Sitting of 24 May 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  BILL PRESENTED
    PLANNING
    Mr. Keith Vaz presented a Bill to extend the rights of local authorities in respect of planning application appeals; to extend the powers of local authorities in respect of breaches of planning conditions; to make provision for additional planning controls upon the installation of satellite dish receivers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 June and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

  Housing Corporation
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. John Fraser: I am grateful that this subject has been selected for debate and for the timing of the debate. I must declare an interest because I am a partner in a firm that advises and works for housing associations. The purpose of the debate is to seek a solution or at least an easement of the cash crisis in which the Housing Corporation and housing associations now find themselves. That crisis is a consequence of the change in the way in which the Housing Corporation gives approval to spend money for housing associations whose target for starting and completing homes is 20,000 per year.
  In 1989 the total production of public sector homes, which are largely to rent, was 27,000. That is disgracefully low. We are talking about virtually all public sector low-cost housing for rent since the Government massacred the local authority house building programme. The cause lies ultimately with the Government, who introduced the Housing Act 1988. The solution is also in the hands of the Government and they can provide it not by the announcement of any new unit or committee but by the announcement of a new commitment to see through the programme of 20,000 starts and 20,000 completions in the housing association sector.
  It is not enough for Ministers simply to shuffle off responsibility for what has happened to the Housing Corporation or the private sector. Ministers are responsible for housing. They are not Ministers of excuses or alibis—they are here to provide houses, but they have provided only a small number. I do not want excuses—I want action.
  Housing associations now provide almost all the low-cost homes for rent in Great Britain. Those homes are almost all for those who are in need and on low incomes. The associations provide much of the new housing for the homeless and also for people with acute needs such as those who have had long periods of hospitalisation, people
  398
  suffering from mental or physical illness, those who need sheltered accommodation and people who need accommodation that is coupled with counselling.
  There is almost no new help for such housing except that which comes from the housing associations. That is because the Government have savaged local authority programmes. Housing associations are non-profit-making bodies. Some are co-operatives and some are specialised, and all are governed by volunteers. Most of the vacancies which occur in their properties go on nomination to local authorities and the associations play a useful part in tackling the problem of homelessness.
  I shall now deal with the cause of the present crisis I shall have to simplify my explanation, but my description will certainly not be inaccurate. Obviously, I cannot spend a long time going through all the causes. Before 1989 housing associations received approval for loans and subsidies. The subsidy is called HAG, which means housing association grant. They received approvals for individual schemes and the money was then paid by the Housing Corporation to acquire land, to move on to site and sign building contracts, to complete legal obligations to builders and for the completion of the site, and to pay development costs.
  The system that operated before 1989 made it relatively simple, although it was not entirely without problems, to keep the flow of money from the Housing Corporation to the housing associations with public expenditure limits. In the financial year 1989–90 the system was changed. Following the passage of the 1988 Act, housing associations were invited to be more commercial, to use private finances, to take more risks and, under the assured tenancy arrangements, to charge higher rents. The larger housing associations were given the freedom to plan; it was called tariff expenditure. They relied heavily on the tariff arrangements, but unfortunately they have been torn up in the recent crisis.
  Under the new system, associations could draw their allocations much more rapidly. They could then get on with the job of providing housing by accelerating the development process, which they did with great success. Indeed, it is precisely because they responded effectively to the new system that they are now being penalised and find themselves in crisis, which affects not only them but, ultimately and more importantly, their consumers. Housing associations did not overspend in 1989–90; they simply spent their money more quickly and did exactly what the Government had asked them to do—that is, to work with the private sector to achieve a rapid provision of housing. Of course, the numbers are still far too low, but within what they were allowed to do they responded with a rapid system for putting housing into use.
  In 1989–90, the system took the strain of several forces. The first was the much bigger initial payments to housing associations to start schemes. That was the pattern of the new regime. The second was the speed with which housing associations started on site or bought in completed schemes. Because of the slump in house building programmes, there were more off-the-shelf schemes available. Therefore, the available money was used more quickly. The third was the encouragement to get on with new schemes because of the change in capital controls on local authorities which came into force on 1 April. Many authorities were anxious to dispose of money that they could spend only in the last financial year, or to dispose of land under the old system. The fourth—which I regard as

  399
  the forgotten factor—was the remaining substantial cost of completing schemes in the pipeline from the earlier years of the old approval system.
