624

  -4·2

  658·645

  514·248

  514·248

  —

  —

  1986–87 prices

  1987–88

  Clwyd

  87·433

  72·779

  74·669

  13·64

  +1·890

  +2·2

  East Dyfed

  54·555

  44·408

  45·849

  8·38

  +1·441

  +2·6

  Pembrokeshire

  20·110

  19·397

  20·244

  3·70

  +0·847

  +4·2

  Gwent

  105·568

  81·999

  83·447

  15·25

  +1·448

  +1·4

  Gwynedd

  52·599

  46·276

  44·659

  8·16

  -1·617

  -3·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  124·401

  98·214

  97·931

  17·89

  -0·283

  -0·2

  Powys

  24·751

  16·980

  16·843

  3·08

  -0·137

  -0·6

  South Glamorgan

  142·742

  88·537

  86·464

  15·80

  -2·073

  -1·5

  West Glamorgan

  92·048

  78·653

  77·137

  14·10

  -1·516

  -1·6

  704·207

  547·243

  547·243

  —

  —

  1987–88 prices

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  95·180

  78·331

  80·588

  13·67

  +2·257

  +2·4

  East Dyfed

  59·759

  49·486

  50·699

  8·60

  +1·213

  +2·0

  Pembrokeshire

  22·674

  21·395

  21·989

  3·735

  +0·594

  +2·6

  Gwent

  114·532

  88·223

  90·257

  15·31

  +2·034

  +1·8

  Gwynedd

  57·787

  49·593

  48·047

  8·15

  -1·546

  -2·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  134·733

  106·044

  106·586

  18·08

  +0·542

  +0·4

  Powys

  26,978

  17·836

  17·745

  3·01

  -0·091

  -0·3

  South Glamorgan

  154·986

  93·931

  91·730

  15·56

  -2·201

  -1·4

  West Glamorgan

  99·349

  84·687

  81·885

  13·89

  -2·802

  -2·8

  765·978

  589·526

  589·526

  —

  —

  —

  1988–90 prices

  1989–90

  Clwyd

  106·334

  87·161

  88·189

  13·58

  +1·028

  +1·0

  East Dyfed

  68·872

  55·376

  56·043

  8·63

  +0·667

  +1·0

  Pembrokeshire

  25·383

  23·977

  24·223

  3·73

  +0·246

  +1·0

  128 129

  District health authority

  Recurrent allocation

  Residual allocation (after removal of "protected" services from formula assessment)

  Formula assessment

  Over ( - ) Under ( + ) provision relative to formula assessment

  £

  percentage

  £ million

  percentage

  Gwent

  126·560

  98·505

  99·358

  15·30

  +0·853

  +0·7

  Gwynedd

  63·703

  53·893

  53·381

  8·22

  -0·512

  -0·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  148·905

  116·411

  117·866

  15·15

  +1·455

  +1·0

  Powys

  30·321

  19·707

  20·001

  3·08

  +0·294

  +1·0

  South Glamorgan

  170·561

  101·081

  100·202

  15·43

  -0·879

  -0·5

  West Glamorgan

  109·590

  93·289

  90·137

  13·88

  -3·152

  -2·9

  850·229

  649·400

  649·400

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90 prices

  Note: Formula assessment taking into account all outstanding funding for this revenue cost of new capital development.

  Crown Offices
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Crown offices in Wales have been(a) closed and (b) regraded following the setting up of the franchising programme for the Post Office counter business.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that no Crown offices have been closed in the Principality, and that 14 Crown offices have been regraded as part of the Post Office's network conversion programme.

PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress is being made with the Government's review of the operation of the community charge.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are taking into account the various suggestions which have been made on the operation of the community charge and will announce the results of the review in due course.

  German Unification
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the cost to member states of the reunification of Germany within the European Economic Community; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  This matter was considered at the informal summit on 28 April about which I informed the House on 1 May. The financial effects of the integration into the Economic Community of the territory which is now the German Democratic Republic are inevitably uncertain, given the lack of any reliable economic statistics for the German Democratic Republic, the unknown timing of unification, and the inevitable unreliability of present estimates of the likely effect on the German Democratic Republic economy of(a) German economic and monetary union this summer and (b) unification, and hence Economic Community entry, next year or later.

  Welsh Office
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will appoint an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Welsh Office.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend has a very experienced ministerial team well able to cover the full range of its responsibilities.

  Engagements
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

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

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House. I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

  Advisers
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of the Prime Minister's advisers who were not career civil servants for each year since 1981, expressed in real terms.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: The expenditure on my advisers who are not career civil servants for each year since 1981, expressed in real terms, is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1981

  55,453

  1982

  109,286

  1983

  169,237

  131

  Year

  £

  1984

  92,771

  1985

  129,261

  1986

  141,683

  1987

  173,116

  1988

  141,965

  1989

  214,807

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently on income support in Ealing; what was the comparable figure five years ago; what percentage of the population this represents in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The London borough of Ealing is served by Ealing district office but the boundaries are not conterminous. From 4 February 1990 Ealing district office took responsibility for income support work previously undertaken by the Department's local offices at Acton, Ealing, Notting Hill and Southall. The comparable figures for the district office area are as follows:

  Number of supplementary benefit/income support claimants1

  Date

  Number

  February 1985

  47,855

  February 1990

  37,039

  1 Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action which include a number where payment has ceased but other action is continuing. Data for February 1990 is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Data on the total population by DSS office area are unavailable.

  Benefits, Northamptonshire
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the number of people presently receiving and the estimated

  Year

  Gross average weekly earnings + family allowance/child benefit £

  Net income after deducting tax and NI contribution £

  Standard rate of unemployment benefit + family allowance/child benefit £

  Net income as percentage of earnings + family allowance/ child benefit Per cent.

  Benefit as percentage of net income Per cent.

  (a) Married couple with 2 children

  October 1972

  40·60

  32·50

  15·10

  80·0

  46·5

  November 1982

  172·30

  124·20

  52·75

  72·1

  42·5

  April 1987

  238·50

  177·50

  65·35

  74·4

  36·8

  April 1989

  284·00

  213·40

  70·60

  75·1

  33·1

  (b) Single person (family allowance/child benefit does not apply)

  October 1972

  39·70

  28·80

  6·75

  72·5

  23·4

  November 1982

  160·60

  107·40

  25·00

  66·9

  23·3

  April 1987

  224·00

  155·90

  31·45

  69·6

  20·2

  April 1989

  269·50

  191·30

  34·70

  71·0

  18·1

  Note: Figures taken from the Abstract of Statistics for Index of Retail Prices Average Earnings Social Security Benefits and Contributions, Table 6.1b, except for revised figures for April 1989, which will be published in August 1990.
  132
  cost to each local authority in Northamptonshire of (a) housing benefit and (b) income support and housing benefit; and what comparable figures he has for 12 months ago.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information for the current financial year is not comparable with 1989–90 because rate rebates in housing benefit have been replaced by community charge benefit. A count of the numbers receiving benefits on 31 May 1990 will be taken by local authorities with the result becoming available later in the summer. The local authority initial estimates of 1990–91 total expenditure on housing benefit and community charge benefit are in the table. I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 5 March at col.527 which gave information for 1989–90.

  Housing benefit and community charge benefit Local authority initial expenditure estimates 1990–91

  £ million

  Corby

  n/a

  Daventry

  3·8

  East Northampton

  4·0

  Kettering

  6·1

  Northampton

  15·2

  South Northants

  2·7

  Wellingborough

  6·2

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a chart or table showing unemployment benefit as a percentage of average earnings for the years 1972, 1982, 1987 and 1989(a) for a worker with two children and (b) for a single worker tabulated against equivalent figures in each case for European Community countries.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information for Great Britain is shown in the table. Equivalent information for other European Community countries is not available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the actual expenditure per head of British citizens on advertising the rights of overseas voters under the Representation of the People Act 1989, for each overseas country, in 1989–90; if he will give a detailed breakdown of expenditure in South Africa by press, television and radio; and if he will give the apportionment of expenditure in South Africa by ethnic grouping.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table gives estimates of the expenditure per head on publicity/advertising in each country, based on estimates of the number of British citizens living in each country who are likely to have spent less than 20 years there.

  In South Africa, advertisements are being placed in The Star (Johannesburg), the Sunday Times (Johannesburg), The Argus (Cape Town), the Cape Times and the Daily News (Durban), costing a total of £7,676. In addition, a total of £2,250 has been allocated to diplomatic posts in South Africa for local publicity or advertising. No advertising is being done on radio or television.

  The advertising and publicity in South Africa is aimed at British citizens living there; expenditure has not been apportioned on the basis of ethnic grouping.

  Electoral registration overseas:

  Estimated expenditure per eligible British citizen, by country, of Home Office/Foreign and Commonwealth Office expenditure on publicity/advertising in 1990–91

  Country

  Expenditure per head £

  Algeria

  8·81

  Angola

  0·75

  Antigua

  6·50

  Argentina

  1·24

  Ascension

  0·32

  Australia

  0·06

  Austria

  1·33

  Bahamas

  0·30

  Bahrain

  0·18

  Bangladesh

  3·66

  Barbados

  0·48

  Belgium

  0·07

  Belize

  2·50

  Benin

  0·10

  Bermuda

  0·86

  Botswana

  0·14

  Brazil

  1·65

  Brunei

  0·32

  Bulgaria

  0·50

  Burma

  0·66

  Cameroon

  0·10

  Canada

  0·04

  Canary Islands

  0·15

  Cayman Islands

  0·02

  Chile

  1·60

  China.

  2·65

  Colombia

  1·50

  Costa Rica

  1·25

  Cuba

  2·50

  Cyprus

  2·47

  Czechoslovakia

  5·00

  Denmark

  0·26

  East Germany

  0·43

  Ecuador

  2·08

  E1 Salvador

  12·50

  Egypt

  0·17

  Ethiopia

  0·33

  134

  Country

  Expenditure per head £

  Falkland Islands

  0·74

  Fiji

  0·83

  Finland

  7·33

  France

  0·12

  Gabon

  0·75

  Gambia

  8·33

  Ghana

  0·04

  Gibraltar

  0·55

  Greece

  0·38

  Grenada

  0·33

  Guatemala

  5·00

  Guinea

  4·60

  Guinea-Bissau

  0·50

  Guyana

  1·23

  Honduras

  2·22

  Hong Kong

  0·21

  Hungary

  0·11

  Ireland

  2·38

  India

  0·50

  Indonesia

  1·03

  Israel

  0·10

  Italy

  1·06

  Ivory Coast

  0·02

  Jamaica

  1·03

  Japan

  16·41

  Jordan

  0·20

  Kenya

  0·37

  Kiribati

  4·44

  Korea

  1·56

  Kuwait

  0·34

  Lebanon

  0·22

  Leeward Islands

  0·10

  Lesotho

  0·42

  Liberia

  1·38

  Luxembourg

  0·60

  Madagascar

  0·90

  Malawi

  0·08

  Malaysia

  0·43

  Malta

  0·80

  Mauritius

  0·22

  Mexico

  1·15

  Montserrat

  1·00

  Morocco

  3·07

  Mozambique

  0·29

  Nepal

  0·20

  Netherlands

  0·39

  New Zealand

  0·03

  Nicaragua

  0·60

  Nigeria

  0·44

  North Yemen

  1·43

  Norway

  0·50

  Oman

  0·36

  Pakistan

  1·15

  Panama

  2·50

  Papua New Guinea

  0·52

  Paraguay

  2·00

  Peru

  5·30

  Philippines

  2·23

  Poland

  0·20

  Portugal

  0·44

  Qatar

  0·25

  Republic of Ireland

  0·01

  Romania

  5·00

  St. Helena

  0·10

  St. Kitts

  0·25

  St. Vincent

  0·19

  Saudi Arabia

  0·17

  Senegal

  5·89

  Seychelles

  0·67

  Singapore

  0·77

  Solomon Islands

  0·38

  Somalia

  0·07

  South Africa

  0·05

  Spain

  0·39

  Sri Lanka

  0·10

  Sudan

  0·05

  135

  Country

  Expenditure per head £

  Swaziland

  0·18

  Sweden

  0·29

  Switzerland

  0·42

  Syria

  1·73

  Tanzania

  0·18

  Thailand

  0·83

  Tonga

  0·10

  Trinidad

  1·03

  Tristan da Cunha

  1·10

  Tunisia

  6·13

  Turkey

  1·56

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  0·10

  Uganda

  0·82

  United Arab Emirates

  0·15

  Uruguay

  0·50

  United States of America

  0·09

  USSR

  0·75

  Vanuatu

  0·33

  Venezuela

  0·33

  Vietnam

  7·50

  Virgin Islands

  1·36

  West Germany

  0·30

  Yugoslavia

  4·75

  Zaire

  1·50

  Zambia

  0·31

  Zimbabwe

  0·22

  Unsolved Crimes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the number and percentage of crimes that are unsolved in each police force for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the main reasons for such unsolved crimes.

  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available information is the number and percentage of recorded crimes that were cleared up in each police force area in 1986–89. For 1986–88 the information is published in tables 2.18 and 2.19 of "Criminal statistics, England and Wales". For 1989 the information is given in the following table. Although there are many reasons why crimes are not solved, a major factor is likely to be inadequate information or evidence on which to base further inquiries.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police which were cleared up by police force area

  England and Wales 1989

  Police force area

  Number cleared up

  Percentage cleared up

  Avon and Somerset

  32,135

  33

  Bedfordshire

  13,592

  34

  Cambridgeshire

  13,707

  38

  Cheshire

  23,121

  52

  Cleveland

  21,029

  36

  Cumbria

  13,343

  49

  Derbyshire

  16,621

  37

  Devon and Cornwall

  26,848

  36

  Dorset

  16,520

  42

  Durham

  17,622

  42

  Essex

  23,814

  32

  Gloucestershire

  12,496

  36

  Greater Manchester

  82,227

  30

  Hampshire

  31,023

  32

  Hertfordshire

  17,678

  44

  Humberside

  31,073

  35

  Kent

  25,350

  32

  Lancashire

  31,011

  40

  Leicestershire

  21,345

  40

  Lincolnshire

  14,276

  42

  London, City of

  1,424

  20

  Merseyside

  57,670

  45

  136

  Police force area

  Number cleared up

  Percentage cleared up

  Metropolitan Police District

  127,984

  17

  Norfolk

  17,671

  40

  Northamptonshire

  16,264

  43

  Northumbria

  67,880

  40

  North Yorkshire

  12,092

  35

  Nottinghamshire

  35,607

  35

  South Yorkshire

  39,222

  43

  Staffordshire

  24,874

  43

  Suffolk

  13,222

  43

  Surrey

  10,944

  33

  Sussex

  22,727

  31

  Thames Valley

  39,142

  33

  Warwickshire

  8,697

  35

  West Mercia

  19,290

  39

  West Midlands

  87,225

  39

  Women Police Officers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of women police officers in the north Wales constabulary area, and the ranks held, showing the appropriate percentage in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The position as at 31 March 1990 was as follows:

  Women police officers

  Rank

  Number

  Percentage of strength

  Inspector

  2

  3·0

  Sergeant

  7

  3·3

  Constable

  127

  12·7

  TOTAL

  136

  10·1

  NATO Civil Wartime Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 27 April,Official Report, column 362 when he expects an agreement to be drawn up to cover the legal aspects of the proposed employment of United Kingdom civil servants as staff of NATO civil wartime agencies; when he expects agreement to be reached on the status under international law for United Kingdom civil servants and representatives of private industry when they take up their proposed roles as NATO civil wartime agencies staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  An ad hoc group within NATO headquarters is considering the status and employment of NATO civil wartime agency staff. I am not yet able to say when agreements will be reached.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations involved in civic emergency disaster planning in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  Planning for peacetime emergencies involves a very wide range of organisations. These include central and local government, emergency services, the public utilities and voluntary organisations, but other organisations may also be involved.
  137
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the civil emergency disaster planning organisations to bring them under one body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1989 the Home Office completed a review of the response to civil emergencies. The Government concluded that the prime responsibility for handling particular disasters should remain at the local level but that there should be improved arrangements for co-ordinated emergency planning. These conclusions were announced in a written answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 15 June 1989 at column 514.

  A civil emergencies adviser was appointed following the review and one of the matters he is considering is how planning procedures might be improved.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by year for the last 10 years in real terms the amount spent on civil defence emergency planning.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested, at 1990–91 prices, is as follows:

  £ thousands

  1980–81

  62,587

  1981–82

  51,261

  1982–83

  78,338

  1983–84

  93,712

  1984–85

  93,336

  1985–86

  109,449

  1986–87

  111,019

  1987–88

  116,643

  1988–89

  122,899

  1989–90

  1129,229

  1 Estimated.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will carry out a review to give fire and civil defence authorities the same statutory powers as county councils in dealing with emergency planning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Under section 156 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, fire and civil defence authorities have power to incur expenditure in preparing emergency plans for a possible emergency or disaster.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to change those arrangements. He has, however, asked his civil emergencies adviser, Mr. Brook, to consider whether there should be a statutory duty on local authorities to plan for peacetime emergencies. His report is awaited.

  Prison Deaths
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will detail the circumstances which led to a prisoner dying from burns on 23 March 1989, having been transferred to hospital from Gloucester prison;

  (2) if he will detail the circumstances which led to a prisoner dying of drug poisoning in Pentonville prison on 22 March 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount of civil defence grant aid for staff costs, building work and other costs in financial years from 1983–84 to 1988–89 and projected for 1989–90, received by each metropolitan district.

  Mr. John Patten
  The total amount of civil defence grant paid to each metropolitan district in respect of the financial years 1985–86 to 1988–89 is shown in the table. Figures for individual districts are not yet available in respect of 1989–90. Figures for 1983–85 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Total civil defence grant paid in respect of financial years 1985–86 to 1988–89

  Metropolitan districts

  1985–86 (£)

  1986–87 (£)

  1987–88 (£)

  1988–89 (£)

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  3,679

  3,757

  4,220

  4,959

  Bury

  1,481

  2,038

  1,801

  1,890

  Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oldham

  1,240

  2,000

  2,397

  3,696

  Rochdale

  2,407

  2,427

  2,430

  2,327

  Salford

  970

  990

  —

  —

  Stockport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tameside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trafford

  3,713

  6,244

  547

  443

  Wigan

  574

  560

  416

  2,028

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  775

  1,007

  1,005

  957

  Liverpool

  2,405

  3,008

  3,073

  —

  St. Helens

  —

  125

  125

  —

  Sefton

  350

  350

  350

  366

  Wirral

  559

  678

  599

  682

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  1,283

  1,566

  1,624

  1,515

  Doncaster

  2,010

  2,448

  2,840

  2,897

  Rotherham

  1,470

  1,419

  1,567

  1,778

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,405

  1,406

  1,428

  1,493

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  3,784

  4,054

  4,227

  4,061

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coventry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dudley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Solihull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Walsall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  1,373

  1,465

  1,549

  —

  Calderdale

  2,455

  2,574

  3,039

  —

  Kirklees

  1—1,557

  1—15,705

  3,445

  —

  Leeds

  949

  1,050

  1,100

  —

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Income from the sale of premises previously funded by grant aid.

  Expatriate Voters
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many expatriates have had a vote registered in the United Kingdom under the 1989 Act; and if he will give a breakdown of the countries where they are resident.
  139
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested will not become available until draft electoral registers for 1991–92 are published, on or before 28 November this year.

  Metropolitan Police
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the national and international policing functions which are exercised by the Metropolitan police or in premises under their control; and if he will describe the funding arrangements for each.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Immigration
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the criteria adopted under the present immigration rules in deciding whether the non-United Kingdom spouse of a United Kingdom citizen has the right to settle in the United Kingdom;

  (2) whether the non-United Kingdom spouses of British citizens have an absolute right to enter the United Kingdom under the immigration rules;

  (3) what right the non-United Kingdom spouse of a United Kingdom citizen who has lived in the United Kingdom for a period of three years has to settle in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the immigration rules, a person who wishes to settle in the United Kingdom with a spouse who is a British citizen must hold a current entry clearance granted for that purpose. An applicant must satisfy the entry clearance officer:

  a. that the marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain permission to the United Kingdom; and

  b. that each of the parties has the intention of living permanently with the other as his or her spouse; and

  c. that the parties to the marriage have met; and

  d. that there will be adequate accommodation for the parties and their dependants without recourse to public funds in accommodation of their own or which they occupy themselves; and

  e. that the parties will be able to maintain themselves and their dependants adequately without recourse to public funds.

  A person holding an entry clearance issued for this purpose is normally admitted for an initial period of 12 months and granted settlement at the end of that period provided that the conditions are still met.

  The spouse of a British citizen may apply for British citizenship by naturalisation after three years' residence in the United Kingdom. Naturalisation is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Among other requirements set out in schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981, applicants must be of full age and capacity, good character, and meet specified periods of residence in the United Kingdom.

  In 1989, 320 spouses and finance(e)s resident in Hong Kong were granted entry clearances to settle in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage to British citizens and six applications were refused.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the definition of a common and exclusive boundary, in connection with the regulations covering concessionary television licences for old people.
  140
  Mr. Mellor
  The Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1988 require that for the occupants to qualify for concessionary television licences sheltered accommodation must, among other things, comprise a group of at least four dwellings "within a common and exclusive boundary". This is not further defined in statute. Each application is considered on its merits, bearing in mind the intention of the regulations that only sheltered accommodation which is directly comparable to residential homes should qualify.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to assure himself that experiments carried out by Professor Wilhelm Feldberg and his staff were in accordance with the project licence provided by the Home Office under section 5 of the Animal Scientific Procedures Act 1986.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been sent a report and an edited video recording concerned with, among other matters, alleged failures of Professor Feldberg's anaesthetic techniques. This material has been passed to the inspectorate and a report will also be prepared for the animal procedures committee. The licences held by Professor Feldberg and his assistant were revoked earlier at their request.

HEALTH

  Hospital Accident and Emergency Units
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the hospital accident and emergency units open in December 1989;

  (2) how many existing hospital accident and emergency units are open for less than 24 hours a day.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information which has been placed in the Library shows(a) the 418 hospital sites which reported that on 31 March 1989 they had an accident and emergency department open a full seven days a week and (b) the 91 who reported that they had an accident and emergency department open less than a full seven days per week.

  (Note:—Data on hours of opening were not received on 2 accident and emergency departments, Hemel Hempstead hospital, NW Herts DHA and St. Richards, Chichester DHA.)

  Community Care
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I hold regular formal and informal meetings with the ADSS. No firm date has been arranged for the next meeting.

  Ambulance Service (Crewe and Nantwich)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will initiate an immediate inquiry into the response times of the ambulance service in the Crewe and Nantwich area;
  141
  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that sufficient funding is made available to Mersey regional health authority to provide for the urgent recruitment of sufficient ambulance personnel to ensure the provision of an accident and emergency service in the Crewe and Nantwich area;

  (3) if he will hold immediate talks with Mersey regional health authority about the provision of emergency ambulance services in the Crewe and Nantwich area.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Responsibility for ambulance services in Cheshire is a matter for Chester health authority. Resources are allocated to Chester health authority by the Mersey regional health authority taking into account the level and extent of services required in the districts within Cheshire. Chester health authority has recently taken measures to improve the service, including an improvement in response times. The hon. Member may care to contact the chairman of Chester health authority for details.

  Medicine Imports
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many licences for parallel imports of medicines have been granted by his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about the number of licences for parallel imports granted by the Medicines Control Agency is published regularly in MAIL (Medicines Act Information Letter). The most recent edition (April 1990) states that as at 31 January 1990, 2,200 licences had been issued. A copy is available in the Library.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the reasons why the new precautionary measures required by the Medicines Control Agency to detect possible counterfeit

  £

  Group

  1 September 1986

  1 September 1987

  1 September 1988

  1 September 1989

  1 January 1990

  District General Managers

  DGM 1

  From

  33,500

  35,175

  37,110

  39,520

  40,500

  To

  44,220

  46,431

  48,985

  56,513

  58,500

  DGM 2

  From

  32,000

  33,600

  35,450

  37,750

  38,250

  To

  42,240

  44,352

  46,794

  53,983

  55,250

  DGM 3

  From

  30,500

  32,025

  33,790

  35,990

  35,000

  To

  40,260

  42,273

  44,603

  51,466

  50,750

  Unit General Managers

  UGM 1

  From

  28,000

  29,400

  31,020

  33,040

  35,000

  To

  38,640

  40,572

  42,808

  49,395

  50,750

  UGM 2

  From

  25,500

  26,775

  28,250

  30,090

  30,750

  To

  35,190

  36,950

  38,985

  44,985

  44,500

  UGM 3

  From

  23,000

  24,150

  25,480

  27,140

  27,750

  To

  31,740

  33,327

  35,162

  >40,574

  40,250

  UGM 4

  From

  20,000

  21,000

  22,160

  23,600

  24,000

  To

  27,600

  28,980

  30,581

  35,282

  34,750

  UGM 5

  From

  16,500

  17,325

  18,280

  19,470

  —

  To

  22,770

  23,909

  25,226

  29,108

  —

  Notes:

  1. The higher figures shown include the maximum loading for job weight and the maximum possible performance-related pay.

  2. The UGM 5 group was merged with UGM 4 from 1 January 1990. This was one of a number of changes introduced to simplify the pay system and make it more flexible.
  142
  medicines among parallel imports from European Community member states do not require batch analysis of all such imports.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No formal representations have been received.

  District Unit Managers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the last salary pay scale per grade for district and unit administrators and by year for district unit managers since that new title became effective.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The minima and maxima of the salary scales for district administrators in 1985–86 were:

  Teaching

  Non-teaching

  Group

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  £

  £

  £

  £

  DHA 1 +

  23,656

  26,933

  —

  —

  DHA 1

  23,247

  26,460

  22,032

  25,343

  DHA 2

  22,849

  25,992

  21,112

  24,650

  DHA 3

  22,490

  25,722

  20,196

  24,235

  There was no scale specifically for unit administrators, but a range of scales depending on the classification of the unit. In 1985–86 these gave a minimum of £9,137 and a maximum of £23,183.

  The pay arrangements introduced for general managers in 1986 are radically different from the old incremental scales for administrators. General managers must be employed on short-term rolling contracts and any increase in their pay depends on performance in achieving their objectives. The table shows the ranges of pay for districts and unit general managers since September 1986.
  143
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the change of responsibilities for district and unit administrators when they became district unit managers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1984 following the NHS management inquiry led by Sir Roy Griffiths the Government issued guidance to health authorities to establish the general management function and to identify individual general managers. Health circular HC(84)13 annex C paragraph 4 contained guidance on the responsibilities of these new managers. This superseded health circular HC(80)8 paragraph 23–25 which contained guidance about the responsibilities of district administrators. Information about the responsibilities of unit administrators is contained in the "Administration and Clerical Staff Whitley Council Handbook" (updated 1984) paragraph 504–505. Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  Mentally Handicapped Patients
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has by local authority, and by year, since his Department's policy of releasing mentally handicapped patients into the community, on how many committed suicide.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  HIV-positive Babies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year for the last five years and by regional health authority the number of babies that have had blood samples taken and been found to be HIV positive.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The table shows the annual national totals reported to the communicable disease surveillance centre. In line with the procedure followed in reports under the AIDS (Control) Act, and to safeguard confidentiality actual figures in the range of one to nine diagnosed in individual regional health authorities are not published.

  Reported HIV antibody positive persons aged less than one year1

  Number

  1985

  1

  1986

  5

  1987

  9

  1988

  16

  1989

  11

  1990

  5

  1 It should be noted that a positive test from a newborn baby indicates that the mother is infected but whether or not the baby is infected cannot be confirmed by antibody tests for some months.

  Creutzfeldt Jakob Dementia
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis he is collating information relating to Creutzfeldt Jakob dementia; if he will publish the latest information that he has; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of Health has funded Dr. R. G. Will of Edinburgh university to investigate all relevant details of United Kingdom cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease. The study commenced on 1 May 1990. We will encourage the investigator to make available appropriate information from this study through presentations and publications in the scientific press.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip replacement operations were performed in 1989; and if he will estimate the average time spent on the waiting list for such an operation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities in England reported 45,000 hip replacement operations in 1988–89. In 1985, the latest year for which information is available centrally, the estimated median interval between the time an in-patient was placed on the waiting list and admission to an NHS hospital for this operation was 21 weeks.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by district health authority in the counties of Yorkshire and Humberside, the number of cases of meningitis reported during(a) 1989 and (b) the current year to date.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The exact information requested is not available.

  Notifications of meningitis are made on a local authority basis. It is not possible to accurately aggregate these to district health authority boundaries. Provisional data for those local authorities within Yorkshire and Humberside are shown in the table.

  Notifications of all forms of meningitis, and meningococcal meningitis by county/county districts in Yorkshire and Humberside region for 1989 and 19901

  Area

  All forms of meningitis

  Meningococcal meningitis

  1989

  19901

  1989

  19901

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  329

  122

  106

  57

  County/County District

  South Yorkshire

  94

  41

  39

  16

  Barnsley

  13

  4

  6

  2

  Doncaster

  23

  10

  17

  8

  Rotherham

  20

  10

  4

  3

  Sheffield

  38

  17

  12

  3

  West Yorkshire

  148

  39

  37

  19

  Bradford

  30

  13

  11

  6

  Calderdale

  14

  4

  4

  4

  Kirklees

  16

  3

  9

  2

  Leeds

  66

  13

  7

  5

  Wakefield

  22

  6

  6

  2

  Humberside

  59

  25

  20

  13

  Boothferry

  3

  3

  2

  —

  Cleethorpes

  2

  —

  —

  —

  East Yorkshire

  4

  5

  1

  5

  East Yorkshire Borough of Beverley

  4

  4

  1

  1

  Glanford

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Great Grimsby

  6

  6

  4

  5

  Holderness

  4

  —

  1

  —

  Kingston upon Hull

  26

  7

  9

  2

  Scunthorpe

  6

  —

  2

  —

  North Yorkshire

  28

  17

  10

  9

  Craven

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Hambleton

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Harrogate

  3

  2

  1

  1

  Richmondshire

  1

  3

  1

  2

  Ryedale

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Scarborough

  11

  4

  1

  1

  Selby

  5

  5

  3

  5

  York

  4

  1

  3

  —

  1 Provisional data for 1 January to 4 May 1990.

  Preventive Health Care
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources his Department has allocated to general practitioner training in preventive health care in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. However "Health Promotion and the Prevention of Illness" is one of the three subject areas in which GPs must attend courses in order to be eligible for the postgraduate education allowance.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, when he releases the details of the sight tests survey commissioned by his Department, he plans to give details of the age, sex, income, and sampling point location of each respondent.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We expect the survey results to contain details of the age, sex and region of respondents.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date in mid-April NOP completed the field work on the sight tests survey commissioned by his Department; and on what date this information was received by his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Field work by NOP was completed on 23 April. The information for analysis was received by the Department of Health on 16 May.

  Private Clinics
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the control of advertising by private sector clinics.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am aware of the concern about certain advertising by some clinics. All those connected with the advertising of clinical services have a duty to ensure that people are not misled by false, doubtful or exaggerated claims. Doctors have a particular responsibility in this. I understand that the General Medical Council is considering how best to make it clear that doctors who have any kind of financial or professional relationship with a private clinic bear some responsibility for any advertising it undertakes. I welcome this. In addition my Department has recently agreed with the Advertising Standards Authority that it pays special attention to such advertising and acts against any that breaches the British code of advertising practice. We will also look at the possibility of legislation to control advertising by these clinics.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to ban cigarette smoke pollution in public places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Statutory bans on smoking already apply in certain areas because of safety considerations such as fire risks in the London Underground. In other public areas the Government encourage the introduction of voluntary policies to discourage smoking, for example through the HEA's campaigns. This approach results in good progress being made and policies being tailored to circumstances.

  Blood Products
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the proportion of blood products recently supplied to the National Health Service and recalled by the supplier which has been four d to have been poisoned with hepatitis B.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All donations collected by the blood transfusion service (BTS) are tested for the hepatitis B virus and neither cellular products for patients nor plasma for fractionation and resultant plasma products are issued unless the test is negative. At the fractionation laboratory all plasma pools are tested for hepatitis B and used only if found negative. All plasma products undergo virus inactivation procedures and finished plasma products are tested for hepatitis B and issued only if found negative. All hepatitis B test results on plasma pools and finished products are confirmed by the National Institute for Biological Stanards and Control before product release.

  In the recent episode to which the question refers, a blood donation which tested negative for hepatitis at the regional transfusion centre was separated and the plasma processed into blood products. The cellular components were transfused into a patient who subsequently contracted hepatitis. As is standard procedure, the original donor was traced, a blood sample taken and retested for hepatitis B by two laboratories. One test gave a marginally positive result. As a precautionary measure, all plasma products derived from this donation were recalled. Because of the various safeguards listed, the risk to patients from use of the products in question is considered to be extremely small.

  The quantities recalled, and for comparison the quantities (issued to the NHS) in the last year for which information is available, are as follows:

  Quantities recalled (Vials)

  Quantities issued 1989–90 (Vials)

  Factor VIII

  2,500

  251,000

  Factor IX

  500

  36,000

  Albumin

  2,200

  279,000

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give, for the month of April and for each ambulance service in England(a) the amount of overtime worked, by grade and (b) the average number of staff employed, by grade, as a whole-time equivalent; and if he will give similar figures for April 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  International Sweeteners Organisation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of the committee on toxicity are consultants to the International Sweeteners Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  One member of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment acts as a consultant to the International Sweeteners Association. This interest is declared at each committee meeting whenever sweeteners are discussed and is minuted.

SCOTLAND

  Fisheries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has on the average number of employees per vessel in the Scottish fish catching sector by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food category vessel size bands.

  Mr. Lang
  The average number of crew on fishing vessels based in Scotland is as follows:

  Registered length of vessel

  Average number of crew

  Under 10 metres

  2

  10 metres to 39·9 ft

  2

  40 ft to 59·9 ft

  4

  60 ft to 79·9 ft

  7

  80 ft to 109·9 ft

  10

  110 ft and over

  12

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has on the average earnings of employees in the Scottish fish catching sector by salary grade.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department conducts an annual survey of the costs and earnings of the Scottish fishing fleet, and this provides guidance on average crews' shares. The traditional share system of crews' remuneration in Scotland does not, however, distinguish between grades.

  The latest sample relates to 1989. Provisional results are as follows:

  Vessel length

  Number in sample

  Annual average share per fisherman £

  40 ft—59·9 ft

  32

  9,510

  60 ft—69·9 ft

  31

  11,110

  70 ft—79·9 ft

  30

  13,980

  Over 80 ft

  20

  19,900

  Senior crew members (for example skippers who do not own their vessel and mates) may receive an additional part share. This is normally financed from the share allocated to the boat. Arrangements vary from vessel to vessel and details are not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has on the average earnings of employees in the Scottish fish catching sector by(a) region and (b) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food category vessel size bands.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on average earnings by region is not available. Earnings by vessel size bands were given in my earlier answer of today to the hon. Member.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish for each health board area in Scotland figures showing per head of resident population(a) the gross revenue spending and (b) the capital spending for the year 1989–90 and the corresponding allocations for 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Gross revenue spending details for 1989–90 are not yet available. Allocations for 1990–91 per head of resident population are as follows:148

  Health board

  Revenue £

  Capital £

  Argyll and Clyde

  330

  11

  Ayrshire and Arran

  304

  59

  Borders

  326

  14

  Dumfries and Galloway

  372

  10

  Fife

  303

  18

  Forth Valley

  360

  21

  Grampian

  372

  22

  Greater Glasgow

  550

  26

  Highland

  391

  19

  Lanarkshire

  300

  20

  Lothian

  434

  23

  Orkney

  316

  18

  Shetland

  325

  65

  Tayside

  476

  28

  Western Isles

  353

  273

  Highland Regional Council
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 5 April,Official Report, columns 830–31, to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) if his consultation invited representations both in favour and opposed to Highland regional council's draft structure plan; and if he will set out in the Official Report the terms on which representations were sought.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend was not responsible for the advertisement of Highland regional council's structure plan review; this was a matter for the regional council. As the relevant legislation requires, the council invited objections to the plan, indicating that they should be made in writing to the secretary of the Scottish Development Department before 2 March 1990.

  Department of the Registers of Scotland
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific, financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for the Department of the Registers of Scotland for the current year and for the longer term.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on 5 April, at columns 829–30.

  Takare Contract
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, further to his reply of 2 May to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen,Official Report, column 581, he is able to give a specific date when Greater Glasgow health board will release details of the Takare contract.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that Greater Glasgow health board will write to the hon. Member this week.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the inaugural business plan of local enterprise companies will be made public by him.
  149
  Mr. Lang
  As indicated in paragraph 7.2 of the Scottish Enterprise handbook, local enterprise companies themselves will normally be required to publish a summary of their annual business plan.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which components of the Training Agency's budget in Scotland will be allocated to local enterprise companies; and how much is currently spent on each of these schemes.

  Mr. Lang
  Total planned expenditure in Scotland in 1990–91 on each of the Training Agency budget components which will partly or wholly be delivered by local enterprise companies is shown in the table:

  £

  Youth training (including Compacts and Community Industry)

  92,089,000

  Employment training

  112,850,000

  Business growth training

  5,436,000

  Enterprise allowance scheme

  14,722,000

  Training and education support programmes

  5,168,000

  Marketing, advertising and publicity

  2,157,000

  Administrative costs

  18,516,000

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what aspects of contracts awarded to local enterprise companies will be open to the public.

  Mr. Lang
  Decisions on the extent to which it would be appropriate to make public aspects of contracts made between local enterprise companies and the Training Agency, the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise (as the case may be) will be taken in the light of the structure eventually adopted for such contracts. It may be that some material associated with individual contracts will be commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he proposes to make public about how much money is allocated to each local enterprise company; and for what purposes.

  Mr. Lang
  Announcements on allocations will be a matter for the relevant funding body (Scottish Development Development Board, Training Agency, Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise as the case may be). Local enterprise companies will be required to publish accounts showing the sources and application of their funds.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects specific budget allocations to be made to local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Lang
  A specific budget allocation to each local enterprise company will be made by the Training Agency and the Scottish Development Agency or the Highlands and Islands Development Board (as the case may be) once that local enterprise company's business plan has been approved and when an operating contract is awarded to the company.

  School Meals
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the average price of a school meal; and if he will make a statement;
  150
  (2) what is the number and percentage of free school meals provided; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many and what percentage of children took school meals in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested, taken from the annual school meal census carried out in January 1989, is as follows:

  Information

  (1) Average charge for a fixed price school meal

  61p

  (2) Number of pupils present on Census day

  713,034

  (3) Number of pupils taking meals

  328,688

  (4) (3) as a percentage of (2)

  46·1

  (5) Number of pupils receiving free meals

  105,232

  (6) (5) as a percentage of (2)

  14·8

  The proportion of children taking meals is greater than at the 1988 census.

  Responsibility for the provision and content of meals lies with education authorities.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the recommendations of the Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte report on the organisation of Scottish Enterprise has been accepted; and what changes have been made which were not proposed therein.

  Mr. Lang
  The report was accepted as a whole as a general basis for further planning. Some fine-tuning has been undertaken; but all developments to date are compatible with the terms of the report.

  Registered Child Minders
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many registered child minders there are in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  At 31 March 1989 there were 5,444 registered child minders in Scotland.

  Forestry
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times the Nature Conservancy Council consulted the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds over new forestry proposals in each Nature Conservancy Council region in Scotland in each year since 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am consulting the Nature Conservancy Council and will write to the hon. Member.

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

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is not readily available, but I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his policy in respect of allocation of funds among general practitioners where eligible applications for reimbursement of computer costs exceed the budgeted figure;

  (2) what is his budget for the reimbursement of computer costs for general practitioners in 1990–91; and how many general practitioners are eligible to apply.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: In 1990–91 £3 million has been made available for direct reimbursement of general practice computing costs in Scotland, the balance of expenditure being reimbursed indirectly through fees and allowances; all general practitioners who meet the qualifying criteria are eligible to apply. Should funds become fully committed valid claims which are not paid in 1990–91 may be resubmitted in the next financial year.

  School Class Sizes
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide information on the average size of teaching groups for the years S1 to S6 in the secondary school subjects: English, mathematics, science subjects, history, geography, modern studies, home economics, physical education, technical education and modern languages.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: The information for session 1987–88 was published in SED statistical bulletin No. 14/C7/1989, a copy of which is in the Library. Information for session 1989–90 is not yet ready for publication and will be published later in the year.

  Thousand tonnes

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  London (including Tilbury)

  0·2

  0·3

  —

  0·2

  1·5

  Folkestone

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  Southampton

  1·5

  0·8

  0·5

  2·1

  2·1

  Avonmouth

  —

  0·1

  —

  0·4

  —

  Newport, Gwent

  15·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  Goole

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  0·7

  Hull

  1·9

  1·2

  —

  0·1

  —

  River Trent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·7

  Immingham

  68·8

  26·3

  98·2

  41·1

  36·4

  Grimsby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12·1

  Ipswich

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  Total

  88·4

  28·8

  98·8

  43·9

  53·9

  Thousand tonnes

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  19891

  London (including Tilbury)

  0·4

  0·3

  0·4

  0·3

  0·3

  Southampton

  2·2

  2·2

  2·0

  4·2

  6·4

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  Mostyn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  Ellesmere Port

  —

  1·1

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  0·5

  2·7

  —

  —

  —

  Grangemouth

  —

  —

  0·1

  0·2

  —

  Leith

  —

  0·5

  —

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  —

  Goole

  0·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hull

  0·2

  0·2

  1·3

  1·3

  0·4

  Immingham

  63·4

  75·7

  57·8

  18·2

  6·8

  Grimsby

  7·9

  —

  1·4

  —

  0·5

TRANSPORT

  Rural Land Loss
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year, and by the counties for Yorkshire and Humberside, the number of acres of rural land that has been lost to road schemes in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is not readily available in the Department's records and could not be collected at reasonable cost.

  London Underground (Safety)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the chairman of London Regional Transport on the implications for public safety of the death of Mr. Raymond Knight at Aldgate underground station on 23 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I naturally regret Mr. Knight's death. This will be subject to investigation at a coroner's inquest, and I will take note of any recommendations that Her Majesty's coroner might make.

  South African Steel Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year for the last 10 years, and by port, the amount in tonnes of steel imported from South Africa.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise figures for imports of iron and steel (excluding iron ore, pig iron, ferro alloys, and waste and scrap) consigned from South Africa for the last 10 years and by port, are given in the table.
  153

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  19891

  Felixstowe

  1·1

  2·4

  2·7

  5·3

  7·9

  Ipswich

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  Harwich

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  76·6

  85·2

  65·7

  29·7

  22·5

  1 Provisional.

  Driver Standards
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specific financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for the Driver Standards Agency for the current year and for the longer term.

  Mr. Atkins
  Details of the Driver Standards Agency's financial, efficiency and quality of service targets for the current financial year are contained in the agency's business plan for 1990–91, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The financial targets take the form of unit cost targets for the main activities, including £18·72 per L test and £41·71 per HGV-PSV test. The main service level targets are to reduce the national average waiting time for L tests to eight weeks by 31 March 1991 (12 weeks in the Metropolitan region); and to provide HGV and PSV tests at all centres within four weeks.

  In the longer term the agency intends to reduce the average L test waiting time to at least six weeks. New measures of service performance which the agency intends progressively to introduce are set out in annex C to the agency's framework document, copies of which are also in the Library.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specific financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for the current year and for the longer term.

  Mr. Atkins
  The major targets set for DVLA are:

  (1) Financial—to achieve a 6·1 per cent. efficiency gain in its workload unit cost performance.

  (2) Efficiency—to improve its overall productivity by a further 2 per cent.