  In financial terms, the fast train of 1989 ran into the back of the slow train of 1988 and earlier years. That resulted in financial disaster and many casualties among housing associations. That is my description of events. The Housing Corporation used less florid language, but it amounted to the same thing. It said that the costs flowing from its 1989–90 programmes already approved require
  "significantly more cash in 1990–91 than we had previously forecast, leaving much less cash for schemes to be approved during the year."
  The £815 million budget for the Housing Corporation for 1989–90 was grossly exceeded and all sorts of devices were introduced either to cure or to disguise the problem. Of course, it is not a real problem—it is first a public expenditure accountancy problem and could be easily solved. Money was transferred from the 1990–91 programme to last year's programme, leaving much less available for this year; a 13-month year was invented; new approvals were delayed; and the tariff arrangements—which, in effect, were the long-term planning agreements for associations—were torn up and disowned.
  The current year still holds commitments from the old approval system as well as the balance of commitments that were accelerated in 1989–90. I understand that the consequences are so severe that only about £70 million will be available for new starts this year as against the £450 million needed to sustain 20,000 starts a year under the new system, when much greater amounts of money are paid to housing associations once they have undertaken schemes. Because of the telescoping of previous programmes, only £70 million will be available, of which half is committed to starts on the new homeless housing programme. On the worst scenario, those figures mean that in the current financial year the number of starts will fall from 20,000 to 3,000, a cut of 85 per cent. Even on a medium scenario, with a cut of 50 per cent. to 75 per cent., it would be an appalling tragedy for the provision of housing for rent, which is the greatest unmet need in today's housing market. I cannot believe that Ministers will allow that to happen.
  I wish to cite some examples of the consequences of what some call the current crisis, but which is officially called a dislocaton. The Government forced Lambeth borough council to sell a site because they said, with a little justice, that Lambeth was too slow in developing it. I asked the Minister's predecessor to ensure that the site would be sold to a housing association for rapid development to provide much needed homes for rent. I am pleased to say that he agreed to that proposition. As a result, the land was sold to a housing association so that it could get on with the job quickly. The consequence of the present crisis is that the housing association cannot develop the site because money will not be available to start during the current financial year.
  A second example is of land in Kent which was acquired in phases for sensible development by a housing co-operative. It completed phase 1 and has acquired the land for phase 2. It is ready to go out to tender for the building contract. That co-operative has now been told by the Housing Corporation that the site cannot be started. Interest charges are accruing on the money paid for the
  400
  site. Building costs may well rise during the next year. If the accumulated costs exceed the maximum allowable total—it is called indicative costs—the scheme may have to be abandoned. It is another example of a delay in starts this year leading eventually to a reduction in the number of completions in later years.
  The third example is the number of development themes run by housing associations which may have to be disbanded. Those people are specialists who have been working together for a number of years. They have had a reasonable flow of work and they depend on development allowances to keep their teams together. Their expertise may now be lost. Associations that rely on a steady flow of development allowances could find themselves in financial difficulty with the consequent need to shed staff. At the end of the day, fewer starts this year—possibly as low as 3,000 to 4,500—must mean fewer completions in later years.
  I demand that the Government act to ameliorate, or even to cure, the crisis. There are massive capital receipts in the public sector which could well be used. It is well within the Government's capability to solve the problem. As the Minister knows, there are huge accumulated capital receipts among local authorities. If a scheme could be put together with the Treasury to release that money, housing association schemes could continue without dislocation.
  If the Minister acted like a Minister with responsibility for housing and used a bit of imagination, housing associations would be able to maintain a programme of 20,000 starts as well as 20,000 completions a year. That would assist the building industry, which faces a difficult time, to maintain a reasonable flow of work and would help the homeless and those in need. In addition, it would have no long-term cost implications.
  If one examines the dislocation, the crisis, the delay in starts, one sees that it will have the effect in the long term of increasing rather than decreasing expenditure. The cost of keeping people in homeless accommodation is notoriously high and great savings could be made there.
  What we have this morning is the chance for the Government to turn a crisis into an opportunity, to meet housing need and human need and to keep the contract that they made with housing associations. I hope that the Minister will give me a positive and constructive response this morning.
  9.50 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) for initiating the debate and giving me the opportunity to explain the background to some adjustments that have recently become necessary to the Housing Corporation's capital programme, to correct some misapprehensions about the consequences of these adjustments, and to reaffirm our confidence both in the corporation and in the ability of the housing association movement to take the lead in the provision of low-cost homes for households in need.
  I think that it is implicit in what the hon. Gentleman was saying that he recognises that the answer to today's housing problems does not lie in yesterday's massive municipal house-building programmes. Of course, there were and are plenty of good and well-run council estates, but there are also many notorious failures. Local authorities have had a near-monopoly of low-cost rented provision in their areas, and that monopoly has bred

  401
  inefficiency and indifference to the customer's wants and needs. Authorities that have provided decent housing and managed it well have done so despite that monopoly, not because of it.
  Housing associations have on the whole avoided the mistakes of local housing authorities. As relatively small-scale providers, they have not allowed bureaucracy or professional vested interests to get between them and their customers. On average, their tenants are better satisfied than those of local authorities. That is the main reason why over the past few years we have reversed the traditional roles and made associations, not local authorities, the lead providers of new low-cost housing. In doing so, however, we have found it necessary to recast the basis for funding their development.
  Associations are private bodies, owing their foundation to volunteer effort and enterprise, yet since 1974 they had looked entirely to the public sector for their development funding. Moreover, because rent controls left associations with no means of increasing their income, that funding had to take a form that left all the risks with Government and provided no incentive to efficiency in construction and management.
  Fitting associations for their new role has involved a revolution in their financing, restoring to them the freedom to set their own rents provided that they keep them within the reach of their own clients, tapping private sources of loan finance, and giving them full financial responsibility for their successes and failures.
  We provided the framework for that funding revolution and the expansion of the movement in the Housing Act 1988. Most of the hard grind of devising the detail of the new grant arrangements and all the complex transitional machinery, putting the systems and people in place to run them and educating the movement about the implications and opportunities of the new regime, fell on the Housing Corporation. It had, too, to prepare itself and the housing association movement for a massive expansion in the capital programme. I pay tribute to its immense achievement in getting everything ready to roll in April 1989.
  The strain on management, systems and staff throughout the organisation was enormous, and it would be altogether astonishing if everything had run with clockwork precision and smoothness from day one. If anything has gone wrong, it is that the housing association movement has mastered the new arrangements and responded to the challenges and opportunities that they offer even more quickly and impressively than we and the corporation had expected. I think that that is recognised by the hon. Gentleman. That has upset some of the key assumptions on which the corporation's plans for its capital programme in 1989–90 and 1990–91 were based.
  Management of a capital programme within a strict and necessary discipline of annual cash limits—on which the Government put great emphasis—is always a complicated business. Individual schemes may take a number of years to plan, agree and execute. Decisions taken in one year will affect expenditure for several years ahead. Planning assumptions about what schemes will cost, or how long they will take to build, can be badly thrown out by events. Hitherto, in the face of all those difficulties, the corporation's record has been exemplary. The 1989–90 programme, however, posed an unprecedented problem
  402
  —the introduction of a radically new grant system, the impact of which on development costs and times could only be guessed at.
  A related difficulty was that evidence of the effects of the new system accumulated only very slowly during the past financial year. Associations' submissions of new schemes for grant approval tend to be heavily concentrated towards the end of the financial year, and that effect was more marked than usual in 1989–90 as associations, naturally, took a little time to familiarise themselves with the new arrangements. Initially, the corporation feared that take up of the programme was inadequate and that a significant underspend was in prospect. That shows how quickly the situation has changed.
  The basis on which the corporation could have tested its planning assumptions and taken any corrective action was not available at critical times of the year, and the evidence on which the necessity of emergency action was eventually diagnosed was itself very incomplete and, as it turned out, unrepresentative.
  By November last year, it became clear that action would be needed to contain expenditure for the year, and that was taken. Only at the end of December, however, did the corporation have reason to think that spending could not be constrained within the cash limit for the year, and in January my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a bringing forward of £120 million of expenditure, originally planned for 1990–91, into 1989–90 in order to avert an overspend. The corporation's outturn expenditure for the year was within the revised cash limit.
  In January, on the still very limited evidence available, the corporation believed that the high rate of spend was attributable mainly to the increasing use by housing associations of procurement methods such as design and build and off-the-shelf purchase of completed dwellings, under which grant expenditure flows through very rapidly once the scheme has been approved for grant. Allowance was made for that effect in the corporation's announcement, also in January, of its plans for the 1990–91 capital programme.