  (3) Quality of service

  (a)—To turn round Driver and Vehicle transactions as follows:

  (i) Driver licences—turn round 90 per cent. of those received within six days of receipt.

  (ii) Vehicle transactions—turn round 90 per cent. within eight to 10 days of receipt.

  Full details of the 1990–91 targets are contained in the DVLA business plan, copies of which are placed in the House of Commons Library. Targets beyond 1991–92 have yet to be set.

  Liverpool (Visit)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the recent official visit to Liverpool of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin).

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I visited Liverpool airport on 25 April. Following arrangements made some weeks ago, I also visited the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company on 154
  17 May and toured the company's docks and facilities. I regret that I had to cancel my proposed visit to the Liverpool marine office on 17 May.

  Air Shows
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what special regulations are in force relating to flying, especially low flying, in connection with air shows for public entertainment; and if he will make a statement.

  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 the Air Navigation Order 1989, at article 56, requires organisers of exhibitions of flying to obtain the permission of the authority. The order specifies conditions and enables the authority to specify such further conditions as it sees fit. The order covers civil aircraft participating in any displays.

  Comparable safety standards covering United Kingdom military, visiting military or foreign military aircraft participating in Ministry of Defence and other air displays are contained in joint service publications.

  Railways, London
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he will use when choosing between the east-west cross rail and the Chelsea-Hackney line for investment.

  Mr. Freeman
  A decision will be based on all the relevant factors including the relief of congestion provided by the schemes; their economic and financial performance; and how the schemes might be financed and safeguarded.

  Air Services
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce changes to the United States-United Kingdom bilateral air services agreement; what implications they will have for fifth freedom rights into other EEC countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A detailed statement would not be appropriate while our negotiations with the United States Government continue; but we are, of course, seeking an early resolution.

  Safety at Sea
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to how many representative organisations he sent Professor Ivan Brown's report on his study into hours of work, fatigue and safety at sea; and how many have responded with comments.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Copies of Professor Brown's report were circulated on 2 February to five representative
  155
  organisations: the National Union of Maritime, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers (NUMAST); the National Union of Seamen (NUS); the General Council of British Shipping (GCBS); the British Motor Ship Owners Association (BMSOA); and the British Offshore Support Vessels Association (BOSVA). All of these organisations have now responded with comments, although one has reserved the right to make further comments at a later stage.

  Glasgow Airport
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Civil Aviation Authority about the installation of radar equipment at Glasgow airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. The installation of radar equipment at Glasgow airport is a matter for the British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Motorway Traffic
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to ensure that the number of service stations to be opened under the Government's strategic plans for motorway services areas in England will be adequate to cover his Department's estimate of the increase in the volume of traffic using the motorways after 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's design specifications for new motorway service areas (MSAs) are geared to catering for estimated traffic in the year 2020. There are at present more MSAs planned for existing and new motorways. These are at various stages: two will open soon (Tamworth on M42 and Thurrock on M25) and another four or five sites are expected to be tendered this year for construction and subsequent operation by 1992.

  There are 42 existing MSAs in England. The Department is reviewing the capacity of each of these with operators. Its aim is to expand sites wherever possible to meet demand at least for 15 years ahead. Where adequate expansion proves impracticable, new infill sites will be sought between existing MSAs.

  Roads Investment
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss future capital investment on roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have at present no plans to do so.

ENERGY

  Council of Energy Ministers
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he expects to attend future meetings of the European Community Council of Energy Ministers for discussions on energy saving and anti-pollution measures.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 May 1990, c. 590]: The Council, under the presidency of Mr. Molloy, the Irish Energy Minister, made useful progress.
  156
  The Council made significant progress towards establishing a single energy market by adopting a directive on transparency of gas and electricity prices and reaching agreement on a directive on transit on electricity networks. However, in the context of gas transit, support for the monopoly privileges of the main gas transmission companies remains strong in the industry and certain member states; we hope for further progress under the next presidency.

  The Commission agreed to give priority over its recent proposal to a more thorough implementation of the existing regulations on notification of investment projects.

  In addition, the Council debated a European Commission report on energy and the environment and adopted valuable conclusions on the contribution energy policies should make to protecting the environment. It approved the Thermie programme for demonstrating and disseminating new energy technologies which should contribute significantly to that end. Commissioner Cardoso reported to the Council on the Commission's recent "Energy for a New Century Conference" which is expected to be a source of ideas for developing future energy policy.

EMPLOYMENT

  Control of Substances Hazardous to Health
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has commissioned any research into the implementation of the COSHH regulations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive is committed to an evaluation of the impact of the COSHH regulations. A baseline survey was undertaken before the regulations came into force on 1 October 1989, but it is too early yet to commence work on the post-implementation evaluation.

  Strikes
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to remove the right of employers to secure an injunction against an unlawful strike.

  Mr. Howard
  Anyone threatened with unlawful action is entitled to apply to the courts for an injunction to prevent it. To restrict that right in respect of any particular group of bodies would place them above the law and could not possibly be justified.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many businesses were started under the enterprise allowance scheme in 1989–90.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1989–90 almost 78,000 businesses were started under the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many businesses have been started under the enterprise allowance scheme since it began.

  Mr. Eggar
  Over 500,000 unemployed people have been helped to start their own business under the enterprise allowance scheme since it began in 1982.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve health protection and safety conditions in the workplace.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Responsibility for ensuring satisfactory health and safety standards rests with employers and others concerned at the workplace. The Government have increased financial provision for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive over previously agreed levels again in 1990–91.

  The commission's priorities for improving health and safety at work will be set out in its plan of work for 1990–91 and beyond, to be published shortly.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to extend health and safety protection in the workplace.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission is responsible for bringing forward proposals for the reform and extension as necessary of health and safety legislation. Details of the Commission's future legislative programme will be contained in its plan of work for 1990–91 and beyond, which it hopes to publish shortly.

  Union Ballots
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations about the balloting provisions of the Trade Union Act 1984.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department continues to receive representation on various aspects of industrial relations law including matters relating to the balloting provisions of the Trade Union Act 1984.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received from members of trade unions in the last month urging repeal of the balloting provisions of the Trade Union Act 1984.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No such representations have been received.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the protection of part-time workers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total work force in employment in(a) May 1979, (b) June 1987 and (c) the latest month for which figures are available.

  Mr. Howard
  The work force in employment stood at 25·4 million in June 1979, 25·1 million in June 1987, and 27·1 million in December 1989, its highest level ever.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment in the north-west region in April 1986 and April 1990; and if he will make a statement.
  158
  Mr. Nicholls
  In April 1990, the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the north-west region was 231,500, compared with 425,200 in April 1986, a fall of 45·6 per cent.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the population in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham is in full-time employment; and what is the national average.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Consistent information at local level on employment and population by place of residence is available only from the census of population.

  In the census of population returns for April 1981, 44·7 per cent. of people aged 16 and over and living in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham said that they had worked full-time in the preceding week. The comparable figure for Great Britain was 45·6 per cent.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In April 1990, seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,605,600.

  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total increase in the number of jobs in Great Britain since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In December 1989, the latest date for which information is available, the work force in employment was 26,487,000, the highest level ever. This represents an increase of 1,720,000, or 7 per cent. since June 1979.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total level of unemployment in the 57 urban programme areas in(a) March 1988 and (b) March 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the 57 local authority areas in England within which the Government target inner-city programme aid, the number of unemployed claimants in March 1988 was 982,379, compared with 643,981 in March 1990. Direct comparisons over time are affected by various changes to the count, in particular the change in benefit regulations for under 18-year-olds in September 1988, and by seasonal influences. Certain areas may also be affected by changes to the redundant mineworkers payments scheme.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentage the level of unemployment fell in Bury, North between September 1986 and April 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between September 1986 and April 1990 the number of unemployed claimants in Bury, North parliamentary constituency fell by 61 per cent. Direct comparisons are affected by the change in benefit regulations for under 18-year-olds in September 1988, and by seasonal influences.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average monthly fall in unemployment over the period(a) March 1974 to May 1979 and (b) July 1986 to March 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between March 1974 and May 1979 there was an average monthly rise in unemployment, seasonally
  159
  adjusted, of 9,484. Between July 1986 to March 1990 the average monthly fall in seasonally adjusted unemployment was 34,761.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of unfilled vacancies held by job centres in the north-west of England during the last full month for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In April 1990 the number of unfilled vacancies, seasonally adjusted, at job centres in the north-west region was 23,200.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the United Kingdom; and what it was in 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The seasonally adjusted series of unemployment provides figures that are comparable over the time period requested. In April 1990, the seasonally adjusted level of claimant unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,605,600, compared with 1,089,100 in April 1979.

  Economic League
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives of the Economic League to discuss the protection of employees' privacy.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no meetings with representatives of the Economic League.

  Minimum Wage Protection
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on enforcement of minimum wage protection.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The level of compliance with wages orders is very high. My right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that the present policy of targeting the resources of the wages inspectorate towards those employers most likely to underpay is the most effective way of enforcing minimum wage legislation.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet his European Community counterparts to discuss the implications of 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  I shall be meeting my European Community counterparts at an informal meeting of Labour and Social Affairs Ministers on 28 May and at a full Council meeting the following day to discuss a number of current employment and social issues.

  Training
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he will improve health and safety conditions on Government training schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It will be for the training and enterprise councils, and the local enterprise councils in Scotland, to carry forward sound and effective policies on health and 160
  safety in conjunction with their training providers. Each TEC must have a detailed planning statement on health and safety incorporated into its contract and will have to comply fully with its terms.

  Under this statement each TEC must have a systematic and effective monitoring strategy, and it will have to ensure that its staff are well trained to carry out their health and safety obligations.

  EC Social Action Programme
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the Government's approach to the European Commission's social action programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  We intend to take a full part in the negotiations on the individual proposals in the social action programme. We will measure each proposal against two key criteria: first, its effect on jobs and unemployment; and secondly, whether it accords with the principle of subsidiarity, which means that action should not be proposed at Community level in areas best left to member states to deal with in accordance with their tradition and practice.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department plans to spend on the technical and vocational education initiative in the current financial year.

  Mr. Eggar
  As laid out in the public expenditure White Paper the Department plans to spend £134 million on the technical and vocational education initiative in 1990–91.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether any extra staff have been employed by the Health and Safety Executive to monitor health and safety on employment training schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. By virtue of the Health and Safety (Training for Employment) Regulations 1988, participants on employment training and similar training schemes at employers' premises are covered by the full range of statutory health, safety and welfare provisions which apply to employed people. Accordingly, when Health and Safety Executive inspectors are examining conditions at workplaces, they do not differentiate between trainees and employees.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list the local authorities which have refused to participate in the employment training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department will monitor the effectiveness of training enterprise councils.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) will set out in their corporate and business plans detailed
  161
  proposals for training and enterprise to meet local needs. These plans will form part of a TEC's contract with my Department. They will set out key targets and progress towards these targets will be monitored on a regular basis.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have received development funding.

  Mr. Eggar
  Seventy-two training and enterprise councils (TECs) have been awarded development funding to date. Of these, 13 TECs have now been approved to become operational.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of TECs in the north-west.

  Mr. Eggar
  Five training and enterprise councils (TECs) in the north-west have been approved to become operational, covering Cumbria, south and east Cheshire, Oldham, Rochdale and east Lancashire.

  A number of other prospective TECs in the north-west are currently preparing their corporate and business plans and I expect them to become operational in due course.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the first 10 training and enterprise councils to become operational.

  Mr. Eggar
  Contracts for the first 10 training and enterprise councils (TECs) to become operational were signed on 3 April. These covered:

  Hertfordshire

  Thames Valley

  Devon/Cornwall

  Dorset

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Cumbria

  South and East Cheshire

  Teesside

  Tyneside

  Wearside

  In addition a further three TECs have since been approved to go operational. These cover Oldham, Rochdale and east Lancashire.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new measures he proposes to take to increase employment of disabled people by organisations in both the private and public sectors.

  Mr. Eggar
  Measures to promote the employment of people with disabilities are among the matters being considered in the review of services for people with disabilities which my Department has been undertaking. We expect to publish next month the consultative document giving the results of the review.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people with disabilities are assisted annually by his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available, approximately 220,000 people with disabilities were assisted by this Department's employment and training programmes.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to enable people with disabilities to participate more fully in the workplace.
  162
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what additional measures he will introduce to enable people with disabilities to participate more fully in the work force.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department already maintains a comprehensive network of services to help people with disabilities find and retain jobs. The adequacy of current measures to enable people with disabilities to participate fully in the work force is being considered in the review of services for people with disabilities which my Department has been undertaking. We expect to publish next month the consultative document giving the results of the review.

  Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implementation of his tourism review.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Progress continues to be made to implement the results of the review announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler),Official Report, 28 November 1989, column 212. Ministers and officials are regularly reviewing progress on all the recommendations with the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what figures he has for the total number of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom during the first quarter of 1990; and what was the figure for the first quarter of 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is estimated that overseas residents made 2,310,000 visits to the United Kingdom during the first two months of 1990, the latest period for which results are available. This is 15 per cent. higher than in the equivalent period of 1989.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received any representations for soft loans from the tourist industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It has been suggested to my Department that the tourism industry could benefit from the provision of soft loans towards meeting the cost of capital developments. However, the English tourist board's latest reported record levels of investment in tourism projects show that there is no shortage of investors willing to support good quality and commercially sound tourism projects.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the increase in the current financial year in his Department's grant to the English tourist board.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1990–91 the English tourist board will receive grant in aid of £14,595,000. This represents a 9 per cent. increase over the £13,265,000 grant in aid for 1989–90.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many tourists visited Britain in the last year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is published in table 8.2 of the May issue of Employment Gazette.

  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many doctors were employed in the employment medical advisory service on the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1990, there were 46 doctors in post in the Health and Safety Executive's employment medical advisory service.

  Child Care
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage the provision of child care facilities in the workplace.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on 5 December 1989,Official Report, column 196.

  Gateshead Garden Festival
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the Gateshead national garden festival on tourism in the north-east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Experience of previous festivals shows that the Gateshead garden festival will result in a significant increase in the number of visitors to the region.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress in current youth training schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are currently 359,500 young people on YTS which is being delivered by some 3,280 managing agents. The latest YTS leavers' survey shows that 86 per cent. of young people who completed their training went into employment and 67 per cent. gained a qualification. Youth training, which will be introduced on 29 May, will build on the successes of YTS. It will enable a more flexible approach to be adopted towards the training of young people, will produce higher levels of skills, and will focus on the needs and interests of the local community. Youth training will be introduced nationally on 29 May. Those training and enterprise councils that are already operational have the opportunity, if they wish, of implementing the new training arrangements before that date.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by year and by regional training area since the inception of the YTS, the percentage of trainees having literacy problems.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Litter Charter
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking to promote the codes of practice contained in the environmental litter charter among organisations and businesses involved in tourism.
  164
  Mr. Nicholls
  Through the English tourist board and the regional tourist boards, my Department supports a number of anti-litter initiatives. The litter charter, which was launched by my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, is a joint London tourism forum initiative, but I am sure that other regions will wish to consider adopting a similar approach.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on 15 February,Official Report column 217.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking to assist small firms to secure Government procurement and other public sector contracts.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department gives a high priority to encouraging the participation of small firms in tendering for public sector contracts and in making it easier for them to do so.

  We have published and widely distributed to Government purchasers a booklet "Think Big, Buy Small" on how to assist small firms in tendering for Government contracts. This has been well received by all Government Departments. My Department is also supporting a purchasing specialist in the Treasury's Central Unit on Purchasing to look at ways of helping Government Departments to improve their purchasing procedures and to provide greater access by small firms to Government business. We have recently updated "Tendering for Government Contracts", a booklet giving contact points and general information on what Departments buy, their procedures and any special opportunities they offer small firms. I am pleased to say all the major spending Departments now successfully produce their own guidance to potential suppliers, and provide feedback to potential suppliers on their bids wherever possible.

  I intend that my Department should be used as a test bed for good purchasing practices and later this year I hope to meet the heads of Government purchasing departments to update them on the results of this work and to encourage them to explore further the benefits to Government of using small suppliers.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many small firms received counselling from the small firms service in 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1988–89 the small firms service in England provided 43,029 counselling sessions to 30,634 clients.

  Footwear Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on job losses in the footwear industry.
  165
  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of employees in employment in the footwear industry fell by 4,000 (8 per cent.) between March 1989 and March 1990.

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to create a special tribunal to assume jurisdiction over cases arising from industrial relations legislation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. Industrial tribunals already exist to hear a range of compaints under employment protection legislation. I have no plans to create a new tribunal.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any further representations from the Confederation of British Industry requesting further changes in industrial relations law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  From time to time my Department receives representations from a number of organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry, on various aspects of industrial relations law. We continue to keep this legislation under review.

  Modern Languages
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to improve skills in modern languages among the work force.

  Mr. Eggar
  In schools and colleges the technical and vocational education initiative is building on the foundations of the national curriculum by encouraging the learning of modern languages.

  Both youth training and employment training offer opportunities—where vocationally relevant—for people to learn languages, and an employer-led body has recently been established to develop qualifications which measure practical competence in languages among people at work.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors were in post on the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1990, 634·5 factory inspectors were in post in the Health and Safety Executive.

  Clothing Industry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspections were undertaken last year by the clothing industry wages council.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Checking compliance with wages council minimum rates is the responsibility of the wages inspectorate, not the wages council itself.

  For the information requested, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on 14 March, Official Report, columns 252–56.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has received about the progress made in Brussels in formulating the various directives arising out of the social charter; and if he will make a statement.
  166
  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that the Commission is well advanced with drafting a number of the directives in the social action programme; and that the first of these—on "atypical" work, for example, part-time and temporary work; and on the adaptation of working time—are expected to be published in June.

  Wages Council Inspectors
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase the number of wages councils inspectors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the reconstitution of the construction industry training Board.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The construction industry training board was reconstituted on 1 May 1990 as an employer-led body.

  Training Levy
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to introduce a training levy of 0·5 per cent. of payroll on business.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The most effective incentive for employers to train is a knowledge and understanding of their skill needs, not centralised regulation based on statutory powers.

  Employment Rights
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to extend employment rights to all those in work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans to extend the employment protection legislation.

  Self-employed Women
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much the number of women who are self-employed has changed since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimated number of self-employed women in the United Kingdom rose from 357,000 in June 1979 to 782,000 in December 1989, an increase of 426,000 (119 per cent.).

  Low Pay
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms visited in 1989 were paying below the legal wages council minima; and how many were prosecuted.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The wages inspectorate compiles its statistics on the basis of establishments rather than firms. In 1989, 5,528 of the establishments visited were found to be paying less than the statutory minimum due to at least one of their workers.

  There were nine prosecutions for underpayment offences.

  Radiation
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unannounced visits relating to radiation exposure monitoring were made by the factory inspectorate to Ministry of Defence and privatised establishments since 1970, by establishment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide information on the number of personnel employed by his Department, including the Health and Safety Executive, on the inspection, maintenance and improvement of standards of radiation monitoring, by United Kingdom region, for(a) Ministry of Defence workers' exposure and (b) civilian workers' exposure.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on funding is confidential to my Department and individual employment training (ET) training managers.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many visits relating to radiation exposure monitoring were made by the factory inspectorate to Ministry of Defence and privatised establishments since 1970, by establishment.

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

  Wages
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report average wage rates since 1979 (a) in Wales and (b) in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on average wage rates is not available, but data of the average gross weekly earnings of full-time adult employees are set out in the table.

  Average gross weekly Earnings of all full·time adult employees Pay not affected by absence; April of each year

  Year

  Wales

  £ per week United Kingdom

  1979

  87·6

  89·4

  1980

  106·4

  110·0

  1981

  119·4

  124·6

  11982

  130·2

  136·3

  21983

  140·0

  147·9

  1983

  139·4

  147·1

  1984

  149·2

  159·0

  1985

  160·3

  170·6

  1986

  170·3

  184·2

  1987

  183·4

  198·4

  1988

  196·5

  217·7

  1989

  215·9

  238·9

  1From 1979 to 1983, males aged 21 and over and females aged 18 and over.

  2From 1983 onwards, all on adult rates irrespective of age.

  Source: New Earnings Surveys.

  Share Community
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussions his Department has had with Share Community about its level of activity; and if he will make a statement.
  168
  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department is currently in negotiations with Share Community to establish a new employment training (ET) contract. Our aim is to conclude negotiations as soon as possible.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total cost to the Exchequer of the loan guarantee scheme to 31 March; what has been the cost per loan guaranteed; and what assumptions have been made about additionality, displacement and failures in computing the net Exchequer cost of the scheme for persons leaving the unemployment count given to the honourable Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) on 3 May,Official Report, column 639.

  Mr. Eggar
  The total net cost to the Exchequer of the loan guarantee scheme to 31 March 1990 was £122 million, and the cost per loan guaranteed was £4,920.

  To calculate the net Exchequer cost of the scheme per person leaving the unemployment count, it was assumed from evaluation evidence that additionality is about one third, displacement about two thirds and that slightly less than 30 per cent. of firms taking out a guarantee will fail within the first three years. These assumptions are conservative estimates based on the available information from recent surveys.

  New Jobs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs have been created in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Separate figures of job gains and job losses are not available. Net increases in the work force in employment over the previous five years were as follows:

  Workforce in employment—United Kingdom

  seasonally adjusted—thousands

  Year ending December

  Change

  Percentage change

  1985

  125

  0·5

  1986

  153

  0·6

  1987

  833

  3·4

  1988

  785

  3·1

  1989

  728

  2·8

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in the establishment of the nuclear installations inspectorate over any convenient period in the last three years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1987, 168·5 staff—103 of them inspectors—were in post in the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate. By 1 April this year, staff in post had increased to 249·5, of whom 162 were inspectors.

  Deaf People (Employment)
  Sir Alan Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the regulations regarding the employment by sub-contractors of deaf people in locations such as weirs.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 employers,

  169
  including sub-contractors, have a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety at work of all their employees. Employers should take into account any special hazards that arise from the known state of health of the worker and the circumstances of the job. There are no health and safety regulations which specifically relate to the employment of deaf people generally or by sub-contractors.

  Sheltered Training
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total level of Government funding to sheltered training groups over the past financial year; what is the projected budget for the current financial year; and how many places this has created in each year.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total level of Government funding to sheltered training groups over the past financial year; what is the projected budget for the current financial year; and how many places this has created in each year.
  170
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total level of Government funding to sheltered training groups over the past financial year; what is the projected budget for the current financial year; and how many places this has created in each year.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total level of Government funding to sheltered training groups over the past financial year; what is the projected budget for the current financial year; and how many places this has created in each year.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is estimated that £88 million was spent on the sheltered employment programme last year and that £98 million will be available this year, excluding capital grants. The number of places supported in 1989–90 increased by 1,487 over the year. I do not expect there to be any significant increase in the number of places in the current year.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Lord Wade of Chorlton
Sir William Oulton Wade, Knight, having been created Baron Wade of Chorlton, of Chester in the County of Cheshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Belstead and the Lord Johnston of Rockport.
Viscount Devonport—Took the Oath.

Satellite Broadcasting
2.47 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their general policy on satellite broadcasting.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Broadcasting Bill establishes an enabling framework which will allow the development of satellite television while maintaining proper programme standards. The extent to which satellite television develops will be a matter for the market and not government regulations.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. But can I ask him to go further than the Broadcasting Bill? In view of the great potential satellite television has for the future, should not the Government positively encourage new entrants into this field, which would create a market and by competition raise standards?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. The United Kingdom is limited by international agreement to five domestic channels all of which have been allocated to British Satellite Broadcasting. By contrast there is no such limit on the development of non-domestic satellite services which do not use scarce UK broadcasting frequencies. There is virtually open-ended scope for a diversity of different channels in different hands from other satellites such as Astra. I agree with my noble friend that competition and diversity should ensure high standards in order to survive.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, on a point of order, a Bill is in the Printed Paper office. Anyone can get it by trotting down the corridor. Is it not a misuse of Question Time to anticipate the Second Reading of a Bill set down for 5th June by raising the subject at Question Time? It seems to be a misuse of Questions.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that the generally accepted rule in this House is that any noble Lord is entitled to ask any Question and it is up to the noble Lord concerned to decide whether the Question is a proper one to ask. It is always up to the Minister who is replying to decide whether it is a proper Question to answer, but I think that the House usually makes its own rules of order and you cannot lay down any hard and fast rules. You just take each case as it comes.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not true that the most contentious issue with regard to satellite broadcasting is multi-media ownership? Does not the Minister therefore think it right that all satellite stations whose programmes are transmitted to and within the UK should be subject to the same cross-media ownership rules which apply to all TV stations?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Bill provides that no non-domestic satellite operator should be allowed to have more than a 20 per cent. stake in a domestic satellite service, UHF television, including regional Channel 3, or national radio licences. That limit will be reciprocal. The Bill also leaves open the possibility of limiting the number of non-domestic satellite licences which any one group could control.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry to come back, but, with great respect, the Minister cannot give that as a complete answer when it is well known that Sky Television and Mr. Murdoch own about 30 per cent. of the national daily papers and even more of the Sunday papers, which blatantly breaks that rule.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I did not say that. A non-domestic satellite service may be owned by a newspaper interest. I said that a non-domestic satellite service was not able to own more than 20 per cent. of the domestic satellite or national television channels.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, will the Minister explain how the Government intend to exercise their jurisdiction over non-domestic satellites?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, services such as Sky, which has been mentioned, will be licensed as non-domestic satellite services. They will be bound by the consumer protection requirements set out in Clause 6 of the Bill which go beyond matters of taste and decency. They will be required not to editorialise on political and controversial matters, to preserve due impartiality in dealing with such matters and to present news accurately and impartially.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, despite the quality of his Answer, the House is concerned by what is known as the alien footprint on our culture and that the previous questioner has laid his finger on the point? What control do the Government intend to exercise over influences on our culture that come from outside, despite ownership of those services?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, under the Bill all UK-based satellite services will be subject to consumer protection regulation. The Council of Europe convention and EC directive both prohibit such things as pornographic broadcasts from states which are parties to them. As a long stop, the Bill also includes powers to prosecute anyone in the UK who advertises on or otherwise supports a foreign satellite service identified as unacceptable.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, has the Minister seen an American programme entitled "God Power" in which a weight-lifting champion in a bathing suit asks for money in order to give power to the deity? Does he not consider that such commercial exploitation of religion is a desecration of it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I regret that I have not seer the programme to which my noble friend alludes, but it is certainly an interesting point. As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, told us, the Broadcasting Bill will be with us before long and I am sure that we shall debate the subject then.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, can the Minister anticipate when we shall reach saturation point in TV channels?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. I do not think I can.

Satellite Broadcasting

  Deforestation: Brazilian Rain Forests
  2.55 p.m.
  Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What proportion of the world's carbon dioxide is produced by the burning of tropical forests and where, and what representations they have made and propose to make to the Government of Brazil to prevent such destruction.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, it is estimated that deforestation accounts for about 20 per cent. of global carbon dioxide emissions each year. Ministers have regularly raised our concern for the protection and conservation of the rain forests with the Brazilian Government both here and in Brazil, most recently when President-elect Collor visited London in February and on 17th May when my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development met Dr. Lutzenberger, Brazil's Environment Minister, in London.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer. Is he aware that at the present rate of destruction the whole of the Amazon rain forest will have vanished by the end of the century with serious consequences for the whole of mankind and that it will cause the greenhouse effect to take place early in the next century? Will the Government pursue their efforts to try to stop that terrible destruction?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Question. As I said in my
  750
  original Answer, we have talked to the Brazilians about this matter a good deal. My right honourable friend the then Minister for Overseas Development signed the United Kingdom-Brazil memorandum of understanding on environmental co-operation in Brazil only last July. We are now working up a number of proposals under that memorandum. The president has himself undertaken to give priority to conservation. His early actions, including the appointment of Dr. Lutzenberger as Environment Secretary, give grounds for optimism, so we can at least be quite hopeful.
  Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of their highly commendable action, have the Government decided to raise those issues at the United Nations and wherever else this country is represented so that the example of their discussions with Brazil can be enlarged upon and other tropical forests can be saved?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. A number of United Nations agencies are involved in that field and we play a full part in all of them.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify a matter arising from the wording of the Question on the Order Paper? Is not more damage done by the removal of the forests, which absorb carbon dioxide through chlorophyll in their leaves, rather than through the production of carbon dioxide in the process of burning?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. I think my noble friend is right. Burning has an immediate effect of damage, but the more serious effect is the removal of the forests themselves. I gave an estimate of the figure involved in my original Answer.
  Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that another 4 million acres of forest in this country would help?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord has a good reason for asking that question, but the scale of the problem is somewhat greater than we could deal with on our own. It is a worldwide problem. If the current deforestation in the world goes on as it is at the moment for the next 10 years or so, it is estimated that an area of forest 10 times the size of England and Wales will be lost.
  Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, did the Minister have a chance last weekend to view the programme on the destruction of the rain forests in Guyana and the appalling rapidity with which that is taking place? That is a very poor country with hardly any other resources. Is not an answer that industrialised countries should give considerably more financial aid? Otherwise, they may well be banging their heads on a closed door.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did not have the opportunity to see the programme to which the noble Lord referred. However, I am obviously aware of the world-wide scale of the problem. That is why we 'as a country are addressing it through bilateral and multilateral agencies.
  Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say what proportion of our international aid budget goes to environmental protection projects? Can he also say whether the Government are supporting Survival International, an organisation campaigning to save the Yanomani Indians who live in the Brazilian forests and who are in danger of extinction because illicit gold mining is poisoning the rivers? Has he made representations to the Brazilian Government about their decision to allow the gold prospectors into the rain forests?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot say whether we support the charity to which the noble Baroness refers. We expressed our anxiety about the indigenous people of Brazil during the President of Brazil's visit to the United Kingdom. We hope that the government will act positively in controlling the illegal activities of goldminers in the Amazon.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether the Government have pursued with the government of Brazil the hopelessly inequitable system of land tenure which makes it impossible for the indigenous people of the rain forests to do other than eke out a bare existence by the destruction of that which is necessary for their survival?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development met the Brazilian environment Minister on 17th May. Among the matters he raised were our proposals for helping the Brazilians with that problem. Since the memorandum of understanding was signed last July, we have been working out project proposals. So far we have identified one worth £2·5 million which has been agreed. We are preparing another eight projects covering sustainable forestry management and research into the genetic resources of the forests. We hope that most of those will be under way this year. So we have not been inactive in this matter.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the scale of the assistance which we give to such countries, limited by the meanness of the British Government, restrict the amount of overseas aid to only 0·35 per cent. of our gross national product?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, not at all. We have an extremely generous overseas aid programme. It amounted to over £1·5 billion last year. It is not the British Government's money to which the noble Lord refers; it is that of the taxpayers.
  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that external debt is the greatest barrier to conservation, for example, in the Amazon forests which comprise one-third of the total of all tropical forests? What is the immediate policy of Her Majesty's Government towards third world debt?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the United Kingdom supports the international debt strategy which provides financial assistance to debtor countries conditional upon their pursuing economic
  752
  reform. We welcome the opportunity of debt for nature swaps creating additional resources for environmental protection on a small scale. However, we are not convinced that that works on a large scale. Such arrangements are not generally appropriate for government involvement. Aid resources are better used in direct support; for example, in our forestry initiative.

  Community Charge: Effects
  3.4 p.m.
  Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether, in the light of the recent Institute of Fiscal Studies report that families earning between £150–£300 a week will lose on average £190 a year from the change from domestic rates to the community charge whereas those with £600–£1, 000 a week will gain on average £210 a year, they will consider altering income tax allowances and thresholds to restore the relative net spending power of high and low earners to the levels prior to the introduction of the charge.
  The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor will determine the level of income tax allowances and thresholds in his Budget in the usual way, taking account of the economic circumstances prevailing at the time.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that non-committal reply. Does he not agree that the central issue is that the flat rate poll tax has transferred large sums of money from those who are only modestly well of f to those who are very well of f. It is that specific aspect of the poll tax which nearly everybody in this country, regardless of political affiliation, considers to be unfair. If only for the sake of self-preservation, while the Finance Bill is still in Committee in another place, will the Government not consider amending the Bill so as to restore the relative net spending power of high and low earners respectively to what it would have been if domestic rates had not been superseded by the poll tax?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, one would then have to arrange a survey of a new set of figures different from that on which the IFS made its survey. It made the survey taking as a base the 1989-90 rates bills uplifted for inflation. It has not attempted to estimate what rate bills would have been this year. Your Lordships will be well aware that local authorities have imposed a 34 per cent. rate rise this year.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend also have in mind the fact that the greater part of the expenditure of local authorities is provided from national taxation which follows a system of graduation for which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has such enthusiasm?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, one must remember that about half or a large proportion of

  753
  local authority finance comes from the taxpayer. Another part comes from the business community and the third and final part from the community charge payer.
  Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, without in any way diminishing the thrust behind the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would it not be in the public interest for the Government to kill two birds with one stone; that is, to abolish this ridiculous poll tax and also to secure the early retirement of the Prim; Minister who has imposed it upon the nation?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as usual the noble Lord is very quick to criticise but offers nothing in its place. Will the noble Lord tell us what he has in mind for the ro of tax?
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Institute of Fiscal Studies' figures have probably been totally invalidated by your Lordships' recent decision to ring fence an enormous area of taxpayers' money which is to be spent through local government? Would it not be better to postpone that decision until we know whether the House of Commons agrees that that transfer of money to the taxpayer should be upheld?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend has a valid point. It is also worth putting on record that the IFS study does not take account of very generous transitional relief offered by the Government to the taxpayer. It does not take into account the take-up of community charge benefits which an; substantial and greater than those that existed under the rating system. It does not take account of the charge capping of high spending authorities. The Government have put forward a lot of money in support of those on low pay. However, in order to help mitigate community charge bills, I understand that some of your Lordships are betting on Lord Bertie which is running this afternoon at Salisbury races.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, when the noble Earl says that community charge benefits are substantial, is he aware that young people earning less than £94 per week gross may have to pay as much as 10 per cent. of their income in community charge, which hardly suggests that the benefit system is very well structured?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Earl will know, under the inequitable rating system only some 18 million households paid rates. Some 36 million adults will pay the community charge. The benefits system which the Government have put forward means that about 10 million people—that is, one charge payer in four—will qualify.
  Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of the facts mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is it right, as I have read in some newspapers, that the Prime Minister has decided that changes must be made? If that is so, when will they be made?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that we were constantly changing the rating system in order to make it fairer and we are presently looking at certain representations submitted to us.

  Sizewell B Power Station
  3.10 p.m.
  Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they have now received from Nuclear Electric the revised costs of Sizewell B power station.
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has just received from Nuclear Electric plc the latest progress report on Sizewell B. Detailed discussions on the report will be held with the company in the near future.
  Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Secretary of State received the report last Wednesday and that it showed that, according to latest estimates, Sizewell B will now cost well over £2 billion at 1987 prices, compared with the figure the Government gave in the past (which was given to me by the noble Viscount) of £1·8 billion also at 1987 prices? Is the Minister further aware of the criticism being made by the all-party Energy Select Committee of another place of the conduct of the Department of Energy in not monitoring the rapid steep rise in the cost of building nuclear power stations?
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the management of Nuclear Electric plc is responsible for all aspects of the project. Naturally, as a shareholder, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy is keenly interested in the progress of the project. He will be discussing the report in detail with the top management of the company.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, on the basis of the new costs for Sizewell B, can the noble Viscount state, or has he been advised, what the price per unit will be for electricity generated in Sizewell B?
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the implication of the review of electricity costs from the station will need to be considered with the company. Nuclear Electric plc has already signed a contract with the public electricity supply companies until 1998. That should cover the first four years of Sizewell B's active life. The price that Nuclear Electric receives for its output is determined by the contract, not by the cost of the output. Consumers therefore will not be affected.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if Sizewell B's first four years are contracted out at a fixed price, as I understood the noble Viscount to say, on that price will Sizewell B, on the capital costs now

  755
  announced, be profitable or unprofitable? If it is profitable, what will be the return on capital employed?
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I said, Nuclear Electric plc has a contract with public electricity supply companies for eight years. Nuclear Electric plc negotiated that contract in the knowledge of its latest estimates on the cost of output from Sizewell. If estimates of cost of output were to change, so would the rate of return earned. That is a commercial risk which the management of Nuclear Electric plc had to take into account when negotiating the contract.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Viscount. I am sure that he is aware that the rate of return will be calculated on the capital cost of the project. If the capital cost goes up on a fixed price, does that not mean that the rate of return comes down? At what point does the rate of return become negative?
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not think that we should be obsessed with the short term. Apart from the diversity and environmental contribution of nuclear energy, a lot can happen to the price of electricity over the 40-year life of a nuclear power station. It would be a brave man who speculated on the relative economies of fossil and nuclear generation of energy over that period.
  Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Viscount again advise the House whether the figure which I quoted and which has been widely quoted—over £2 billion—is the latest estimate made by Nuclear Electric pic? If it is, despite what the noble Viscount says regarding the cost of electricity will that not automatically increase the nuclear levy on the privatised companies?
  Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. The noble Lord spectulates in his own way regarding the price. I have already answered his secondary question concerning the cost of electricity from Sizewell B.

  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 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1989 and the Drug Trafficking of fences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1990 will be taken.

  Business of the House: Debate, 6th June
  The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead set down for
  756
  6th June shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Social Security Bill
  3.15 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 again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
  Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 61:
  Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
  ("Radiation exposed Crown employees: benefits
  —(1) In the principal Act, after section 78, there shall be inserted the following Chapter—
  "Chapter VA: Radiation Exposed Crown Employees.
  78A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to a benefit or benefits, to be known as radiation exposure payments, payable at a prescribed rate or rates, if he is—

  (a) a radiation exposed Crown employee who suffers from a relevant disease;

  (b) the widow or widower of a radiation exposed Crown employee who suffered from a relevant disease; or

  (c) a person entitled to child benefit in respect of a child of a deceased radiation exposed Crown employee who suffered from a relevant disease.

  (2) Subsection (1) above shall come into force six months after the passing of the Social Security Act 1990.
  (3) In this Chapter—
  "a radiation exposed Crown employee" means a person who, while serving as a member of Her Majesty's forces or in any other prescribed employment under the Crown, was, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to have been, exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of his participation in activities connected with a prescribed test or series of tests of a nuclear device or devices;
  "a relevant disease" means a disease presumed to have been caused by service as a radiation exposed Crown employee.
  (4) for the purposes of this section, any disease specified in column 1 of Schedule 9A to this Act, which a radiation exposed Crown employee develops or has developed at any time after the last day on which he was, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to have been, exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of his participation in activities connected with a prescribed test or series of tests of a nuclear device or devices, but not longer after that day than the maximum period specified for that disease in column 2 of that Schedule, shall be presumed to have been caused by service as a radiation exposed Crown employee, and no other disease shall be presumed to have been so caused.
  (5) The Secretary of State may at any time make an Order amending Schedule 9A to this Act in such manner as he considers appropriate in the light of medical evidence.
  (6) Where, on the day before such an Order comes into force, a person is treated as suffering or having suffered from a relevant disease for the purposes of this section, or would have been so treated if his claim for benefit under this section had been determined, the provisions of Schedule 9A shall apply in his case as if the Order had not been made.

  757
  (7) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a claim for benefit under this section is to be determined as if an Order under subsection (5) above which came into force after the date of the claim had been in force on that date.
  (8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) above, the first regulations under subsections (1) and (3) above shall be made before subsection (1) comes into force.
  (9) Before making the first regulations under subsection (1) above, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the benefit or benefits payable under that subsection by virtue of those regulations will be on the whole as favourable as the benefits that would be payable under section 76 above to persons in similar circumstances if the relevant disease were prescribed for the purposes of that section and the other conditions of entitlement to benefit under that section were satisfied.
  (10) A claim for benefit under subsection (1) above made within 12 months after the day on which the Social Security Act 1990 was passed shall be treated as if the provisions of that subsection and of the first regulations under subsections (1) and (3) above had come into force on that day and as if the claim had been made on that day or on the first day on which the claimant satisfied or would have been satisfied the requirements for entitlement to the benefit, whichever is later."
  (2) In section 93(1) of the principal Act, there shall be added at the end—
  "(f) a question whether a person is or was on any day a radiation exposed Crown employee for the purposes of Part II, Chapter VA."
  (3) In section 113(1) of the principal Act, for the words "Chapter V" there shall be substituted the words "Chapters V and VA'.
  (4) In section 115(3) of the principal Act, for the words "those relating to industrial injuries benefit" there shall be substituted the words "Chapters IV to VA".
  (5) After Schedule 9 to the principal Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule—
  "Schedule 9A
  Diseases Presumed to have been caused by Service as a Radiation Exposed Crown Employee

  Disease

  Maximum period

  Leukaemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukaemia)

  40 years

  Cancer of the thyroid

  40 years

  Cancer of the breast

  40 years

  Cancer of the pharynx

  40 years

  Cancer of the oesophagus

  40 years

  Cancer of the stomach

  40 years

  Cancer of the small intestine

  40 years

  Cancer of the pancreas

  40 years

  Multiple myeloma

  40 years

  Lymphomas (except Hodgkin's disease)

  40 years

  Cancer of the bile ducts

  40 years

  Cancer of the gall bladder

  40 years

  Primary liver cancer (except if caused by cirrhosis or hepatitis B)

  40 years"

  (6) In section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986 (annual up-rating of benefits)—
  (a) the following paragraph shall be inserted after subsection (1)(i)—
  "(j) specified in regulations under section 78A(1) of the Social Security Act 1975, "; and
  (b) in subsection (3)(b), for the words "or (ee)" there shall be substituted the words "(ee) or (j)".").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment introduces a new clause into the Bill and concerns the 22,000 British servicemen and approximately 3,000 Crown employees who participated in the British nuclear weapons testing programme between 1952 and 1958. To put it more accurately, it concerns the dependants of those men since those concerned are dying
  758
  disproportionately from leukaemia, myeloma and other cancers.
  The Government claimed that those involved in the nuclear testing programme were not exposed to radiation and therefore there is no connection between their cancers and the tests. However, hundreds of those who took part confirmed that they wore no protective clothing or the dose meter film badges to reveal the level of exposure. It is therefore not correct to say that everyone was protected and wore the dose meters to indicate the levels of their exposure to radiation.
  After years of pressure the National Radiological Protection Board conducted a study and reported in 1988. I am sure that when the Minister replies he will tell us that the study showed that apart from leukaemia and myeloma there is no evidence to link other cancers with the test programme. However, the study actually showed three things: first, that leukaemia and myeloma were probably caused by participation in the test programme; secondly, that other cancers were probably not caused; and, thirdly, that more research and study are required.
  There are now a number of widows—only a few—receiving a pension because their husbands died from leukaemia or myelmoa after 1988. For those whose husbands died of leukaemia and myeloma before 1988, the report I fear came too late. The next report from the NRPB is not due until 1991. If that report finds that some other cancer—of the pharynx or the stomach—is linked to exposure to nuclear radiation in the 1950s, will there be another group of widows whose husbands died too soon?
  Many who have studied the NRPB report claim that it was deeply flawed. It was discovered that the records of service supplied by the Ministry of Defence to the NRPB did not include all those who participated in the test. An important category was missing. All the files of those who had claims outstanding for pensions as a result of their participation in the tests were not included. By definition those most likely to weight the statistics to show a high incidence of cancer were not included.
  The new clause is modelled almost exactly on legislation which was passed into law in America in 1988. The Americans are way ahead of us in their research in this matter. Existing American legislation is almost certainly due to be improved this year with the manifestation caps being lengthened and more diseases that are compensatable being added to the list.
  Report No. 5 of the National Research Council, Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation, concluded that all the previous understandings about which low levels of radiation cause various diseases have been wrong. I refer in passing to the recent new evidence from Sellafield suggesting that workers exposed to radiation should consider not having children. We know that new evidence is appearing all the time regarding the dangers of exposure to radiation.
  Either the American servicemen exposed to the American nuclear test programme were somehow biologically different from the British servicemen,

  759
  or the Americans, with 250,000 men involved compared with our 25,000, have got all their research wrong and are compensating their servicemen unnecessarily. In fact, 400 British servicemen were present at the American tests. Those Americans who stood beside them then are now eligible for compensation but the British servicemen are not.
  The new clause is drafted to be very flexible. Considerable scope is left to the Secretary of State to fix the compensation levels, to add to or subtract from the list of prescribed diseases and to change the manifestation levels. The clause was in fact drafted with technical help from the department.
  To sum up, the Americans with all their research facilities and expertise have decided that there is a connection between exposure to ionising radiation in the nuclear test programme and a number of defined cancers and are therefore paying compensation. Hundreds of British servicemen who took part in the programme are stating categorically that they were not issued with dosemeter badges to reveal the level of their exposure.
  A memo dated 20th May 1953 from the Ministry of Defence—it was classified Top Secret at the time—states:
  "Tests were vital to discover detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men, without various types of protection".
  Some men were barred from wearing protective clothing and were asked to roll in the dust after the explosions to test the effect. Indeed, the NRPB report commissioned by the government stated:
  "Some aspects of the results, however, suggest that a real hazard was associated with the programme".
  In another place the Government admitted that the cost of compensation is in the order of £4 million to £5 million.
  A letter dated 20th September 1951 from the commander of the first British nuclear test, Rear-Admiral Torlisse, to Rear-Admiral Brooking, stated:
  "Radiological safety must be one of the chief concerns of the naval commander, but equally evidently, some degree of risk must be run by some people if we are to achieve the full purpose of the trial. As naval commander I must expect to have to order or approve the acceptance of some degree of risk. This is a customary service obligation, but it is performed in the knowledge that the Admiralty accept liability for those killed or injured in duty".
  I cannot do better than conclude with the words of President Reagan in his statement to Congress on signing the Radiation Exposed Veterans Compensation Act of 1988. He said:
  "The adjustment applies only in respect of specified diseases—primarily cancer of various organs—that manifest themselves within 40 years after the veteran last participated in a military radiation-related activity or, in the case of leukaemia, 30 years after such participation … Instead, the Act gives due recognition for the unusual service rendered by Americans who participated in military activities involving exposure to radiation generated by the detonation of atomic explosives. The Nation is grateful for their special service, and enactment of [the Act] makes clear the Nation's continuing concern for their welfare".
  I beg to move.
  Lord Walton of Detchant: My purpose in adding my name to this amendment, so eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is to probe the
  760
  intentions and views of the Government on this extremely difficult and complex issue.
  I have no claim to be an expert on the effects of ionising radiation on the human body, but naturally I have some familiarity with the literature that deals with this extremely complex subject. One takes account of the views expressed by world renowned experts such as Sir Richard Doll in the United Kingdom, who, after very careful study of the evidence relating to this matter, came to the conclusion, on the one hand, that the association between exposure to radiation during nuclear tests and the development of various forms of cancer was extremely weak. On the other hand, the experts of the National Radiological Protection Board came to the conclusion that there could well be an association between such exposure and the development of certain forms of leukaemia.
  The whole issue of the extent to which exposure to ionising radiation can be responsible for the development of leukaemia and other forms of cancer is extremely difficult. If one were to attempt to deploy all the scientific evidence for and against the views expressed it would occupy the Committee for a very long time indeed. I simply say that so far as I am concerned I wholly accept the view expressed by the NRPB to the effect that there is a probable but by no means certain association between such exposure and the development of multiple myeloma and various forms of leukaemia.
  The evidence from the United States to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred has developed the argument further. It suggests that it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no such association between radiation exposure and the development of other forms of cancer. For that reason the United States has accepted the necessity and propriety of awarding compensation to those developing the forms of cancer listed in the proposed Schedule 9A in the amendment who were involved in nuclear test programmes.
  In this country the evidence is that war pensions and widows' pensions have been awarded to certain individuals suffering from myeloma and various forms of leukaemia other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia. of course to acquire the award of a war pension it is my understanding that the standard or burden of pro of is not as strong as it is in many other circumstances. The association does not have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt or even on the balance of probabilities; but if there appears to be a prima facie case to suggest that such an association is valid, a pension may be awarded. That is my understanding.
  No one can define precisely the cause of many forms of cancer. There are certain forms of cancer such as that of the lung where the association with smoking, for example, is incontrovertible. There are other forms of cancer which are due to environmental exposure to toxins of various kinds. However, in the case of most forms of cancer listed in the proposed schedule no such evidence has yet been adduced and the purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to invite the Government to consider whether they feel that the possibility of such an association would make it appropriate for such

  761
  individuals and their dependants to be awarded compensation or pensions.
  It is impossible to conclude that all the forms of cancer listed in the schedule which have developed in service personnel or Crown employees taking part in these programmes many years ago must have been the result of such exposure. For example, we know that the levels of radiation to which some of those at a distance from the tests were exposed may well have been, at the most, no greater than those levels to which individuals living in, for example, the county of Cornwall are exposed, where the level of background radiation is five times that in other parts of the United Kingdom. Exposure may have been no greater than that. Certainly we cannot in any circumstances prove that such an association exists. However, it is equally impossible to prove that such an association does not exist.
  Hence, the question I ask is this: Is it the Government's wish and intention to consider favourably the position of those who have been involved in such test programmes? Will they consider the payment of pensions or compensation to them or their dependants in the case of the development of those conditions listed in the schedule? I support the amendment, as I have said, in a probing capacity.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Henley: It may be of use in the debate if I intervene at this stage and speak fairly briefly. I shall speak again at the end of the debate before the noble Lord, Lord Carter, decides what to do about his amendment.
  Lord Parry: I hope that my question will not be blocked out by the Minister answering at this stage.
  Lord Henley: It may be of use to the Committee if I speak now. I reassure the noble Lord that I will answer his and any other points towards the end of the debate before the noble Lord, Lord Carter, concludes and decides what to do about his amendment.
  I wish to begin with the question of the standard of pro of which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned. Under the War Pensions Scheme administered by my department, if a claim for a war pension is made within seven years of service ending under Article 4 of the Service Pensions Order, there is a presumption in favour of the claimant in that the onus is on my department to show beyond reasonable doubt that disablement or death is not due to service.
  The standard of pro of applicable to such claims is identical with that required in criminal trials. The department has to prove the opposite. The result is that a claim under Article 4 should not be rejected unless it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the conditions for an award are not fulfilled. If a claim is made for a war pension after seven years—that is what we are talking about here—under Article 5, the onus is on the claimant to show, on the balance of probabilities, that disablement or death is due to service.
  762
  The article provides that where a reasonable doubt exists, the benefit of that reasonable doubt shall be given to the claimant. I emphasise that very low balance of pro of, and I ask the Committee to compare it with the balance of pro of required in the criminal courts and elsewhere. As Members of the Committee will know, in the criminal courts matters are decided beyond reasonable doubt, and in civil courts they are decided on the balance of probabilities.
  Therefore, I am sure that the Committee will agree that the law surrounding claims for war pensions sides very much with the claimant. Because of that, we have been able to award pensions, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rightly said, in respect of some of those who participated in the UK nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s. I wish to correct one brief point which the noble Lord made. I believe he was in error. It is always open to those who were widowed before 1988 to reapply for a war widow's pension if the husband died of two particular conditions which I shall come to later and which were revealed after the publication of the report in 1988.
  This amendment reflects the anxieties which have been expressed in the House and elsewhere about the programme conducted in the South Pacific and the suggestion that it has bequeathed a legacy of illness to those who participated. Most of those who took part were young; and now, inevitably, they are middle-aged or elderly. Some have developed ill-health; and others, sadly, have died. The amendment is based on the presumption that exposure to radiation during participation in nuclear weapons trials is responsible for these illnesses and deaths. I believe such presumption to be unfounded.
  It is a sad fact that many of those men who participated in the United Kingdom nuclear weapons test programme would be suffering from cancer by now or would have died if they had spent their entire national service in this country and had never gone anywhere near the South Pacific. It is understandable that some of them, knowing that radiation can cause cancer, should associate their illness in middle age or old age with the participation in the programme over 30 years ago. I stress that there is no evidence, either medical or scientific, to link participation in the nuclear weapons test programme and the ill health which some of the participants have subsequently suffered.
  The nuclear safety standards and procedures were drawn up and implemented during the test programme with commendable and professional thoroughness. They bear favourable comparison with the standards in force today. While the Government, aware of concern about the tests, have remained confident over the years that the safety precautions taken were perfectly adequate and that personnel were not subjected to any significant health hazards, they commissioned the National Radiological Protection Boad to undertake a study of the health of the participants and to investigate whether it showed any correlation with radiation exposure.
  I remind the Committee at this stage that this was an independent survey involving staff from

  763
  the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the use of eminent consultants. The initial protocol made clear that the study team would seek to eliminate bias and would conduct checks of the data supplied. It would investigate original records; and, so far as possible, it would verify all important data. The report describes in detail the elaborate checks that were done; the direct involvement of staff from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the use of eminent consultants such as Sir Richard Doll and others, particularly in the confirmation of the causes of death on death certificates. The death certificates, which are not held by the MoD, show that considerable pains were taken to ensure independence.
  Furthermore, the fact that the BMJ has accepted for publication a summary of the report and its findings demonstrates the scientific validity of the study. The scientific reputations of the authors are unassailable. The report shows how thoroughly all sources of bias were investigated and either eliminated or taken into account in the findings.
  After examining well over 100, 000 records of various kinds, identifying 22, 347 individuals as test participants and comparing their mortality and cancer incidence records with those of a similar number of controls of men who had not participated in the tests but who had served in tropical or sub-tropical areas while the tests were being carried out—it was a mammoth exercise—the NRPB report concluded:
  "small hazards of leukaemia and multiple myeloma may well have been associated with participation in the nuclear weapons programme, but that such participation has not otherwise had a detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life or on their total risk of developing cancer".
  As I have already said, under the provisions of the war pensions scheme, where there is reliable evidence which raises a reasonable doubt whether a condition is due to or aggravated by service, the benefit of that doubt must be and is given to the claimants.
  Our doctors in the war pensions branch were satisfied, having studied the NRPB report in 1988, that it provided just that evidence for the rejection of claims for war pensions relating to solid cancers. However, in the case of multiple myeloma and leukaemia, other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia, our doctors considered that, even though the NRPB report did not prove that these two conditions were linked with exposure to radiation, even on a balance of probabilities, nevertheless it contained statistical evidence which raised a reasonable doubt about those conditions being attributable to service by men who participated in these tests.
  Consequently, as I have explained, in line with the war pensions legislation, we have been able to review and consider claims for war pensions for those who satisfy the criteria identified by the NRPB report. Therefore, there is already in existence the appropriate legislation to provide pensions in cases where there is some reliable evidence which raises a reasonable doubt whether a condition is caused or aggravated by service. I am satisfied that further legislation is both unnecessary and unjustified.
  764
  The 1988 report included information collected up to a cut- of f point of 1st January 1984 though the NRPB continued to accumulate data on mortality and cancer incidence among the participants and the control group. Therefore, the NRPB recommended that a further study should be undertaken to validate and analyse this additional data. The Government agreed to commission such a further study aimed at analysing the data up to a new cut- of f point of 1st January 1989, which is five years after the earlier one. The NRPB has stressed that this recommendation is not based on any new and worrying evidence, but rather on a wish to be able to give a definitive statement in the light of the additional data accumulated between 1984 and 1989.
  Clearly, this further study, due at the end of next year, will provide a valuable up-to-date picture of mortality and cancer incidence among the nuclear test participants and the wider general community. It is hoped that the report from the new study will be available by the end of next year, although I must stress that the NRPB has full responsibility for the conduct, timing and methodology of the study. The Committee will, I am sure, agree with me that members of the NRPB and their colleagues who will be involved in this most important work must be allowed complete freedom in the way they undertake their tasks. We shall of course await the NRPB's further report with interest and will take full account of the findings to the extent that they provide any additional information that might affect participants' entitlement to war pensions.
  In the meantime I can only reiterate the Government's view that while we have the greatest sympathy for those who served the nation so well and are now in ill health, there really is no evidence which would support claims that the majority of cancers specified in the amendment are attributable to service in the United Kingdom nuclear testing programme. I exclude the two cancers which I mentioned. We have not reached this conclusion lightly. We were aware of concerns over the health of some of those who participated in tests and we commissioned the NRPB to provide facts on mortality and cancer incidence. We have accepted that part of the report which concluded that small hazards of leukaemia, other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia, and multiple myeloma may have been associated with participation in the testing programme, and we are paying war pensions as a result. Equally, we have accepted the other conclusion of this independent and expert study, which was that participation has not otherwise had a detectable effect on expectation of life or on the total risk of developing cancer.
  I shall deal at the end of the debate with further points raised. I hope that Members of the Committee will recognise that this is an emotive subject but I ask them to acknowledge that the Government's case is based on sound evidence.
  Lord Carter: I shall wish to respond to all those points at the end of the debate. It would help the Committee if the noble Lord could say how many war pensions have been awarded since 1988 in

  765
  respect of leukaemia and myeloma in response to the NRPB report.
  Lord Henley: My understanding is that a total of seven have been awarded—six to widows whose husbands died as a result of the two diseases and one to a war pensioner.
  Earl Russell: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats I should like to support the amendment. I shall not gild the lily by elaborating the arguments so well put by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Walton of Detchant. I should like, if I may, to answer some of the points made by my noble kinsman. I concede the one strong point in the government case. We do not know which of these deaths are the consequence of the nuclear tests. What we are dealing with here is a con-elation. We are dealing with a group of people in which there is an incidence of cancer far higher than the national average.
  Lord Henley: Perhaps I may correct the noble Earl. What I have just been saying and what the NRPB figures have shown is that there is no higher rate of cancer among this group than among the rest of the population. That is why we used a control group of another 20, 000 people who had the same background of serving but not near nuclear tests. It is only with the two cancers that I have mentioned—multiple myeloma and leukaemia, excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia—that there seems to be a slightly higher rate. In that case we have accepted that that could be attributable service and we are awarding pensions as a result.
  3.45 p.m.
  Earl Russell: I confess that I do not have the figures to hand but I am extremely surprised by what I hear. Perhaps we shall hear more detail of it later.
  I should like to answer some of the other points that have been made. The noble Lord referred to the seven-year burden of proof. That is a perfectly reasonable argument in normal conventional warfare. If one is shot in normal conventional warfare, one knows it. But it is of the essence of nuclear war and nuclear testing that an injury may occur and surface very many years later. Therefore the seven-year formula seems to be very hard indeed to apply.
  My noble kinsman may express anxiety about taking a. breach of the seven-year formula as a precedent. I do not think that it will be a precedent very of ten. Nuclear war is not a common occurrence. If it should happen on a really large scale we would be concerned with other questions beyond requests for compensation. In any future testing, which does not seem to be in prospect at the moment, a great many more precautions would be taken than on this occasion. We have heard accounts given of people being asked to roll in the dust. I am not sure that I find that very easy to reconcile with the argument that the protection offered was perfectly adequate. Indeed, I am not sure that at that stage of the nuclear weapons, programme the protection offered could be perfectly adequate. I do not think that we had any
  766
  idea then what perfectly adequate in this context really meant.
  Finally, there is an argument of trust. People who risk their lives and their health in the service of the Crown need to know that they will, if they receive serious injury, be compensated or in extreme cases that their dependants will be compensated. That is a matter of trust and not many people would serve the Crown without it. We have been given a figure of £4 million to £5 million. The Government have to consider which is more expensive—£4 million to £5 million just once with no great prospect of it happening again, or a breach of trust which would live in people's memories and not redound to the Government's credit.
  Lord Parry: In terms of the average age of the Committee the Minister is quite young. If he were not he would have a sense of dé jà vu as we listened to his response at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. In the course of the debate I have been reminded by my noble friend Lady Phillips of the arguments concerning pneumoconiosis and silicosis and the causes of those conditions. Members of the Committee will not need to be reminded of the various issues that have arisen since in which the burden of pro of has taken so long to establish that generations have died in agony as a result of the postponement of real intervention.
  It is also understood by supporters of the Government that what the Government lack in the country is an understanding of the fact that they care. I have always assumed that they care. I have always assumed that their failure to communicate is part of their problem. This is an issue on which they can demonstrate clearly and immediately that, while they understand that the figures they have been quoting to us are the burden of the pro of for doing nothing, there is within those figures an equal burden of pro of for acting immediately.
  I am bound to point out to the Minister that 40 years ago I taught in a town with a population of some 2, 200. There were two young men in my class. The name of one of them comes easily to mind. I can give the Minister his name—Ronnie Adams. I can give the noble Lord his address—Trinity Terrace, Burton, in the county of Pembroke, which is now within Dyfed. I have been in touch with his widow, as indeed has the Conservative Member for Pembroke, Nicholas Bennett. He and I have exchanged letters and have always tried to work in harmony together to get justice for the widow of that man.
  Ronnie Adams was one of those young people who were taken out to the site. He was in close proximity to the explosion. He was advised to turn his back on it and to count to 60; and 60 seconds later to turn around to see what he could see so that he could report it. Now I report to the Committee that he died two years ago of one of the two diseases of which the Minister has spoken.
  Lord Henley: I tried to make it clear—perhaps I did not make it clear enough—that his widow would be entitled to put her claim back. If the war pensioner died of one of the diseases that I mentioned I am

  767
  sure that his case would get a sympathetic hearing. That is why I tried to stress that the standard of pro of which we apply in war pensions is a generous one. Where there is a reasonable doubt the benefit of that reasonable doubt will be given to the claimant.
  Lord Parry: The Minister will understand that I lived with this question when uncles of mine were asked to agree to allowing their lungs to be submitted for examination after they died so that the reason for death could be proved. It is in that context that I have been dealing with this individual case. While he is correct to argue that the widows of these men can raise an appeal, he must realise that many of them are unlikely to be able to deal with the processes of appeal. They are likely to be at a grave disadvantage when it comes to dealing with any department to obtain rights which fall due to them.
  I should like to stress that clearly there has been a point at which young people in this country doing their duty—some servicemen and some civilians in attendance on them—have been subject to risks which, as the noble Lord said, were not properly understood at the time. However, they are understood now. I say to the Government: for heaven's sake, demonstrate your caring and do your duty.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I understand the point about servicemen and Crown employees who were accompanying the servicemen at these tests. However, I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that it seems to me that we should not leave out the civilians who worked during the war in the university research teams on the back-up research which supported the tests that eventually led to the development of the first two nuclear bombs.
  Those people were engaged in research which was not fully understood at the time. The amount of radiation to which they were exposed was probably much less, but on the whole they were unprotected. For many years they worked in an atmosphere full of radioactivity. It seems a pity to me to narrow the issue down to service pensions. However, I realise that at this stage it is probably only a probing amendment.
  I should say that I took part as a university employee in a very humble capacity in this connection when I was very young. In my view, the considerations mentioned by the noble Lord apply in this case. Moreover, the generosity and the approach on the pension side are probably not as great because if we are talking about disability pensions for those people they would probably not be getting a service pension.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I think that noble Lords felt some sympathy for my noble friend Lord Henley when he was speaking to this amendment. As he so rightly said to the Committee, this is a very emotive matter and one upon which Members of this Chamber on both sides naturally have strong feelings. I am troubled by two aspects of the matter. First, it is apparently now accepted that in the case of two forms of cancer, myeloma and leukemia, if a
  768
  person who was exposed to radiation during these tests dies a pension will be granted. That is very good news.
  However, certainly to the layman—and I claim no medical knowledge whatever—it seems difficult to draw a sharp distinction between those two forms of cancer and others. I pose this question to my noble friend. Can we be sure and clear in our minds that that is a valid distinction and is to be accepted in cases of myeloma and leukemia when exposure may be the cause of the disease, while, on the other hand, other forms of cancer can be excluded? As a layman I find that distinction hard to understand.
  My second point concerns the operation of the war pensions scheme. I must say to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour that, although one has great regard for the people in civilian life who conducted this extremely dangerous research, they are subject to a different system. Their case must be looked at under different rules. In this debate we are looking at the issue under the terms of the war pensions scheme. I speak with some experience on the matter as I was responsible for the scheme for six and a half years. I know that it is true, as has been said, that it tends deliberately to err on the side of the applicant. In particular, it does not call for anything to be established beyond reasonable doubt as is the case with so many other claims under many other schemes.
  Taking those two aspects together—that is, the question of trying to draw a line between those two forms of cancer and others and the application of that to a system which believes in erring, if it has to err, on the side of the injured person—I wonder whether we are wise to draw the line where it appears to have been drawn. I know nothing of the experiments carried out in the 1950s, save to say that it is obviously the case that no one at that time understood nuclear radiation and its horrors. Therefore, with the best intentions in the world, the precautions taken cannot have been what they would be if similar tests were carried out today. However, that casts no reflection upon those responsible for them; people simply did not know the dangers. Surely that fact introduces another element of doubt which makes one a little unhappy.
  My noble friend spoke about the preparation of another report. However, I was a little sad to hear him say that it would not be available until the end of next year. Given the age of some of the people concerned and at least the possibility that their health may have been damaged by the exposure to which they were undoubtedly subject—they undoubtedly suffered a measure of radiation—it is somewhat unfortunate that the report will not be available for another 18 months. I wonder whether my noble friend is prepared to say, even if he does not feel able—and he appears not to be able—to accept that in a war pension case it would be sensible to give the benefit of some doubt to the applicant, whether the publication of the report can be expedited. If the report is already in preparation, I cannot see why a further 18 months is required. It must be enormously disappointing to those who are interested in the case of these people.

  769
  When my noble friend finally replies, I hope that he will be able to reassure Members on both sides of the Committee that he is not simply drawing the line where it now rests and standing upon it for at least 18 months. I hope he can reassure us that the Government realise that this is not a matter upon which many people think that the conclusions are absolutely clear. If those conclusions are not absolutely clear, I am sure the Government will understand that people in all parties, both inside and outside of Parliament, would be more than happy if the provisions were stretched a little further to include people who undoubtedly served our country many years ago. These people served both Crown and country and during such service they were undoubtedly exposed to some risks to which ordinary people were not exposed.
  Perhaps the Government should take a deep breath and reconsider the matter. The sums of money involved are very small compared with those discussed yesterday. I wonder whether my noble friend would be prepared to take back a little of what he said and discuss with his right honourable friend whether we can be so absolutely certain of the distinction between those two kinds of cancer and others for it to be right to deprive people who undoubtedly served our country of this benefit. In that difficult situation—believe me, I do not under-rate the problem for a Minister and a department—perhaps there is a case for taking a deep breath and saying that this is a comparatively small sum. As I know, it does not set any awkward precedent and unhappily it would not last for long. Therefore, rather than risk leaving those who served this country with a feeling of bitterness and a sense that they have been let down by the country, is it not better to try to move some way in their direction?
  4 p.m.
  Lord Henley: My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that as a layman he found it difficult to distinguish. All of us here, with perhaps one or two exceptions, are laymen. Obviously we have to take advice on these matters. I am advised that it is quite easy for medical experts to distinguish between the cancers. I am glad that my noble friend stressed the special nature of the war pensions scheme. He has a great deal of experience. It is important to stress, as I did at the beginning of the debate, that the standard of pro of is merely that we ask that where a reasonable doubt is shown, the benefit of that reasonable doubt shall be given to the claimant.
  My noble friend also asked that I put pressure on my right honourable friend to urge the NRPB to expedite the report. We have always stressed the independence of the report. I think that it would be wrong for me or, for that matter, my right honourable friend, to put pressure on the NRPB to expedite the report. That body has said that the report will be available by the end of next year. Any interference by myself would lead to accusations that we were interfering with the fairness and impartiality of the report.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Does my noble friend consider that he would be treating the board with perfect respect if he suggested that there was great anxiety in Parliament over the matter and that an interim report might be helpful?
  Lord Henley: I am sure that the NRPB will be aware of this debate. I shall make sure that it is aware of the comments made by my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken. If any new evidence should appear before the date mentioned, from whatever source, it is still open to the doctors in the war pensions branch of my department at Norcross to consider whether that evidence applied to the individual claimant and whether, as a result of our standards of pro of, any claimant was eligible for a war pension. For that reason I stress what my noble friend emphasised—the generous onus of pro of with regard to war pensions.
  I stress again the point raised by my noble kinsman Lord Russell that there are not higher rates of all the cancers excluding myeloma and leukaemia other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia among the approximately 20, 000 people who were examined. Within the group and the control group—and I stress that the control group was the same size consisting of people from the same background who had served around the world but not near nuclear tests—there was no higher rate of incidence of these cancers other than the two I have mentioned. I do not know the figures but it was slightly greater. Nor was the rate any higher between the control group and the original group than that in the general population.
  Lord Parry: Will the noble Lord admit that in a town with a population of 2, 222 from which two citizens, both of them now dead are tested, the figures seem to indicate that there must be a higher average than usual?
  Lord Henley: What I have been trying to stress is that approximately 22, 000 people took part. The control group was a similar size. I appreciate that there might be oddities in one town of 2, 000 where the figures are higher, but it is not a big enough sample. We have taken a sample the same size as the group of those who took part in the tests.
  Perhaps I may return to the point raised by the noble Lord about his friend and neighbour, a harrowing case. If the facts, as he put them, are correct and this widow's husband died either of multiple myeloma or leukaemia other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia, she is likely to be eligible. However I cannot adjudicate on that case at the Dispatch Box.
  Lord Carter: Perhaps I may intervene. If the husband died of a cancer other than leukaemia or myeloma and had been involved in the nuclear test programme, since the evidence is before the war pensions board at the moment, the widow would not be able to prove this. She would have no reasonable chance of proving that those cancers were associated because the department relies entirely on the NRPB report to deal only with leukaemia and myeloma. Is that correct?
  Lord Henley: The noble Lord is absolutely correct. The noble Lord's noble friend Lord Parry stated that in that case he thought it was either multiple myeloma or leukaemia. On those facts it is likely that the widow could be eligible. However, I cannot adjudicate on the matter at the Dispatch Box. No doubt, with the support of the noble Lord and my honourable friend, the Member of Parliament for that area, Mr. Bennett, she will receive every reassurance. I give the noble Lord the assurance that the war pensions department itself will look at the case. I do not know whether the widow has already made a claim and been turned down. In that case, we shall ensure that it goes to appeal.
  Lord Parry: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
  Lord Henley: Having dealt with that matter, I wish to answer a few other points made by noble Lords of a factual nature. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned the memo of 20th May 1953. It stated that tests were vital to discover detailed effects of various types of explosions on equipment, stores and men without various types of protection. This is true. Tests were carried out and for the purposes of the test articulated dummies were used. At no time during the United Kingdom tests were humans used as guinea pigs.
  At no time during the test programme—this was something that the Government were accused of both by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter—were participants asked to roll in the dust. To ask that would have been irresponsible. As the ground level temperature would have been extremely high, this would have been very difficult.
  My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour suggested that civilians should be included within the definition of nuclear test veterans. Twenty-one United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapons tests took place at Monte Bello Islands in Western Australia, the Emu Field and the Maralinga Range in South Australia; and at Maiden Island and Christmas Island in the Pacific. Visits to these locations were spread over 15 years. All United Kingdom servicemen and male employees at the then Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston and the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell who were known to have visited any of the 15 locations during this period were included in the study of the population as test participants.
  I turn now to the situation in America. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quite rightly said that the Americans have introduced such a scheme. I believe that the list of cancers is more or less copied straight from the American list. The United States decision to consider awards for certain diseases is entirely a matter for the United States Government. The United Kingdom's testing programme was conceived and conducted under the control of United Kingdom personnel quite separately from the American test programme. The United States records included situations in which many more participants were known to have experienced measurable radiation exposures that were significantly greater than those received by the bulk
  772
  of the United Kingdom participants in the United Kingdom tests.
  I go back to the NRPB report. I can only reiterate that it shows that there is no evidence in the case of any cancers other than the two I have mentioned. However, there is a statistically greater chance that cancers may have been caused by taking part in the tests. With that in mind it is quite right that the Government should award war pensions to those who are suffering from leukaemia, other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia, and multiple myeloma which may have been associated with participation in the testing programme. We have accepted the conclusion of this independent and expert study that participation in the tests has had no detectable effect on other cancers, on expectation of life or on the total risk of developing those cancers.
  I hope that, bearing those comments in mind, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I hope I have given him assurances that where there is evidence we certainly shall be able to award war pensions. I stress, however, the low standard of proof. Without evidence I do not think it would be right to go down that road.
  Lord Walton of Detchant: I hope the Committee will forgive me for speaking again before the noble Lord, Lord Carter, closes on the amendment. I have two or three points to make. First, there are substantial differences in character between, on the one hand, multiple myeloma and leukaemia and, on the other hand, the various forms of solid cancer which are listed in the proposed new schedule. Secondly, I was much reassured to hear the Minister say that widows and dependants of those who were involved in the test programme and who died from leukaemia or myeloma may in retrospect apply for pensions. That was a reassuring comment. I trust there is no time-limit upon that provision.
  I was also glad to hear of the second study that is being carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board. It is quite clear that the first report of January 1988 was produced after the most careful and earnest consideration by some of the country's most distinguished epidemiologists, radiation biologists and physicians. As the Minister rightly pointed out, that report did not demonstrate any significant difference in the incidence of solid forms of cancer between those exposed to radiation and a control population. However, it demonstrated a significant increase in myeloma and leukaemia. The Government's decision has been based on that evidence. As I said in my opening remarks, that statistical and epidemiological evidence did not prove an association but neither did it disprove an association. That is a point of considerable importance. That is why I raise the issue and why I agreed to add my name to this amendment.
  Finally, I was very glad to hear the assurance from the Minister that if the new NRPB study demonstrates a significant increase in the incidence of solid forms of cancer in those involved in the test programme there is a probability that the Government will reconsider the issue and that if an interim report shows that to be the case the matter will be reconsidered as a matter of urgency.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Carter: I wish to express my gratitude and the gratitude of those outside the Chamber who are most intimately concerned with this matter—that is, the survivors from the test programme—for the debate.! shall deal with a few of the points that were raised. I was glad to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who is a world expert in this matter. The noble Lord referred to the different opinions among experts on this subject. He emphasised the fact that although the NRPB was not able to prove that an association with other cancers existed it could not prove that such an association did not exist.
  In opening the debate I made a point to which the Minister referred. I mentioned the widows whose husbands had died of leukaemia and myeloma and who had applied before 1988. In those days they were turned down. Even if widows can now apply under the war pension scheme as regards leukaemia and myeloma, and perhaps for other cancers in future, they have to go through the whole business of appeal and pro of, even if the balance of pro of is on their side. My noble friend Lord Parry referred to that. The Minister was good enough to confirm that the lumber of awards granted since 1988 comes to the princely total of seven.
  Why have the Americans allowed compensation? They have carried out an immense research effort involving 250, 000 people, with all the cost that that entails. The list of cancers referred to in the amendment is taken directly from the American study. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will not mind if I say that I thought his answer on the American point was rather thin. I have heard the phrase " British is best" used in a number of contexts, but I do not think I have ever heard it applied to the nuclear testing programme. However, apparently the Americans did not carry out the testing programme as carefully as we did and therefore there was a greater risk of cancers on their side.
  The Minister referred to the thoroughness of the testing programme. We have the evidence of literally hundreds of men who were present on that occasion. They cannot all be lying when they say that they were treated as guinea pigs. They were not issued with protective clothing or dose meters. I do not believe that was done intentionally at the time. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, knowledge of these matters in the 'fifties was much poorer than it is today. However, the Minister did not deal with my point on the NRPB's study that the files of all those who had applied for pensions were excluded from the study. Those people who were applying for pensions by definition had a higher incidence of cancer.
  We are now told we shall have to wait for another report and further study. Some men will have died by then. We obtained a report on leukaemia and myeloma only after years of pressure. Finally the Government agreed to have that study carried out. The study revealed what many people had suspected. It revealed that there was an association with certain types of cancer. I feel I should repeat the quotation from the NRPB report that I made at the beginning, which states:
  774
  "Some aspects of the results, however, suggest that a real hazard was associated with the programme".
  We heard all the arguments about the association with solid cancers with equal certainty before 1988 when servicemen were arguing that there was an association. In the absence of the NRPB report the Government understandably denied the association. Now of course they have had to admit to the association because it has been revealed by that independent report.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, mentioned university research. In that research people were not deliberately exposed to radiation, but many civilians and servicemen involved in the testing programme were deliberately exposed to it. That I think is the difference. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was extremely helpful. I believe he was the noble Lord who confirmed the figure which I gave as regards the cost of this measure being £4 to £5 million. There are about a thousand people involved and, sadly, for reasons we all understand, it is a reducing figure.
  I should like to repeat a phrase that the noble Lord used. Could the Government just for once take a deep breath and give those men the benefit of the doubt? The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was extremely brave when he said that we were all laymen in this matter. However, I should think there is more expertise in this Chamber on this subject than there is almost anywhere else in the country.
  The Minister said there was no evidence of higher rates of solid cancers in those exposed to radiation in the testing programme. However, that was exactly what was said as regards leukaemia and myeloma until the NRPB report was issued. The Government, to their credit, changed their stance when that report was issued. We now know that seven people are receiving war pensions as a result of that report.
  I shall conclude with Chernobyl. We were told at the time that the incidence of leukaemia was limited and that the effects of the radiation were limited. We now find that the incidence is much greater than at first thought and the effects much longer lasting. In every case of exposure to ionising radiation it has been revealed that the danger is greater than first thought.
  I am very disappointed with the Minister's answer. He has given nothing to the people who asked us to put their argument. It is not a matter on which I like to divide the Committee. However, without an assurance from the Minister, other than the promise of an interim report at some stage, that those people will receive help, all I can do is seek the opinion of the Committee.
  4.20 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 129.

  DIVISION NO. 1

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Ardwick, L.

  Annan, L.

  Auckland, L.

  775

  Aylestone, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Birk, B.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Lawrence, L.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Brightman, L.

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  Brookes, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

  McNair, L.

  Campbell of Eskan, L.

  Mais, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Carter, L.

  Mayhew, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Monson, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Nicol, B.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Northfield, L.

  David, B.

  Ogmore, L.

  Davies of Penrhys, L.

  Oram, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Parry, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Peston, L.

  Ewart-Biggs, B.

  Phillips, B.

  Falkland, V. [Teller.]

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Feversham, L.

  Porritt, L.

  Fisher of Rednal, B.

  Portsmouth, Bp.

  Gallacher, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Rea, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Glenamara, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

  Russell, E.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Seear, B.

  Grey, E.

  Serota, B.

  Gridley, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Hayter, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Henderson of Brompton, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Hirshfield, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Hunt, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

  Walston, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Whaddon, L.

  Jacques, L.

  White, B.

  Jeger, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  John-Mackie, L.

  Winstanley, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Winterbottom, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Wise, L.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Young of Darlington, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aldington, L.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Arran, E.

  De La Warr, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Bellwin, L.

  Donegall, M.

  Beloff, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Belstead, L.

  Elibank, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Elles, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Erroll of Hale, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Fieldhouse, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Foley, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Cockfield, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  776

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Henley, L.

  Pender, L.

  Hesketh, L.

  Pennock, L.

  Hives, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Hood, V.

  Hooper, B.

  Quinton, L.

  Howe, E.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Hunter of Newington, L.

  Reay, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Renton, L.

  Ironside, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Joseph, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Kaberry of Adel, L.

  St. John of Fawsley, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Knutsford, V.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Sandys, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

  Shaughnessy, L.

  Long, V.

  Slim, V.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Somers, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Strange, B.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Mancroft, L.

  Manton, L.

  Strathspey, L.

  Marshall of Leeds, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Swinton, E.

  Mersey, V.

  Terrington, L.

  Morris, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Tranmire, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Moyne, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Munster, E.

  Vinson, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Westbury, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Wolfson, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  4.28 p.m.
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 62:
  Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
  ("Entitlement to income support
  In section 20 of the 1986 Act, for subsections (3) to (4N) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(3) A person in Great Britain is entitled to income support if—

  (a) he is over the age of 16;

  (b) he has no income or his income does not exceed the applicable amount;

  (c) neither he nor, if he is a member of a married or unmarried couple, the other member is entitled to family credit or would be so entitled if he or she claimed it; and

  (d) except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, he is available for employment or attending a full-time course of study." ").

  The noble Earl said: When I woke up this morning my wife assured me that I had been making speeches to this amendment in my sleep. Naturally I asked whether I had made sense. She replied, "Yes". That worried me. It may illustrate that I have prepared this amendment with rather more thoroughness than the last. It may also illustrate the fact that the matter has been with us for some time, and that it is beginning to get under my skin. It is essential that one should not make speeches to amendments in one's sleep. When one gets to that point, one begins to think that it is about time that something was

  777
  done about the problem so that it is taken away and one does not have to worry about it.
  The amendment deals with another effect of the changes in the 1986 Act: the provision for 16 and 17 year-olds who are denied eligibility for income support and who are supposed to register for the YTS. When that provision came into effect in October 1988, the statistical effects were interesting: 70, 535 teenagers were taken from the unemployment register, but only 14, 677 were added to the YTS register. There is obviously a discrepancy between those figures.
  One should like to know where the missing teenagers went. The number of filled vacancies at job centres during that period was rather lower than usual. Therefore, it does not appear that that massive body of teenagers was put into employment, which was the theoretical object of the exercise. They simply disappeared. When I walk along the Strand and see the number of people who are begging, I begin to think that I know where a considerable number of them went. Begging was not the object of the exercise, but it is the effect which has been achieved. It is extremely unfortunate.
  The Government's position depends upon the theory that a guarantee of a YTS place is offered. The guarantee is clearly extremely defective. We hear regularly of cases of people for whom YTS places are not available, for example because of pregnancy. Occasionally there are problems with race. Sometimes there are problems with disability. By far the biggest problem results from people having no home. One of the teenagers in the Strand who was interviewed by the Independent put the matter very bluntly,
  "No home; no job: No job; no home."
  That is not the result of fecklessness; it is not the result of an inability to work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, stated last year, it is difficult to turn up for a job interview in clothes in which a noble Lord would not garden. One cannot sleep rough in the streets, because one has nowhere else to go, and then turn up, looking suitably spick and span in order to impress an employer. It has been done, and the fact that it has been done at all is pro of that within that group of people there is a very considerable determination to work. That it is not done regularly is no matter for surprise.
  The root of the problem is the determination that teenagers should live at home. That is something that has not happened before and it does not seem to be happening now. When it does not happen, it gives rise to acute problems.
  We hear regularly about teenagers who have been thrown out by their parents; for example, as a consequence of a personality clash. Those kinds of things happen and we are not going to stop them. Sometimes it happens as a consequence of a second marriage and sometimes for reasons that are a good deal mere personal and indefinable.
  One situation in which the offer of a YTS place is insufficient is that of those who have been subjected to child abuse. Those people, when they leave home, feel the need to conceal their whereabouts from their
  778
  parents. Therefore, they do not register for the YTS. That would enable them to be found.
  There is justice in the point made last year by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that not all charges of child abuse are true. That statement needs to be repeated. If a charge of child abuse is falsely made, it is a sign that something is badly wrong in the family. To ask a parent to take back a child who has made a false charge of child abuse, as if nothing had happened and without investigation, is asking the parent to do something superhuman. Where a false charge is made, it indicates that something else is wrong that needs investigation.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, has previously spoken about those who have been in local authority care and who have no home to go to. Since last year the Government have introduced the notion of estrangement premium. That is a very welcome change so far as it goes; but the administration of that premium gives rise to considerable dissatisfaction. The word of the parents as to whether a child can satisfactorily return home regularly appears in practice to be taken without question. In child abuse cases that is an utterly unsatisfactory measure. There are other circumstances where the parents' willingness to have the child home is not necessarily sufficient pro of that that is where the child ought to be.
  There is also considerable dissatisfaction in relation to the administration of the severe hardship allowance. One third of claims are refused. In cases of pregnancy there is very severe difficulty in obtaining the severe hardship allowance. I remember a case that was brought to our attention last year. A 16 year-old who was pregnant was attempting to live on the £15 YTS bridging allowance. She was possessed only of one single skirt which she could get to meet round her waist. She was found not to be in a condition of severe hardship. That kind of case makes one think that the severe hardship provision is not a sufficient cure for the problem.
  The problem is this. What is to happen to teenagers who have left home for reasons which seemed good to themselves and reasons upon which it is very hard for us to pass judgment? They have no home to go to and are therefore unable to settle down anywhere where they can obtain a YTS place.
  There is the question of crime. I was interested to read a report from the Nottinghamshire probation service which was published in the Independent on 23rd April. The report stated that about one third of the teenagers who came into the hands of the Nottinghamshire probation service had no home. They usually came from familiar categories: those who had been victims of child abuse, those who had been thrown out by their parents and those who had been in local authority care. I do not know how big the iceberg is of which that is the tip, but I suspect that it is larger than we should like. The situation is capable of becoming extremely expensive over the passage of time.
  I regret to say that there is the option of prostitution, for both sexes. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has drawn our attention to that matter and I shall not elaborate on the subject.
  There is also the option of begging, as I know to my cost. Since I know it to my cost, I wonder whether, strictly, I should declare an interest in moving the amendment.
  We are told that the justification for the Government's position is the doctrine of the perverse incentive; that the benefit system should not offer a perverse incentive to leave home. I find that doctrine difficult to follow. First, the arithmetic is wrong. The costs of independent living are a great deal higher for most people than the value of the services that they receive in the parental home. They are a great deal higher than the somewhat attenuated rates of income support available for those between the ages of 18 and 24. If the Government think that there is a perverse incentive to leave home, they have not done their sums correctly.
  I am surprised by the notion of human nature that is behind the doctrine of perverse incentive. To be a teenager on the run is not a very comfortable way of existing. It is a way of life that involves considerable hardship, considerable fear and considerable risks. The notion that people would undergo such hardship for the sake of a temporary few shillings extra in benefit implies a very curious perception of human nature. It seems to me to involve an almost Marxist obsession with economic motive. I do not believe that people are like that. Neither do I think that most of them have so much indifference to their long-term future. I am sure that most of them would like to become established in regular employment. However, they need a place to live before they can do so and since deposits cannot be obtained from the social fund—something to which we shall return later today—there is almost a road-block between those people and their finding a roof over their heads.
  The benefit system is not having the effect of providing an opportunity to float people of f benefit and get them into employment, which I am sure is what we want to see. It is having the effect of kicking people down and locking them into the structure of living on benefit. That is exactly the opposite of what the Government and we wish to see happening. In fact this is a process of dismantling the lifeboats. It is peculiarly short-sighted.
  It is a cliché but nevertheless true to say that most young people are at a crossroads in their life and it is valid to say that there is a tide in the affairs of men. If young people are adequately established in employment and in a household of their own, there is a prospect of a long-term process of earning their living, to the benefit of both themselves and, if I may say so, the Treasury. If they get pushed down into sleeping rough, they are pushed into a situation which it is very hard indeed to get out of.
  This is where the benefit system is having the effect of encouraging a lifetime cycle of deprivation. That is not, as the Government seem to think, because benefits are addictive. I think that the Government severely overrate the attractiveness of social security benefits; they are not that large. That is the result of kicking away the ladder so that people cannot climb out. I believe that it is a short-sighted policy. I beg to move.
  Lord Carter: I was very glad from these Benches to add my name to this amendment. As the noble Earl said, we have been over this ground before. However, there is no harm in doing that because it is very important. We hope that eventually the Government will accept the strength of our arguments.
  As the noble Earl said, this amendment would allow some young people who are living independently to claim income support until they have found themselves a suitable youth training place for a job. The Committee will agree that it is essential that homeless 16 and 17 year-olds should be given the income, time and opportunity for their attempts to find either temporary or permanent accommodation. One of the benefits envisaged by the amendment is that the guaranteed income support encourages board-and-lodging providers and hostel proprietors to allow young homeless people who are not on youth training schemes to move into accommodation. There is growing evidence that even when hostels have been set up specifically for young people they are turning them away. That is because the young person has no income and cannot afford the rent.
  The noble Earl referred to the figures from Nottingham. We are aware also of the increase in homelessness among young people in London and under the Vagrancy Act the increasing number of convictions of young people for begging, particularly in London.
  I am sure that the Minister will refer in her reply to the matter of availability of places on the youth training scheme. Shelter has advised us that 45, 000 young people are not catered for at the moment under YTS. All these young people are potentially either homeless or have other problems to which the noble Earl referred. We have argued this case on a number of occasions and on different Bills. I hope that the Government will see the strength of the arguments.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Seear: I should like briefly to support the amendment and emphasise a point alluded to by other speakers. One of the Government's reasons for refusing to give support to 16 to 18 year-olds is an assertion that there is a YTS place for all youngsters who want one. Therefore they are deliberately not weighting. I believe that the Government should look again at this matter. It may be that numerically that is true although I believe that in many areas that is not so. However, even if it were true, YTS is meant to be a training scheme. If it is not the right training for a youngster, it is absurd to push him or her arbitrarily into training just because there happens to be a training place in a particular occupation. It is a waste of training provision and will not lead to any satisfactory result.
  Moreover, it is not fair on the employers. If employers are trying to provide decent training, the last thing they want is a conscript who has been pushed into training that he does not want. He will be a disruptive influence and have the effect of making it a much less good training programme for all the other youngsters who are there. The