  By March, it had become apparent that the new grant regime was having much more widespread effects on the phasing of expenditure. A marked speeding up was observable in all types of new scheme, including those using traditional procurement techniques. Projects that would have taken four to five years to complete under the old arrangements now seem set to be finished on average within two years. That is excellent news in itself. Homes are being completed and made available for letting much faster than before. Associations have got to grips with the new grant rules and responded to the new incentives to cut costs and development times with impressive speed. but it would have been better news still had the corporation known about it before announcing its plans for 1990–91.
  The position now is that the unexpectedly rapid rate of expenditure on schemes approved before the start of the year will leave much less of a margin of uncommitted expenditure for new schemes to be started in the present year.
  Mr. Fraser: The Minister is giving us an elegant and intricate description of a financial cock-up. Before he comes to the end of his speech, will he say that he intends to do something about it?
  Mr. Chope: The purpose of the debate is to explain the background and not only the inputs but the outputs. I shall be stressing later the importance that the Government attach to output figures and I shall deal with them in some detail.
  The corporation is reviewing the prospects in detail with each housing association and will then decide which new projects can be allowed to proceed during the year and which will have to be deferred until 1991–92.
  What really matters is the number of new housing association homes being completed. It exceeded our plans for 1989–90 and seems set to do so again by a substantial margin in 1990–91, depending on imponderables such as the weather. The hon. Gentleman was, perhaps understandably, a little backward in paying tribute to the increased output beyond our forecast in both 1989–90 and 1990–91. Although the number of planned scheme approvals will have to be cut back sharply this year, that will have little impact on completions. There are two reasons—the large remaining pipeline of schemes originally approved under the old grant arrangments but on which work has yet to start, and the much faster rate at which schemes approved under the new regime are now likely to be completed.
  Overall, we are still on course for a massive expansion of associations' output. Public expenditure provision for the corporation is set to rise from £938 million last year to £1,736 million by 1992–93, and growing use of private loan finance will further add to the programme.
  That said, the adjustments now needed to the corporation's programme of approvals in 1990–91 are, of course, extremely disappointing and frustrating not only for associations but those who work with them. Many associations have geared themselves up and taken on staff to take full advantage of the opportunities opened up by the new regime, and now face delays in getting planned schemes off the ground. The hon. Gentleman referred to some of them. All the more reason for paying tribute to the calm and constructive manner in which the National Federation of Housing Associations responded to the situation, despite all the inconvenience and disappointment that its members have faced.
  It rightly concluded that the best way forward is not to indulge in recriminations but rather to work closely with the corporation on the development of new programme control arrangements, which will avert any future threat to the corporation's cash limit and give associations a firm forward planning framework—while making due allowance for all the many inevitable uncertainties which lie outside the corporation's, or anybody's, control. Thanks to tremendous efforts on both sides, those new arrangements are now being put in place for the current year.
  The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the corporation has had an immense burden to carry over the last two years, and has had an immense amount of change to digest. The introduction of the new grant arrangements has involved a difficult learning process for the corporation as well as for the movement. It is easy enough now to point to one or two things that could have been done, or said, differently during that process, or to suggest that some of today's difficulties should have been predicted and action taken to pre-empt them. But it is remarkable that today's critics were so silent at a time when suggestions could have been put to good use.
  404
  Nor can the corporation be accused of any failure to consult or to take the views of outside bodies. The NFHA was closely involved in setting up the new grant regime, and management consultants were asked to undertake a review of the corporation's systems last autumn. Their report made a number of helpful recommendations on points of detail, but it did not identify a risk of cash control problems of the kind that emerged soon afterwards.
  The corporation is, I know, as anxious as anyone to restore full confidence in the programme control and planning process. As I said, new cash control arrangements are already being put in place. A full financial management and policy review of the corporation was in any event due to be carried out this year, and will provide a further opportunity to establish that the programme arrangements are as soundly based as possible. More generally, I know that Sir Christopher Benson, the corporation's new chairman, and his board are giving the supervision of that area of activity a high priority. I am sure, therefore, that those temporary difficulties will soon be behind us, and that the housing association movement can look forward to many years of expansion and prosperity.
  The hon. Member for Norwood asked why the Government will not do anything about local authorities' accumulated capital receipts, but he knows that it has always been necessary to control the overall amount of borrowing. Local authorities as a whole have debts of around £45 billion. We believe that if local authorities sell assets, part of the proceeds should be used to repay some of the outstanding debt. That is how the long-term, prudent financing of local authorities will be improved, rather than be undermined by substantially increased debt burdens.