  781
  Government would be more consistent if they were to say that people should be properly selected for the training because it is suitable training for them. If the scheme is just being used to find any kind of employment for youngsters who happen to be around without a job, the Government should give up the pretence that it is primarily a training scheme.
  Lord Stallard: I too support this amendment. I shall no: repeat the arguments of the noble Earl in his excellent opening speech on the subject. He pointed to an experience that many of us have had when working in voluntary organisations and seeing the effects of a whole number of social security Acts over the past 10 to 15 years. I do not need to add to what he said.
  The noble Baroness said that YTS places are available. They ought to be available but the sad fact is that they are not. We debated this matter last year and I remember noting that in Glasgow there were 1, 429 places short of the number of applications. The youngsters simply could not get on to the youth training schemes. The same is true of other major cities and certainly of London. Although we were led to believe that there were enough places for those who needed them, I feel that the Government seriously underestimated the number of people eligible for places. The numbers have never been matched.
  The Government also misunderstood or undervalued the reasons why youngsters leave home. I know that they tried to put this matter right when they introduced a special allowance in 1989 and the Minister, Nicholas Scott, announced some slight improvement in benefits. However even that was insufficient to take care of the problems. He did not seem to accept the seriousness or multiplicity of the reasons why youngsters leave home these days.
  Perhaps I may illustrate the argument by one or two examples sent to me by the citizens advice bureaux. From time to time they send me details of a number of different cases. I have chosen one or two about people who are on youth training schemes. Obviously these youngsters fulfil the requirement demanded and on which the Government seem to rest their case. One case is that of a 17 year-old girl on a youth training scheme. She has had to look after her 14 year-old sister since their father died and left them alone. They have £38·25 per week to live on which must cover food, bills, clothing, household expenses and fares to get to the youth training scheme. How can anybody justify that? These people are doing what they have been told to do. They are on a YTS and qualify for what is available. For two growing youngsters, one aged 17 and one: 14, who have all the expenses that we know must be encountered in their situation, how can £38·25 be sufficient?
  Another example is that of a youngster in Cleveland. He is 17 years old and living in a flat after coming out of care. Most people can perfectly understand why this youngster already finds himself in difficulty. Young people have to come out of care; they can no longer stay there. We all understand that. When he came out, this fellow went on to a
  782
  YTS placement. He complied with what was demanded and was given the enhanced payment of £29·50 a week. He was also receiving £21·92 in housing benefit. However, he had to add to that sum £12·20 a week because the payments bear no relationship to the rents that are being charged for accommodation up and down the country. He is therefore left with £14·90 each week for all meals, clothing, travel and other costs.
  He is in dire circumstances. He is badly in need of the obvious household equipment but he cannot obtain it. Nor can he attain a community care programme because he does not have income support. We are asking that such a person be given income support. He might then be able to qualify for the grants and loans available to everyone on income support. But because being under age he does not qualify for it, he does not qualify for the other benefits that he urgently needs in order to exist.
  We cannot dodge those issues. Examples exist in their thousands. The noble Earl pointed out the consequences of not dealing with those problems. I have lists of cases of youngsters in terrible circumstances from up and down the country.
  When the Minister replies, I hope that she will consider the genuine difficulties of youngsters who have been taken of f or refused income support. They are now suffering severe hardship because they failed to obtain income support and so to qualify for other benefits.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The Committee is being asked to approve a proposal for which there is obviously a certain amount to be said, but equally obviously would involve quite substantial national expenditure. It is significant, and there are perhaps grounds for complaint, that neither the noble Earl who moved the amendment nor any of the three noble Lords who supported it, have given the faintest indication of what the cost of implementing it would be. I appreciate that they do not have the means that the Minister has for giving an accurate assessment on such a matter. On the other hand, it is hardly fair to ask the Committee to approve a proposal with no indication whatsoever of the cost to public funds. Most reasonable people look at these amendments on social security matters partly on their merits, but also weighing against their merits how much they would cost and therefore how much they would prevent being spent on other worthy causes.
  When the Minister replies, I hope that she will at least furnish Members of the Committee with the cost to public funds of these proposals. I suspect that they are substantial.
  Lord Hylton: I invite the Committee to consider the costs of not accepting the amendment. What will be the burden that falls on the police? What will be the cost to the courts? What will be the cost in borstal training and imprisonment? What will be the cost to hospitals? What will be the cost of failing to improve the present parlous situation? In 1986 the previous regulations were changed. I foresaw that there would soon be a considerable number of sturdy vagrants in this country—to use old poor law

  783
  terminology. I am sorry to say that that has come to pass. One has now only to go into virtually any Tube station in the London area to meet these people. They may be sturdy at the moment but for how long can they retain their health when, as we have known from the debates on the National Health Service, it is extremely difficult for these people to have access to primary health care?
  of those 45, 000 who have been mentioned already who have no job or YTS provision how many are seeking work and failing to find it? How many are seeking to get into hostels and are being turned away? I strongly support the amendment.
  Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned costs. We have to ask ourselves: who is now picking up the tab and paying? In most cases it is charities which are involved in care for the homeless young. I speak with some experience of St. Basil's in Birmingham. It is the largest charity for young people in the city and has a very extensive programme of care. However, for those charities that are specialising in care for the homeless young, help is needed at the initial stages from the Government. Otherwise they cannot continue with the long term rehabilitation. It is very of ten a long process of rehabilitation. It is not just a few chats with a welfare worker. The costs are being met by charities in the main. Similarly when the Government decided to cut back on the social fund, charities were used by social services. Many organisations obtained donations to provide a gas stove or an overcoat for such people. The charities had to pick up the tab for the cutback in the social fund. The charities are now having to do so because they do not wish to see young people on the streets.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned the other cost—the social cost. He failed—I do not criticise him for it—to say how the tourist trade is being affected by the situation. When people come to the great capital city they are put of f by seeing people in a similar state to those in Bangkok or some other far away place. That is another cost.
  What will happen to those young people? Will they become the people involved in the Strangeways incidents of the future? Do they feel that they have been left aside by the Government? Long term investment has to be considered and not the parsimonious short term amount involved if the Government agree to the amendment.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she deal with this point? I accept thoroughly what she said in her last few sentences. Surely we should know the figures.
  Baroness Fisher of Rednal: It is always strange that people wish to know the figures. The people who have the figures are the Government. They can collect them from social security services, from charities and from other similar organisations which inform the Government of their figures. However, evidently the Government do not wish to add them up and to give the information.
  Lord Northbourne: The figures are not that difficult to work out. If there are 45, 000 people in this category and we suggest that they should receive another £1, 000 a year, I make that £45, 000. If they should have another £2, 000 a year, the figure is £90, 000. It is not difficult to work out. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made his speech in his sleep. I hope that he will continue to make it in this Chamber until something is done. The situation is a blot on the escutcheon of this country. I urge the Government to respond positively.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: We must all consider this matter in depth. Some people are falling through the net and are in trouble. There is no question about that. The Government have tried specifically to give help through the severe hardship provisions and others. It may well be that those provisions are not operating properly. My noble friend should take note of what has been said and should consider whether they are operating properly.
  However, we have to be careful about the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that it was not much good for one to go on a YTS if it was not exactly what one wished to do, and if it was on a different subject or aspect of work from that in which one was interested. I was surprised to hear her say that, as someone who has played such a great part in developing YTS. If you are in trouble and away from home and you go on a training scheme and can get into something that provides you with a little money, gets you into the work habit and enables you to make contacts, that is probably the best thing any young person in that position can do. The places are there. In our desire to help the people who have missed out, we should not forget that the places are there. When we discuss the subject in other contexts, we must also remember that there is an increasing shortage of young people for work and that young people are now in demand.
  Paragraph (d) of the amendment states that those people would not receive support if they were available for employment. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, you are not available for work if you are not spick and span but are living in a cardboard box or sleeping in the subway. You cannot be available for employment because people simply do not look at you when you walk in and you probably dare not do so. Those people are therefore ruled out by the amendment. It would not work for them.
  I must also remind the Committee that many parents with 16 or 17 year-old children are glad that it is no longer possible for them to say, "I and my pals are going to the city to get a flat and live of f benefit". They used to be able to do that, but it became more and more difficult and is now virtually impossible. Many kids are not leaving home because of that. If the amendment is accepted, we shall go back to square one and to all the problems that there were before. I am sure that there is no one in the Committee who does not know someone who has said that he or she is glad about the present position or that it is an improvement. However that does not mean that there are no young people in trouble. It is perfectly true to say that voluntary organisations must pick up the tab.

  785
  The Government must fine-tune matters as much as possible. I do not think that the noble Earl's amendment does that. The people about whom we are most worried are not available for employment. They will not make themselves available. I do not think that the noble Earl's figures need to be taken as gospel truth, because no one knows how many people were earning then and how many are earning now. It is not possible to tell whether they are earning. The figures are difficult to come by. In a way, I am glad of that because many young people are not, as it were, on the books, but are all right for cash. They have a small amount of income because they earn it. I do not think that the amendment will achieve the objective that it seeks, but I hope that the Government will look hard at the way in which arrangements are currently targeted and try to fine-tune them better, because all is not 100 per cent. well.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Carter: Perhaps I may deal with the point about numbers raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It was a fair question. The social security statistics for 1989 reveal that, the last time a count was made, on 31st May 1988, 53, 000 of 16 to 17 year-old men and 48, 000 women were receiving income support, so the figure is about 100, 000. A large proportion of those people would now be either on a youth training scheme or living at home. Having got the number who would now be eligible under the amendment, one would guess that the figure would be well under half of the 100, 000—perhaps 30, 000 or 40, 000—which, at £1, 000 a year, would be in the order cf £30 million or £40 million. That is the best that I can do. I hope that the Minister perhaps has a more accurate answer.
  Lord Northbourne: I must apologise for my slip of the tongue. I said £45, 000 when I meant £45 million.
  Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like to congratulate the Government upon what they have done so far, but I should also like to say that it is certainly within my knowledge that the resources have not been targeted correctly until now. I shall ask the Minister on behalf of most speakers this afternoon whether she will take the amendment away and see what can be done. I know that that is difficult and that many people are worried about those people who are, in my estimation, the most vulnerable in society for the reason given by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
  There are all kinds of categories of young people—I shall not elaborate again—who are in serious trouble. For instance, if they receive a YTS place miles out in the middle of the countryside, they are not likely to know of somewhere to live. If they do not know of somewhere to live nearby, how will they find a place to live if they have no money in their pocket with which to find it? Something should be done for those people as well as those who are not able to go on the YTS schemes. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, some of those people fall through the net. If they put their mind to it, the
  786
  Government will be able to do something about the matter.
  Baroness Blatch: When I woke up this morning, I thought that I had been listening to the noble Earl speaking to the amendment all night. However, unlike his wife, I shall not comment on the sense or otherwise of what he said.
  This is an important topic and, by the time I have addressed all the points that have been raised, I hope that I shall have convinced the Committee that the Government have taken the issue extremely seriously. If I have understood it correctly, the amendment would make some quite fundamental changes in eligibility for income support. I shall try to take the amendment bit by bit.
  Perhaps I may deal first with the proposal that title should start at the age of 16. The Committee will remember that a crucial change in social security provision was introduced in September 1988 under which income support was withdrawn from most 16 and 17 year-olds. The point of the change was to prevent young people, with their whole life ahead of them, sliding straight into the benefit culture, which we believed would not be in the best interests of the young persons, their families or society as a whole. The withdrawal of benefit was complemented by the introduction of a government guarantee of the offer of a suitable Youth Training Scheme place for everyone who wanted one.
  There will always be some young people who may not be able to participate in training; for example, the long-term sick and lone parents. There will also be those who are unable to take advantage of the YTS guarantee immediately, such as those just released from custody and those forced to live independently. For those vulnerable groups, income support is still available.
  In addition to the normal rules, income support can be paid where the young person would otherwise suffer unavoidable severe hardship. That safety net enables young people at serious risk to receive benefit while looking for a job or a Youth Training Scheme place. That probably answers in part the point raised by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve. The existing income support provisions strike a balance between providing support for vulnerable youngsters without encouraging young people's dependence on the state.
  Young people of 16 and 17 are at a delicate and important stage in their life. They need encouragement to fulfil their potential and equip themselves for their future career. Giving them immediate access to the benefit system on leaving school, as this amendment would, must seriously jeopardise these aims.
  Moreover, the amendment goes far wider than simply restoring the situation for 16 and 17 year-olds to that which existed before September 1988. It seeks to alter a basic condition for receiving income support. It makes income support available to people in work whether they are single or married, with or without children. The amendment removes in its entirety the current rule which prevents income support from being paid, except in special

  787
  circumstances, where a claimant or his partner is, to quote the legislation, in "remunerative work".
  The Committee will wish to know that the term "remunerative work" refers to paid work of at least 24 hours, on average, a week. Currently, that rule operates to ensure that income support remains primarily an out- of -work benefit for people on low income. It also maintains a clear and helpful distinction between income support and family credit, which, as Members of the Committee will know, is the benefit available to working families with a dependent child on low income. This distinction saves working families with children the confusion and doubt over whether to claim income support or family credit and was a crucial plank of the 1988 reforms.
  This amendment will not only blur that distinction but introduce inequity. If the proposal were to succeed many claimants wishing to receive income support would have to be considered for family credit in order to prove that they would not qualify for that benefit. This would surely lead to many fruitless claims to family credit, thereby delaying decisions on other claims and generally causing false hopes, confusion and dissatisfaction among claimants.
  Importantly, the amendment would allow single working people and childless couples to receive income support regardless of the number of hours they work. Their entitlement would depend solely on the level of their income. In other words, it would turn income support into an in-work benefit, contrary to the fundamental principles, shared by consecutive governments, of this and previous schemes.
  It would also mean that working couples with children and a mortgage whose income is above the level for which family credit can be paid may qualify for help under income support simply because of their mortgage commitment. Members of the Committee will be aware that family credit makes no allowance for mortgage and that the major source of government help for owner occupiers in work is through mortgage income tax relief. This would mean that families with similar commitments but only slightly different levels of income would be treated differently, with the families on higher earnings receiving more help because they would qualify for income support rather than family credit, which carries with it eligibility to assistance towards mortgage costs.
  That is something which this Chamber could not countenance. However, I am afraid that this is what will happen if the amendment is accepted. Moreover, the proposal will act as a disincentive to work more hours, as income support and hence the help with mortgage costs would be lost.
  All of this would have a significant benefit and administrative cost, and I shall discuss the question of costs later. It is a burden which would fall entirely and unfairly on the taxpayer. This amendment is likely to create many more problems than it would solve.
  Additionally the amendment seeks to remove the condition that a person who is required to be
  788
  available for work must also actively seek it in order to obtain income support. The Government are totally opposed to a restoration of the position existing prior to October 1989 which enabled an unemployed person to satisfy the adjudicating authorities of his availability for work simply by a single attendance at a jobcentre.
  The Government are committed to encouraging people to take positive steps to secure a place back in the world of work. All the evidence suggests that the vast majority of claimants have willingly accepted that it is their responsibility and to their benefit to take steps to seek work actively.
  The marked absence of criticism of the new arrangements suggests that we have succeeded in creating a fair and flexible framework that has been able to deliver the behavioural changes that the legislative changes last October sought to induce. Adjudicating officers can take important factors like local labour market conditions into account in determining whether an unemployed person has taken reasonable steps to find work; people can combine job search activity with part-time study or voluntary work; and most of the small but significant minority who have so far been warned about inadequate job search have reacted positively and taken steps to remedy this. To move back to the position prior to last October would be an entirely retrograde step against the interests of the taxpayer, employers and, above all, the unemployed. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour who made that point.
  Finally, we come to the last element of this amendment. This attempts to open up the social security system to all people attending a full-time course of study. The Committee will be well aware of our overall policy that those in full-time education should not, other than quite exceptionally, rely on the social security system for their financial support.
  However, this amendment, if accepted, would give eligibility to income related benefits to the vast majority of claimants attending a full-time course of study. It would include those who stay on at school or go to a college of further education and who currently have no title to social security benefits. It would also include students during term time and short vacations. It also lacks precision in that there is no definition of a full-time course of study.
  The amendment would transfer the cost of student maintenance away from the education system, where we believe it belongs, to the social security system. This would involve significant administrative costs. It would also represent an untenable step backwards from our long stated objective of removing students from a social security system which was not designed for them.
  On costs, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, taking into account all elements of this amendment the total cost would be £225 million.
  I now address the particular anxieties of vulnerable groups in this instance. First, I turn to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on no job, no home; no home, no job.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Carter: On the point of costs, the noble Baroness mentioned the figure of £225 million taking into account all elements. Does she have a breakdown of the various parts of the amendment, because obviously it is those in full-time study who are adding to the costs?
  Baroness Blatch: I have a figure and I shall give it to the noble Lord.
  On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, homelessness is not a bar from entry to YTS. The March improvements to which I referred, announced by the Secretary of State for Employment, specifically targeted homeless youngsters building on a pilot scheme in Birmingham which got together all agencies involved with homeless youngsters. It is important to say a few words about that scheme because it was very relevant to the points raised in the course of the debate.
  In Birmingham the training agency brought together all those dealing with homeless young people, including initial training providers, social workers., careers officers and hostel staff. That resulted in effective procedures and contact between those groups for improving the help which initial trainees, receive. It provided a model of how to develop resource networks for training providers and other professionals so that they could take appropriate roles in supporting trainees with problems. As a result any homeless young person who is offered a hostel place will be found an initial training place on the same day. That secures the hostel place and if it subsequently emerges that the young person is on an inappropriate initial training scheme, a transfer to another provider will be arranged. The Committee will agree that that was an interesting pilot scheme which has been successful and it is intended to build on it.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised the problem of the right training not being available in the right place. That was also mentioned by other Members of the Committee. The Training Agency will do all it can, including providing specific training for individuals. It has resources to do so but in the end it is better for youngsters to have—
  Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness says that the Training Agency has resources. Those of us dealing with the Training Agency in one way or another at present are only too acutely aware that the funds are growing less and less and many special schemes are being cut back quite drastically as a result. I hope that she will look at that matter before she says that it is properly financed.
  Baroness Blatch: The Government have a well publicised guarantee that all young people will receive training places on training schemes as appropriate to their needs as possible. If the noble Baroness has examples of where that guarantee has not been met, we must address the issue of resources in that area.
  There was a reference to the difficulties of young pregnant girls. We shall address that specifically on
  790
  a later amendment. However, all 16 and 17 year-olds are covered by the Government's guarantee of an offer of a place on a youth training scheme if they so desire. That includes those who are pregnant. If any young woman who is pregnant meets a problem of securing a place on a training scheme, the Training Agency will make arrangements for suitable training to be provided for as long as she or her medical advisers consider appropriate.
  Special provisions are also made to allow a school-leaver who is pregnant to enter on a training scheme up to two years late, and a young woman who leaves a scheme because of pregnancy can return up to a year later and continue her training for the full period. We are also moving towards making training options more effective for young pregnant women; for example, through the provision of short care-related courses where that is a better option. That will be discussed in more detail later.
  The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also mentioned severe hardship provision. Each severe hardship claim is considered on its individual merits. Factors which are taken into account include a young person's health and vulnerability, which will include child abuse; the availability of income or savings; the prospect of a speedy entry into YTS; the availability of casual work and whether the young person has friends or relatives who can put him or her up. The Secretary of State has given a commitment that all severe hardship decisions will be made within 24 hours, because we all know the urgency of such cases, although for practical purposes payment is usually made on the same day as the case is referred.
  I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who asked about vacancies. The total number of vacancies is 160, 944 places unfilled in March of this year. The breakdown for that in round figures is, South East 20, 000; London 12, 000; South West 13, 000; East Midlands 18, 000; West Midlands 22, 000; York and Humberside 19, 000; North-West 23, 000; Northern 9, 000; Wales 6, 000 and Scotland 15, 000. All those figures were rounded down, not rounded up.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, made reference to the comparability between income support and YT allowance, and which would be the more appropriate. Perhaps I may say that the actual amount received by a young person on a YTS is greater than the income support rate. He mentioned the case of a girl on the YTS looking after her 14 year-old sister; a 17 year-old looking after a sister is not required to register for YTS. She would qualify for income support for herself and her sister in the normal way.
  I now come to the breakdown of the figure I gave earlier of £225 million requested by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. For 16 and 17 year-olds—that is the first part of the amendment—the cost would be £90 million. For those seeking work it would be £50 million. To remove the remunerative working rule would cost £115 million.
  My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour mentioned people falling through the net and being caused severe hardship. The schemes, she suggested, were

  791
  perhaps not working properly. I can give some assurance that improvements in administration introduced last November, including automatic referral for severe hardship, are having some impact. The scheme continues to be monitored. We must be flexible in modifying the scheme as we go along.
  Another point raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy concerned young people who perhaps do not fit the bill. A very interesting modification is being made—a kind of step to YTS called initial training. It is available before the actual YTS and is particularly helpful for disadvantaged young people or young people who are difficult to place.
  Perhaps I could briefly outline some of the changes and modifications that have been made. The Secretary of State has continued the establishment and guarantee that liaison officers will be available to deal with difficult cases. That links to the point I have just made in response to the comments of my noble friend. More leaflets are available for YTS advisers. Direct links have been established between hostels and training providers. There has been improved guidance to careers officers which is very important, and special leaflets are available for 16 and 17 year-olds who require income and support advice.
  Considerable modification has already taken place with the promise that schemes will be monitored and watched. I believe that we should be flexible in our approach to meet the needs. In my rather lengthy response to the amendment I believe I addressed the needs of each vulnerable group mentioned in the debate. For all those reasons I can in no way support the amendment. It will fundamentally alter major aspects of the income related benefits. It will bring into its net groups of people for whom it was not intended and for whom I believe it is not appropriate.
  I hope that I have convinced the Committee of the Government's commitment to these young people and also of the fact that the amendment is not appropriate in this instance.
  Lord Carter: I thank the Minister for the figures she gave. I certainly do not want to enter into argument, but I find her remarks difficult to follow. She said that the cost of applying the scheme to 16 and 17 year-olds would be £90 million. As I pointed out, the last time the figures were collected in May 1988 there were around 100, 000 young people in receipt of income support at around £1, 000 per year. That brings the figure to £100 million. If the figure of £90 million is correct, that means that 90 per cent. of that 100, 000 have not been found new places on the YTS scheme. I find that very hard to follow.
  Perhaps the noble Baroness will read what I said and write to me. It is an awkward point, but I do not understand where the £90 million comes from.
  Baroness Blatch: I will write to the noble Lord if I have more to say on that issue.
  Earl Russell: Not for the first time I owe an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He said that I should have costed the amendment. I do not think the noble Lord was in his place last night when
  792
  I did cost one of my amendments. I was roundly taken to task by my noble kinsman who had, of course, more material at his disposal for that purpose.
  One reason why I did not cost the amendment is that we are here dealing with a floating population. They are people who have slipped through the net and who are of ten very hard to quantify. Had I costed the amendment I should have had some hesitation regarding the accuracy of my figures. I am not arguing with the noble Baroness's figure of £225 million. It is probably a generous calculation, but I will not dispute it. However, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that we must calculate that against the cost of not implementing the amendment. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the cost of not implementing the amendment is likely to be a good deal higher.
  I turn to the Minister's speech. I hesitate to describe it as the triumph of hope over experience because I did not see very much evidence of the experience. It was government theology. It was a careful reasoning of abstract principles. People with some experience of the subject have acute difficulty relating the speech to the world they know.
  I shall not elaborate on my remarks regarding the severe hardship fund. I have not met anyone who is satisfied with it. I will not elaborate further on the point that labelling someone a vagrant is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That has been true since 1601; it has been established many times over.
  I shall deal with the point concerning the YTS. It is worth pointing out that the YTS is an employer-run service. The employer has a right to refuse. So long as that right exists it is not ultimately compatible with the assurance that there is a guarantee of a place for every person. Also, it does not answer the point that homelessness is a bar to placement.
  One aspect of the amendment is that people applying for rented accommodation face, very reasonably, from people who are in business for a pr of it, a request to show some guarantee of income. One effect of the amendment would be to make it possible for people to guarantee that they would be able to pay the rent. That would make it a lot easier for them to obtain accommodation and therefore to look for employment.
  It is worth repeating that it is a term of this amendment that people shall genuinely be available for work. We would not have tabled the amendment otherwise. All that has been said regarding benefit culture is wide of the point. The amendment is deliberately drafted to exclude that reply. I had hoped it would.
  There is agreement between us that the ultimate objective is to float people of f benefit and place them in the world of work. It cannot be said too of ten that that objective is common to all sides of the Chamber. However, what we disagree about is how to do it. I speak as one who has spent a great deal of his working life advising people not very much older than those we are dealing with in the amendment. Very of ten, what is vital to young people in a state of emotional turmoil—as those who have left the parental home frequently are—is a few days'

  793
  breathing space during which they can sort things out and get on their feet again. I have seen innumerable people do that with complete success. Many of them now not only earn their living, but do so with great national distinction.
  We believe that the benefit system can give people a leg-up; but the Government seem to think that they have to give them a kick in the pants. That is not an effective way to persuade people back into work. The Government are bringing about a benefit dependency, which is precisely what they fear. It is not the first time in history that a government, terrified of something, have taken measures which did more than anything else to bring it about. I must seek the opinion of the Committee.
  5.30 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 130.

  DIVISION NO. 2

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Airedale. L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Ardwick, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Aylestone:, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Birk, B.

  Listowel, E.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Briginshaw, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Campbell of Eskan, L.

  McNair, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Mais, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Carter, L

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Darcy (de Knayth), B.

  Northfield, L.

  David, B

  Ogmore, L.

  Davies of Penrhys, L.

  Oram, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Parry, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Peston, L.

  Ewart-Biggs, B.

  Phillips, B.

  Falkland. V.

  Pitt of Hampstead, 1.

  Fisher of Rednal, B.

  Portsmouth, Bp.

  Gallacher, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Russell, E. [Teller.]

  Glenamara, L.

  Seear, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

  Serota, B.

  Shepherd, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Grey, E.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Henderson of Brompton, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Walston, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Whaddon, L.

  Jacques, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Kagan, L.

  Winstanley, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Young of Dartington, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  794

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aldington, L.

  Layton, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Long, V.

  Ampthill, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Arran, E.

  Lyell, L.

  Auckland, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Bellwin, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Blake, L.

  Manton, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Margadale, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Marshall of Leeds, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Brookes, L.

  Monson, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Morris, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Mottistone, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Caccia, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Munster, E.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Nelson of Stafford, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Cockfield, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Colnbrook, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Pender, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Pennock, L.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Quinton, L.

  Donegall, M.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Downshire, M.

  Reay, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Renton, L.

  Elibank, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Elles, B.

  Rodney, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  St. Aldwyn, E,

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Fairhaven, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Seebohm, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Selbourne, E.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Somers, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Strange, B.

  Hailsham of Saint

  Strathclyde, L.

  Marylebone, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Henley, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Hesketh, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Hives, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Hood, V.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Thurlow, L.

  Howe, E.

  Tranmire, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Ullswater, V.

  Ironside, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Joseph, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Kaberry of Adel, L.

  Wolfson, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Young, B.

  Knutsford, V.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  5.38 p.m.
  Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 63:
  Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
  ("Income Support: persons under 18
  In regulation 13A of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, for paragraphs (2)(b) and (3) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—

  795
  "(b) for the period for which that paragraph applies or, if the date on which he attains the age of 18 falls within that period, for so much there of as falls before that date.".").
  The noble Baroness said: I should first explain to the Committee why I am moving this amendment. It was originally tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and myself. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was to have moved it but unfortunately she cannot be here today. However, she has asked me to tell the Committee that the amendment has her wholehearted support. I only wish that the noble Baroness were here to move the amendment herself.
  I must say immediately that this is a much more modest amendment than the one we have just debated. It is simpler and much less costly. The purpose is to abolish the limits on income support entitlement to 16 and 17 year-olds living away from home and instead to allow them to claim income support until they find a suitable youth training place or employment. That will give these young people a little more assistance and a little more time.
  I do not know whether many noble Lords have received the document Hard Times from Shelter. It should be read by people discussing this problem of homeless young people who are in difficulties. The document outlines some really heartrending cases. There is a very real problem of which everyone is now beginning to be aware.
  The pamphlet Hard Times produced by Shelter reveals the difficulties that many homeless young people have in finding youth training places. As has been said before, it is unreasonable to expect young people who have become homeless immediately to settle into a job or youth training while coming to terms with the problems of being homeless. In addition, many employers are unwilling to offer training to homeless young people. The quite common rule is: "No address—no training".
  I am sure that the Committee will take as read the great number of examples I have. I shall not go into them now. I shall be very glad to lend the pamphlet from Shelter to anyone who cares to read it. If passed, this amendment will allow some young people living independently to claim income support until they have found a suitable youth training place or a job. It is essential that homeless 16 and 17 year-olds are given income, time and opportunity to attempt to find temporary and permanent accommodation.
  One benefit of this amendment is that guaranteed income support encourages board and lodging proprietors and hotel proprietors to allow young homeless people who are not on a youth training scheme to move into accomodation. There is growing evidence that even where hostels have been set up specifically for young people they are being turned away because young people have no income and cannot afford the rent. In addition, some landlords demand a deposit and if that cannot be given a young person is not given a place.
  As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, there have been some government initiatives. In her reply to the previous amendment she referred to the liaison officers. They are appointed to assist homeless young people to find a youth training place,
  796
  and that is welcome. However, it remains to be seen whether that will provide any material assistance for the majority of homeless young people. I hope that the Minister is listening to what I am saying about liaison officers. There will be approximately 6, 750 trainees for every liaison officer appointed, which must severely restrict their ability to provide comprehensive and individual advice.
  Further, it is to be hoped that young people will not be coerced into unsuitable training schemes merely because places are available immediately. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made that point, and it is a very true one. Young people must be allowed to make vocational choices if they are to succeed in what they are doing. I also wish to say something about those leaving care. It has been discovered that in London and elsewhere about 40 per cent. of those who go to places such as Centrepoint, where the homeless are cared for, have come out of care. They are in a special category. Those of us who were involved with the Children Bill when it went through the House spoke a great deal about that subject. Quite a number of those affected came to see us to put their case, which they did extremely well and very strongly.
  I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has gone. She made her point earlier. She told me that she sympathised with this amendment. She was also involved in speaking about those who were leaving care. We should remember them in particular when we are asking for this extremely modest addition to what they receive at present. It is an extension of the time when they receive either a severe hardship or a bridging allowance or the child benefit extension. They really need this extra provision.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, told me that she thought that the department had some sympathy for this amendment and I hope very much that that is true. I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to tell me that the department will have another look at the question. This is a very simple and modest amendment. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and I hope that this matter can be looked at. We shall be very happy if that is so. We shall be happy to talk to Mr. Scott or to anyone else in the department if that can be arranged. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: Income support is still payable to the most vulnerable groups of young people. It is paid without time restriction to, for example, disabled people and lone parents. Other young people who either have no parental home, or who have good reason why they cannot live at home, are also entitled to income support during the same period as the child benefit extension period. That was a point specifically raised by the noble Baroness. Vulnerable people can get income support during the child benefit extension period.
  This group includes, for example, those who have of necessity to live independently because they are estranged from their parents, or those at risk of physical or sexual abuse. The Government therefore recognise that these young people are likely to need

  797
  a little longer, and greater support, to find a suitable YT place but they are nevertheless still guaranteed the offer of a YT place. That was also a point raised by the noble Baroness.
  In addition to the normal rules, income support can be paid where the young person would otherwise suffer unavoidable severe hardship. This safety net enables young people at serious risk to receive benefit while they are looking for a job or a YT place. Since November 1989, every young person claiming benefit is considered under the severe hardship provision if not otherwise entitled to income support.
  We have continuously monitored the effect of the changes. We have done this through the collection of information from local DSS offices and the severe hardship unit. We have also set up regular meetings with representatives from voluntary groups involved with young people as a way of gaining feedback. There have been a number of reports published, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, by, for example, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux which we have carefully considered. As a result we have introduced a number of changes—many of which I mentioned on the previous amendment—primarily to improve the way claims from young people are dealt with.
  We have always recognised that some youngsters need special consideration in the provision of a YT place. That does not mean that we should give up on them. Their problems can be accommodated in a number of ways, first, through the training scheme itself which aims to provide quality training tailored to the needs of the individual. This includes those youngsters with special training needs such as those who lack motivation or who have severe emotional or behavioural problems. Secondly, initial training offers in-depth assessment and remedial help for young people who would otherwise have difficulty in being accepted or coping with training schemes. This is intended to bring youngsters with problems to a point where they are ready for mainstream training.
  In addition, and as I have said previously, in March this year the Secretary of State for Employment announced a package of operational improvements in dealing with applications for training, places. These included the establishing of guarantee liaison officers in each training agency area office to act as a focal point for investigating cases of difficulty in YT placement, and the revision of guidance to careers officers so that it adequately covers the need to take account of the special needs of difficult and vulnerable groups.
  I noted what the noble Baroness had to say about the ratio between the liaison officers and young people. The assumption was made that every single young person, in relation to the training officer, has particular problems. That is probably not true. She said that she would find some value in being able to talk to my right honourable friend Mr. Scott in the department. I am very pleased to say that his door will be open and she will be very welcome to come and talk in the department about these concerns.
  798
  This amendment is not appropriate at this time and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
  Baroness David: I thank the Minister for her reply. However, I feel the same about that as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the reply to his amendment. So many of these issues were talked about, such as the child benefit extension. That lasts only for a limited period of 12 or 16 weeks. The bridging loan is £15 and it lasts for eight weeks only during a 52-week period. Between September 1988 and January 1990, there were 21, 218 applications for severe hardship payments and one-third of those—over 7, 000—were refused. Therefore, these provisions are not absolute panaceas.
  I am extremely dissatisfied with the Minister's reply. The only good part of it was the statement that the Minister's right honourable friend Mr. Scott will have his door open. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and I will be able to see him. I shall not push the amendment having been told that and without discussing it further with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. For the moment, but certainly promising to come back, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 64:
  Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
  ("Housing benefit: persons under 25
  In section 22 of the 1986 Act, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(2A) In relation to housing benefit the applicable amount for a person aged under 25 shall be the same as if he were aged 25." ").
  The noble Earl said: I need not detain the Committee for as long with this amendment as I did with the previous one. There is a considerable amount of common ground. Both deal with the issue of young people living away from home. The first was concerned with income support, this is concerned with housing benefit.
  Lord Henley: Is the noble Earl speaking to the three amendments in the grouping, Amendments Nos. 64, 194 and 196? That is my understanding. If he is not, it would be quite useful to know.
  Earl Russell: My noble kinsman is quite correct. However, the bulk of what I have to say pertains specifically to Amendment No. 64.
  The amendment deals with housing benefit. The effect would be to restore to people under 25 the same rate of benefit as is available to older people. The amendment does not touch upon income support. It always strikes me as curious about the Government's position that they place what is in effect an economic obligation on teenagers and young people to live at home. They do not create a corresponding obligation on the parents of the household. Therefore, people may be forced to do what they cannot do.
  The Government may consider the possibility of placing an obligation on parents to continue housing their children up to the age of 25. That has been

  799
  tried before. The obligation was created in the Act of 1601. It was abandoned for the perfectly good reason that it turned out to be unenforceable. I fancy that if it were tried now it would turn out to be unenforceable again. If the Government are not prepared to grasp that nettle and place an obligation on parents to house their children, they cannot fairly place an obligation on the children to live with the parents.
  The whole question of the lower rate of social security for younger people is based on the premise that they live at home. As soon as that premise ceases to be valid, the whole argument for the lower rate ceases to be valid. As the amendment concerns itself only with housing benefit, it is automatically targeted only to those who live away from home. I simply cannot see how it comes about that the cost of living is lower if one is young. If anything, the tendency is the reverse. Experience possibly teaches some of us how to manage a budget. It takes a good many years to learn to do that properly. However, rent costs the same; food costs the same; electricity costs the same; gas and water cost the same; and, as we all know, the poll tax costs the same. Why should it be supposed that people can live more cheaply simply because they are under 25? I have never heard a coherent answer to that question.
  The effect is to produce a distinction between young people who live away from home and young people who do not. I am sure we will be told that it will have the effect of creating a perverse incentive to live away from home. I doubt that very much. Housing benefit is targeted only to housing costs. The costs of living away from home amount to a great deal more than housing costs. One has to provide all one's own food instead of having it provided in the parental home.
  Were this to become law and people were to leave home they would not by any stretch of the imagination be better of f. If they left home it would be because they wished to do so for other good reasons. We must continue to accept that there may be good reasons for wishing to leave home before the age of 25. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: My noble kinsman concentrated on Amendment No. 64. Bearing in mind the long debate we had on Amendment No. 62 and to a lesser extent on Amendment No. 63, I shall follow him and concentrate on Amendment No. 64. A great many of the points on his later amendments have to some extent been covered.
  Amendment No. 64 seeks to abolish the lower applicable amount for people under 25 in housing benefit. This would mean that housing benefit for claimants of all ages would be calculated using the full adult rate of personal allowance in all cases—£36·70 for those under 25 instead of £28·80.
  We have accepted that special considerations apply to the way housing benefit is calculated for 16 and 17-year olds who live independently. There was a real risk that the lower rate of personal allowance applicable to this group was having a disincentive effect on YTS trainees and those school leavers in low paid jobs. As a result we abolished the lowest
  800
  rate of personal allowance in housing benefit in July last year and assimilated the rate for 16 and 17-year olds with that for those aged 18 to 24. This means that, following the up-rating in April, all young people under 25 have their housing benefit.
  One of the principal features of the reformed scheme of benefits was to adopt common rules in order to ensure that people at similar levels of income would receive the same amount of help, whether working or not. Those getting income support and others at equivalent income levels should be able to get the maximum level of assistance with rent and community charge—100 per cent. of eligible rent and 80 per cent. of community charge liability in all cases. This revised structure has for the first time integrated help with housing costs within a coherent system of income-related benefits. I accept that, for housing benefit, we have departed from this principle in the case of 16 and 17 year-olds. This was a special case where we accepted that the lower rates of benefit applicable to this group could have a real disincentive effect for those in low-paid work or on YTS schemes. I do not believe that the same arguments apply to the 18 to 24 age group and do not believe that we should consider a further departure from the alignment principle in this case.
  Housing benefit is calculated to ensure that all young people in employment or on YTS and claiming housing benefit will be left with at least their income support applicable amount to live on after paying their housing costs. I believe that a scheme designed to help with housing costs should do just that, and should not offer young people an incentive to leave home.
  For those reasons we remain committed to an age-related structure of personal allowances in income support and other income-related benefits. This provides the most straightforward and effective approach. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Phillips: Before we go any further perhaps I may raise a small point of procedure. The Minister asked the noble Earl if in addition to moving Amendment No. 64 he was speaking to Amendments Nos. 194 and 196. The noble Earl accepted that he was concentrating on Amendment No. 64. Surely there is a mistake. Amendment No. 196 appears to have no relevance to Amendment No. 64. Amendment No. 196 deals with pregnancy, which may or may not occur whether or not one is 25 or under. I cannot see the link. Perhaps the Minister can explain.
  Lord Henley: I accept that pregnancy can occur at ages both above and below 25. I do not know whether there is an increased likelihood either way. The matter of groupings is one for negotiation between the usual channels. My understanding is that the amendments were grouped. As the noble Baroness will know, the note at the top of the groupings list reads:
  "Although every effort is made to secure agreement to these groupings, they remain informal and not binding. It is therefore open to any Peer to speak to an amendment in its place in the Marshalled List".
  When we reach Amendment No. 196—I must warn the noble Baroness that it may be at a quite late hour

  801
  although I am sure that she will still be here—she may like to speak to it then.
  I asked my noble kinsman whether he was speaking to all three amendments because at the beginning of his speech he mentioned Amendment No. 64. He confirmed that he was speaking to all three amendments but said that he would rather concentrate on Amendment No. 64 because some of the points raised by the other two amendments had already been covered during earlier discussions. I have concentrated on replying to Amendment No. 64. However, I shall be quite happy to return to Amendments Nos. 194 and 196 at a later stage.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Carter: My name also is attached to Amendment No. 196. In my view it would be better to discuss both amendments at a later stage than speak to them now. I also suggest to the Minister that perhaps it was a little unwise of him to invite Members on this side of the Committee to be present later this evening.
  Lord Henley: I am not sure whether noble Lords opposite can manage to do so on two nights in a row.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: Right; that is a challenge!
  Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his extremely helpful intervention. Amendment No. 196 needs considerable debate because it raises rather different issues from those contained in this amendment.
  As regards Amendment No. 64, I must say that I am hardly surprised by the Minister's reply; indeed, we have heard most of what he said many times before. He does not seem to recognise that there is a considerable case for independent living in many situations and that occasionally it may be in the interests of parents. However, we have pursued all these arguments at considerable length. In the circumstances, I think it would be appropriate for me to withdraw the amendment rather than pursue the matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 [Amendments relating to the social fund]:
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 14, line 39, after ("may") insert (", by statutory instrument, ").
  The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 65 occurred to me while I was reading the judgment of Lord Justice Woolf. It is grouped with Amendments Nos. 66, 68 and 71. They form a package of amendments. When discussing the power of the Minister to give directions in the administration of the social fund, Lord Justice Woolf said that in effect these directions have the force of law. I am not quoting his words verbatim, but I think I am quoting the exact sense. He said that he found it very difficult to believe that Parliament had given the Minister power to give
  802
  directions having the force of law without even telling Parliament that he had done so; but nevertheless he had come to the conclusion that Parliament did so.
  In my view, we should reflect whether we acted wisely when we gave the Minister that power. I entirely accept the judgment of Lord Justice Woolf that we did give him that power. These directions are capable of making quite considerable changes in the administration of the social fund. They are capable of altering substantial provisions and some of them are matters of widespread concern within this place. The effect of the amendment, which is a very modest one, is no more than to make that power subject to the negative resolution procedure. I am not asking for a debate on every occasion and I am not asking for the power to vote; I am simply asking that this Chamber should be told what is going on.
  Apart from the intrinsic importance of some of these directions, it can sometimes be difficult to succeed in keeping track of all the changes in the details of social security law which happen by means of directions and various other regulations. We should be told what is going on. Lord Justice Woolf has given us a plain hint in this respect. I hope that we shall take it. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: When we devised the social fund we made it clear that the scheme should operate flexibly but within strict financial limits. We considered that the best way of achieving this was through a budget and a number of directions issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. This was clearly spelt out in the White Paper Reform of Social Security— Programme far Action which preceded the legislation.
  My noble kinsman's amendments seek to achieve two aims. The first would force the Secretary of State to make statutory instruments before he can issue directions relating to the management and control of the budget and the criteria for eligibility. The second would subject those statutory instruments to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  My noble kinsman's amendment is not unexpected, given his comments during the Second Reading of the Bill. These included reference to Lord Justice Woolfs surprise, which the noble Earl repeated, at the wide powers given to the Secretary of State. I was delighted that he gave a full account of this section of the judgment by going on to point out that Lord Justice Woolf had nevertheless concluded that this had in fact clearly been Parliament's intention.
  The social fund is already subject to regulations relating to the way in which applications are made to the fund and for reviews. These, however, govern procedural issues. Through Clause 10 we are seeking additional regulation-making powers to cover similar matters, and we trust that these regulations will make the scheme simpler to understand and administer. Why then have we not simply extended these powers to include the issuing of directions? Our reasons are simple. A series of restrictive regulations is inappropriate for a fund which is expected to operate flexibly, using discretion to

  803
  target help where it is most needed on a wide variety of people in a wide variety of circumstances. Nor could a regulated scheme cope with rapidly changing circumstances.
  That is a view that the court has accepted. I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the relevant section of the judgment, in which Lord Justice Woolf pointed out that it could:
  "with justification be said on the Secretary of State's part that his power to give directions enables him to change the rules rapidly if this is required by a change of circumstances and in order to obtain consistency".
  Our purpose in introducing Clause 10 is to reaffirm our original policy of providing help to those in greatest need within a sound financial framework by making the Secretary of State's powers in this area explicit. At the same time we are giving Parliament a further opportunity to discuss the principles which underlie the way in which the scheme operates.
  Finally, perhaps I may turn to the noble Earl's amendment specifying that the proposed regulations or orders should be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament. It may be helpful if I explain that under Section 83(4) of the Social Security Act any regulations or orders issued under Sections 32 or 33 of that Act are already subject to annulment in this fashion. For those reasons, I cannot accept the noble Earl's amendment.
  Earl Russell: Again, the Minister's reply does not come as a great surprise to me. Not all of his reply was directed towards the purpose of this amendment. I was not attempting to open up the question of the administration of the social fund. In discussing constitutional questions, we must separate form from substance. We shall have plenty of opportunity presently to discuss how well the social fund is or is not administered. The proposal is concerned with the constitutional form in which the Minister gives his directions. What is at stake in this amendment is not whether the social fund is well or badly adminstered or whether its principles are right or wrong; the question is whether it is under parliamentary control.
  The growth of the bulk of administration necessarily puts the principle of parliamentary control under stress. The advantage of the negative resolution procedure which I suggested is that you do not have to take up parliamentary time with every single measure put forward. Clearly the bulk of legislation being processed would make that impossible.
  The advantage of the negative procedure is that we can take it up only when it happens to give rise to concern. Where there has been a real doubt, as there has been about how far the social fund was cash limited, it is worthwhile having an opportunity in Parliament to dispel that doubt. I do not think that this is an issue which is worth taking to a Division now. However, it is of continuing concern. I should like my noble kinsman to draw to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that this type of question is likely to go on being asked in the future. With that remark, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 14, line 47, at end insert:
  ("(2A) In section 33(10) of that Act, at the end there shall be added the words ", but no such general direction shall prohibit payments for deposits to secure accommodation".".)
  The noble Earl said: This amendment is concerned with the adminstration of the social fund. Its effect would be to give power to social fund officers to provide money for deposits for rented accommodation. We have already dealt to a certain extent with the problem of obtaining accommodation. That difficulty of ten consists largely of difficulty in finding the money for a deposit to take up a tenancy. People who are or have recently been in crisis are not usually in a good position to possess savings.
  The NACAB report on the social fund shows that 22 per cent. of the applicants to the social fund are without their own home. That is obviously a quite significant part of their problem. Sixty-four per cent. of those who optimistically asked for help with deposits were homeless. Finding money for the deposit is a necessary passport for them to escape homelessness; escaping homelessness is a necessary passport for obtaining work.
  A high proportion of those who suffer from these difficulties are young single people. That appears in the administration of the social fund to be a low priority category. The NACAB report drew attention to one social fund officer who told an applicant for money from the social fund that single people were never in crisis. I wish to ask my noble kinsman, when he replies to the amendment to confirm publicly and in a place where social fund officers may come to hear of it, that that is not government policy.
  Deposits are becoming increasingly normal in the private rented sector. For people who are in an emergency and looking for accommodation the private rented sector is likely to be the only place to which they can go. They cannot buy houses; there is no prospect of that. The stock of local authority housing is diminishing for reasons with which we are all familiar, and we touched on the subject recently. So it is only the private rented sector that is available.
  The 1988 Act regularised the taking of deposits and has done a good deal to encourage it. One would have thought that that might have produced a change in the administration of the social fund. However, it does not seem to have done any such thing. Directive 12(o) directs that there should be no help with deposits, therefore people who are homeless and in crisis are once again locked into the benefit system and denied the opportunity to escape. It is the Government who are responsible for spreading a dependency culture. I know that it is contrary to their intention, but it is not contrary to the effects of their actions.
  These people are driven into bed and breakfast accommodation for the homeless. We heard a little last night about the difficulties that that can give rise to. This is the way in which an underclass is

  805
  produced. It fails to float people of f benefit and so leads to a pr of ligate waste of public money. I know that there are cases—some were mentioned in another place—such as that of the two 17 year-old girls who were thrown out by their parents. They slept on the floor and went of f to work in the morning. Some of us may have done that for a single night; I do not think that many of us would like to do it regularly for two weeks on end.
  Another Member of the other place recounted meeting a young man sleeping rough under the arches. He was asked why he did it and why he was not in work. The man replied, "I am in work, I am working every day, but it will take me two weeks to earn the money to get a deposit so that I can even go and look for a place to live". I hope that the young man stuck it out for the two weeks. It is a difficult requirement to put in people's way.
  The Minister's right honourable friend Mr. Scott, speaking an another place on 6th March (col. 417 of the official Report) attempted to answer a fairly similar amendment. He estimated its cost at slightly over £3 million. I remind the Committee that that is on a social fund budget of £210 million. The budget is being distributed in a way that means that 22 per cent. of the applicants cannot be effectively helped; they are given money without being effectively helped. Assuming that the money that goes to 22 per cent. of the applicants is wasted because it denies them the opportunity to get of f benefits one might say as a rough estimate that the Government are wasting £40 million in order to save £3 million. That does not seem to me to be good budgeting.
  The right honourable gentleman also said that the effect of that amendment would be to encourage the taking of deposits. In that case, the remedy would have been to stop the taking of deposits. Yet it seems that it is government policy to encourage that. I have said before that the Government seem to suffer from lack of what the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, used to describe as a "half back" line. There seems to be nobody to draw attention to the effects of the policy of one ministry or another.
  I have drawn attention before—and I know other noble Lords have also done so—to the conflict between the policy followed in the 1988 Housing Act and that followed by the Department of Social Security. It is an unfortunate conflict. Accepting this amendment would be one thing that the Government could do which would go a little way towards getting their act together. I beg to move.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I hope that the Committee will not be beguiled into accepting the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or accepting his amendment. When I was Secretary of State for the Social Services—and that ended in 1981—the administration of the supplementary benefit scheme, and in particular the administration of the single payments system within the supplementary benefit scheme, was already causing severe problems for the whole system. The people who suffered from that were not only the staff of the social security offices who had formidable problems—as anybody who
  806
  ever attempted to study the "A" code, would recognise—but many of the claimants. It became totally impossible for anyone ever to know the real entitlement. I gave the order that it should be published, and the "A" code was published in 1980 for the first time. It had never been published by our predecessors. It brought home to everybody the way the system had grown and had reached the level of becoming unmanageable. That was by 1981.
  In 1981 the cost of deposits as single payments under the old scheme was about £18, 000, and amounted to about 750 payments. Five years later, by 1986—towards the end of the old scheme—the cost had risen to the figure that the noble Earl mentioned of £3 million, and it covered 33, 000 payments. I have just worked out on my calculator that that represents a multiplication of something like 167 times. Yet the noble Earl said there was no evidence that the availability of deposits under the supplementary benefit scheme encouraged landlords to demand deposits. The figures that I have mentioned on the growth of the payment from the supplementary benefit scheme—
  Earl Russell: Will the noble Lord give way?
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I shall give way as soon as I have finished the sentence. The noble Earl has engaged the attention of the Committee for a considerable time this afternoon. I have calculated the amount that he has already asked us to spend and I believe it comes to over half a billion pounds. However, I may have got that wrong. In the five years since I ceased to be Secretary of State for social services the amount has multiplied 167 times. That occurred because the payment was available. Landlords knew that they could demand deposits because tenants could go to the supplementary benefit office and obtain payment for those deposits. I believe it is flying in the face of reason to argue that this availability did not encourage landlords to demand deposits.
  The noble Earl said that if the Government did not like deposits they should have passed legislation to ban them. If I may say so, that is an absolutely typical left-wing response. It is a typical left-wing response to say, "If you don't like something, pass a law against it". I believe it is far more sensible to cease to make the money available if one thinks it should not be shelled out in that way. That of course was the change that was made by the conversion to the social fund. However, I recognise the argument that has been advanced that some landlords still, for one reason or another, demand a deposit and, if they have to choose between a tenant who can pay it and one who cannot, they will naturally choose the tenant who is prepared to pay and he is more likely to get the accommodation.
  What is the present system? In many cases a deposit is, in effect, rent in advance. It is not unreasonable, particularly when one is dealing with people of relatively limited means who perhaps have an uncertain income, to take some rent in advance before letting a room in one's house, so as to ensure that one is not out of pocket if the tenancy has to come to an end.

  807
  Help for the payment of rent in advance is available from the social fund through budgeting loans for people who have been on income support for some time. There are also social fund crisis loans for people who do not have enough money to live on, whether or not they are receiving benefit. Those are loans. We have debated this matter on many occasions. However, the repayment terms for the loans take into account an applicant's income, his existing and future commitments and, in the case of crisis loans, there is normally no question of requiring repayment until the crisis period is over.
  Once a person is in accommodation he is entitled to housing benefit, as we discussed earlier. In these circumstances if we reverted to the former system—that is what the amendment seeks to do—whereby a claimant could seek help from the fund to pay a deposit whenever a deposit was demanded, we would simply open the way to all the abuse of the system that occurred before. Abuse did occur. Some landlords refused to repay deposits when tenants moved on. The system was abused in some cases by tenants who took fresh deposits and obtained fresh allowances every time they moved, notwithstanding the fact that their deposits might have been repaid. It was a thoroughly bad scheme. The deposit system was one of the features of the scheme that had to be ended when the change to the social fund took place. However, the noble Earl is now asking us yet again to go back to what really were the bad old days. I hope the Committee will have none of it.
  Lord Carter: I was pleased to add my name to the amendment on behalf of these Benches. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, as a former Secretary of State for social services, express some pride in the social fund. I believe the social fund is almost the worst aspect of the much vaunted social security reforms in the 1988 Act. We should remind ourselves that the purpose of this amendment is to remove the total ban imposed by the Secretary of State on social fund payments, either through grants or loans, for deposits for accommodation. While a payment for rent in advance can be made, but only in the form of a loan, the directions of the Secretary of State prohibit any kind of payment, even a crisis loan, for a deposit. This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from issuing any direction which would ban payments for deposits. It would still be open to him to issue guidance on this subject which social fund officers would have to take into account. However, that guidance would not be binding on them.
  The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred to the growth in single payments from £18, 000 to £3 million. I believe those were the figures he mentioned. That could also be taken as a sign of the crisis in housing that has resulted from the policies of the Government between 1981 and 1986. The noble Lord said, entirely correctly, that loans can be granted for the payment of rent in advance. I was sent some interesting figures by the Central London Social Security Advisers Forum. The Paddington office of the DSS was mentioned. That office deals, not surprisingly, with large numbers of homeless
  808
  people, both families and single people. The figures of that office for the first year of the social fund show that it refused 62 out of 73 loan applications for rent in advance. On the other hand the office admits to receiving only five crisis loan applications for rent in advance, of which only one was refused. That illustrates a difficulty with the operation of the social fund. It is the policy of the Paddington office not normally to give crisis loans for rent in advance. People who inquire about such payments are not given an application form. Instead they are advised that they do not qualify and are advised to leave the office, even though the guidance allows the use of these loans for rent in advance.
  As I have already said, I believe the operation of the social fund is the worst aspect of the 1988 social security reforms. I entirely accept that there were some problems with single payments. The social fund was a valiant attempt to remove some of the problems which resulted from single payments, but it has resulted in a situation which has made a large number of the poorest people in society much worse of f, and in some cases destitute.
  Lord Seebohm: I should point out that in industry nowadays, for security and other reasons, more and more salaries are paid monthly in arrears. One sometimes has a long wait after starting a job before one is paid. I should point out, quite independently of what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, that there is a general tendency now for rent to be paid in advance. If one has to wait a month for one's salary, that is rather a long wait. This amendment is only a permissive amendment. It does not mean that grants will necessarily be given in a great number of cases. However, I think grants should be permissible in view of the great change in the way that salaries are paid.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should ask him whether he agrees that most reasonable employers are only too happy to offer a new employee starting work a sub, as it is called, after a fortnight or even a week. They are happy to do this for a new employee who clearly needs money in his pocket in order to be able to live. It would be a rum employer who was not prepared to offer that in the interests of keeping that employee.
  Lord Hylton: Some 25 years ago the Catholic Housing Aid Society in London made loans to people who needed deposits to secure accommodation. At that time the sums involved were quite small, but nowadays the sums have multiplied enormously. However, the society still grants the odd loan for that purpose when there is no other source from which the money can be found.
  Lord Henley: The Government fully share the concern for the homeless, but I feel that this amendment is not the right way forward. I am not sure that this is the moment for a general debate on homelessness. We should stick to the question of deposits.
  I wish to turn to a point which I feel is very important to get across. The point was raised by my noble kinsman Lord Russell. He referred to a social

  809
  fund officer as saying that young, single people are never in crisis. The noble Earl asked me for reassurance that that was not the Government's policy. I can assure him that that is not government policy. It is an example of bad practice and we should certainly like to hear of such incidents.
  The amendment was debated in another place. I expect that I shall repeat a great deal of what was said there, but there are important points to get across, it may be helpful if I take as my starting point the reasons why help with deposits for accommodation were excluded from the social fund in the first place. Under the old single payments scheme which preceded the social fund, help with deposits to secure accommodation was available to people receiving supplementary benefit. However, the scheme is fraught with problems. There was evidence that the help provided under those arrangements was not achieving its purpose of helping people on supplementary benefit to secure accommodation. On the contrary, it was actually stimulating demand for deposits from landlords, resulting in an enormous rise in the amount paid for deposits over a very short period.
  I am glad that my friend Lord Jenkin mentioned the figures. In 1981, when he ceased to be Secretary of State for social services, 750 payments for deposits were made, at a cost of £18, 000. By 1986 the number had risen to 33, 000 deposits, at a cost of over £3 million. Having mentioned that figure, perhaps I should correct a point which was raised by my noble kinsman. My right honourable friend the Minister of State did not estimate the cost of providing deposits under the social fund at £3 million. The figure of £3 million which he quoted was the cost of single payments for deposits in the last year of the scheme. I believe that my noble kinsman misunderstood my right honourable friend: it was the 1986 figure which he quoted.
  As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, there was a colossal increase between 1981 and 1986. That increase in expenditure was something that no responsible Government could ignore. Moreover the increasing demands for deposits by landlords made it more difficult for others who did not meet the strict criteria for a single payment, or who were in low-paid work, to obtain accommodation. There was also evidence of abuse of the system by tenant and landlord alike. For example, as has already been said, some landlords refused to return deposits when the tenant moved on, and some tenants moved repeatedly, claiming a deposit each time to get the additional money.
  It was against this background that, when the social fund was introduced, it was decided to exclude help with deposits from the scope of the fund. Instead, people on low incomes who need assistance to secure accommodation may obtain help from the social fund through loans for rent in advance, as my noble friend has already said. Help with the cost of rent thereafter may be available from housing benefit. We believe that, in deciding the extent to which help should be provided through the social security system, this balance is right, given that the
  810
  primary responsibility for housing rests with other agencies.
  I have no doubt that the movers of the amendment are sincere in their belief that providing help with deposits from the social fund will make an impact on the problem of homelessness. However, our experience of operating such a scheme for deposits under the system of single payments was, as I have explained, that the system itself ended up exacerbating the very problem it had set out to help resolve. In the light of that experience I am not convinced that providing help with deposits from the social fund would be an appropriate, or a satisfactory, solution to the problems of helping people to obtain accommodation. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Earl decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps the Minister will comment on the figures which I quoted regarding the refusal of crisis loans for rent in advance. Rent in advance is a very common requirement. Can the Minister say whether it is the policy of the department that crisis loans should not be used for rent in advance? Experience at the office in Paddington which I mentioned, which deals with a great many homeless people, has shown that the vast majority of applications for loans for rent in advance were turned down.
  Lord Henley: I do not have the figures for rent in advance. I can tell the noble Lord that, of all claims in the crisis category, 90 per cent. are successful. If I can find the figures for rent in advance I shall certainly let the noble Lord know. For all claims in that category, the figure is 90 per cent.
  Earl Russell: I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. He seemed to have an allergy to the notion of single payments. I have detected that before in other speeches from the Government Benches.
  In the course of research I have from time to time looked at accounts of the administration of social policy over a good many centuries. From the very beginning of the system a great deal of money has always been spent in the form of single payments, for the simple reason that, life being what it is, that is normally the way in which need arises. If you set your face against single payments in the determined fashion adopted by this Government, you set your face against the real world. When you do that, the real world has a tendency to turn its face against you.
  The noble Lord also accused me of typical left-wing thinking. Listening to him expressing a very deep, principled hostility to landlords, I felt that a great deal of what he had said was rather more typical of left-wing thinking than anything I had said today. He also drew attention to the rise in the cost of the scheme from £18, 000 to £3 million and argued, with typical Thatcherite thinking, that because the need is greater, therefore it must be less thoroughly met.

  811
  The noble Lord made a most ingenious attempt to argue that the increase in the taking of deposits was the result of market forces operating through the social fund. I find it very hard to believe that the social fund represents a significantly large proportion of the demand for rented housing to force up the level of deposits on its own. I had understood from listening to the debates on the Housing Act 1988 that it was government policy to encourage the taking of deposits.
  I accept that there has been abuse in the administration of deposits from time to time. That should be controlled. However, there is abuse in a great many areas. There is daily abuse of the roads, but I have not noticed that this Government therefore want to close them. In an area of great need such as housing, one cannot say that because there is an abuse one must take away the use. It is the Government's policy, many times stated, to expand the private sector, and it is in the private sector that the taking of deposits is increasing fastest. Therefore, the effect of their present policy is to push people towards the private sector and then lock them out when they try to go there. I do not see the sense in that.
  I thank my noble kinsman for acknowledging my sincerity. I must, equally, acknowledge his. However, I do not believe that he has entirely come to terms with the scope of the problem. What I have been given is principles. What I am trying to offer in return is experience. It is about time that the Government's principles encountered the experience of those who know most in this field.
  I do not intend to divide the Committee tonight, but I shall read with a great deal of care what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, have said. This is a problem which will not go away until there is a solution. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
  Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 69:
  Page 15, line 5, after ("description") insert ("other than for the purposes of promoting community care.".).
  The noble Lord said: With this amendment we come to the heart of the debate on the social fund. It is important that we should remind ourselves of what has happened. The main purpose of Clause 10 is to give the Secretary of State power to issue directions to social fund officers forbidding them to make any payment in excess of their local office budgets. It ends a period of uncertainty as to the Government's intentions following their dramatic defeat in the High Court on 20th February. We now know that the social fund's cash limits are to be inflexible.
  When the 1986 Bill, which introduced the social fund, was debated there was strong opposition to the whole idea of cash limiting a fund which was intended to be the last resort of the poorest members of the community, who at the same time were to be made even poorer by the new income support scheme.
  Whatever case there may be for limiting other parts of government spending, cash limiting the social fund can only lead to arbitrary refusal of payment for essential needs. That is precisely what has happened. As demand has risen, the social fund officers have been forced to adopt increasingly restrictive criteria and have removed entire categories of claimants from eligibility for payments. I have previously referred to the experience of one office.
  The restrictions have varied from month to month and from place to place, thus removing any semblance of fairness from the operation of the fund, as well as preventing it from achieving its fundamental aim of meeting essential needs.
  When the Bill passed through this House and another place there was some debate as to whether the social fund would be cash limited. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington stated:
  "We have decided, however, that the fund will not at first be subject to a formal cash limit on its introduction".—[official Report, 15/7/86; cols. 848–9]
  We know what happened after that. There were to be local office budgets, instead of the so-called cash limits, and social fund officers were sternly forbidden to overspend. We know the problems that that situation caused for the Government, which resulted in the High Court judgment of 20th February.
  The Minister has attempted on a number of occasions to persuade me across the Dispatch Box that there is a difference between a budget and a cash limit. The pretence that a rigid budget is different from a cash limit was finally abandoned at Committee stage of the Bill on 8th March in another place. The Minister, Mr. Nicholas Scott, claimed once again that the social fund had a fixed budget, not a cash limit. When asked to explain the difference, the Minister replied:
  "The only difference between a cash limit and a budget is that cash limit is here a technical Treasury term. When a cash limit is imposed, it cannot be exceeded. Budgets, in practice, are exactly the same thing. It is a semantic point".
  We have been trying to argue that point since the social fund was first proposed. I am very pleased to see that the Minister in question has finally accepted the arguments that we have made in this House and in another place.
  I do not apologise for repeating what I stated in relation to the last amendment. The cash limit is not a cash limit but a budget—the same as a cash limit. The guidance was not guidance, but it was illegal. The increase in the social fund resources was 4-4 per cent. for 1990-91, compared to a rate of inflation of 9 to 10 per cent. The social fund is one of the sorriest aspects of the much vaunted reforms in the 1988 Act. The amendment goes some way towards redressing part of the damage that has resulted from the operation of the social fund. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: I spoke on the generality of the clause when speaking to the first amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The Committee will be aware that similar, but by no means identical, amendments were introduced when the Bill was in another place. Those amendments sought completely

  813
  to remove budgetary control over the social fund, whereas this amendment seeks to do so only in respect of payments made for the purpose of promoting community care. It may be that this change is intended to make the amendment more acceptable; I regret to say that is does not.
  The Government made it perfectly clear when the scheme was being devised that the social fund should operate flexibly but within a strict financial framework. The changes that we are making to the legislation under Clause 10 will ensure that the scheme continues to operate in the way in which it was originally intended that it should.
  A scheme of loans and grants operating within a firm budget ensures that money is concentrated on those who are in greatest need. We have been enabled to recycle money that was recovered from loans so that the same money can be used to help more people. What would be the effect of operating without budgetary control over awards for community care? It would require additional funds over and above the extra £10 million that we have made available to the social fund for next year.
  I make it clear that that is not an option. We have an overriding duty to the public to use responsibly the money that it provides in the form of taxes. The alternative is to reduce the money available to meet other needs from the fund, with the result that many applicants who now receive help would not be helped in the future. I cannot believe that the noble Lord would wish that to be the situation.
  I appreciate the idea behind the amendment, which might seem eminently reasonable in theory. However, in practice it has the very serious drawbacks that I have identified. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Carter: I am neither surprised nor disappointed to hear the answer of the Minister. It is exaclly what I expected. We heard once again the extraordinary phrase that the fund will operate flexibly but within a strict financial framework. That sounds like bank managers I know. If one has to keep to a financial budget, which has a cash limit, in a demand-led situation—and that demand results from the operation of many other aspects of the 1988 Act—there is only one answer. Any economist will tell you that the answer is rationing. That is exactly what is happening to the social fund: it is being rationed. It is described as being a responsible use of money. This Chamber has heard of many examples of what happens in practice in relation to the social fund.
  We will return to this matter again and again because we feel that it is our duty to do so. I repeat the central point. The Government are rationing resources among the poorest in society. There is a difference between that side of the Chamber and this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 70:
  Page 15. line 19, at end insert:
  ("(4A) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  ("(10B) For the purposes of any general direction issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (10) above, a person in receipt of invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance shall be treated as if he were in receipt of income support.".").
  The noble Earl said: This is the last amendment, I am sure the Chamber will be pleased to hear, that I shall move for a while. The effect of the amendment is to make invalidity benefit, as well as income support, a passport to community care. This is a practical and fairly small amendment which will make it easier to achieve the intended effect of the community care proposals.
  At present invalidity benefit does not operate in the same way as income support—as a passport to community care. The amount is £1 per week above the level of income support. If one receives invalidity benefit, one is excluded from benefiting from community care. I find that situation a little curious. Community care is largely concerned with people who have suffered poor mental or physical health. I find it difficult to follow the logic that invalidity benefit should exclude one from something which is designed for precisely that kind of purpose.
  The effects are distinctly unfortunate. I should like to give one or two examples. A psychiatric patient who had twice attempted suicide was discharged from hospital. He wanted to furnish a completely bare place into which he had moved. Those of us who have looked at completely bare houses and flats in the course of house-hunting know how depressing they can look before one furnishes them. The man was told that because he was obtaining invalidity benefit, he was not eligible for a community care grant. He could not furnish the flat. As has been remarked in relation to that case, it is very difficult for someone with mental illness to return successfully to live in the community.
  The theme that I have been drawing upon is that restrictions are imposed which have the effect of locking people into dependency instead of giving them a chance to climb out and rebuild their lives. I hope that that is very much the opposite of what is intended.
  Another example concerns a homeless single man who was discharged from hospital. A flat was found for him with help. He was denied a community care grant for purchasing a cooker, without which he would need to eat out each week. He was refused a community care grant for the simple reason that he was receiving invalidity benefit.
  That restriction defeats the object of an exercise which we on this side of the Chamber, and in particular these Benches, should like to see succeed. I shall listen with a great deal of interest to what my noble kinsman has to say about this matter. I beg to move.
  Lord Carter: I am pleased to support this amendment from these Benches. My name was supposed to be attached to the amendment but somehow it did not reach the Marshalled List.

  815
  It is worth reminding ourselves of the practical effect of the failure to accept the amendments that we propose. It is a comparatively small change that is proposed. We have had advice from the citizens advice bureaux, and I shall quote just two examples from many which they have given me. The citizens advice bureau in Devon reported a case of a client with multiple sclerosis who was discharged after two years in hospital. He was in receipt of invalidity benefit and so was excluded from receiving any help from the social fund to establish himself in the community and set up home. The citizens advice bureau in Greater Manchester reported the case of a man who was discharged after three years in an alcoholic rehabilitation unit. He was in receipt of invalidity benefit at a rate of 40p in excess of his potential income support entitlement and was therefore refused a community care grant.
  It is clear that this measure is not working as community care grants are intended to work. This amendment is intended to put that situation right. I hope that the Minister will accept it.
  Lord Hylton: of its nature a hospital is a total institution and very expensive to run, whether it is for long-stay or short-stay hospital care. One therefore completely understands the Government's wish to see patients discharged from both types of hospital care. What we all have to face is that there will be consequential costs, which are the consequential costs of handling people within the community and enabling them to cope with their own lives in a community setting.
  To disqualify such people who are emerging from hospital on the grounds that they happen to be receiving invalidity benefit seems to be sheer madness. I very much hope that the Government will treat this amendment with rather more sympathy than they have so far shown to many previous amendments.
  Lord Henley: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, thinks that we have treated many of the previous amendments with lack of sympathy. I regret that I cannot accept this amendment, but I hope that I can make some perhaps more sympathetic noises which might go some way toward pleasing my noble kinsman and other noble Lords. I do not know whether that will be the case, but I shall certainly try.
  Given that one of the main purposes of community care grants is to help people to re-establish themselves in the community following a stay in institutional or residential care, opening up the scheme to people other than those who are eligible for income support may, at first glance, appear consistent with the policy behind the scheme. There is little doubt that a number of people leaving institutions become entitled to invalidity benefit at a level which exceeds the income support for which they might otherwise qualify on their return to the community and that as a result they are ineligible for community care grants. But it is a fact that in any scheme involving finite resources a line on where to give help has to be drawn somewhere.
  816
  It is always difficult trying to establish where the line of eligibility should be drawn. Whatever decision is taken, there is always a deserving case which will fall on the wrong side of the line. As I said earlier, the social fund is intended to focus the available resources on those in greatest need. Directing help to those in receipt of income support is the most logical and objective way to achieve that.
  To extend the scheme only to those in receipt of invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance would be to ignore the many other deserving groups—for example, pensioners—who, although in very similar circumstances, would continue to be excluded. Nor would it take account of the fact that many invalidity pensioners receive considerably more in weekly benefit than those on income support. Also of course there is the question of cost. In order to meet the additional demand on the scheme from increasing the number of groups eligible to obtain community care grants, it would be necessary to increase the social fund budget considerably. Even if additional money could be made available, we should have to consider carefully whether extending the number of groups eligible for grants would be the best use for such resources. The alternative of opening the scheme to people on invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance without an increase in funds would result in many people on income support being refused grants in the future.
  However, the social fund is still a relatively new scheme. It is generally accepted, even by opponents of the scheme, that the demands placed on it in the first year of operations were untypical. It is only in the year just ended that the scheme has been tested fully and clearly. There must be a question about whether that is sufficiently long enough for us to consider major changes to the scope of the scheme, such as the one envisaged by the amendment. There are also significant changes taking place in community care which it seems only sensible to consider very carefully in any consideration of change to the current community care grant arrangements.
  Against that background and the many difficulties which would be associated with an extension of the scheme, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I assure both the noble Earl who moved the amendment and the noble Lord that, as with all aspects of the social fund, we shall continue to listen to representations, continue to monitor the operation of the scheme very carefully, and consider whether any changes are necessary in the light of experience.
  Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to raise one point with him. I fully understand that there has to be an upper limit beyond which people cannot apply to the social fund for community care payments. But cannot a special category be made of the people who are coming out of institutions under the programme that we have been discussing in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill? They are a quite clearly defined and easily recognised case.

  817
  People move out of the institutions and into accommodation where they try to look after themselves in the community. Would it not be a way to consider this matter to look upon those people as part of an establishment in the community, which would not in any way confuse them with people on invalidity benefit who are already living in the community and do not have to make that additional expenditure.
  As we have said repeatedly in connection with the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, the problem of resettling the people who come out of hospital will be very great. The Government want that to happen. This surely is one way in which that very difficult path could be eased.
  Lord Henley: I appreciate that the noble Baroness is trying to be very helpful—and I think she is being helpful—in trying informally, as it were, to tighten the amendment and bring it down from merely invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance (which is. the object of the amendment) to just this one group. I imagine that this is a group which it might be quite easy to define carefully for the purposes of such amendment, as the noble Baroness suggests. I cannot give her at this stage—and it is very unlikely that I shall be able to do so—the reassurance that she would like other than to repeat what I said at the end of my remarks; namely, that we accept that the scheme is a new scheme and in time we shall have to look at how it develops and the changes that may have to be made to it.
  Certainly I hope that at some point it might be possible to look at the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, which is very helpful.
  Earl Russell: I accept that the line has to be drawn somewhere. However, I do not quite follow why the Government chose to draw it where they did. The purpose of these grants is to assist people to re-establish themselves in the community, as my noble kinsman said. I do not understand why invalidity benefit disqualifes one from needing help to re-establish oneself in the community. I should have thought that this was precisely the kind of case that the Government intended.
  As my noble friend Lady Seear said, the case of someone who has just come out of hospital is very different from the case of an able-bodied pensioner living in his own home. I cannot see why the Government cannot distinguish them. Although the Government have to draw the line somewhere, as all governments have to do, it simply passes my understanding why they drew it at this place.
  Nevertheless, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I hope that the monitoring is rather more effective in producing change than it usually is.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 72:
  After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
  ("Unemployment benefit disqualification
  In section 20(1) of the principal Act, for the words "26 weeks" there shall be substituted the words "6 weeks".").
  The noble Baroness said: The objective of the amendment is to change the provision in present social security legislation that disqualifies from benefit for 26 weeks any one voluntarily leaving employment without good reason.
  For over 75 years, from 1911 to 1986, six weeks was held to be a long enough period for disqualification. In 1986 it was changed to 13 weeks and more recently, with hardly any time in between to monitor the effects of that change, the period was doubed to 26 weeks. The loss of benefit for up to six months means a penalty of £971 for a single claimant and £1,570 for a married couple at the 1990–91 benefit rates. Those claiming income support do not suffer the full penalty but their normal entitlement is reduced by £14·70 a week.
  Adjudication officers have full discretion with regard to the length of time for disqualification; but in the majority of cases it would appear that they simply apply the 26-week period as a rule. There is opportunity to appeal but many claimants are not aware of that right or are sceptical about it. Sometimes they have been actively discouraged from appealing by being told that they had no chance.
  The Government have never produced convincing arguments for their departure from the practice of 75 years. Of course they do not like people choosing to be voluntarily unemployed. However, relatively few people do so. There are of ten good reasons for voluntarily leaving employment. The pay may be far too low. The employer may seek to impose unacceptable working conditions. The employee may leave believing that he or she has other employment available and the alternative may simply fall through. There may be sexual harassment. That is far more common in offices and factories than many people understand. Young women are particularly vulnerable and may be too upset or embarrassed to do anything other than get out as quickly as they can. There is the opportunity to have recourse to industrial tribunals but again that is a long-winded matter. In the meantime, for 26 weeks the individual has no benefit.
  Employers may make things so difficult for particular employees that they feel that they have no alternative but to leave. I shall be told that such an employee could plead constructive dismissal before a tribunal and could appeal against an adjudicating officer's decision. Again, those procedures take time and in the meantime the individual has to go 26 weeks without benefit.
  I cite those cases because they are all too common. They are part of the pattern of working life for many people. The Government have set their face against those who are undeserving, who voluntarily make themselves dependent upon benefit. But the degree of "voluntarism" is of ten hard to assess and the result is real poverty. Many people can manage for six weeks, but for six months it becomes totally

  819
  impossible, particularly if there are children to be cared for.
  Why do the Government feel it necessary to retain this 26-week provision when they have already altered the legislation relating to entitlement to require individuals actively to be seeking work and not merely available for work, as was the previous requirement? Is it not enough to retain the six-week period plus the actively seeking work requirement? Why do the Government act so punitively against people who in the main are in lower paid employment? Is it part of the Government's intention to compel people to stay against their will in dirty, unsafe and low-paid employment for fear that if they try for something else and fail they will be regarded as undeserving and will have to do without benefit for 26 weeks?
  Last week I returned from a visit to Eastern Europe. In Prague and Budapest I had the opportunity to talk to people who were euphoric at having got rid of, as they saw it, a very heavy and authoritarian regime. I spoke to them about what seemed to me to be at least a basic social provision that they had had under those regimes, unpopular though they were. They said, "You think we had full employment. We had full employment but we had no choice about the jobs that we had". Are we aiming to create such a situation for people who are in the main in lower paid employment? That is not good enough. I ask the Government to reconsider the provision in the legislation and to revert to the six-week provision. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: I support the amendment. There may be circumstances which make it necessary to leave a job. They may be very difficult to explain to a tribunal. Nevertheless, it may sometimes be necessary to leave a job in order to maintain one's self respect. Any Minister who has resigned on a point of principle is likely to understand that.
  Baroness Blatch: The new clause would make the maximum disqualification for voluntary unemployment the same as it was before October 1986. Up to that time six weeks was the maximum period of disqualification which an adjudication officer could impose on those who had, for example, lost their employment through misconduct or voluntarily left their employment without just cause.
  This Government increased the maximum period of disqualificaton to 13 weeks in October 1986 and to 26 weeks in April 1988. That was done because it was clear from our monitoring of adjudication officers' decisions that, at a time when the number of unemployed claiming social security benefits was falling, there was a marked increase in the percentage of claimants who were disqualified due to voluntary unemployment. It was clear during 1987 that the existing maximum sanction of 13 weeks' disqualification was still not an effective deterrent for those who were prepared to opt for benefit at the expense of contributors to the National Insurance Fund and taxpayers in general.
  The prime purpose of unemployment benefit is to insure members of the working population against
  820
  unforeseeable spells of unemployment. It follows, as in any insurance scheme, that a person cannot be covered for circumstances which are of his or her own making. Leaving a job with no other job to go to or being dismissed for misconduct cannot lead to benefits from unemployed insurance.
  People are of course free to leave one job and go to another. We are not discussing such people. Nor are we discussing those who lose their employment through redundancy or because they are not up to a job. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said, since 1911 penalties have existed to discourage voluntary unemployment. Those were explicitly restated in the Social Security Act 1975 which was passed by a Labour Government. The reason for that restatement is to be found in the Beveridge Report, which said in paragraph 326:
  "Disqualifications, as at present, will apply to men refusing suitable employment, dismissed for misconduct or leaving their work voluntarily without just cause".
  Beveridge made his reasoning quite clear in his report. Paragraph 130 stated:
  "The correlative of the State's undertaking to ensure adequate benefit for unavoidable interruption of earnings, however long, is enforcement of the citizen's obligation to seek and accept all reasonable opportunities of work, to co-operate in measures designed to save him from habituation to idleness, and to take all proper measures to be well. The higher the benefits provided out of a common fund for unmerited misfortune, the higher must be the citizen's sense of obligation not to draw upon that fund unnecessarily".
  Throughout the history of unemployment insurance in 1911, 1948, 1975, 1988 and until today, the objective has remained the same: to discourage voluntary unemployment. As I understand it, Members of the Committee on the other side do not disagree with that objective. Nor do they disagree with the method used to attain it, because they have used the same method—disqualification for unemployment benefit and the reduction of income related benfits. They even reduced the income related benefit of the day, supplementary benefit, at a time when it was much lower in real terms than it is today. It seems to me that the only area of disagreement between us is that we are concerned to have an effective penalty. Members of the Committee on the other side are still not interested in doing so.
  We have carefully monitored the effect of the April 1988 change to 26 weeks. Apart from collecting statistics within the department and undertaking a special inquiry into decisions given by adjudication officers, we commissioned Social and Community Planning Research to undertake a survey of claimants during the period December 1988 to February 1989. We announced in November 1989 that we had received the findings of those two monitoring exercises and that copies of both had been placed in the Library. They showed that, while claimants' understanding of benefit sanctions was low, there was general acceptance about the need for a penalty. The effect of sanctions on job search was seen as variable. For some, the resultant loss of income increased the pressure to find work quickly. For rather more, there was concern not to take a job which might prove unsuitable and might, therefore, expose them to sanctions in the future.