  What is important is the number of units being produced. Completions are expected to be largely unaffected by the problems that I described, and the corporation expects the number for 1990–91 to exceed earlier forecasts by 12 per cent. Over the next two years, it is expected that more than 50,000 new homes will be completed for occupation by people in housing need. About 41,000 units are currently in development, between approval and completion—so there is plenty of work for associations to be getting on with.
  Mr. Fraser: I acknowledge that the number of completions has increased, and said myself that it had accelerated. However, does not the Minister recognise that, if the number of starts falls in the next two years, that will eventually be reflected in the number of completions? Does he regard 20,000 to 30,000 new homes to rent per year as adequate, when one indicator of demand reveals a figure of more than 100,000 families in need of homes each year?
  Mr. Chope: I have already dealt with the number of completions forecast and why the reduction in the number of starts this year will not necessarily lead to a fall in the number of completions in subsequent years. I explained that aspect in some detail.
  As to the general issue of people in housing need, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are placing great emphasis on encouraging local authorities to make more efficient use of housing resources. The borough which contains the hon. Gentleman's constituency leaves much to be desired in that respect. About a year ago, it had

  405
  about 1,000 properties squatted and another 2,000 empty. Last autumn, the Government announced a £250 million initiative to encourage better use of housing stock, which is alongside the increased amount being made available to the Housing Corporation and the housing associations.
  The Government are committed to ensuring that there is increased housing output. One way of ensuring that is to attract more private finance into housing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that an innovation once regarded with much scepticism by Opposition Members has proved to be effective in practice. We are now getting more for our money because we are attracting private sector investment.
  I look forward to the future with nothing other than great confidence. I conclude by again paying tribute to the housing association movement for taking on the major responsibilities that the Government have given it.

  Channel Tunnel
  10.7 am
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate. I suppose that it involves what might be called the northern factor. I was born in north-east England and I represent a north-west constituency. Therefore, the problems of the north are important to me and to my constituents.
  I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has not long been at his new Department, but who, as Under-Secretary of State for Health, was a kind and courteous Minister. Whenever I took problems to him, he listened sympathetically and always seemed to do something to help. I hope that he will be just as helpful in his new office as he was previously at the Department of Health.
  The purpose of the debate is to emphasise the importance to the north-west and to the whole of the north of the channel tunnel. Time is critical. The United Kingdom is already far behind Europe in the realignment of both road and rail links to the channel tunnel. Further delay will be harmful not only to the United Kingdom but the north-west. I hope that the Government will resist all appeals to delay matters and instead will permit Eurorail to go ahead with preparing the private Bill under which Britain's high-speed rail link can be built.
  The north-west of England is the second highest regional contributor to gross domestic product. It is a great industrial area and heavily dependent on the old basic industries, and so suffered greatly during the recession. I am delighted that the north-west is recovering extremely well. Some 70 per cent. of our overseas trade is with mainland Europe, which is why the channel tunnel is of such importance to us. With the single market coming into effect in 1992, and the channel tunnel due to open in 1993, we understand its enormous importance to the economic well-being of the north-west.
  Last Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) initiated a debate—he is always very diligent in putting forward the views of his constituents—to urge British Rail to consider Stratford as the terminal for the channel tunnel rail link. That was supported by several hon. Members with constituencies in south London, and I understand their reasons. They believe that such a development at Stratford would be of enormous economic advantage to south London.
  A number of my hon. Friends representing constituencies in Kent also supported my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich because they are worried about the effects that the rail link will have on the environment, and I understand their worries. When my hon. Friend the Minister replied to the debate last week he said that, whether King's Cross or Stratford is used, the link will still have to go through Kent. It is important that as little environmental damage as possible is done—hon. Members representing northern constituencies are only too aware of such damage, because the scars from the industrial revolution remained for a long time in the north—and I am sure that that will be borne in mind by British Rail and the Government.
  In the north, especially the north-west, we want to grasp opportunities offered by the tunnel. Therefore, improvements to the transport infrastructure are needed.

  407
  The north-west is the largest single market area for international rail freight and passenger services outside the south-east of England. We stand to gain increased export and tourist opportunities.