  821
  We did of course debate this issue at great length during the passage of the 1989 Bill. There have been no new arguments or evidence which persuade me that the Government should accept the proposed amendment to the 1975 Social Security Act.
  We have never suggested that the majority of unemployed people are not keen to find work and keep it when they have found it, but, as Members on the other side will know, there is a small minority of unemployed benefit claimants who make little real effort to maintain themselves. The present sanctions ensure that the message to that group is clear—that they cannot expect to receive their full entitlement to social security benefits if they refuse employment or give up employment voluntarily before they have found alternative work, unless they have good cause for doing so.
  In 1988 the Government were conscious that some long-term unemployed claimants might be deterred from accepting unfamiliar work which, if they gave it up later, could incur a sanction for leaving voluntarily. We therefore introduced the employment on trial provision as an incentive for those who have been out of work for at least 26 weeks. Those claimants can take up new employment in the knowledge that they will not lose benefit if they give the job a fair chance by working in it for at least six weeks and leave no later than 12 weeks after starting. That provision came into operation on 9th October 1989 and will have assisted those long-term unemployed who have accepted unfamiliar work.
  The Government have also recognised that the unemployed require time in which to seek work in their usual occupation without being subject to a sanction for refusing employment without good cause. The "permitted period" provisions in the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness, and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1989 allow adjudication officers to determine an appropriate permitted period between one and 13 weeks which takes account of the claimant's relevant skills, qualifications, training and employment history. That provision is working. It is but one indication that we are concerned that sanctions should work effectively to deter only those who do not take all reasonable steps to avoid unemployment.
  As a final safeguard, the "good cause" provisions give those faced with possible disqualification ample opportunity to show the adjudication officer that they have acted reasonably. If they are dissatisfied with the adjudication officer's decision, they have the right of appeal to a local social security appeal tribunal and on a point of law to the Social Security Commissioner. That, we believe, is an adequate safeguard for the claimant.
  I am sure that the noble Baroness was not comparing provisions in the United Kingdom with those in Eastern Europe. They do not bear comparison. However, I note the point that she makes about the plight of people in Eastern Europe.
  I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing the amendment.
  Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may make a point before the noble Baroness sits down. Surely we all agree that there must be some sanctions and some penalties because certain people abuse the position. Without necessarily supporting the amendment, I should point out that 26 weeks is a long time—it is six months—to be without benefit. There is a big jump between six weeks and 26 weeks. The penalty of having no money coming in for half a year is very heavy. Will the noble Baroness consider whether there might at least be a half-way house between six weeks and 26 weeks? We do not deny that there must be a penalty. It is simply that the penalty seems to be rather draconian.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: I believe that I gave a fairly detailed explanation of how we arrived at the 26-week period. There is a balance. The important objective is to ensure that voluntary unemployment is not made easy or, if it is resorted to, that there is a penalty. However, I have also given assurances—the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, raised this point—that there are circumstances in which a young person who feels aggrieved could have recourse to the appeal system.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I am disappointed that the Minister has not responded to the constructive suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. We on this side accept that there must be some disqualification. As I said in my opening remarks, there was a disqualification of six weeks for 75 years. It is a question of the length of period.
  In addition to that long period of disqualification, the Government have tightened up in previous legislation the entitlement to benefit provisions. You must now be actively seeking work instead of simply being available for work. I should have thought that the "actively seeking work" provision, perhaps combined with a period longer than six weeks but less than six months, might be a much better way of going about matters.
  I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote tonight, but I shall think seriously about what the Minister has said and may come back with a different form of wording or a different suggestion on Report. I am certain that there must be a half-way house and not simply a period of six weeks, as we suggest, or of six months, which is quite unacceptable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
  Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 74:
  After Clause 10, insert the following new clause: ("Eligibility of those in full-time education for income support
  The Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 shall have effect with the insertion in regulation 14(1), after the words "(meaning of child), ", of the words—
  "or a person aged 19 who is receiving full-time relevant education within the meaning of regulation 12(a) of these Regulations, ".").
  The noble Lord said: Although this amendment is a new clause, it does not deal with a new benefit. The purpose of the amendment is to restore to

  823
  parents income support payments for 19 year-olds who are still at school in non-advanced education; in other words, those who are doing GCSEs and A-levels.
  Under the old supplementary benefit scheme, parents whose 19 year-old children were still at school used to have an amount included in their weekly benefit in respect of their upkeep. Since April 1988, when income support was introduced, such payments have been made only until the child's 18th birthday. Now, whether or not parents can obtain benefit for children until the end of their school days depends on the wholly arbitrary test of the child's date of birth. Two families whose circumstances are otherwise identical, who have children in the same class at the same school, can find that one of them is at least £36 a week worse of f because the first family's child is 19 while the other's is 18.
  The problems of families with 19 year-old children do not end there. The pupil will not be entitled to claim income support in his or her own right because he or she will be treated as a full-time student. Various other restrictions on benefits result from that. Families will thus be faced with a stark choice—to allow the child to continue to study without any financial assistance or to let him or her leave school without completing the course or obtaining the intended qualifications.
  We have been advised on the matter by the citizens advice bureaux, which have given us a host of examples of cases where the rules work considerably to the disadvantage of families. I do not propose to take the Committee's time to read out all those examples, but I hope that the Minister will explain why the regulations are drafted in that way. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: Young people who are in full-time, non-advanced education are normally treated for social security purposes as dependent on their parents until they reach 19 years of age. Non-advanced education means education up to the standard of GCE A-level and its equivalents. Their parents can obtain child benefit and, if they receive income support or other social security benefits, they can obtain a dependency addition for their child up to that point.
  However, there clearly must come a stage at which dependency upon parents is no longer appropriate. For child benefit and most other social security benefits, the point at which dependency ceases has for a long time been the 19th birthday. By the age of 19 a person is well over the age of majority, and most have completed their secondary education and become independent of their parents. It was decided, when introducing the income support scheme, to bring it into line with child benefit and other social security benefits. The payment of income support dependency additions therefore now stops at the age of 19 for all young people in full-time education.
  I understand and sympathise with the anxiety which lies behind this amendment. The present rules leave some deserving cases on the wrong side of the eligibility line. However, that line is drawn in a way which is reasonably logical and coherent with the rest of the benefit structure and is reasonably easy to
  824
  administer. The change proposed by the amendment would not solve the problem of those cases but merely transfer the dividing line to a place which is much harder to defend and administer.
  More importantly, there is already alternative statutory provision to alleviate hardship. Local education authorities have power to make awards to help young people in non-advanced education to complete their studies. They have complete discretion as to the level of those awards. For example, local education authorities made education maintenance awards to 1, 663 pupils aged 19 or over in schools in 1987–88. Similar discretionary awards are paid to those continuing their non-advanced education at colleges of further education, and approximately 24,000 such awards were made to those aged 19 and over in 1987–88. From the autumn of this year colleges of further education will also have the discretion to use their access funds to support 19 year-olds in cases where education might be inhibited by financial constraints.
  The Government consider that the present point at which dependency for benefit purposes ceases is the most appropriate and that provision to alleviate hardship when benefit ceases already exists within the educational structure.
  I believe that there is little between the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the Government on this issue. We are talking about how those needs should be met. On behalf of the Government, I am saying that they should be met through educational support grants and the noble Lord's suggestion is contained within the amendment. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. That was the explanation which I expected. As the noble Baroness said, dependency must cease somewhere and this seems to be the result of a tidying up more than anything else. In the nature of things, the number of hardship cases would be less if the amendment were accepted. I am rather doubtful, in view of the great pressure on financial resources of local education authorities, whether they will be able to help in the way suggested. I shall read with care what the Minister said, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11 [Annual increase of certain occupational pensions]:
  The Earl of Buckinghamshire The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved Amendment No. 75:
  Page 15, line 34, after ("scheme") insert ("or personal pension scheme").
  The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 76, 79, 80 and 86. The situation of the amendments is to ensure that money purchase schemes or personal pensions are placed in the same position as final salary schemes; namely, to compel pensions from those sources to increase in line with rises in inflation.
  I welcome the desirability of an annual increase for pensions paid from occupational and personal pension schemes. I only wish to question the method which the Government have used to achieve that. When I spoke on Second Reading, I expressed my anxiety that the Government were proposing to force extra costs on those final salary occupational schemes which did not guarantee annual increases to pensions in payment in line with the retail prices index up to a maximum of 5 per cent. a year or a limited price indexation.
  I was and still am worried that such proposals might have completely the opposite effect on the Government's intentions. The recent European Court's decision on the Guardian Royal Exchange v. Barber case, which will apply in equal terms to men and women, will continue to exacerbate the position on costs.
  Having said that, it seems quite clear to me that the Government are determined to proceed with legislation to compel pension schemes to increase pensions in payment. I believe that they should recognise that in all pension schemes—whether final salary, money purchase occupational or personal pension schemes—the end product is the same: a pension. Therefore, all pension schemes should be treated the same. Either all should be compelled to provide increases in payment or none of them should. I understand that the DSS has stated that it will defer consideration of the extension of the LPI to money purchase occupational schemes and personal pension schemes until the terms for contracting out of the slate earnings related pension scheme are reviewed in 1993.
  I do not see the connection between the two matters. If the intention is for LPI to apply only to pension scheme benefits in excess of that portion which is contracted out, then we should consider the position of money purchase and personal pension schemes now. That is a general introduction to this amendment, and I beg to move.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the general intention of the amendment moved by the noble Earl. As I understand it, the intention of the Bill is to ensure that pensions maintain their purchasing power, at least to a limited extent. I did not understand the Bill to discriminate against final salary schemes or as providing an incentive for employers to switch or redefine their schemes as money purchase schemes.
  It is right and proper that all schemes, whether money purchase or final salary, should be required to apply the same criteria and to take steps to ensure that the pensions maintain purchasing power in payment. It would be a very retrograde step if this Bill went through unamended. The net result of that would be to discourage the growth of final salary schemes which I still believe is the best way of providing for employees in retirement in favour of money purchase schemes, even if those are what are now called COMPS—contracted out money purchase schemes. I support the amendment.
  Lord Henley: It is quite a relief to have reached Clause 11. It is nice to see the noble Baroness at the Dispatch Box. She has been kept waiting in the slips all afternoon, although I know that she had a brief warm-up earlier. I imagine that she and I will have much to discuss this evening, particularly after dinner.
  My noble friend and the noble Baroness have set out very clearly the terms of the amendment. As they have explained, the effect of their amendments would be that the clause would require that money purchase schemes provide for annual increases in the rate of pension. The current Section 58A(9) excludes such schemes. In addition, personal pension schemes would be required to provide for such increases in the same way.
  There are two main reasons for our decision to exclude money-purchase benefits at this time. First, members of money-purchase benefit schemes—and here I am including those in personal pension schemes—already have the opportunity to use the proceeds of the investment made on their behalf in order to choose a pension that increases after retirement. In other words, when the individual comes to the stage at which he will convert the accumulated sum into an annuity, he can either decide to take a flat-rate pension which will not increase or a lower initial pension, but which will increase annually at 5 per cent. or in line with the retail prices index, or whatever is available.
  I appreciate that there might be arguments about whether or not that is the way choice should be offered; but in the Government's view this is not the time to reach any decision on that point. Secondly, therefore, we think there is a proper time to consider the whole question. It has only been possible to contract out of the state earnings related pension scheme by means of money purchase schemes since April 1988. Personal pensions, as a way of contracting out of SERPS, have been available only since July 1988. These are therefore very early days for both types of schemes, and individuals and employers have entered into them on the basis of the terms and rebates which relate to the quinquennium, 1988 to 1993.
  The question of pension increases in these schemes would, we believe, be best resolved as part of the review of the terms for contracting out of SERPS, which is due to start next year. That will be for the quinquennium beginning in April 1993. This review considers the reductions in the class 1 standard rates of contribution for those contracted out and the factors affecting the cost to occupational pension schemes of providing guaranteed minimum pensions.
  I hope that with those assurances the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Buckinghamshire: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments. It is always a relief to hear that we have reached a situation where we can discuss pensions. Perhaps I can look forward to discussing this topic further with him in 1993. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
  Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee does not meet again before half-past eight.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

  London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1989
  7.32 p.m.
  Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 14th June 1989 be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order we are considering this evening seeks to vest in the London Docklands Development Corporation two plots of land currently owned by the London borough of Southwark. Your Lordships may find it helpful if I explain very briefly some of the background.
  As your Lordships may know, the LDDC is an urban development corporation established under Part XVI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It is one of 10 UDCs in England. Its statutory objective is to secure the regeneration of London Docklands. To achieve this it has a wide range of powers to carry out projects, including powers to acquire, manage and dispose of land.
  Through land ownership the corporation can clear dereliction and assemble larger sites for development. On occasion key sites need to be acquired to ensure effective regeneration of adjoining private land. Acquisition is preferably carried out by negotiated agreement but sometimes, with the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, compulsory purchase procedures are necessary. Where the land is in public ownership, my right honourable friend may introduce a vesting order under Section 141 of the 1980 Act. It is one such order we are considering today.
  Your Lordships will be aware that the LDDC is discharging its regeneration remit with spectacular success. For example, almost 2, 000 acres of derelict land have been reclaimed. Some £7 billion in private investment in Docklands has been secured, bringing in 28, 000 new jobs and 17, 000 new homes. The LDDC has a large community programme too, including funding for social housing, education and training projects. Access to the area is being eased by new road and public transport links. Local people now have an improving quality of life and far more choice and opportunity in jobs and housing. In summary, therefore, the LDDC seeks a positive partnership with the private sector. It aims for balanced programmes extending the benefits of regeneration to the local communities. That is the general background.
  The two sites included in this vesting order are very small. They cover a total of just 0-17 acres between them. But they are key sites for Docklands regeneration. Both are needed by the LDDC to
  828
  ensure effective and comprehensive development of the surrounding private land.
  The first plot is the stub end of a disused piece of road. The council has not objected to it being vested in the LDDC. The second plot is a riverside site known as Odessa Wharf. The owner of the surrounding land—the Jacob's Island Company—proposes that it should be laid out as public open space so as to provide a window to the river from the area behind. The Jacob's Island scheme is designed accordingly and offers the prospect of high quality comprehensive development. The LDDC agrees with the developers' proposals and has given appropriate planning consent. But during seven years of negotiations between Jacob's Island and the London borough of Southwark, the council has constantly refused to sell the land for use as public open space.
  As recently as September 1989 the council refused an offer worth the equivalent of £4 million an acre for the site for use as public open space. The council had instead its own proposals for housing on the site and it chose to take those through planning appeal to public inquiry, which it lost.
  The council still refuses to sell Odessa Wharf, but is now willing to grant a licence to the developer to use it as open space. That proposal is not acceptable to the LDDC as the statutory regeneration authority for the area. The LDDC's legal advisers doubt whether the licence would be enforceable should there be changes in the ownership of the surrounding land. The LDDC is not a party to the agreement, and cannot enforce it, and the licence would lapse after 10 years should the existing development proposals fail to materialise. For these reasons the corporation seeks ownership to ensure with absolute certainty that the Odessa Wharf will be used as public open space and that the wider site can be developed comprehensively. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is promoting this vesting order to achieve that purpose. I commend this order to the House.
  Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June 1989 be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].— (Lord Reay.)
  Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a most bizarre story—much more bizarre than will appear even from the fact that the order is dated 1989 and is signed by Nicholas Ridley as Secretary of State for the Environment.
  The history which has been so clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in introducing the order is a much better version than that given by Mr. Colin Moynihan in the Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in another place last week, which was quite rightly shot down for a host of inaccuracies and other difficulties. Even so, we have a very strange story taking place over a period of years. If the parties involved were of different political complexions it would call down the thunder of many noble Lords who are crowding the Government benches—as indeed noble Lords are crowding these Benches.
  As the noble Lord rightly said, the history started in 1983 when the Jacob's Island Company, which

  829
  owns the surrounding land, went to Southwark Council to buy land for open space. As the noble Lord again rightly said, Southwark Council had other ideas and sought between 1983 and December 1989—when the final decision was taken—to build housing on the site. It is now agreed between Southwark Council and the Jacob's Island Company that the land should be kept as open space. What they are not agreed on is that there should be a sale of the freehold, and therefore they are not agreed that there should be a vesting order. It is not only Southwark Council which objects to the vesting order; it is the Jacob's Island Company also, which takes the view that the vesting order is not necessary.
  If the lawyers of the London Docklands Development Corporation are indeed dissatisfied with the conditions of the licence, as it is the planning authority it has the power to ensure that the land is never used for anything other than open space. I suggest to the House that the fact that this has gone on for so long and that we are using the vesting of land procedure when both the ultimate user and the owner of the land are agreed that it is not necessary is an extraordinary state of affairs.
  If the London borough of Southwark were trying to intervene between a developer and the owner of land, many noble Lords on the Government Benches would say that that was a gross intrusion by a wicked socialist council. But here it is the Government and the London Docklands Development Corporation, as the planning authority, who are seeking to intervene and overturn an agreement between the owners of the land and developers of the surrounding land. If there are any difficulties about the security of the licence, let them go to it and put it right. The LDDC is not short of powers to see that its planning wishes are fulfilled. After all, the whole of the urban development corporation procedure was set up to give the development corporations virtually authoritarian powers.
  I do not conceal my feeling that right from the very beginning the boundaries of the LDDC were set for political rather than for rational planning reasons. None of this part of Southwark is part of Docklands in the real sense. It is part of the area on the side of the Thames which has a large number of warehouses giving access to the river. But it is not part of Docklands and was never considered to be part of Docklands when the Docklands regeneration was first envisaged. It was included in the Docklands right up to Tower Bridge in order to make it easier for the LDDC to make a pr of it out of the development of the land for commercial purposes. It comes ill of the Government to seek to close of f the last little loophole available to the London borough of Southwark to achieve financial benefit for itself and for its hard-pressed community charge payers from the use of this land.
  It is not as if there were any financial benefits to the Government as a result of the vesting order. There has not been a district valuer's valuation of the Odessa Wharf site. But the Jacob's Island Company offered £625, 000. Under the vesting order taxpayers will have to pay £125, 000 to Southwark for the site, which is far below what it would otherwise have received. Presumably, the land,
  830
  having been acquired under the vesting order, will then be sold to the Jacob's Island Company for less than it would otherwise have paid.
  In his introduction the noble Lord said that the land was needed by the London Docklands Development Corporation. I challenge that. The idea that a planning authority for the whole of Docklands should need the complicated bureaucratic procedure of a vesting order to acquire 0-17 of an acre of land is frankly ridiculous. It does not make sense. There are perfectly good compulsory power procedures which could have been adopted. There was no need for the vesting order procedure. We now have a conflict between the Government and the London Docklands Development Corporation on one side and the London borough of Southwark and the Jacob's Island Company on the other.
  It is an abuse of parliamentary procedures that we face an order of this nature. It is an abuse that it should have taken so long—and I do not go into any of the hybrid instrument arguments—to reach this House. There has been substantial bureaucratic delay and the result should not be accepted by this House.
  Needless to say, in line with the conventions of the House I shall not challenge an order which I understand last night went through the other place on the nod. However, I cannot refrain from saying that we are deeply dissatisfied with the way in which; the matter has been handled by the Government and by the London Docklands Development Corporation.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Drug Trafficking of fences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1990
  7.44 p.m.
  Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we are all saddened by the suffering and destruction that drug misuse inflicts on the individual and on society. The causes of drug misuse are complex. At the root of its evil is the financial motive. This draft order, which has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, will help us to deprive the drug trafficker of the vast pr of its by which he is motivated. Drug traffickers are developing ever more sophisticated ways to conceal their illicit earnings and escape detection. The draft order will be a significant addition to the range of counter-measures at our disposal.
  We are all becoming more internationalist in outlook. The trafficker is no exception. For him, the aim is to exploit modern international banking methods and to make the most of differences in national laws and procedures. Weaknesses will be turned to his advantage. We must seek to unite with our partners in the civilised world to drive the trafficker from our doors and to make sure there are no safe havens for him to hide his funds.
  The United Kingdom has taken a lead in striking at the financial base of drug trafficking. The Drug Trafficking of fences Act 1986 gave our enforcement agencies strong powers to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking. These powers have been used to good effect. We have made it known abroad that we are ready and willing to offer these powers on a reciprocal basis to other countries. Indeed, under a similar Order in Council which this House approved last year, we have already restrained more than £5 million on behalf of the United States authorities.
  We have had some considerable success in securing agreements on international co-operation in depriving drug traffickers of their proceeds. Agreements or arrangements have been concluded with 12 further countries and territories. These are Australia, Anguilla, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Canada, Gibraltar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. A further agreement with Italy was signed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in Rome on Wednesday. An agreement with Saudi Arabia, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister recently announced, will be signed in the near future. And earlier this week my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Bahraini interior Minister signed a declaration of intent to complete a similar agreement at the earliest possible date.
  This draft Order in Council, if approved and made, will enable us to fulfil the obligations placed on us by the agreements we have made. It will fulfil a simple legal requirement—that the countries to which we wish to offer reciprocal judicial co-operation be designated under the Drug Trafficking of fences Act 1986. This procedure was contemplated and established under Section 26 of the 1986 Act which provides for the making of an Order in Council to apply the Act on behalf of other countries. In other words, this order brings to fruition Parliament's intentions in regard to international co-operation in this field.
  Although the order may at first consideration seem a formidable document, its aims are straightforward. The order will enable the High Court to order the restraint in England and Wales of property which may be required to enforce a confiscation order made in another country or territory. At the same time it will permit the High Court to register and enforce the confiscation orders of a court in another jurisdiction. Applications for restraint and for the registration of confiscation orders will be made by our own enforcement authorities on behalf of the government of the country or territory concerned. This will ensure that the appropriate procedures are observed. In addition, a central authority which has been established with the Home office will oversee requests and co-ordinate activity under the Order in Council.
  Tough measures are called for in dealing with the drugs trade. But it is equally important that they are balanced by checks and safeguards. The Order in Council incorporates a number of such safeguards. Before registering and enforcing a confiscation
  832
  order, the High Court must be satisfied that it is in force, that it is not subject to appeal, and that the person against whom it was made has either appeared in the proceedings or been given the opportunity to contest the order. In the case of restraint orders the High Court will want to be sure that proceedings have been or are to be instituted in the foreign jurisdiction. The point at which proceedings are instituted in the countries to be designated is set out at Section 38(11) of the Act as modified on page 18 and in the appendix to the order on page 19.
  A restraint or charging order must be notified to any person affected by it, and all those affected have a right to apply at any time for the order to be varied or discharged. No property may be realised in satisfaction of a confiscation order unless people with an interest in it have had an opportunity to make representations to the court. The High Court and any receiver it appoints must exercise their powers strictly with a view to recovering property which is liable to be recovered under order and so as to enable other parties who may become caught up in the proceedings to retain their interest.
  Our agreements with other countries and territories are designed to harmonise their different legal systems with our own. There are a number of subtle differences in the confiscation procedures followed by other countries and flexibility is needed. Schedule 3 of the Order in Council, on pages 8 and following, sets out a modified version of the Drug Trafficking of fences Act which will apply in our dealings with the countries and territories affected by the Order in Council. The modifications do not change the substance of the Act. They merely reflect the different ways in which the restraint and confiscation orders are sought and made in the various countries and territories. For example, provision will be made to allow for the making of confiscation orders in terms of specified items of property, rather than sums of money, which is the practice in some countries.
  I am sure that your Lordships will welcome this important contribution to the international effort against drug trafficking. It demonstrates the United Kingdom's determination to stamp out the sickening drugs trade. It will be the beginning of a network of partnerships which we hope to build on. We expect to bring before your Lordships further orders in coming months through which we can add to the list of countries with which we are able to co-operate on this practical level. I beg to move that the order be approved.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd May be approved [18th report from the Joint Committee].— (Viscount Ullswater.)
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for the clarity with which he has explained the raison d'≖ tre of the order. I say at once that not only Labour Members of this House but noble Lords throughout the House will be behind what the Government intend to achieve through this order. To that extent I want the noble Viscount and his colleagues to understand that there can be very few issues on which there is

  833
  complete unanimity not just in British politics but in British life and in the international sphere where the international enforcement agencies collaborate to do what the order seeks to do; that is to say, to punish as far as possible whose who seek to pr of it from this filthy habit. Therefore, the Minister can rest assured that we wish him well.
  There are one or two questions which I am sure that the noble Viscount will be able to answer. I refer to the list of countries, the international aspect of enforcement and the arrangement of agreements with other countries. Can the Minister say how these countries were selected? Is it because there are ongoing attempts to reach the kinds of agreements which are contained in the order? I refer to pages 18 and 19 of the order and to the appendix.
  Can the Minister confirm that we are being presented with the first tranche of about a dozen countries which are involved? There will be dozens and dozens of other countries concerned as well. Can the Minister tell us the raison d'≖ tre for this list? We have: no objection to it. We understand that the Government and their officers will not be able to reach agreement on procedures and other matters with every country at the same time. I shall be interested to know that these countries have made agreements.
  Can the Minister say if there are any countries where, according to the experience of the officers, it will be exceedingly difficult to reach agreement? Perhaps the Minister and his advisers can tell us what the problems are. Some countries may not be as energetic as we want to be but that is no reason why we should not seek to reach agreement.
  As the Minister well knows, loopholes, gaps and spaces will be used by the drug traffickers to find means of access for travel and trafficking. Therefore, the more comprehensive and all-embracing the arrangements the better it will be. Will the Minister say something about the list that we have and why there are not other countries included? Can he say what the prospects are for making the list all-embracing?
  Can the noble Viscount also say something concerning the resources the Government are devoting to catching drug traffickers in this country? Obviously, we wish to stop drugs coming into this country and that is the purpose of the order. The Minister knows, because he follows these matters, that the re are terrible circumstances in many of our major cities which are due to the misuse of drugs. For example, as the House knows—and I declare my interest again—I represent the interests of prison officers in this place.
  The Minister speaks as the Home office spokesman and therefore he does not need telling that drug taking is rife in Her Majesty's prisons. I do not make that statement lightly. I recently visited a certain prison. I shall not mention its name, though the Minister can have it. The governor and the men were very depressed at the growth of drug taking in their prison.
  Later this week I shall attend the prison officers' annual conference. I know that when I speak to
  834
  people there drug taking will be a major cause of concern. I hope that the Minister will say something about the successes which have been flagged up against drug traffickers, or drug barons as they are called, in places such as prisons but also in other walks of life. One has only to be involved in the community to realise that one sees in pubs, in clubs and on concourses evidence that drugs are being taken.
  The statistics published by the noble Viscount and his colleagues at the Home office make one realise that drug taking is on the increase. I hope that the Minister can tell us more about the success that the Government can claim in dealing with drug trafficking in our prisons. However, I know that he has not received notice of this inquiry and it may not be possible for him to give an answer. I know that he will take on board the desire not only to stop drugs coming into the country but the fact that we are very concerned about the people who are making fat pr of its from circulating drugs in this country.
  I know that the Minister will be on my side over that matter. I am asking him, in the best sense of the word, to be helpful and to take this opportunity of parading what he and his colleagues are doing in this field. We on these Benches give a very warm welcome to the order and wish it a speedy passage. We wish for an extension of it by the inclusion of other countries.
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for his welcome for the order. I am glad that he views it in the same light as do we on this side of the House. It will form a very effective part of our armoury for the confiscation of the property of drug traders.
  He asked me two questions. He asked why the list of countries is as it is and what we are doing about further countries. I sought to indicate that we are able to conclude agreements only with countries which have legislation comparable to our own. A number of European partners have not advanced as quickly as we have in respect of confiscation legislation. I have already mentioned the position in Italy and Saudi Arabia. Further agreements are being pursued with a number of countries, including the main financial centres on the drug transit routes. If the noble Lord cares to look at the list of countries with which agreements have so far been made, he will see that the intention is to try to block those financial routes.
  We are equally active in encouraging other nations to co-operate with each other more generally. We have played a leading part in drawing up the 1988 United Nations convention against illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotrophic substances. We have taken early action through the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, which has just gone through your Lordships' House, to enable us to ratify the convention.
  I appreciate the noble Lord's deep concern about the misuse of drugs in society. He mentioned in particular the use of drugs in prison. It appears that drugs are available in prison. I know that the enforcement agencies in this country—the Customs

  835
  and Excise and the police—take very seriously the tracking down and bringing to justice of all those involved in the drugs trade. Customs officials seek to prevent the importation of drugs and the police authorities are extremely keen to make certain that the passing of drugs between individuals does not take place. It is a worry that drugs find their way into prison. I know that the Home office is deeply concerned by the fact that they are passed from visitors to prisoners.
  8 p.m.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister said that we are able to conclude agreements only with countries which have legislation comparable to our own. Can he say with which countries the Government would like to make arrangements but cannot because of the problem? Where there is a will, there is a way. I can understand that there are inhibitions, barriers, problems and difficulties. Are there countries which are as anxious as we are to try to deal with these evil men and women but which find that incompatibility of legislation inhibits an agreement? Are we working on ways to make amendments to each other's legislation to enable it to happen? I am not asking the Minister to rise again to make further points. Perhaps he will write to me on that matter.
  In regard to prisons, sometimes the Customs and Excise authorities are unable to stop drugs coming in, and the police face difficulties in dealing with drug dealers outside prisons. Our greatest concern must be to stop them circulating inside prisons. Resources of men, sniffer dogs and other equipment are in short supply. We need to have a closer look at the shortfalls of resources in the prison estate. The prison service has a sniffer dog section. When I visit a prison I ask when last the sniffer dogs came in. On one occasion I was told, "It was last September and they caught nothing. But we know that drugs are there because we saw all the evidence". Are the Government serious about stopping drugs? Some people have said to me that sometimes governors and others are not too unhappy because the drugs help to sedate many of the prisoners who otherwise could be a nuisance. That should not be tolerated. The Minister can do a service by re-examining the extent to which government resources are directed to dealing with drug trafficking inside our prisons.
  That is all I wish to say. I am grateful to the Minister. If he cares to write to me, I shall be happy to have his letter. I repeat that we are fully behind the Government's intention in this order.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 8.6 to 8.30 p.m.]

  Social Security Bill
  House again in Committee on Clause 11
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 77:
  Page 15, line 43, leave out from (" of) to end of line 45 and insert ("requiring the provision by schemes to which this section applies of annual increases in the annual rates of pensions under those schemes.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 85, 87, 88, 90 to 97 and 99 to 101. These are minor drafting, consequential and technical amendments aimed at clarifying the wording of Clause 11 and Schedule 2.
  Amendment No. 85 will clarify the term "pension" as used in Schedule 2 to make it clear that it covers both pensions which have already commenced, and those which will commence in future. Amendments Nos. 88 and 93 will redraft paragraph 2(2) of the schedule to enable the first increase under Section 58A(1)(b) to take effect on the anniversary of the date the pension started, if convenient to those involved. Paragraph 2(2) will require the first increase to be given no more than 12 months after the pension starts and each subsequent increase to be given no more than 12 months after the previous one. I invite the Committee to agree to the amendments.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: Is the Minister speaking to all the amendments in this grouping? If so, I have one small point to make as regards Amendment No. 97.
  Lord Henley: It will be in order for the noble Baroness to make her point at this stage.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: The point I have to make is a very small one. The amendment proposes to leave out "months, rounded to the nearest whole month" and insert "complete months". As I understand it, that formula results in a slight reduction. It is, in fact, a very small reduction, being one-twelfth of 5 per cent., if 5 per cent. was the amount in question. I wonder why it has been felt necessary to introduce a reduction into the Bill even though a slight one. I hope that my reading of what is proposed is correct.
  Lord Henley: The noble Baroness is correct in her reading of what is proposed. I think that it is preferable to insert "complete months" in place of the wording,
  "months, rounded to the nearest whole month".
  However, I think that it would be better if I were to write to the noble Baroness with a greater explanation as to why we have phrased the proposal in this kind of terminology. With that assurance I hope that she is able to accept the amendment at present.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 78:
  Page 16, line 14, at end insert ("or 3 per cent., whichever be the lower figure.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 84. I

  837
  believe that Amendment No. 81 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, is also grouped with these two amendments. Clause 11 and Schedule 2 require all final salary pension schemes to pay annual increases in line with inflation (up to a limit) on pension rights built up after an appointed day. This risks reinforcing inflationary expectations.
  My amendment would put a ceiling of 3 per cent. on such increases, which is indeed the maximum percentage at which my own occupational pension is put. However, the majority of occupational pension schemes do not promise inflation pro of ing. Many are small schemes, averaging 100 members using an insurance policy as the investment vehicle, as indeed is the case with my pension. The CBI tells me that about 40 per cent. of schemes provide some limited inflation pro of ing. However, only 10 per cent. would presently match the Government's proposed requirement which I understand calls for an annual increase of up to 5 per cent.
  The impact of the Bill as drafted is threefold—one might even say fourfold, as Members of the Committee will find. First, there will be a significant rise in the unit labour costs of those companies which decide to provide indexation. I am reliably advised that to provide a 5 per cent. annual increase in pensions, an extra contribution of 5 per cent. of pensionable pay would be required. It is highly likely that such increases in employers' unit labour costs would further fuel inflation in the economy as a whole. I cannot believe that that would be the Government's wish, especially at the present time.
  Secondly, companies unable to afford increased labour costs could be forced to consider reductions in pension benefits. For example, instead of promising a pension of two-thirds final salary, companies may only be able to offer a pension of one-half final salary. Alternatively, they may move to money purchase arrangements. Either move would undoubtedly cause industrial relations problems but—and I emphasise this point—not of the employers' making.
  Thirdly, the Bill without my amendment may lead to a long-term shift in the nature of occupational pension provision. There is likely to be a move away from final salary schemes by companies which already provide pensions, while companies setting up new arrangements would be unlikely to choose this option. It may not be the Government's aim to discourage final salary schemes—and I rather felt from something said by my noble friend earlier that it was net—but that could certainly be the effect of the Bill as drafted.
  Finally, the parts of the Bill we are discussing were added at a very late stage of the proceedings in another place and have not been subject to consultation with those most directly affected. By this I mean the majority of small and medium-sized companies which do not already provide index-linked pensions.
  A further new factor of great importance is the recent decision of the European Court of Justice in Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange. The decision
  838
  by that court, which was announced on 17th May and which concerned equal pension ages, reinforces and renders overwhelmingly the case for moving back from the 5 per cent. proposal. While its precise impact remains worryingly unclear, it is certain to have a major cost implication for the vast majority of occupational schemes.
  The Government's judgment that employers with occupational pension schemes can afford to find the resources to meet the indexation of 5 per cent., as opposed to 3 per cent. which we propose, must have been based upon the assumption that in all other respects pension arrangements, and therefore costs, would remain substantially unchanged; in other words, that the status quo would continue. I suggest to my noble friend that the decision of the European Court of Justice has changed the situation and that perhaps the Government should reconsider the indexation proposals in the light of the substantial and unanticipated new burdens facing occupational schemes.
  In conclusion, the Government's 5 per cent. indexation is certainly better than the unlimited price indexation required by some interested parties. That could unleash a stampede away from final salary schemes. A level of 3 per cent. such as I propose would be more in keeping with the level of inflation that the UK could successfully sustain. It would also reduce the additional costs; hence the undesirable move away from final salary provision.
  I suggest that this will be a reasonable minimum level of increase which the CBI believes could be attainable by most, if not all, final salary schemes. Many may choose to do more, as they do now, but in response to what is affordable and what the labour market suggests is appropriate rather than in obedience to a government decree that comes dangerously close to institutionalising an intolerable underlying rate of inflation.
  In these amendments I have suggested points to which the Government might give careful thought. I hope that my noble friend is able to give a reply which will at least show that he has understood the various factors that I have pointed out, including the recent finding of the European Court of Justice. I hope that he will be able to agree to the amendment or come back with something more satisfactory at a later stage. I beg to move.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I shall reserve what I have to say about uprating until I come to my own amendment. I cannot agree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and he would not expect me to, since I do not agree with the 5 per cent. limit proposed by the Government. I am surprised that in these days when inflation is running at around 9 per cent. the noble Lord should think it enough to provide pensioners with only 3 per cent. I cannot think that he believes that all pension funds genuinely cannot afford to pay more. Many have substantial surpluses and contribution holidays have become quite an established rule in many companies.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State has dealt with the whole issue of uprating in the way that he has, even though the limit is unacceptable. It is after all, as I understand it, a requirement for future

  839
  prospects. The funds and pension schemes have been given adequate time by the Minister under the proposals of the Government to make the necessary funding arrangements for uprating.
  We can now expect to live about 20 years longer than our parents; therefore people can expect to spend 25 years in retirement. We must face up to the issue of protecting pensions payments in the years to come, perhaps in the next century. Otherwise it seems to me that we shall simply look forward to a situation in which people in extreme old age suffer real penury because their pensions are not adequate to keep them at a reasonable level. They will fall back on social provisions once again. I hope that the Government are not inclined—I am sure they are not—to accept the 3 per cent. figure instead of 5 per cent. I should like to debate the whole issue of RPI uprating when I come to move my amendment.
  Lord Vinson: The Government, having willed the end by suggesting 5 per cent., should try to help industry provide the means. One form of inflation pro of ing would be for them to issue more tranches of index-linked gilt stock which would effectively allow the private sector to have the same base and security of funding as the public sector now has.
  I accept that a sudden leap to 5 per cent. might be difficult although, judging by the performance of most pension funds over the past 10 years, many have the reserves to do so. In order to help industry implement this and to budget for the future I suggest that the Government take on board the concept of issuing further tranches of suitably dated and priced index-linked stocks. That would enable the theory, the concept, to be turned into reality.
  8.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Buckinghamshire: This is a difficult area. The Committee, I am sure, agrees with the concept of increasing pensions and payments. We should all like to have as much provided as possible. However, there must be a limit because of the cost. My noble friend Lord Mottistone has referred to the costs of the exercise and the ruling of the European Court. That will add perhaps another 3 to 5 per cent. to the pension costs if the worst, or rather the greatest, liability is caused by that decision.
  I have seen annualised costing figures quoted in the press of something like £3 billion per annum for the uprating and indexation of 5 per cent. I have seen the figure quoted of another £3 billion for the decision by the European Court of Justice. I have no way of checking that figure. A good friend of mine who is an actuary tells me that that is the position.
  As I listened to the comments of noble Lords, it struck me—and my noble friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that since 1988 the guaranteed minimum pension must be increased by the employer by 3 per cent. I am concerned that we are entering another level of increases on top of administrative duplication. It could be that a compromise would be to revert to the 3 per cent. I say that with some concern: we are all worried about the fate of pensioners and their payments. However,
  840
  I am also concerned about the ability to pay in future years. Perhaps that could be taken into account when my noble friend replies.
  Lord Henley: I understood that we were to debate my noble friend's amendments with that of the noble Baroness. I thought that at this stage I should be in a happy position somewhere in the middle. Obviously that is not so because the noble Baroness has decided to deal with her amendment separately.
  My noble friend urges me to require schemes to provide statutory increases of 3 per cent. He is quite rightly concerned about the impact that there could be on employers. Much depends on the extent to which schemes currently make increases. A leading firm of actuaries, R. Watson and Sons, has suggested that the average additional cost for all schemes might be between 0.25 and 0.75 per cent. of the payroll. This takes account of the statistics that about 80 per cent. of members' schemes are receiving annual increases, mostly in the range of 3 to 5 per cent.
  Some schemes currently make no pension increases. These could be faced by extra contributions. However, as my noble friend points out, they would have the option of reducing the accrual rate or looking to higher contributions from employees if they wish to contain their costs.
  It is worth recalling how far we have come in a few short years. Up to 1985 there was no statutory requirement for schemes to revalue pensions for early leavers at all. The current position is that an early leaver from a pension scheme with a membership of two years or more must be provided with a preserved pension in respect of pensionable service from 1st January 1985. This statutory requirement for revaluation in respect of service after 1st January 1985 was brought in by the Social Security Act 1985. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Bill extends that requirement to service before 1985 so that early leavers will in future have all their preserved benefits above the guaranteed minimum pension level increased by prices up to 5 per cent.
  This by itself is a substantial step forward. It has been taken further in the Bill with, I hope, little controversy, largely because many schemes saw it as nonsense to limit the revaluation to the post-1985 period. They voluntarily extended it to the whole of the member's pensionable service. When we came to consider what level of pension increases should apply for rights accrued from future service, it was necessary to balance the question of the cost of provision with that of protection for the member. This is why we concluded that 5 per cent. was about right. The Government's position is to have regard to the concerns expressed by all those who have an interest in this matter and to try to strike a balance which is reasonable for all parties concerned. I believe that the figure of 5 per cent. or the RPI, whichever is the lower, strikes just such a balance. I believe our proposal is a sensible and balanced measure. I also believe it is a great advance and that it will make occupational schemes both attractive to their members and an asset to employers in recruiting good quality staff.
  My noble friend said there was likely to be a move away from final salary schemes. It is not the

  841
  Government's aim to favour final salary as opposed to money purchase schemes. We would hope that there is both a balance and choice between the two. I remind my noble friend of future demographic trends and the possible future tightness of the labour market. It will be up to employers to offer to their employees the best package that they feel is necessary to obtain appropriate employees. If they feel that the best package will include a final salary scheme that is a matter for them to decide. Similarly if they feel they can attract the right staff by offering personal pensions or money purchase schemes that is a matter for them.
  My noble friend also raised the matter of the recent judgment of the European Court. He believed that, following that judgment, there could be additional costs for schemes and employers. Many schemes have already equalised the age at which occupational pensions start to be paid. I see no reason why, when doing so, schemes should not take account of the requirement in this Bill to provide for limited indexation of pensions in the future. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent reducing the rate at which pensions accrue. Schemes can therefore alter the benefit structure if they cannot meet these costs in the future. We are studying the judgment and its implications. I would prefer to leave the matter at that stage until we have completed our study of the implications of the judgment. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his full reply. I had a slight feeling while he was giving his reply—I suspect this may affect the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also—that the kinds of people he had consulted for his advice represented the 10 per cent. of the companies which could match the Government's proposed requirement. In the nature of things the kinds of companies the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, may consult will be the big companies rather than the small ones. However, the companies I am worried about are the medium and small companies which have introduced pension schemes relatively recently and are struggling to organise them.
  I rather suspect that all the senior people in the major political parties and in the Government tend to talk to the top people and not to the bottom people. I really think that small companies need special consideration. However, this is not the time to press this point in any way, apart from the fact that I would not gain support from the Benches opposite. I shall read carefully what everyone has said. I thank my noble friends very much for their contributions. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.]
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 81:
  Page 16, line 25, at end insert:
  ("(3) In section 52A of the Pensions Act (Duty of the Secretary of State to specify a revaluation percentage)—
  842
  (i) in subsection (3) leave out "Subject to subsection (8) below, "; and
  (ii) leave out subsections (8) and (9)").
  The noble Baroness said: I said earlier that I wanted to reserve what I had to say about index linking until I came to move my own amendment. It has a tw of old effect in that it removes the 5 per cent. a year limit on both the new provisions to require increases to be made on pensions in payment and from the existing provisions for increases to be made on deferred pensions. As regards the 5 per cent. limit to revalue pensions, as I said earlier I think that in current circumstances this is not enough. As I also said earlier, the average employee can now expect to live 20 or more years in retirement. The Minister has already made reference to demographic changes in that connection. If someone who retired in 1970 had only obtained increases on the basis provided in the Bill—that is the 5 per cent. increase—his benefit would now be worth only about 40 per cent. of its initial value.
  We all hope, of course, that the higher rates of inflation will not continue to be part of our environment for the future. If we knew that governments could contain inflation within the 5 per cent. figure, what the Government propose would seem wholly acceptable. However, with inflation climbing up again, a measure that purports to protect scheme members' future interests but allows the benefits to fall to half their real value looks rather unsatisfactory. It costs more money and not less to look after the very old and the Government's proposal could well result in real poverty for such people in future years, and of course in a greater burden on social security benefits.
  We therefore feel that schemes should be required to increase pensions in line with the RPI. That is not such a big deal. For most of this century the wages index has outstripped the retail prices index. It looks as if this trend will continue into the next century. Even with full RPI indexation, pensioners will still be worse of f than those in employment, irrespective of the fact that there will undoubtedly still continue to be inland revenue limits on the level of final salary pension that can be paid. The question of cost is of ten raised. The argument is always advanced that this measure would be just too expensive and too much of an open-ended commitment. It is argued that an insistence upon it would frighten away employers from providing pension schemes at all. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has already made that point.
  We reject that argument. Employers provide pension schemes because it is in their interests to do so. They need to attract and retain staff. They also need their staff to retire as they get older so that they may be easily replaced by younger people. It is therefore in their interests to provide attractive schemes. Moreover, in recent years there has been increasing union pressure for good schemes. Clearly the question of cost is relevant, but I am advised that what we propose will not require significant increases in employers' contributions over and above what the Government are already proposing.
  The big increase in the current cost of providing a pension scheme arises when a scheme makes no

  843
  provision for increases at all and is then improved to provide RPI increases limited to 5 per cent. It has been estimated that this could substantially increase the cost of a scheme. However, most schemes do not start from that position. Most employees belong to schemes which already guarantee or make provision for increases at or near the level of the Government's proposal. It is important to appreciate that the move from limited increases to full RPI is much less significant than the move from no increases at all to 5 per cent. That is because in most cases the assumptions made by the actuary which determine the contributions to be paid are in practice similar, whether or not there is any limit. I must say that I am indebted to a practising actuary for this information.
  The key factor here is the difference between the assumption made about future investment returns and the assumption about future pension increases. Broadly speaking, this difference will be very similar for schemes that guarantee pension increases, whether or not they have a 5 per cent. limit. We therefore consider it quite reasonable to require schemes to provide full inflation pro of ing. We understand that the increase in contributions required to achieve this will only be about 1 per cent. of payroll over and above any increase in cost already proposed by the Government. In practice many schemes, particularly larger ones, are already providing for increases in line with what we propose and so for those the current cost will be smaller or even nil. As for past service benefits accrued before the appointed day, those pensions should also be increased in line with the RPI as far as surpluses permit. So long as there is a surplus in a scheme we see no reason why it should be used for employer refunds or contribution holidays before it is used to protect the real value of members' benefits.
  Again, we do not believe that the cost of our proposal should be a deterrent to good pension provision. If we look at what schemes have done over the past five years, we find that the schemes to which people already belong are doing what we suggest to quite an extent. The Watson index of pension increases produced by Watsons, the consulting actuaries, whose name has already been mentioned in the debates this evening, shows that the average pension increase, allowing for a lag in implementation, has been more or less in line with the RPI.
  I trust that the Government will come to see the sense in what we say. The whole basis of their legislation is that members are entitled to adequate protection against inflation and that that should be the first call on any surplus. It therefore makes no sense to impose a limit of 5 per cent. while allowing employers to benefit from the surplus. I hope that the Government will consider what could be the eventual results of not doing what we suggest. Do we really want to see in the next century large numbers of very old people dependent upon pensions that have become inadequate for their maintenance and relying on state benefits? We do not want that, I suggest, after all the trouble taken to persuade companies, unions and employees to co-operate in the establishment of good pension schemes. I beg to move.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Henley: As I said earlier, I thought that the amendments were to be taken together and that I should find myself in the happy position of being in the middle. Obviously that is not to be the case.
  The proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, goes rather wider than our proposals and considerably wider than those of my noble friend. Her amendment would not only require pension increases in Schedule 2 to be in line with the RPI, with no maximum limit, but would also amend existing legislation so that that applied also to the revaluation requirement for early leavers.
  I accept that the noble Baroness speaks for individuals who are concerned about the level of their occupational pensions. As the Committee will know, between 1979 and 1987 the average value of occupational pensions received by people over pension age increased by 77 per cent. in real terms. That means that for many pensioners their occupational pension is now their most important source of income. We believe, as the OPB suggested in its report, that it is of the greatest importance to introduce a degree of certainty of regular pension increases.
  The Government have tried to strike a balance which is reasonable for all parties concerned. We believe that we have struck such a balance. The noble Baroness asked for full price linking of pensions. The point of the government proposal is a guaranteed rate of increase. To guarantee full price linking would be a substantial commitment for employers, as we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Mottistone. That is why we have tried to strike a balance between the two amendments. I believe that it would be unfair and unjust to place such a burden on employers as the noble Baroness has suggested. Many employers could be deterred by that.
  I know that the noble Baroness is fully committed to final salary schemes, and on occasion she has expressed a degree of hostility to personal pensions and money purchase schemes. However, I suggest that what the noble Baroness proposes might further deter employers from adopting final salary schemes. Despite what I said earlier in answer to my noble friend Lord Mottistone—that employers will have to look to the much tighter labour market in the coming years and consider what they offer in order to attract employees—I believe that what the noble Baroness suggests would increase the cost of final salary schemes considerably and could have a significant deterrent effect on final salary schemes.
  The noble Baroness made her point in favour of an increase in line with an unlimited RPI. However, I do not believe that this is the time to go that far. I believe that the half-way house of RPI or 5 per cent., whichever is the lower, represents a good balance between the two. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we have struck more or less the right balance and will be prepared to withdraw her amendment, just as my noble friend withdrew his amendment proposing a limit of 3 per cent.
  Lord Vinson: I share the noble Baroness's desire to see those in retirement receive the maximum