  You may be interested to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a couple of weeks ago it was warmer and sunnier in Blackpool than on Spain's Costa del Sol. We must also remember that, although the north-west is a great industrial area, it also contains some of the most beautiful areas in the United Kingdom. Transferring more freight from road to rail would have tremendous benefits for the environment and would boost the attractiveness of the region and competitiveness in Europe for existing firms and for inward investment. Taken together, those things offer an enormous plus for the north-west, but people in the region are worried about the delay in reaching decisions on siting tracks to and from the tunnel and about the location of the new rail terminal in London.
  I make no bones about it: I believe that King's Cross is the ideal choice, for a number of reasons. First, it would provide direct links to the east coast and midlands main lines and would ensure connections with the west coast main lines. Secondly, King's Cross would provide a good quality interchange for passengers, especially those from the north. Thirdly, it already has a relatively fast link—the Thameslink—to the tunnel. That will be essential until the high-speed passenger link is completed, which is not expected to happen until 1998–99. King's Cross could provide services with or without the high speed passenger link. Fourthly, the King's Cross Railways Bill was deposited by British Rail in November 1989, and any further delay should be avoided.
  On the other hand, Stratford has no direct link with the three main lines to the north, it has poor interchange facilities, and no direct link to the tunnel. Therefore, it is a non-starter. King's Cross should be chosen. I understand that it has been suggested that there should be three London terminals—Victoria, King's Cross and Stratford—and that borders on the ridiculous. King's Cross, with its central position and its close proximity to Euston and St. Pancras, is the ideal location. Nowhere else in London can one find three important rail terminals in such a small area as that bounded by King's Cross, St. Pancras and Euston. Also, 66 per cent. of London underground stations on five underground lines are connected directly with King's Cross. The proposed travolator to link King's Cross with Euston will make it the hub of transport in the metropolis.
  A further advantage for King's Cross is that it could use the existing route through west Hampstead and so could easily be linked to the west coast main lines. I am firmly of the opinion that British Rail's plan to use King's Cross as the London international terminal is right, and that we should proceed with it as soon as possible.
  We should consider the national interest in the House today. No one disputes that the south-east is overcrowded and frustrated and that decentralisation of activities should be encouraged. No one disputes that the motorway system is already under intense pressure. If my hon. Friend the Minister cares to drive from Westminster to the north-west one Friday afternoon, he will discover how terrible the situation is as he drives up the M1 and on to the M6. It would take him a great deal of time, not because
  408
  of accidents or road works, but because of the number of vehicles on the road. It is extremely frustrating for drivers and must be costly to the nation.
  It makes good economic sense to move more traffic from road to rail. We are constantly being told to think about the environment and environmental issues. I understand that the Prime Minister will make a great speech on environmental issues tomorrow. The use of the railway system to haul freight whenever it is practicable has considerable advantages compared with the available alternatives.
  I want the economy of the north-west to benefit as much as possible from investment in the channel tunnel. Therefore, investment in infrastructure is essential. At the moment, there is an enormous amount of investment in the Lille region in France because, rightly or wrongly, and not by accident but by design, Lille will be the junction for the London-Paris and London-Brussels rail links. Lille will be important and the French are pouring enormous amounts of money into the area. The rewards for the future growth of the economy in the Lille area are encouraging.
  In the north-west, we have an efficient group called the North West Channel Tunnel Group, comprising the North West Local Authority Rail Forum, Greater Manchester Economic Development Ltd., the development corporations of Central Manchester, Merseyside and Trafford Park, Inward, English Estates (North West), all the chambers of commerce in the north-west, and the north-west Confederation of British Industry. That is a formidable team. The group has produced a booklet which I am sure the Minister has seen, called "Capitalising on the Channel Tunnel: Action for North West England". In its foreword it says:
  "The North West of England is a region of great economic importance to the UK economy as a whole, and to secure future growth it must be able to compete effectively in the European Community when the Single European Market is completed by 1993.
  Transport infrastructure is a key to the North West being able to achieve this, and the Channel Tunnel promises to make international rail freight and passenger services a major element of transport in the Europe of the 1990s. The North West is the region of the UK with potentially the most to gain and the most to lose from the Channel Tunnel, as the largest single market area for freight and passenger services outside the South East.
  It is essential that the North West has effective international rail freight and passenger services, so that the region can take full advantage of the Single Market and the transport benefits offered by the Channel Tunnel. It is important to establish business plans from the outset which will promote economic opportunities as fully as possible.