  845
  pension possible. However, she rightly raised the question of demographic changes occurring in this country and the fact that people are living 20 years longer than their parents. The fact is that the economically active people will increasingly have to support more and more economically inactive people. However we talk about the funding of pensions;, they are funded in name alone. All pensions, are a transfer from the rice bowl of the working to the non-working. There is no escaping that fact.
  Therefore, while on the face of it the amendment would appear to be irresistible and it would appear to be impossible to disagree with it, in practice full indexation of pensions will place a substantial burden on the ever-diminishing number of the economically active. It will mean less rice in the rice bowl for them.
  Those of us who are interested in pension provision for the future will have to have a long, hard look at what will be the correct level of support for those in retirement. We keep dodging the issue. However, I believe that the Government have come fairly close to the issue in saying that the appropriate burden to place on the economically active is to index pensions at about 5 per cent. If the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, of full indexation were to be adopted, I fear that that would place far too severe a burden on the economically active. I fear that, as was suggested earlier, we might have to index pensions, but at a level of 50 per cent. of the final three years' salary rather than the goal of two-thirds—which, incidentally, is very seldom reached.
  We are talking of a limited amount of money and a decreasing number of people producing the wherewithal. That factor must come into our consideration. Therefore, I believe that at this moment the Government have probably got the balance about right.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I should like to thank the Minister for his explanation. I do not intend to press the amendment tonight. I wanted to put on record the view from these Benches that we think that eventually full indexation will have to be adopted. I accept that the government proposal is a substantial step forward. I have never disagreed with that fact.. It marks a step forward because there is a statutory obligation to index link to the 5 per cent. limit. However, I maintain that that will not be enough for the future, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. He rightly makes the point that whether pension provision comes from private or public sources, it has to be paid for by the people who are economically active. That is absolutely right. On the other hand, we may be looking at different patterns of retirement for the future. These are matters that may arise in the future and they will affect the way we look at future pension provision.
  My noble friend Lord Carter has reminded me that public sector schemes have been indexing pensions in payment for a very long time. The Civil Service has had an index linked scheme for 20 or
  846
  30 years, as have a number of other public sector schemes. I am also reminded that some years ago there was an investigation into whether or not indexation should continue. The report of that committee was overwhelming; it stated that indexation should continue. It has continued ever since that time.
  If people working in the public sector have that kind of protection, it should also be extended to those working in the private sector. One day we shall have to do so, perhaps when my party is in government. We should have to face up to the consequences of so doing. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 82:
  Page 16, line 27, at end insert:
  ("(3) In the case of an occupational pension scheme—
  (a) such as is mentioned in subsection (I) of section 58A of the Pensions Act, and
  (b) which is constituted by trust deed, no payment shall be made out of the resources of the scheme to or for a person who is or has been the employer of persons in the description or category of employment to which the scheme relates until such time as provision has been made by the scheme for every pension which commences or has commenced under it to be increased as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection.
  (4) Nothing in subsection (3) above applies in relation to payments made to or for a person by virtue of his or any other person's membership of the scheme in question.
  (5) Expressions used in this section and the Pensions Act have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Act.
  (6) The provisions of subsection (3) above override any provisions of a scheme to the extent that it conflicts with them.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I am grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he has presented his case. I do not think it will be any surprise to him or to the Committee if I make it clear at this point that I am unable to accept the amendment.
  The Occupational Pensions Board, in its report Protecting Pensions, referred to surpluses and said that some respondents to its consultative note had urged it to make general pronouncements on the ownership of surplus. The board concluded that that was not possible. The report goes on to say:
  "We have therefore sought to make specific recommendations on different issues in this report rather than to formulate a general directive of 'ownership' of surplus or deficiency".
  The Government accept this sensible approach. The underlying objective of our proposals in this Bill has been to improve the safeguards for the benefits which schemes are designed to provide. Our thinking was stimulated by the problems posed by takeovers and mergers, where in some cases members have lost out badly despite being in a scheme apparently well funded with a surplus of assets over liabilities.
  Our proposal in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 is in line with that approach. It is not the Government's intention to decide who owns a surplus but we believe it is entirely reasonable that, where surpluses

  847
  exist, members should be guaranteed a limited measure of indexation. The decade during which this Government have held office has been a period of strong investment performance by pension funds, which have yielded large surpluses. Many schemes have used those surpluses to improve benefits for members, but a number could have done more.
  We are therefore going to require that, from an appointed day, schemes will have to use surpluses to pay increases to members for pension rights which they have already built up. The guaranteed rate of increase that each scheme will have to pay will depend on the surplus in the pension fund, but the target rate of increase for schemes will be the rise in the retail prices index up to 5 per cent. a year. Government Amendment No. 82 also clarifies the fact that employers will not be able to take a refund until such increases have been provided.
  The noble Lord has made a number of detailed points about how the surplus is to be calculated and the possible effect that it might have on some employers who have made arrangements for some years ahead on how they intend to use their surplus—perhaps by a contribution reduction or even a holiday. There must be some doubts, in any case, as to the wisdom of setting in concrete such financial planning for many years ahead. However the Government are not requiring that the whole of the surplus has necessarily to be used in providing pension increases. Many schemes already guarantee them at the required level and a number have been accustomed to giving increases, albeit on a discretionary basis. They will turn discretion into certainty.
  The Government believe that it is no longer acceptable for schemes generating surpluses to avoid their obligation to their members. of course surpluses cannot be guaranteed to be achieved at each and every valuation, and I think that the vast majority of members appreciate that fact. A number of letters that I have received have, however, expressed what they consider to be unfair treatment when surplus exists.
  There are a number of detailed issues still to sort out, and officials are already in discussion with the professional actuarial bodies in order to do so.
  We shall have regard to matters of detail during these discussions. We noted in particular points that had been made in the past about the use of discretion in the allocation of the surplus. I can see that that is probably what my noble friend will try to achieve. However, I should like to consider the matter further to see whether it can be accommodated within our overall objectives. I make no commitment but we have the necessary powers to consider these matters. I therefore invite the Committee to accept the amendment.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Mottistone: I speak to Amendment No. 89, which, in a sense, goes down a slightly different route from that taken by my noble friend the Minister. At the outset I should say, just in case there is any doubt, that not only myself but companies all recognise that a reasonable pension which keeps reasonably in
  848
  touch with the cost of living is terribly important for all employees. There is no doubt about that. We are arguing about what companies, particularly the smaller companies, can presumably afford and what it is reasonable for the Government to direct them to do.
  In Schedule 2 there is a very strong element of central direction which would have appealed to Mr. Stalin but probably not to Mr. Gorbachev. It would certainly appeal to the noble Lords opposite. With that in mind, I feel that although the object of this schedule is attractive, some of the means have ugly aspects. In effect the schedule provides that the first charge on any surplus disclosed should be the indexation of pensions accruing before the appointed day.
  That position is strengthened by Amendment No. 82, against which I would not argue in particular; in general it just means that Auntie Government is telling us even more firmly what to do. Surpluses generally arise because the outturn proves less costly than the actuarial assumptions had anticipated. Sometimes cautious actuaries warn of a potential deficit and the employer responds by injecting more money into the fund. That is the responsible and appropriate response. But sometimes in the event the assumptions prove over-cautious and the injection of cash proves unnecessary to meet the specified commitments.
  I ask whether in those circumstances the employer should lose all rights over the money injected. Surely in equity he should not. But that would be the effect of paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 in all cases in which limited price indexation is not already promised to existing pensioners. That is bad policy. We want pension funds to be backed up to and beyond the extent of their potential liabilities. That is in everybody's interests. But if the cost of putting in money to guard against a potential shortfall may be not only the permanent loss of that money but also the triggering of new and costly obligations in respect of pensions accruing before the appointed date, many will look long and hard before putting extra resources into the fund to guard against contingencies.
  Those are the facts of life that we must take well to heart in making sure that the legislation that is before us in fact does not put too much of a burden on people who provide the money which enables us all to live and the country to survive. So paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 is neither equitable nor prudent.
  Furthermore, the measure would require that any surplus identified, however small, must go entirely toward the provision of limited price indexation until all the pensions accruing before the appointed day are given the same protection as those accruing thereafter. But that will not necessarily be the best use of the surplus. Implementing the rule could mean providing very little to a large number spread over many years, when it could have been used with discretion to provide a real and immediate uplift for a few hard cases.
  Measurement of surpluses other than by the properly cautious approach adopted by the Inland Revenue is an uncertain business, closer in some respects to astrology than to accountancy. I do not

  849
  suppose that the actuaries will be pleased to hear me say that, but certainly that is the experience of the member companies of the CBI.
  The only true pension fund surplus is that revealed when a fund is wound up. All the rest are estimates. I look to my noble friend for help on that point. Do the Government recognise the uncertainties of surplus measurement? Will they err on the side of caution in considering what amounts to a surplus, remembering the expectations cost to fund members fuelled not least by legislation of this kind?
  Some funds have achieved remarkable surpluses during the past decade, sometimes because the sharp redundancies of the 1980s meant that they were left over-providing for future calls from pensioners, more of ten because investment income outstripped prices and earnings. That is not the prospect facing many pension funds today. I look for reassurance that the Government also recognise that in the climate now prevailing, not least with the additional burdens imposed on final salary schemes in this and other legislation in recent years, we are much less likely to see substantial surpluses being thrown up than in the turbulent conditions of the 1980s. It is important that the Government state that so that unreasonable and unfulfillable anticipation is not generated among pensioners.
  I could continue but I believe that I have made my point firmly enough. I wished to show the other side of the coin which I believe everyone—not only the Government—needs to consider with care. However, I thank my noble friend for stating—I think—that the officials of the Government have been discussing matters with experts to try to ensure that the resultant orders that come before us are the best that can be provided.
  That principle is fine, but I hope that they cast the net wide to find the people to consult. As I said when moving another amendment, I am fearful that large trade unions, large companies and government talk to the top people but do not know what goes on in small companies.
  Lord Carter: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. He referred to discretion in the use of the surplus. Would the trustees have the discretion to award extra increases in pensions payments to certain groups of employees such as senior executives or directors?
  Lord Mottistone: If the terms of the trust said so, yes, they would be able to do so; or even to give a lump sum to someone. But the trust in which the pension fund is set up has to give them that authority, and a lot of them do so.
  The Earl of Buckinghamshire: I was interested in that last comment. Presumably certain highly paid people are more likely to receive increases than others. I can understand that being a problem. I can also understand some of the merits of saying that the surplus should be spread straight across the board so that everyone has a slice. In the real world if one provides it right across the board, it will be spread very thinly.
  850
  My noble friend Lord Mottistone has raised the anxiety on what I referred to at Second Reading as using a sledgehammer to solve this problem. The problem is providing for the pensioners of the day in this instance. It is not about providing for the pensioners of tomorrow.
  There has been much discussion about what should be done for employees by a good employer, and such concepts. We may have forgotten that it is a partnership between the state, the employing company and the employee. Those people with, hopefully employed, working lives ahead of them will have the opportunity to make provision for their retirement. Those people who have retired do not have the same opportunities. I fully understand the comments of the Minister about trying to prevent the pension asset stripper continuing into the 1990s. However, I am concerned about the allocation of a scarce resource to the most needy. I believe that the provision is a fairly unfocused attempt to solve the problem. We should be targeting the pensioners. The issue should be considered very thoroughly by the Minister. I am sure that he will do so, and will reflect on the concerns of all in this Chamber. The use of the surplus for both active people and pensioners needs to be very carefully considered.
  Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I misinterpreted the query of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. When he asked me whether the money could be disbursed to individuals, I was thinking of the poor individuals who do not have enough money. When my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire was speaking, I had the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was perhaps thinking that the chairman would give himself a great benefit. When I gave my answer, I did not think that any chairman would be so wicked or so stupid. Pension funds can be diverted to the good of the needy—by whom I mean the really needy—but I do not think that they can be distributed to the non-needy.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I have little quarrel with this part of the Bill because one of the issues with which I of ten had to deal as a trade union official was the concern of members as to who owned the surplus. I was constantly asked, "Who owns the surplus? Does the company have the right to take a contribution holiday? Can it do what it likes with the surplus? Is it not our money anyway?"
  The ownership of the surplus is a difficult and tricky question. The Occupational Pensions Board decided not to pronounce on it because there are arrangements, particularly in a balance of costs arrangement, under which the employer is bound to pay into the scheme sufficient money to meet pension promises. If he receives cautious actuarial advice, he may overpay into the scheme and may therefore feel with some justification that he has perhaps paid too much into the scheme. That is why there is a surplus.
  However, in making the proposition the Government have clearly said that the first call on a surplus must be the pensioners—the people whom it is intended to cover. That must be right. I can assure the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord

  851
  Mottistone, that from an industrial relations point of view the business of who owns the surplus if of ten a vexed question. People become terribly worked up about contribution holidays. Given the Government's proposition in the Bill, that question is to some extent settled and I welcome the way in which it is done.
  Lord Vinson: Although I welcome the move along the right road down which the clause takes us, it may be overtaken to some degree by an EC derogation. However, in this instance I would go much further than the other side of the Committee. The Government should state unequivocally that the money in pension funds belongs to those in receipt of pension, those with a deferred pension and those likely to receive a pension—the present contributors. Although this is a major step forward, we are all appalled at the way in which so many pension funds are gratuitously used as a slush fund for senior directors to prepare for their retirement. That behaviour is reprehensible. I should have liked a clearer and a more positive statement that the money in pension funds belongs to the pensioners and no one else. However, I welcome the measure as a first step and give full marks to the Government.
  Lord Henley: We are becoming a little bogged down in this government amendment on which we have now spent 18 minutes. I have come under fire from my noble friend before, but I do not think that he has ever gone so far as to accuse me and my noble friends of being like Stalin and—even worse—of being much the same as noble Lords opposite.
  As I have already said, there are problems with the definition of the word "surplus". There are a number of detailed issues, in addition to the definition of "surplus", to be sorted out. officials are S already in discussion with the professional actuarial bodies in order to sort out those problems. We shall have regard to my noble friend's views on the matters during those discussions. We have particularly noted his remarks. I can see what he is trying to achieve and I should like to consider that further in order to see whether that can be accommodated within our overall objectives. I make no commitment on that, and I stress that we already have the necessary powers. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  9.30 p.m.
  Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 83:
  After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
  ("Equal treatment of women in occupational and personal pension schemes.
  In paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Social Security Act 1989, sub-paragraphs (4)(d), (4)(e), and (4)(f) shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment was tabled before the seminal judgment of the European Court in the case of the Guardian Royal Exchange v. Barber. It seems to me, very largely if not entirely, that that judgment has shot my fox. I have no objection to that if, at the same time, it has winged the Government, which it seems to me to have done.
  This is a very unusual circumstance. Perhaps the Minister will give me some idea of the Government's
  852
  reaction and what they propose to do in response to that judgment. It may save time if we do not debate the issue now but return to the matter on Report when we have a clearer statement from the Government.
  As Sir Anthony Lester said in The Times today, sex equality has been won for pensioners and the major issues which we were going to consider here of pension ages, survivors' benefits and optional provisions all seem to be covered by the judgment, although as the judgment is so recent I should not like to claim that I understand all its implications. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that matter before we proceed on this amendment.
  Lord Henley: I hope that the noble Baroness does not go round committing the culpable crime of vulpicide with great frequency. As the noble Baroness said, it is not of ten that an amendment tabled in advance to a social security Bill achieves the topicality which the noble Baroness has achieved on this occasion.
  The noble Baroness quite rightly pointed out that last Thursday the European Court of Justice gave its judgment in the case of the Guardian Royal Exchange v. Barber. I cannot help the noble Baroness very much further at this stage. We are very carefully considering the judgment and we are aware that the Government's response may be significant in influencing the way in which schemes react to the court's judgment. As the noble Baroness admitted, this is a very complex matter and we are seeking legal advice on the judgment before deciding what action, if any, is necessary or appropriate.
  Of course we shall make a statement, and, with that in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw this amendment. of course, we may return to this matter at a later stage.
  Baroness Seear: That is the sensible course to take in the circumstances. I hope that before the Report stage—and there is a brief Recess—the Government can give rapid and deep thought to the implications of the judgment. In innocence, the implications seem to be clear; but I agree that they are both extensive and expensive. However, if there is a reasonable expectation that we shall have a statement from the Government before Report stage, then I am happy at this juncture to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 2 [Schedule to be inserted as Schedule 3A to the Pensions Act]:
  [Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 85:
  Page 32, line 36, after (" "pension" ") insert ("in relation to a scheme, means any pension which commences or has commenced under the scheme but").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 87 and 88:
  Page 33, line 5, after ("by") insert ("at least").
  Page 33, line 8, leave out ("before the expiration of the period of twelve months beginning with") and insert ("not later than the first anniversary of).
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 90 to 97:
  Page 33, line 26, at beginning insert ("Except in a case where regulations otherwise provide").
  Page 33, line 28, leave out ("except in a case where regulations otherwise provide").
  Page 33, line 31, after ("are") insert ("actuarially").
  Page 33, line 34, leave out from ("effect") to second ("the") in line 35 and insert ("not later than the first anniversary of).
  Page 34, line 1, after ("percentage") insert ("as determined in accordance with regulations").
  Page 34, line 5, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
  ("(a) provision has already been made by the scheme for the annual rate of the earlier service component of every such pension as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above to be increased annually in the aggregate by at least the appropriate percentage of that rate, or").
  Page 34, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert:
  ("(7) The powers conferred by sub-paragraphs (1) and (5) above to make regulations include, respectively, power to provide that the valuation of the scheme's assets or liabilities is to be calculated and verified, or the percentage in question is to be determined,—").
  Page 34, line 36, leave out ("months, rounded to the nearest whole month") and insert ("complete months").
  The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 77. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 98:
  Page 34, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 23 on page 35.
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment is a probing amendment. I do not understand the reasons for the Government's provision. There is a restriction in the Bill on increases for pensioners under the age of 55. I should have thought that that was likely to be a very small number of people. I cannot see any logical reason for excluding them. They are likely to be a vulnerable group; they probably do not receive state benefits, and if they are drawing their pension they are probably unable to find work.
  Inflation hits those people just as badly as anybody else; they may even be more badly hit, because, if they are younger, they may have dependent children and mortgages. Early retirements at this age are very few, I should have thought, but a pension is a pension. If it is paid it should be protected in the same way as pensions for other people. Perhaps the Government would kindly explain why they have felt it necessary to impose that restriction.
  Lord Mottistone: I should like to explain the provision, although I am sure that my noble friend will have a good answer. It is exactly what happened to me when I was in the navy. When they increased our pensions we did not manage to draw the new increased pension until we were 55. It is a straight copy of that situation. I expect it saves a lot of money.
  Lord Henley: I shall try to be brief in response to this particular amendment.
  Paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 is included simply because it is our intention to provide that schemes should be statutorily obliged to provide pension increases for those individuals who might be considered to have retired. There are a number of different employments where the normal retirement
  854
  age is quite young—for instance, professional footballers. A pension may be paid but it is more than likely that the individual will not consider himself retired and will look for other employment. It would not be reasonable to expect occupational schemes to have to pay increases of pensions in those circumstances.
  There are, of course, exceptions to the age 55 rule. The first is if the individual is under 55 and is out of the full-time employment field by reason of mental or physical infirmity which is considered to be of a permanent nature. The second is if he has retired by reason of mental or physical infirmity from the particular job from which he is receiving a pension. In both of those instances it is clear that the individual can be said to have retired.
  As my noble friend pointed out, there is an anology with the public service pension schemes in this provision. We think it fair to keep the public and private sectors on an even keel in this respect. I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured by this explanation.
  Baroness Turner: I am grateful for the explanation given by the Minister. As I said earlier, it was not my intention to press the amendment. I wanted to know the reasons for treating a pension paid at a younger age differently from other sorts of pension. The Minister has explained and I will look at his reply in Hansard. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 99 to 101:
  Page 35, line 10, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("sub-paragraph").
  Page 35, line 17, leave out ("being").
  Page 35, line 18, after ("member") insert ("or are not paid in full").
  The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 77. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 102:
  Page 35, line 23, at end insert:
  ("Application of Schedule to pensions not attributable to pensionable service
  5A. Regulations may provide that this Schedule (other than this paragraph) shall apply in relation to any pension under a qualifying scheme as if so much of the annual rate of the pension as would not otherwise be attributable to pensionable service were attributable in accordance with the regulations—
  (a) to pensionable service before the appointed day;
  (b) to pensionable service on or after that day; or
  (c) partly to pensionable service before, and partly to pensionable service on or after, that day;
  and any reference to the earlier or later service component of the pension shall be construed accordingly.").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment will enable the Secretary of State to require that any part of the annual rate of a pension that would not otherwise be increased be treated as either earlier service component or later service component for the purposes of this schedule.
  Our intention with this amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to deal with pensions that are not attributable to pensionable service. Pension which is derived from notional service and supplemental credits awarded to the member after

  855
  the appointed day will form part of the later service component. Any remaining pension based on these will form part of the earlier service component. We would not wish to see these elements of a member's pension excluded from the provisions requiring increases, and are taking steps to include them in this way. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 [The Pensions Ombudsman]:
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 103:
  Page 16, line 31, leave out ("commissioner to be known as the Pensions Ombudsman.") and insert ("commission to be known as the Pensions Tribunal.").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 104 to 115, 117 to 133, 138 to 156, 158 and 159.
  In this series of amendments I propose that the ombudsman, proposed as the appropriate official to hear pension complaints, be replaced by a tribunal. The Occupational Pensions Board, of which I am a member, in preparing its report entitled Protecting Pensions: Safeguarding Benefits in a Changing Environment, considered the relative advantages of a tribunal compared with a single ombudsman. The board decided that while an ombudsman was suitable for disputes between a large bureaucracy and an individual, there was a need for a body which could decide large, complicated issues, perhaps when two sets of trustees or trustees and other organisations—possibly unions representing employees—were involved.
  I am very keen on the concept of a tribunal. In fact, when we debated this matter within the OPB I and several others pushed hard for a tribunal against the proposal, also considered, for an ombudsman. I know from my own experience just how costly it can be if the only way of resolving a dispute about pensions is to take the dispute to the High Court, because that is a long-winded procedure. A specialist tribunal plainly appeared to be the best way of dealing with such disputes. of course, access to the courts would already exist as a backdrop on a point of law and that continues with the proposals I now put forward. All I have done in the amendments is to replace the ombudsman with a tribunal where reference to that office appears in the Bill.
  I envisage a relatively informal tribunal with two independent persons, with a lawyer in the chair who is experienced in pension matters. The independent persons would themselves have had pension fund experience or training but would represent the interests of employers and employees in the broadest possible way. Many of the issues would have some connection with employment. The industrial tribunal concept has been found useful in dealing with employment issues even if, over the years, the atmosphere at such tribunal hearings has become more legalistic and formal than originally intended.
  It is still unclear to me why the Government rejected these arguments and decided on an ombudsman even though the proposed powers of the ombudsman are much more akin to those held by a court than those possessed by other ombudsmen. I
  856
  should be interested if the Minister could say why the very detailed report of the OPB and the recommendations for a tribunal were rejected in favour of this single office. I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Coleraine: I should explain to the Committee, perhaps with a note of apology, that I speak to this amendment on the pensions ombudsman, and the subsequent amendments, not out of concern for occupational pension schemes or personal pension schemes but because I am concerned at the proliferation of ombudsmen in recent years which seems now to be turning into a flood. A number of ombudsmen have been created. They have been created in various ways and they have various functions with one seldom resembling another. Until now they have tended to have in common an interest in the investigation of maladministration.
  In the schedule that we are now discussing it is quite clear that there are two functions to be put into the hands of the person who is to be called the Pensions Ombudsman. Under Section 59C(1) proposed for the Pensions Act, he is clearly going to investigate maladministration. I should have thought that was the clear remit of the ombudsman as the term is now understood by most people.
  When one turns to the proposed Section 59C(2), one sees that he is also being asked to determine disputes which have arisen in relation to matters of fact and law. What he is being asked to do is to act himself as a poor man's court. The logical way to deal with the matter is to create two schedules; one to create a pensions ombudsman to deal with maladministration; and the other to put matters into the hands of a tribunal which would be a better body to deal with matters of fact and law. That was a matter which was canvassed at some length in Standing Committee in another place and it is not the amendment which is before us this evening.
  When one looks at the functions of this new person, the maladministration function is of less significance than the function of determining disputes as to matters of fact and law. It is on that basis that I express considerable sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, this evening. There is a great deal to be said for leaving this matter in the hands of a tribunal and not an ombudsperson.
  Lord Henley: It is with some foreboding that I respond to the noble Baroness on this issue. Not only has she presented her case, as she always does, very clearly, but as I believe I said at Second Reading, she brings a wealth of experience as a member of the Occupational Pensions Board. It was the OPB which produced the report commending a tribunal. My noble friend has also intervened and stated that ombudspersons—I think he said—were proliferating like a flood. Some might say the same is true of tribunals. However, everyone will agree that one or the other is necessary on this occasion.
  The OPB reported that a substantial majority of those who responded to their consultation note expressed the view that there was a need for an ombudsman or a body to adjudicate in disputes. There is, I am sure, general agreement that there is a need for a quicker, cheaper and more effective alternative to the High Court for pension scheme

  857
  members. The High Court is not a realistic possibility for most members of schemes. The OPB looked very carefully at the relative merits of an ombudsman and a tribunal and, in the words of the report, came down on balance in favour of a pensions tribunal.
  When this was discussed in Committee stage in another place, the Opposition tabled amendments that there should be both a pensions tribunal and a pensions ombudsman. They argued that there would be a hard core of cases where the expertise and legal standing of a tribunal was required, but that the ombudsman would be able to deal with most cases expeditiously and informally.
  This latter point of expedition and informality was a major factor in the Government's thinking. It is recognised that a tribunal should not have both advisory and adjudicatory duties, in order to avoid conflicts of interest. The tribunal would only be able to listen to arguments put to it, whereas an ombudsman is able to take the initiative and investigate the complaints. That is of great benefit to the individual. Legal expertise will be available to the ombudsman not only in the staff he may appoint but also in the legal experience of outsiders whose services he will be able to buy in as required. A single ombudsman will be able to cover the whole of the United Kingdom, including both Scotland and Northern Ireland, whereas it seems quite possible that separate tribunals might be needed for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.
  The OPS recommended, and the Government accepted, that the "consumer package" should be financed from fees paid by pension schemes and providers. The package consists of the tracing services based on a register of schemes, the grant by the OPB to the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service and the ombudsman, or tribunal as the OPB recommended. We agree that it is right that the industry should meet such costs, but whereas this is a practicable proposition in dealing with a pensions ombudsman, it would not be possible with a tribunal.
  In the Government's view, an ombudsman scheme is a more appropriate way to deal with the types of problems that individuals can face. The ombudsman has quite extensive powers in any case so that he, or for that matter she, can fulfil some of the functions which a tribunal might undertake. For example, he has power to seek a High Court ruling on a point of law in the public interest.
  One of the strengths of an ombudsman system, and in particular the power we are proposing to give to the pensions ombudsman, is that it is simple, clear-cut and comprehensible to members of the public and, even more important, to members of pension schemes. I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said, and I do not think there is a great deal between us in what we are both trying to achieve. The Committee will have noticed that government No. 136 will ensure that any oral hearing that the ombudsman decides to have will, unless there are exceptional circumstances, be held in public. This is akin to what would occur in a tribunal system, but there is the added advantage of the flexibility inherent in the ombudsman system.
  Among the plethora of amendments about a tribunal, there is tucked in an amendment the effect
  858
  of which would be that, in certain circumstances, the pensions ombudsman would feel it necessary to consider the balance of interest between members and non-members of a pension scheme and then automatically come down on the side of the members. I cannot accept that proposition. The ombudsman is expected to act fairly and impartially. It cannot be right for him to have a predisposition to come down on the side of the members; he is not their advocate. The point of an ombudsman is that he investigates, weighs the evidence and then comes to a determination.
  I invite the noble Baroness not to press her amendment which at this hour I am sure she will not do. I accept that we are not far apart on this point. The noble Baroness would prefer a tribunal. For the reasons that I have given, the Government would prefer an ombudsman. Bearing that in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. He is quite right; I have no intention to press the amendment at this hour. I know that in another place it was proposed that there should be both an ombudsman and a tribunal. I deliberately did not do that because it seemed to me that my case would be strengthened if I stayed with the recommendation of the OPB as I was a member of it and supported its recommendations.
  I still believe that in practice a tribunal would be the best means of handling these issues. We shall have to see how the ombudsman system works out in practice. When I was drawing up the amendments, I took the view that the ombudsman should clearly be seen as protecting the interests of scheme members. That should be the main function. Scheme members would be the ones most likely to complain if they felt that their interests were not being properly looked after, and it would be scheme members, or those who represented them, who would be most likely to utilise either the services of the tribunal or of the ombudsman. Therefore it seemed quite reasonable to lay down that it should be the function of the ombudsman to look after the interests of members of the scheme.
  However, I note what the noble Lord has said. We shall watch carefully to see how the scheme operates in practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [The Pensions Ombudsman]:
  [Amendments Nos. 106 to 115 not moved.]
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 116:
  Page 36, line 15, after ("remuneration") insert ("compensation for loss of office").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 160. These amendments would provide for the registrar and the ombudsman to be paid compensation in the event of loss of office. It has always been our intention that the registrar and the ombudsman should receive compensation for loss of office, as well as remuneration, pensions and so on. The purpose of the amendment is to make that absolutely clear in

  859
  the Bill. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 117 to 133 not moved.]
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 134:
  Page 39, line 46, leave out ("after consultation with the Council on Tribunals").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 135, 136 and 137. Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 would delete the unnecessary reference to consultation with the Council on Tribunals and clarify the role that the council will play in the operation of the ombudsman scheme. It has always been our intention to enable the ombudsman to consult the Council on Tribunals with regard to the procedural rules which will govern how he considers disputes of fact or law. We introduced amendments to this effect at Report stage in another place, and these two amendments will clarify the wording of Section 59F(2).
  Amendment No. 136 will make clear that the procedural rules which govern the ombudsman's duties will include power to require any oral hearings held in connection with the investigation of a complaint or dispute to be heard in public, except in specified types of cases. In addition to this, the rules will be able to make provision as to the persons who shall be entitled to act as representatives on behalf of the parties to the investigation. The fourth amendment is consequential upon this. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
  Lord Coleraine: I welcome the clarification provided by my noble friend's amendments. I wish to refer especially to Amendment No. 136 which gives some clarification as to what should be included in the rules. I have two points to make. First, it seems to me that the rule as regards,
  "requiring any oral hearing held in connection with an investigation",
  really only applies to the "poor man's court" side of the ombudsman's function and not to the maladministration. Does my noble friend envisage that the same rule would apply to both investigations under Section 59C(1), as proposed, and Section 59C(2)?
  My second query arises out of the same possible rule. It requires,
  "any oral hearing held in connection with an investigation … to take place in public".
  That seems to carry the clear presumption that whether such a hearing—and I am thinking of a hearing under proposed Section 59C(2)—will be held in public is a matter for the sole discretion of the ombudsman. I should have thought that the amendment which my noble friend has put before the Committee ought to have continued to enshrine the proposition in the form of a rule that any hearing shall be held in public, except in such cases as may be specified by the rules. I should be grateful if my noble friend would consider these points if he cannot answer them now.
  Lord Henley: I shall certainly consider my noble friend's points. I can answer his first question by
  860
  simply saying, yes. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 135 to 137:
  Page 39, line 49, leave out ("and investigation of complaints") and insert (" of complaints, the reference of disputes, and the investigation of complaints made and disputes referred, ").
  Page 40, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert:
  ("(3) The rules may include provision—
  (a) requiring any oral hearing held in connection with an investigation under this Part of this Act to take place in public, except in such cases as may be specified in the rules; and
  (b) as to the persons entitled to appear and be heard on behalf of parties to an investigation, as defined in section 59E(5) above.").
  Page 40, line 6, leave out ("referred to in subsection (2) and (3) above").
  The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 138 to 156 not moved.]
  Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 157:
  Page 41, leave out lines 30 to 36.
  The noble Lord said: When I spoke to the noble Baroness's amendment I tried to explain to the Committee why I considered that a tribunal was the appropriate forum for dealing with the provisions covered by the third schedule to the Bill. In moving this amendment I wish to put forward my view that it is inappropriate for an official masquerading under the title of ombudsman to deal with these matters.
  My amendment provides that the determination of the pensions ombudsman shall not be enforceable in the courts. I seek to probe to the heart of the schedule. I have chosen this means because so far as I am aware it is altogether without precedent for a statutory or any other ombudsman scheme to provide that the determination of the ombudsman shall be rubber stamped for enforcement purposes by a court.
  I am conscious that my amendment will not find favour with my noble friend, nor with anyone who cherishes "Mom and apple pie". I do not propose to press the amendment, but someone must point out that Schedule 3 does not create an ombudsman scheme at all except in relation to the maladministration proposals. Maladministration is the smaller part of the whole. The larger part of the scheme deals with the resolution of disputes arising in contract and the law of trusts. It is a clear effort to oust the courts, whether the High Court or tribunals. I refer to them equally here as courts.
  It seems to me that it is clearly a corporative idea that justice should be administered by a functionary acting as inquisitor, prosecutor, judge and jury and by someone who can then hand over his decision to be enforced by courts, which have had nothing to do with the matter at all until then. All this is said to be in the interests of a straightforward method of redress for consumers' problems. It is said to be a

  861
  cheaper and more effective alternative to the High Court and quicker and more effective than a tribunal.
  However, does not this all mean little more than that legal aid costs in the High Court would be saved? Does it not reflect the absence of the availability of legal aid before tribunals? I consider that the principle here is wrong and the precedent which the scheme establishes leads in the wrong direction—towards further private justice administered by a civil servant in secret. I submit that it is not appropriate for all these matters to be dealt with by a tribunal. It is certainly not right to hand them over to someone called an ombudsman. I beg to move.
  Baroness Seear: I was much impressed by the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. He said that he would not press the amendment so I do not suppose that this is of great interest to him, but the case he made seems to me to be unanswerable. We are moving all the time towards executive interference in matters which ought to be in the hands of some form of judiciary. This is much to be deplored.
  Lord Henley: Earlier I was accused of being Stalin. Now I am accused by different noble friends of being a corporatist. As my noble friend quite rightly said, the effect of his amendment would be to remove the provisions whereby the determinations or directions of the pensions ombudsman could be enforceable in the courts. In other words, the proposal is that it should be entirely voluntary whether or not the trustees, or manager of the scheme concerned choose to comply with the pensions ombudsman's ruling.
  Perhaps I may briefly explain how the procedure is intended to operate. An individual will apply to the pensions ombudsman with a complaint. That complaint may be an allegation that he has been unfairly treated because of maladministration on the part of the trustees or manager of an occupational or personal pension scheme, or it may be a request to determine a dispute of fact or law which has arisen.
  If the ombudsman decides to accept the application, he will conduct an investigation into the complaint, and of course will allow all parties concerned the opportunity to comment on the issues raised. The ombudsman may refer any question of law to the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session, if he thinks it necessary. In due course he will send a written determination to the parties concerned. This determination is final and binding on the parties, except that on a point of law an appeal may be made to the High Court or Court of Session.
  It only really makes sense for the determination to be final and binding if it can be enforceable in the courts. Unlike some other ombudsman schemes
  862
  where individual firms or companies decide to join, the pensions ombudsman will make decisions which will apply to all occupational and personal pension schemes. There are hundreds of thousands of such schemes, the vast majority of which could be relied upon to implement a decision of the ombudsman. But the very nature of the scheme is that he will deal with cases where there are problems and where there is a dispute between the trustees and an individual. of ten the conciliation bodies such as OPAS are unable to make an impact because of intransigence.
  It must, therefore, be right that the courts should be able to enforce the ombudsman's decisions. One of the current problems, as the OPB report pointed out, is that there is a need for an easier way for scheme members to resolve grievances. The expensive and time-consuming option of the High Court would continue to be the only one open to individuals if schemes decided to ignore the ombudsman's decision.
  Having said that and before asking my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, I should point out that it is always open to a scheme member to go to the High Court before he approaches the ombudsman. That right is not lost. It is only when one uses the ombudsman's services that his decision is then binding, except on a point of law, in which case the High Court can be brought into the matter. My noble friend said that he would not press his amendment. Nevertheless I hope I have satisfied his questions on this matter.
  Lord Coleraine: As I have said, I have no intention of pressing the amendment. I have only one comment to make on what my noble friend has said, which is that it seemed to me that in a sense he conceded the case when he said—I hope I understood him correctly—that the ombudsman would make determinations which would affect all pension schemes. It seems to me that there could be no clearer case for these matters to be decided in the open before a court or a tribunal. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 not moved.]
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 [Registration of occupational and personal pension schemes]:
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 160:
  Page 17, line 19, after ("gratuities") insert ("or compensation for loss of office")'.
  The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Vinson Lord Vinson moved Amendment No 161:
  After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
  ("Entitlement to opt annually for a PPP at full transfer value of accrued rights including pre-1988 rights.
  Notwithstanding any provision of the Social Security Act 1982 or of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, as amended, any member of an occupational pension scheme (not yet in receipt of pension) shall have the right annually to elect to transfer the full value of his accrued rights to a Personal Portable Pension at the same actuarial valuation of transfer entitlement as he would have enjoyed had he left the employment of that company.").
  The noble Lord said: I am grateful for the support of other Members of the Committee for the amendment. Its purpose is fourfold: first, to correct an anomaly in existing law governing the transfer of pensions; secondly, to give more freedom of choice in pension provision; thirdly, to encourage higher personal savings; and, fourthly, to develop the spread of the ownership of the assets of the United Kingdom more widely among its citizenry.
  Since the concept of personal portable pensions was introduced, over 4 million citizens have taken advantage of the new provision. It has proved more popular and been taken up on a greater scale than anyone anticipated. The take-up is still very substantial.
  Currently, if one leaves the employ of a company one is entitled to the full transfer value of one's accrued pension rights. These can be transferred by the individual either into his new company's pension scheme or as the foundation for a new personal portable pension that he can set up at that point. Thereafter his pension follows him, literally on his back, from company to company. Because it is his own personal pension he naturally takes more interest in it, and he is also more likely to save by way of additional voluntary contributions because he is adding to his own personal pot. Last but not least, he becomes a citizen with a discernible stake in the wealth of the country.
  However, a technical obstacle remains. By an anomaly in the law as it presently stands, if an existing employee elects to have a personal portable pension, he only has the right to take the accrued value since 1988, which is obviously very small. The pre-1988 values cannot transfer until he leaves. I believe that that restriction was inserted at the time when personal portable pensions were introduced so as to inhibit members of existing schemes from transferring to personal schemes and thereby simultaneously putting a double strain on the administrators of those schemes while the new systems were being introduced. However, that was some time ago.
  I have consulted with leading actuaries. One in particular said to me that the original denial of pe-1988 rights was due to the fear of a mass walk-out. That is and was a chimera. It is not a problem and he and others do not believe that an undue strain would now be placed on the administration of pension funds. I believe that I am right in saying that the NAPF is agnostic towards this proposal.
  The industry could now cope. All the arrangements are in place to give an actuarial valuation of a
  864
  member's rights when he leaves. As the law currently stands, members are entitled to ask for that valuation.
  Apart from the very small additional administrative burden, the arrangements which I propose are costless to the company because the actuarial valuation of a pensioner's entitlement equals precisely the liability that that fund has accumulated in order to meet his pension obligations to date. Thus the solvency of the fund is neither enhanced nor diminished by the withdrawal so long as the actuarial calculation is a correct assessment of the pensioner's entitlement, which it would be.
  It has been put to me that companies should have some time to raise the necessary cash in order to effect a transfer. While I believe that the number of employees asking for these arrangements will be relatively small, it would be quite reasonable for the company to have six months to execute the transfer and to be able to do so at the valuation calculated at the precise point of sale.
  Also, if an individual opts for a transfer to a personal portable pension, it would be perfectly reasonable that that employee should not have the right of re-entry, as hopping in and out of a company pension scheme would place an unreasonable burden on its administration. The clause that I have put down does not make that point particularly clear. No doubt it could be tidied up subsequently.
  I believe that the clause that I propose has an inevitable logic about it. It is an extension of the present rights currently given to those who leave a company. It would in future allow any existing employees of a company an opportunity annually to elect to have a full personal portable pension if they desire it and to do so while in the employ of that company. In practice, most employees would probably be quite happy to leave arrangements as they are. I do not anticipate a rush of existing employees asking for personal pensions.
  However, we live in a world where labour mobility is increasing, where "cradle to the grave" jobs are abnormal and where job changing, particularly and perhaps inevitably by female employees, is at a much higher level than hitherto. Personal and portable pensions fit that pattern much better, apart from severing the somewhat anachronistic ties between an employee and a company for which he or she may have worked for 15, 20, 30 or umpteen years.
  We can expect to see the demand for personal portable pensions grow. It is right that existing employees should have the freedom to choose a personal pr of itable pension, should they wish to exercise that choice. I beg to move.
  Lord Joseph: I hope that my noble friend's speech, which contains assurances that the amendment could do no harm and will do good, will be seriously considered by my noble friend the Minister. I support my noble friend.
  10.15 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I am sure that the Committee will not be surprised to learn that I am not in favour of anything which encourages personal portable pensions. The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, stated that 4 million citizens had opted to take personal private pensions. Most have opted against SERPS and not against occupational pensions. They have been encouraged to do so largely by the Government providing a bribe in the shape of a national insurance rebate which runs for a certain period. That situation has enabled those who purvey personal private pensions to encourage many people to opt againt SERPS. We have seen advertisements which state,
  "Why be a SERPS? Join a personal private pension".
  I am pleased to say that that does not apply very much to occupational pensions. I asked for the figures in relation to those at a meeting of the Occupational Pensions Board. It appears that relatively few people have opted against occupational pensions.
  An amendment to the legislation agreed when it was before your Lordship's House means that it is not possible to opt if one has not been a member of an occupational pension scheme for a reasonable period of time. I am pleased to say that one of the reasons why members of occupational schemes have not opted for private personal pensions is that a good side effect of the Government's legislation has been that providers of schemes have had to popularise what they have on offer with their members. Increasingly, a great deal of information has been made available that sets out very clearly to their members exactly what is on offer and how much better that is than anything they could get outside.
  From the point of view of most employees an occupational pension scheme to which they pay a contribution and which the employers have to fund on a balance of cost basis is a very good investment. I should hate to see that scheme further weakened by possible incentives for people to join personal private pensions in opposition to the occupational schemes which, generally speaking, offer a very good deal to members. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will say that the Government are satisfied with matters as they are and see no reason to give further incentive or encouragement to the growth of private personal pensions.
  Baroness Seear: I, on the other hand, very much hope that the option will be made available. If the occupational pension schemes have to compete with personal private schemes, they will be more attractive. That is a very good thing. Occupational schemes have become more flexible. But there is no doubt that in the past they tied people to employers. They increased immobility and operated heavily against people who had the enterprise to get out and do something else.
  When I sat on the Top Salaries Review Body we had reason to go into this matter in considerable detail. We found that people who had had the enterprise to move out—perhaps to move several
  866
  times in the course of their career—were very heavily penalised when it came to drawing their pension at the end of their career. I know that that situation is not as serious as it was; but I still think that it is a very important point. It is also, as the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, said, extremely important in connection with women, although not only with women. However, women more than men are inclined to move in and out of employment and to go from one employer to another. If they can build up a personal pension and continue to pay into it in some scheme while they are not working full time, that must be an advantage. At the end of the day many women find themselves with totally inadequate pension provision. Many of them have to look after themselves when they are old—because of the increased incidence of divorce and so on—and the desirability of women being able to build up resources to enable them to look after themselves when they finally retire seems very strong indeed.
  If the occupational pension scheme is good and it suits that person because he or she is planning to have that kind of career, that is fine. But a lot of people do not have that intention. I think that that should be an option.
  Lord Henley: I am not surprised at the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, to this amendment. I am surprised and have been surprised in the past by her repeated opposition to personal pensions and the whole success of the personal pensions initiative. I feel that she should welcome the success of the Government.
  As my noble friend Lord Vinson appreciates, the introduction of the pensions reform package in 1986 was aimed particularly at enabling employees not covered by an occupational pension scheme to take out a personal pension in order to make better provision for their retirement. The first of his two proposed amendments, in which I assume he means to refer to the 1986 Act, concerns a restriction that currently exists whereby the rights that have to be transferred from an employer's pension are limited to those built up since 1988, when personal pensions started. That contrasts with the position for people who change jobs. They can transfer all their pension rights from their previous employer's scheme (with no 1988 limit) to any scheme which they are eligible to join provided that they left on or after 1st January 1986. If they left before that date such transfers are at the scheme's discretion.
  As the Committee no doubt will recall, there was considerable discussion at the time about whether the transfer of rights from an occupational scheme to a personal pension or other scheme should cover all the accrued rights or whether there should be some sort of restriction on the period for which rights could be transferred. It was concluded at the time that without some sort of restriction the financial viability of schemes could be put at considerable risk because schemes would not have made provision for an increase in early withdrawals. The resulting depletion of assets could adversely affect their funding arrangements. We felt then that a balance was needed between the interests of the member who leaves and of the member who stays

  867
  in the scheme and who may want to exercise his or her right to leave at some future point.
  The Committee will be well aware of the very significant part played by my noble friend Lord Vinson in getting personal pensions on the political agenda. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government are certainly extremely pleased with the way in which this new form of pension provision has taken of f. However, we are firmly committed to the development of all forms of pension provision, including final salary schemes. That is why we attach such importance to the measures that we are introducing in the Bill currently before this Chamber.
  We have been monitoring all aspects of the social security reforms that we introduced in the 1986 Act and their impact on the interests of all concerned; ! that is, the members of occupational schemes, those providing them, the holders of personal pensions, and the financial institutions. We shall certainly look carefully at what my noble friend Lord Vinson suggests. But we should need to consult fully before we could see our way to introduce the change that he seeks in his first amendment. We know from experience that some schemes will take some considerable convincing of the need for change. I appreciate that my noble friend has canvassed views and I am grateful for that. I feel confident, however, that he, in his turn, will recognise that we need to consult formally all the various interests involved.
  I turn now to my noble friend's second amendment. It would require trustees of all schemes with more than 100 members to tell all their members every year the value of the pension rights that they could transfer into a personal pension scheme if they chose to leave their occupational scheme. My noble friend will no doubt know that the present disclosure requirements give members the statutory right to ask for this information, and if they do ask for it then the trustees are obliged to give it. To make the issue of such a statement compulsory could put an extra administrative burden on schemes although I appreciate that my noble friend is proposing to exempt very small schemes from this added burden and to give the rest four years to make the necessary arrangements. Many members receiving statements would not want to leave anyway. However, I can understand my noble friend's point in wanting to make people aware of the possibilities that are open to them. The Government have done much to make sure that scheme members are provided with adequate information when they need it, and we would in any case need to look at this aspect if the transfer provisions were altered on the lines that my noble friend proposes in his first amendment.
  We shall look carefully at the suggestion in my noble friend's first amendment, but again we would need to consult before changing the present rules. I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising those issues. However, I hope that in the light of what I have said, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Carter: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may first
  868
  comment on the Minister's reference to the success of the personal portable pensions. He referred to the success in terms of the uptake of those pensions. The success of a pension fund should be measured in its performance, not in its uptake, in particular when there has been a four figure inducement to the taxpayer to persuade people to take up these PPPs.
  Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, this question. With the transfer or portability of these pensions, what is the effect on the cost and eventual outturn in performance? We all know that when one takes up a new pension scheme commissions have to be paid. There is the question of a front-end loading and a recovery of cost. Is he not concerned that with the portability of the pensions the pensioner will be worse of f at the end of the day because of the cost incurred and the pr of its that would be taken at each of the moves?
  Lord Vinson: Perhaps I may deal with some of the points raised. The Minister has slightly overtaken my second amendment by giving his reply before I had made the point. Perhaps I may catch up.
  With her background, I would naturally expect the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, to favour collective forms of investment. She said that the demand for personal pensions had been relatively small, and non-existent from those in occupation schemes. She then realised that she had tripped herself up because that is precisely the point of my amendment: that such employees in occupational pension schemes are locked in and do not have the option of personal portable pension schemes. The amendment corrects that. If we were to meet in a few years' time, we could test which of us has the correct prognostication.
  Unlike the noble Baroness, I am not against occupational pension schemes. I am relatively neutral. I am anxious that the potential pensioners of this country should have the freedom of choice. All pension schemes are money purchase schemes. People sometimes talk in derogatory terms about personal pensions being money purchase schemes. All pensions are money purchase schemes. Pension fund managers spend their time buying and selling shares and purchasing money. The difference is that personal pensions are disaggregated money purchase schemes; and occupational schemes are aggregated money purchase schemes.
  At the end of the day the situation will be neutral. There is only so much rice in the rice bowl. How it is distributed will very much depend on the growth and wealth creation of this country over the next 20 or 30 years. We want schemes that stimulate and help that process. When more widely spread, the ownership of the assets of this country will bring about a wider shareholding base which will take a much more active and participative part in the wealth creation process.
  The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the question of costs. The costs of administration will be fairly neutral. Nothing could be more expensive than the existing costs of occupational schemes where the managers of those schemes have to keep tabs on and records of potential pensioners for 20, 30 or 40 years and then send them a snippet of a pension—£1·20 a week—for the few years for which they worked for

  869
  that company some 30 years before. That is an anachronistic form of administration which the gradual transfer to personal and portable pensions would overcome. It would more clearly fit the labour market patterns of the future.
  The object of my second amendment is to try to relate the people of this country more closely with the enormous wealth—the £250 billion of assets—that currently lie in occupational pension funds. That money is no one's money. It cannnot be satisfactory to have it owned anonymously. The amendment seeks to encourage people to take a closer interest in that and to encourage company employees to participate more actively in the management of those pension funds—an objective which I am sure I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. We must begin the process of turning what is no one's money into someone's money and the optional development of personal and portable pensions begins to work towards those ends.
  I am partly reassured by the Minister's comments. I am sure that he will read carefully what has been said tonight. I have no doubt that he will consult throughout the industry, but I hope that at the same time he will have a mind of his own and that the Government will have a mind of their own. The job of government is to lead in these matters, not necessarily to follow. I hope that, having taken soundings, he will then feel that there is much merit in the two proposals.
  I am grateful to noble Lords for their support and for the most valuable comments that they have made. In view of the Minister's reassurance, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  10.30 p.m.
  Schedule 4 [Occupational and personal pension schemes]:
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 163:
  Page 45, line 38, leave out from ("employer") to end of line 39.
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 164, 166 and 168.
  These are minor drafting and technical amendments intended to clarify or correct the words of Schedule 4. I therefore invite the Committee to accept the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 164:
  Page 45, line 6, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  ("(b) any power—
  (i) which the scheme confers on the employer (otherwise than as trustee or manager of the scheme), and
  870
  (ii) which is exercisable by him at his discretion but only as trustee of the power, shall be exercisable only by the independent trustee; ").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 165:
  Page 45, line 46, at end insert—
  ("57CC. If and so long as section 57C above applies in relation to a scheme, the trustees of the scheme shall exercise their functions in such manner as shall best promote the welfare of members of the scheme.").
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment makes clear that the job of the trustees, when a scheme is being wound up, is to look after the interests of scheme members. We consider that, although having an independent trustee when an employer goes into liquidation is welcome, it could well be limited in its impact. The power of the independent trustee is largely limited to the exercise of a blocking veto on any discretionary power vested in the trustees. That is inadequate as employers usually gain from the winding up of a fund if discretionary powers are not exercised.
  We therefore believe that the independent trustee must be positively charged with the responsibility to look after members' interests. The recommendation of the Occupational Pensions Board report upon which the Clause is based was to safeguard the position of scheme members. That is definitely what the board had in mind. The Secretary of State said, in moving the Second Reading, that the intention was to give greater protection to members of schemes. Therefore we consider that the Bill is deficient because it fails to make clear that that is the job of the trustees and in particular, of the independent trustees. I hope that the Minister will regard this as a useful and constructive addition to the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: This amendment would require that when a company becomes insolvent and an independent trustee is appointed to the pension scheme, all the trustees would have to consider the welfare of scheme members only.
  At first sight, this amendment might appear quite benign, as it appears to amount to a simple restatement of the current position in trust law. As the Committee will know, it is a general requirement of trust law that trustees exercise their powers in good faith and in the interests of all the beneficiaries under the scheme. Indeed this amendment might be viewed as unnecessary, in so far as it does restate that basic principle.
  I am concerned, however, that if this amendment were to become law, it would cause confusion among both trustees and beneficiaries. If the employer is not insolvent, and there is therefore no independent trustee, this overriding duty would not apply. The amendment seems to suggest that the duties of trustees are different depending upon the circumstances of the employer. This is clearly not the case.
  A more important point is that this amendment actually contradicts a basic principle of trust law. This amendment would require the trustees of a scheme to consider the welfare of scheme members

  871
  only in certain circumstances. I am sure the noble Baroness does not wish the trustees to disregard the welfare of widows, widowers and dependants, but this is what the amendment would achieve.
  I would remind the Committee of the OPB's view that trust law should remain the basis for occupational pension schemes. The Government firmly support that approach. Having said that, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I did not intend to press the amendment. I merely tabled it to probe the matter of the independent trustee and the need to ensure that the welfare of members was given a very high priority in situations of wind up or other difficulty. However, in view of the Minister's reply, I do not propose to press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 166:
  Page 46, line 6, leave out ("insolvency") and insert ("winding up, bankruptcy or sequestration").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 167:
  Page 47, line 30, at end insert:
  ("() Where an occupational pension scheme exceeds the restrictions as to the proportion of its resources which may be invested in employer-related investments, the scheme shall not be required to sell or otherwise dispose of any employer-related investments, but the scheme shall not add to such investments until such time as the level of employer-related investment falls below the permitted maximum proportion.").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 167A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. It seems from Schedule 4(3) that the Government have taken a stand against the investment of pension fund monies in parent enterprise. They are quite understandably anxious the people should not have all their eggs in one basket and should not face the risk in extreme cases of losing not only their employment and associated earnings should the firm go under but also their pension prospects and, therefore, their provision for comfort in later years.
  Since first indicating their plans in this area the Government have made it plain that they will exempt from fresh regulation small self-administered pension schemes where all members are 20 per cent. directors, all members are trustees and all investment decisions are unanimous. That is a welcome recognition that the case against self investment is not absolute and, secondly, that the practical effect of requiring some funds to move within a limit of, for example, 5 per cent., would be to force a sale of assets, which is likely to depress their value and could mean loss of ownership or even closure, as several firms have warned.
  In small, self-administered schemes, substantially higher investment is quite common. Where those are director-only schemes, the participants knowingly choose to use their pension fund in this way as an
  872
  available source of finance and they recognise the risks. Some larger funds which have sound outside investments covering all probable liabilities would argue as follows. First, that self-investment may justify itself as a source of suitably high returns for the more speculative element of investment appropriate with some of the surplus; secondly, as an investment in their own sector, it is appropriate for the balance of the fund and it would clearly be a nonsense for the pension fund to have split loyalties through investments in a competitor.
  I summarise by saying that self-investment is not necessarily a bad thing. Though there are significant differences between the German situation and our own, and we do not know how insurance companies would react to the idea, perhaps the Government would consider allowing self-investment to continue on an insured basis. That would overcome the "all the eggs in one basket" objection without losing the advantages which some enterprises find in the self-investment process.
  Whether or not the Government accept that self-investment can ever be beneficial, they must surely accept that any element of a forced sale is always thoroughly undesirable. That is the purpose of my amendment. It is the only way to achieve a movement away from self-investment without the risk of a forced sale. I beg to move.
  Lord Stallard: When speaking to Amendment No. 167, I also speak to Amendment No. 167A. Perhaps I may begin by saying that I understand and appreciate the objectives behind the proposals. I can readily accept those proposals. However, in so far as the objectives seek to safeguard the interests and provide greater protection for members of occupational pension schemes, I hope that the Minister will share my concern. There is a real possibility that the proposals as they stand could operate adversely on some schemes; they may even threaten the existence of some schemes.
  A number of schemes and a number of Members are not very happy about the operation of this particular provision. Perhaps the quickest way is to illustrate by way of example. I have no personal or financial interest whatever in the scheme that I speak of; I am familiar with it purely because it operates in the constituency which I once represented in the other place. That particular scheme was set up around 60 years ago by a gift of company shares. The income from those shares was used in part to buy further shares, and eventually the whole of the share capital of the business. That was strictly in accordance with the terms of the benefactor's wishes, which specified that the shares would be used for the benefit of the company employees.
  The pension scheme therefore owns the company; it is the other way round to the situation that we normally consider. The product of that unusual arrangement—I am aware of this—is a non-contributory pension scheme with a record beyond comparison with any other schemes of which we know. That might not be a unique situation. I understand that there are others. However, it is certainly one which is seldom catered for in pensions legislation.

  873
  I am sure that the Minister will appreciate how difficult the question of self-investment becomes in such an instance; in the previous amendment the question was similar. Any requirement imposed upon the trustees to sell their investment in the company, as well as causing a breach of the original terms of the trust, could also lead to great practical difficulties. It could wind the company up, and we know the consequences which flow from that. The employees of the company of which I spoke are very well served. They are content with the situation, and any blanket legislation binding or restricting self-investment would clearly militate against the best interests of those people whom the scheme exists to serve.
  On the basis that the interests of beneficiaries are of mutual concern, I hope that the Minister will accept Amendment No. 167A. It gives the Secretary of State powers, on the advice of the occupational pensions board, to exempt or partially exempt individual schemes from compliance with such restrictions for such period as seems to him to be appropriate. That seems to be fairly mild, constructive and of assistance to not only this scheme but many others. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
  From reading the proceedings of another place it appears that the Government intend to conduct a survey. I do not know the details of that survey and I should be grateful if the Minister could say what form it will take, how long it is expected to last and whether its findings will be reported to Parliament. Some general information on the survey is necessary. I commend my amendment.
  Lord Vinson: Briefly, I support these amendments. They are eminently sensible and I hope that the Government will take them on board.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Henley: I cannot accept these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and possibly my noble friend, are aware that the amendments are unnecessary. There are sufficient powers in the Bill to do in regulations what they wish to do.
  There is general agreement, I believe, that self-investment can be a harmful practice. The National Association of Pension Funds issued a report in June 1988 entitled Self-Investment by Pension Funds and concluded that:
  "The potential for conflicts of interest, irresolvable pressures and arguments is so great that self-investment is an unhelpful and undesirable practice".
  On the basis of that conclusion, the report set out a code of best practice, aimed at stopping new self-investment but also at running it down where it already existed.
  The Occupational Pensions Board then looked carefully at all the arguments when considering its report and agreed that it was desirable to settle a level of self-investment; though it saw the argument for that to be temporarily exceeded in special cases.
  The Government agree that there is a potential for conflicts of interest. If pension scheme trustees decide to invest in the company to which the scheme
  874
  relates failure of the company places a double jeopardy on scheme members. Both their job prospects and their pension benefits are put at risk. That is clearly not desirable.
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary announced in the Committee stage of the Bill in another place that we have decided to arrange for a survey to be carried out which will provide up-to-date information on the extent of self-investment, in which sectors it is concentrated and what the problems will be in restricting it. This survey will begin very shortly and we shall be receiving the report during the summer so that we can consider it before introducing the appropriate regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, specifically asked about that.
  This report will guide us as to what is the appropriate action to take, both in considering what limits to self-investment there should be and in considering what time scale it is reasonable to adopt. Our regulation-making powers are wide and flexible, so there will be scope to take whatever action we believe is necessary.
  I have noted the points made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, and we shall have regard to them in framing regulations. Clearly it would not be right for me to express a view on the amendment the noble Lord has spoken to as that would imply that we had already made up our minds without waiting for the survey to be conducted. We want to look at the results, examine the evidence and then bring forward specific proposals. I was interested in my noble friend's proposal that some form of insurance might provide the necessary safeguards and we shall look at that suggestion carefully. I therefore hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  I have also listened to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and I know that he has concern for the scheme he mentioned. He may like to know that officials from my department met the trustees of that scheme only last week and had a useful discussion on the problems that it might face. I can assure the noble Lord that we have taken note of it and that we shall take it into account.
  Lord Carter: The Minister referred to the requirement for existing schemes to run down their self-investment. Am I correct in thinking that when this was first proposed it applied to self-administered schemes; that now it has been decided that self-administered pension schemes will not have to act retrospectively, so to speak; and that the limitation on self-investment will only apply to their investments in future? The decision caused considerable anxiety at the time among the self-administered pension schemes.
  Lord Henley: I think that the noble Lord slightly misunderstood me. I referred to a report by the National Association of Pension Funds. It then issued a code of practice aimed at stopping new self-investment, but also aimed at running it down where it already existed. We agree with that body and with the OPB that, in the main, self-investment is an undesirable practice. As I have said, we want

  875
  to look further at this matter before we come to any conclusions; hence the survey that I announced. There are considerable problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has mentioned. Before we come forward with any firm proposals we must have an up-to-date survey of the position.
  Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his very full reply and for some of the points that he made. I am glad that he has taken up the idea of insurance on the German lines. My noble friend mentioned the report which has been made on the survey. Is that report to be publicly available or will it be seen by the Government alone?
  Lord Henley: I am not sure what the answer is. I shall let my noble friend know as soon as I can.
  Lord Mottistone: I shall read carefully what my noble friend said before deciding whether to pursue this matter further. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Stallard: I am grateful for what the Minister said. I shall welcome a copy of the reply that he sends to his noble friend on the question which I also asked concerning what happens to the report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 167A not moved.]
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 168:
  Page 48, line 23, at end insert—
  ("(2) In paragraph 3 of that Schedule (average salary benefits) in sub-paragraph (5) (definition of "salaries") for the words from "means" to "terminated" there shall be substituted the words "means, subject to sub-paragraph (5A) below, the member's salaries for the period between the date when his pensionable service commenced and the date when it terminated".
  (3) After that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted—
  "(5A) Where the member's pensionable service terminated before the coming into force of this sub-paragraph, sub-paragraph (5) above shall have effect with the substitution for the words from "means" to "terminated" of the words "means the member's salaries for the period between 1st January 1985 and the date when his pensionable service terminated".").
  The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 163. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 169:
  Page 48, line 25, at end insert—
  ("Contributions to scheme in deficit. The following section shall be inserted after section 58 of the Pensions Act—
  "58A. If the liabilities of an occupational scheme exceed its assets, both valued in accordance with prescribed principles, the employer shall be liable to make such additional contributions to the scheme as may be prescribed.".").
  The noble Baroness said: What is being proposed here is that occupational pension schemes should be funded on a statutory basis so that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure that there is enough money in the schemes to pay for the pension benefits.
  It seems that such a requirement is particularly necessary now that schemes are to have an obligation to pay pension increases as well as the obligation to revalue deferred benefits. That places an obligation on the Government to ensure that schemes are adequately funded to meet these new obligations.
  Perhaps the Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but it is my impression that the Government were considering some kind of special funding requirement. If there are to be these obligations then quite clearly there is a necessity to lay down certain requirements in order that the members of schemes can be quite certain that the money is going to be there to meet the obligations promised in statute and in the schemes themselves. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: Certain of the provisions in this Bill will ensure that, if a scheme winds up, employers will have to ensure that members receive pension increases at the prices—5 per cent. rate for rights built up after an appointed day. For pension rights built up before then, increases will depend on what has already been guaranteed as a result of these provisions and on any additional surplus emerging when the scheme winds up. Any deficiency in the scheme's assets will count as a debt on the employer. Our aim is to see that, if an employer winds up a pension scheme, the members receive the benefits to which they are entitled.
  This amendment would go much further than our proposals and would lead to an unnecessary extension of interference in the operation of pension schemes where there is no question of the employer wishing to avoid responsibilities or of the scheme being wound up. The amendment would take away from the trustees of the scheme the flexibility which they now have to agree a contribution rate with the employer.
  As I have said, we are all concerned to ensure that members receive the benefits to which they are entitled under the scheme. But I cannot accept that this will be achieved by taking away from scheme trustees and employers the right to decide the funding level of the scheme. The trustees can take account of many factors, such as the employer's business prospects, in deciding whether there is adequate security for members' benefits, and this can benefit employees as well as employers. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I shall study it carefully in Hansard tomorrow. When I put down the amendment it seemed to me that there was a need, in view of the new obligations to be imposed, to have some kind of funding standards. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said I shall withdraw the amendment. It had certainly not been my intention to press it at this hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 170:
  Page 48, line 25, at end insert—
  ("Consultation on Takeovers and Mergers
  The following section shall be inserted after section 56N of the Pensions Act—
  "56P. Power to make regulations requiring consultations on takeovers and mergers affecting occupational pension schemes
  (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require an employer—

  (a) to give notice of his intention to make any change to an employee's conditions of service relating to an occupational pension scheme which will arise or have arisen on that employer being taken over by or merged with another employer; and

  (b) in connection with any such notice, to furnish such information as may be prescribed and to undertake such consultations as may be prescribed with any organisation representative of the employees concerned.

  (2) Until such time as the employer has met his requirements under sub-section (1) any amendments to the provisions of the scheme to give effect to such changes shall have no effect.".").
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment requires employers to give prior notice of any changes in pension arrangements that arise when a company is merged or taken over. It also requires an employer to consult representative organisations about such changes on the basis of adequate information. The problem is that employees are usually the last in line when takeovers are considered. Sweeping changes can be made with little or no notice, let alone any consultation. Employees in this country have fewer rights in takeovers and mergers than many employees elsewhere in Europe. This issue is wider than just pensions, but in the context of the present Bill and the Government's declared intention of strengthening pension protection it seems appropriate that some such legislative provision is made as is contained in the amendment.
  Although there is little evidence of takeovers happening just so that a predator can exploit a surplus, employees have genuine fears about their pension rights in such circumstances. The report of the Occupational Pensions Board was much concerned to try to deal with such fears and to provide some further protection. This it sought to do, and I am glad that the Secretary of State has followed to quite an extent the board's recommendations.
  However, we think that when takeovers and mergers are contemplated employees affected should be given notice of when any changes in their pension arrangements are to take place and their representative organisations should be consulted. We are not suggesting that advance notice of the actual takeover should be given as in many cases that would be quite impracticable. Until such time, however, as the notice has expired employees should be entitled to whatever benefits they were entitled to receive prior to the takeover. I beg to move.
  Lord Vinson: It gives me great pleasure to support the noble Baroness. I see exactly eye to eye with her on it.
  Lord Henley: The speech by the noble Baroness reminds us of some of the reasons why the Occupational Pensions Board was asked by the then Secretary of State for Social Services to provide a report on various issues relating to occupational pensions. One of the issues was the involvement of pension schemes in company mergers and takeovers. As the board's report makes clear:
  "There is a need to ensure that occupational pension schemes serve their purpose of providing security amidst the risks and uncertainties of commercial and industrial life when company takeovers are frequent".
  The object of this amendment is to require notice to be given about changes to an employee's pension arrangements following the change in control or sale of a business. As I understand it, it is not usually these events which trigger of f the changes to the pension arrangements; rather, they result from a change in the exercise of discretion or a transfer to a completely different scheme.
  These points were raised in the OPB report, and the Government have accepted the board's recommendations. At present, on the disposal of a business a bulk transfer may be made from a group scheme of the previous owner to a scheme of the new employer, of ten without the consent of members. We have agreed that there should be a broad equivalence of rights and expectations acquired in the new scheme to those given up in the old. The intention is therefore that bulk transfers, without the consent of the members, should be permitted only if the actuary to the transferring scheme certifies that the rights and expectations to be provided in the new scheme to the transferring member in respect of their past service are equivalent, on an overall basis, to their rights and expectations in respect of past pensionable service in their original scheme. If the actuary cannot give such a certificate, then the transfers would proceed on the basis of individual consents.
  The Government have also decided to review the disclosure of information regulations relating to occupational schemes. Regulation 5(6) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1986 already requires trustees to provide information about changes to the scheme. We intend also to require that persons concerned in a bulk transfer should be entitled to receive, at least one month before the date of the proposed transfer, full information about its terms, including details of the basis on which past service rights are being allotted. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we are going some way to meeting her concerns, even if we cannot go along with her amendment entirely. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that reply. I welcome the assurances he has given about the Government's intentions to try to tighten up on the arrangements both in regard to notice and in regard to the disclosure of information by trustees. I believe that these are steps forward. We are dealing with pensions in the context of a Bill and although we have put down many amendments, generally speaking the main thrust of the legislation supports the policies which we advocate on this side of the

  879
  Chamber. In the light of the undertakings given, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  11 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 171:
  Page 48, line 25, at end insert:
  ("Appointment of Members as Trustees
  The following section shall be inserted after section 56N of the Pensions Act—
  "56P. Power to make regulations requiring the appointment of members as trustees etc.—
  (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify requirements to be complied with by occupational pension schemes with respect to the appointment of persons representative of scheme members as scheme trustees such that those persons exercise voting rights in excess of 50 per cent.
  (2) Regulations made under this section override any provision of an occupational pension scheme to the extent that that provision conflicts with them.".").
  The noble Baroness said: This is, I believe, the last of my pension amendments. The proposal would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations giving members control over their pension schemes. We believe that this is necessary because the money paid into pension funds represents the earnings of the workers concerned. We had some discussion earlier about surpluses. I welcome the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, on that issue. Even in schemes funded on a balance of cost basis, the employer perceives provision of pension via a fund as part of a general employment package. It is quite normal for the costs of salary increases in response to salary claims to contain an element for pension provision.
  We realise that not all employers support the view expressed in the amendment. Some believe that they should control the money until such time as the benefits are actually paid. However, many of the large schemes have for a very long time provided for employee-trustees. Such arrangements have of ten been highly successful. The employee-trustees become deeply interested in the performance of the pension fund and very much committed to its success. In practice, the rate of return earned on the investments held by a pension fund is as important to the members of the fund as to the employer. While it may not directly affect the benefits provided under the rules, except in those schemes which are funded on a money purchase basis, it will affect those matters on which trustees have discretion. It is also easier to negotiate improvements in a scheme when it is in a healthy financial position.
  Perhaps I may say here that, in practice, it has been seen that employee-trustees are quite well aware of the difference in function between those who are trustees and those whose job it is to negotiate terms and conditions of employment. In addition, members have a justified concern about the security of their benefits and this is given mainly by the size of the fund. All we suggest here is that the good practice that exists in many schemes should become general practice as a result of the power to make regulations which the amendment gives to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: The noble Baroness said that she had come to the end of her list of amendments on pensions, but there is one more for myself, following hers. This amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State power to appoint member representatives as trustees of pension schemes, and to give these member representatives a majority of voting rights among scheme trustees. To do so, it would have to override the rules already laid down in pension schemes for appointing trustees.
  The idea of appointing member representatives as trustees is not a new one. The OPB, for example, commended this as good practice but argued that arrangements to this end could best be developed naturally as part of good industrial relations. There is much to be said for involving members in this way in the running of pension schemes. Trustees' decisions have the benefit of members' views and members are made aware of the responsibilities involved in being a trustee and taking decisions which affect an individual's retirement income.
  It is, however, altogether another matter to give the state the power to require schemes to have member trustees. I am sure that the Committee needs no reminding of the origins of occupational pension schemes. They have been set up, voluntarily, by employers as a means of rewarding and motivating their employees.
  However, it is important to remember that employers are in business and have to consider their own interests. They will only set up and continue pension schemes so long as they think it is to their advantage to do so. Giving the state power to impose member representatives on schemes will discourage occupational provision. To give these member trustees a majority of voting rights among scheme trustees would only exacerbate the situation.
  The policy review of the noble Baroness's party came down in favour of trade union representatives having a majority of the voting rights among pension scheme trustees. This amendment would allow that policy to be put into effect by regulation. I can think of no better way of choking of f the continued healthy development of occupational pension provision that has done so much to increase the incomes of pensioners since we came to power in 1979. I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I am not at all surprised by the Minister's response to the suggestion in the amendment. However, I felt that I had to put it down because on this side of the Committee we feel strongly that there is a case for insisting that there should be a statutory requirement to have employee trustees on the boards of pension schemes. I well remember that in 1979 a White Paper was issued which provided for one-half of the scheme trustees to be drawn from the employees. Unfortunately, that proposal never saw the light of day as legislation because the government of the day were not re-elected in 1979. However, we hope for better things in 1992. When that happens, I am sure that we shall move towards a situation in which employee trustees are involved under the statute.

  881
  I do not take the view that this will choke of f many pension schemes and that employers will feel less inclined to make pension provision. Many of the large and successful schemes already do as is suggested. Almost all the big public sector schemes have employee trustees, and that is the case in a number of large schemes of which I have knowledge. It is true of many schemes in the big banks and finance houses: they have had employee trustees for a long time. I do not think that they would be at all scared of f by the notion that other people who are not yet complying with this good practice would be expected to do so under the statute.
  Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Baroness contradicts herself: she says that what she wants is happening under the voluntary system; it is desired and voluntary on both sides. However, her amendment indicates that she thinks that the trade union wishes should have statutory backing. Why is that? If this is being done voluntarily, the case for it will be weakened by being made compulsory.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: On the contrary, the objective of legislation is to bring the people who are lagging behind up to the standard of best practice. I do not see any contradiction at all in what I am saying. Unfortunately, not everyone does the right thing. One of the reasons why we have legislation is to ensure that people do the right thing so far as possible. I do not see any contradiction at all in what I am saying. I shall not press the amendment at this hour, and I had not intended to do so. The amendment is an exploratory, probing amendment as I wanted to know what the Government's attitude was on this matter. Nevertheless, I still hold the view that, sooner or later, we shall have employee trustees and they will be there as a result of a statutory obligation. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 172:
  Page 52, leave out lines 10 to 35 and insert:
  ("(a) the insurance company with which it is or was taken out or entered into—
  (i) is, or was at the relevant time, carrying on ordinary long-term insurance business in the United Kingdom or any other member State; and
  (ii) satisfies, or satisfied at the relevant time, prescribed requirements; and").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment makes a fairly technical change to the provision in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to the Bill. Currently Section 52C of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 permits the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme to be discharged from their liability to provide a guaranteed minimum pension under a contracted out scheme or the deferred pension of an early leaver, provided that the members' rights in a scheme have been used for the purchase of an insurance policy or an annuity contract. The discharge is permitted only if the insurance company is one that is authorised to carry on ordinary long-term insurance business in the United Kingdom
  882
  under Sections 3 or 4 of the Insurance Companies Act. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 was intended to extend the sections' provisions to apply to friendly societies. The amendment would remove the statutory specification of the friendly societies which are covered, but permits them to be specified in regulations. The Government's intention is that those who satisfy the criteria currently specified in the Bill would be prescribed. The amendment goes further, however, by permitting insurance companies carrying on business only in another European Community member state to be prescribed. We do not propose to exercise the regulation making power in respect of non-UK based insurance companies unless those companies are authorised by the appropriate regulatory bodies in the relevant member state. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in certain dwellings etc.]
  Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 173:
  Page 19, line 21, leave out ("where any such work is, or is to be, carried out").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment re-emerged from the thickets of pensions to return to the sunlit uplands of social security benefits. Clause 15 gives the Secretary of State power to make grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in certain dwellings. This is a probing amendment.
  The effect of this amendment will be to remove the necessity for practical insulation measures to be carried out before energy advice can be grant-aided. As it stands at the moment, the clause only allows the Secretary of State to grant-aid energy advice when other measures are being provided. Work by the Building Research Establishment has indicated the value of energy advice. A number of studies have shown that savings on fuel bills following the provision of energy advice can equal those achieved by practical insulation measures.
  It is also important to note that the energy efficiency measures to be grant-aided initially are fairly limited. Although the legislation permits the Secretary of State to grant-aid any measure which improves the thermal efficiency of dwellings and improvements to heating systems, the consultation document on the scheme produced by the Department of Energy suggests that initially the only practical measures to be grant-aided will be draughtproofing, l of t insulation and tank and pipe lagging. There are of course many other ways in which one can improve energy efficiency. I should like the Minister to confirm that the Secretary of State has the power to widen the Bill's scope when he feels it is the time to do so.
  The other question I should like to put to the Minister on the subject of advice, which at present has to be linked to the carrying out of work, is to ask who would have to pay for advice which did not result in practical improvements. Network installers may provide advice to clients who intend to have one or more of the practical measures carried out,

  883
  and the most appropriate time to offer energy advice is at the initial survey stage before any other work is carried out. If there is then a change of mind and the advice is not taken, who would have to pay for it? I beg to move.
  11.15 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: It is increasingly important that all of us, but particularly those on low incomes, understand the most efficient ways of using energy. To do so may not only save individuals money, but will also make life more comfortable, as well as making a contribution to the wider need to save energy. Those involved in this area have long called for a provision such as now appears in the Bill.
  The Committee will know that the Department of Energy has been consulting on the nature of the scheme of grants to be introduced under this legislation. The consultation period closed only yesterday. While it is clear that there has been considerable interest in the nature of the advice to be made available under this scheme, it is too early for a view to have been taken on the basis of comments received.
  However, the ideal time to provide such advice is when other energy efficiency measures are being installed. My ministerial colleagues in the Department of Energy do not believe that having a separate grant for advice under this scheme would be an effective use of resources. There are many other sources of advice on energy efficiency. The gas and electricity boards, citizens' advice bureaux and local authorities all provide energy advice. So, too, do more specialised organisations such as a number of the community installation projects, advice centres such as the Bristol Energy Centre, trade associations which form part of the Building Energy Efficiency Confederation and, of course, the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency office.
  If grant-aid was to be considered necessary for advice on energy efficiency measures more generally—and this is the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—statutory powers to introduce grants exist under Section 15 of the Energy Conservation Act 1981.
  I hope that, in the light of that reply, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Carter: I thank the Minister for that most helpful reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.
  Schedule 5 agreed to.
  Clause 18 [General financial provisions]:
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 173A:
  Page 25, line 21, leave out ("Schedules 1 and 5") and insert ("Schedule 5").
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment is consequential upon the amendment which was
  884
  carried in Committee yesterday. It removes Schedule 1, which was not adopted by the Committee, from the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: We accept these entirely technical amendments while we consider the implications of the decision on Clause 7 and Schedule to the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Regulations and Orders]:
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 174:
  Page 25, line 43, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble Earl said: Members of the Government probably realised when they saw the amendment that I had been listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The most economical way in which I can make the point that I wish to make is to read the words that I propose to delete:
  "A power conferred by this Act to make any regulations or an order, where the power is not expressed to be exercisable with the consent of the Treasury, shall if the Treasury so direct be exercisable only in conjunction with them".
  It is a rather Humpty-Dumpty form of words—even if it does not need the consent of the Treasury, nevertheless it still does. It provides a rather painful contrast with the resistance to the proposal that the Minister's powers of direction in regard to the social fund should be exercisable with the consent of Parliament. I hope that we shall be told why the Government are so much more careful to secure the consent of the Treasury than they are to secure the consent of Parliament. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: The amendment seeks to overturn a long-standing practice that the Treasury should always be formally involved in the approval of secondary legislation when it chooses to do so. The reason for that is simple. As the guardian of public expenditure, the Treasury must always be able to concern itself when Ministers' authority to make regulations brings with it the power to introduce new spending commitments. The Bill therefore allows the Treasury to insist that its consent is sought and given on any issue. In practice, it is a right not of ten exercised, but it is clearly one which the Treasury should have. It is, moreover, a power that is not restricted to social security legislation, but which applies across government.
  On a more technical note, I understand that the passage of the amendment would render the future consolidation of social security legislation more difficult. I am sure that my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Earl Russell: I am sorry not to be told why the consent of the Treasury is more essential than the consent of Parliament, but I did not expect to be told. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 176 to 169 are pre-empted.
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 175:
  Page 59, line 9, leave out paragraph 7.
  The noble Earl said: I cannot promise to be quite as speedy when speaking to this amendment as I was in regard to the last one. This is a technical matter and I am not certain that I have understood it correctly. I would be delighted to be told that I have got it wrong.
  If I understand the situation correctly, this is another part of the Government's long-running tangle with the courts relating to Amendment No. 176, which we debated yesterday. The amendment would minimise the effect of rulings made by the social security commissioners, the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords and the European Court of Justice. The Government are concerned with entitlement. They seem to be trying to nullify the effect of a test case as far as any time in the past is concerned. They are trying to make an entitlement that flows from a test case relate only to the time of the test case onwards.
  There seems to be a confusion between legislation and judgment. It is perfectly proper that the law should change from the moment of legislation, but I have always understood that the effect of a court judgment was not to change the law but to assert what the law was. Therefore, if the Department of Social Security loses a test case in court, that does not mean that the law has changed; it means that the law is not what the department supposed it was. As far as I can see, that does not entitle the department to deprive claimants of entitlement simply because it has misinterpreted the law.
  I should like to remind my noble kinsman of what I said yesterday when debating Amendment No. 176. An entitlement is a right. It is to be treated as a form of property. It is not to be taken away except by due process of law. This passage in the Bill shows a distinctly limited respect for the courts. I shall be very glad if my noble kinsman can convince me that I am wrong. I beg to move.
  Lord Carter: I wish to say very briefly that so far as one can see the Government appear to be seeking to minimise the effect of rulings by the social security commissioners and appeals to the House of Lords acting in its judicial capacity and the European Court of Justice. I am just surprised by the Government's lack of ambition in this matter.
  Lord Henley: I am not sure how to respond to that remark. As I explained last evening when I spoke to various government amendments on this provision, in moving Amendment No. 20, to which my amendments after Amendment No. 175 were
  886
  attached, we merely seek to introduce a degree of equity into existing arrangements so as to provide that where there is a reinterpretation of the law by a higher appellate authority all beneficiaries from that reinterpretation—whether they be applicants for review of previously disallowed claims or new claimants following the date of the reinterpretation—will have arrears backdated to a common date, the date of the reinterpretation.
  As I explained last evening, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has criticised the present arrangements in relation to review of previously disallowed claims as being inequitable. These provide that where arrears become payable following a reinterpretation of the law they are restricted to up to 12 months before the application for review. This means that for every week of delay in identifying and having reviewed an affected case, the claimant will effectively lose one week's arrears for each week of the delay before a review decision is given.
  Our new proposal provides an equity of treatment that the existing backdating provisions lack and provides that all gainers from a reinterpretation of the law will have their benefit arrears paid from a common date. This means that if a claim previously disallowed comes to light many years after the date of the reinterpretation the beneficiary will have his arrears backdated to this common start date. As I explained, this is not so under the current arrangements where arrears are restricted to a maximum of 52 weeks only.
  Perhaps I may now turn specifically to a point raised by my noble kinsman yesterday evening. This concerns the effect of our provisions on test cases. As he may know, the department already has procedures which allow that where a question of entitlement to benefit involving a situation common to a number of persons arises, a test claim may with the agreement of these persons' representatives—for example, a trade union—be taken through the appeals system, with the ultimate decision on this one case providing the basis for the decisions on all others hanging on the result of the test claim. This means that all claimants will get the same benefit as if they themselves had been the test claimant. The Committee will wish to know that my officials will be developing arrangements to ensure that these procedures—which are mutually beneficial to both claimants and department alike—continue to ensure that all persons agreeing to have their claims await the result of a test claim will, if that claim is successful, not be caught by these new provisions so as to restrict their benefit arrears.
  In the light of this explanation, I hope that my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Earl Russell: I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with that reply but it is not quite so bad as the matter arising in Amendment No. 176. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 176:
  Page 59, line 11, leave out subsection (7) and insert—("(7) Subsection (8) below applies in any case where—
  (a) on the determination, whenever made, of a Commissioner or the court (the "relevant determination"), a decision made by an adjudicating authority is or was found to have been erroneous in point of law, and
  (b) in consequence of that determination, any other decision—
  (i) which was made before the date of that determination, and
  (ii) which is referable to a claim made or treated as made by any person for any benefit,
  falls (or would, apart from subsection (8) below, fall) to be revised on a review carried out under subsection (1A) above after the coming into force of this subsection.
  (8) Where this subsection applies, any question arising on the review referred to in subsection (7)(b) above, or on any subsequent review of a decision which is referable to the same claim, as to any person's entitlement to, or right to payment of, any benefit—
  (a) in respect of any period before the date of the relevant determination, or
  (b) in the case of widow's payment, in respect of a death occurring before that date,
  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 erroneous in point of law.
  (9) In determining whether a person is entitled to benefit in a case where his entitlement depends on his having been entitled to the same or some other benefit before attaining a particular age, subsection (8) above shall be disregarded for the purpose only of determining the question whether he was so entitled before attaining that age.
  (10) For the purposes of subsections (7) to (9) above—
  (a) "adjudicating authority" and "the court" have the same meaning as they have in section 165D below;
  (b) any reference to—
  (i) a person's entitlement to benefit, or (ii) a decision which is referable to a claim,
  shall be construed in accordance with subsection (4) of that section; and
  (c) the date of the relevant determination shall, in prescribed cases, be determined in accordance with any regulations made under subsection (5) of that section.").
  The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 176 with Amendment No. 20 yesterday. I beg to move.
  11.29 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 176) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 8.

  DIVISION NO. 3

  CONTENTS

  Belstead, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Long, V. [Teller.]

  Craigmyle, L.

  Reay, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Ferrers, E.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Henley, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Ullswater, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Carter, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Russell, E. [Teller.]

  Grey, E.

  Seear, B. [Teller.]

  Hacking, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  11.37 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: As it appears that fewer than 30 noble Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55 I declare the Question not decided and that further proceedings on the Bill stand adjourned.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before midnight.

  LITHUANIA: ACCESS BY JOURNALISTS
  LITHUANIA: ACCESS BY JOURNALISTS
  EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
  EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
  CHURCH SCHOOL CLOSURES: PROCEEDS OF SALE
  CHURCH SCHOOL CLOSURES: PROCEEDS OF SALE
  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS: FUNDING
  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS: FUNDING
  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS: NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION
  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS: NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS 1ST APRIL-21ST MAY
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS 1ST APRIL-21ST MAY
  ALLEGED IRA COURIER: EXCLUSION FROM UK
  ALLEGED IRA COURIER: EXCLUSION FROM UK
  WILD FLOWERS ON ROAD VERGES
  WILD FLOWERS ON ROAD VERGES
  IRAQ: SUPPOSED GUN
  IRAQ: SUPPOSED GUN