  The North West Channel Tunnel Group has considered both road and rail options for gaining access to the Channel Tunnel from the North West. In spite of road improvements planned in the Government Report 'Trunk Roads-England: Into the 1990s', road congestion is unlikely to be substantially eased. The Group's view is that the focus needs to be on rail to provide fast and reliable movement of passengers and freight to and from mainland Europe, because of advantages in cost, time and convenience.
  For this reason, the North West Channel Tunnel Group has been formed from a wide range of business, economic and public sector interests in the region. Our aim is to co-ordinate North West efforts to secure fast and reliable rail access to mainland Europe, and promote the economic opportunities this will bring.
  British Rail has recently published its Plan for international rail services and facilities for UK regions, but the proposals for the North West fall far short of what the region needs.

  409
  Time is a critical factor. There are less than three years to go before the Single Market is fully enacted in 1992, and only just over three years before the Channel Tunnel is planned to open in 1993. There is little time available to achieve even the most basic improvements to international rail infrastructure for the North West. The North West Channel Tunnel Group is determined to ensure that the region's transport infrastructure aspirations for 1993 and beyond are understood and achieved as soon as possible."
  In not too many words, those are the basic aims that I am trying to put forward.
  The Government have injected more money into the north-west than any other Government. Enormous sums have been poured into the three development corporations at Trafford Park, Manchester Central and Merseyside, to say nothing of the enormous amount of money that has gone into inner-city funding. Those initiatives are paying off. Anybody can see the benefits that have accrued in the north-west since the Government took office. It would be extremely sad if those advantages were allowed to wither away because of our failure to attend to the transport infrastructure.
  10.20 am
  Mr. Michael Jack: Thank you for allowing me to contribute to this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I endorse the powerful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery). I underline my concern about our friends and colleagues in Kent. It would be churlish and selfish of us in the north-west to continue to endorse the benefits of the channel tunnel rail link without remembering the problems that they and their constituents face.
  Clearly, much of our discussion about the benefits of the channel tunnel in the north-west would be academic without a high-quality rail link between London and the channel. I understand the pressures that my colleagues are under and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will recognise the environmental impact of the line in Kent and perhaps find some mechanism to resolve the problem. Without the symbol of commitment—the link between London and Kent—much of the excitement of and possibilities for the channel tunnel will be lost.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and I recently attended a meeting with local authorities in the Fylde coast area and we discussed inward investment. That meeting was held with the assistance of an organisation called Inward, which has had much success in recent years in bringing Japanese and American investment to the north-west. A powerful message came from the discussions. Representatives at the meeting said, "In your discussions on the channel tunnel, don't let the impression be created that the north-west of England is cut off from that vital transport link to Europe." They pointed out that companies in Japan, America and elsewhere invest in this country because of our attitude to 1992 and the creation of the single market.
  This country has much to offer, but the key to taking advantage of it is a good transport link with Europe. The tunnel is an important feature of that. Another key to taking advantage of the channel tunnel is our rail links with centres such as Manchester. There may be a debate about the correctness of the capacity of freight and passenger transport. That is something that the market
  410
  will have to prove, but, in this age of the railway, we need to do all we can to encourage people to use rail as an alternative mode of transport.
  I emphasise the strength of feeling in our part of Lancashire about the electrification of the line from Blackpool to Manchester. It took some time for me to prise from British Rail the actual costs involved in the project—about £30 million—but it said that, as part of its infill electrification programme, the Blackpool to Manchester line is viable and at the top of the list. The advent of direct links with the channel tunnel means that that infill project is another attractive way of persuading people to use railways to journey to Europe. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, when considering the development of the domestic rail network, to look at that perspective.
  Also on passenger services, I emphasise the need for my hon. Friend, in his discussions with British Rail, to try to get it to think even more about the commercial opportunities that the channel tunnel rail link will have. British Rail seems reluctant to recognise that passengers boarding trains in the north-west will want the same baggage facilities as are provided by airlines. It is reassuring to know that if, one is flying from Manchester to London and then to Strasbourg, one's luggage will end up at the final destination. British Rail seems reluctant to move into that new era.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale talked about the advantages of King's Cross—I endorse what he said—and he underlined the importance of a travolator link. A travolator would cater for the passenger and be a powerful inducement. As one can walk to terminals 1, 2 or 3 at London airport, so would one be able to go from Euston to King's Cross and then travel to the channel tunnel. The thought of having to carry their bags could put people off. Such a facility would make all the difference to exploiting the enormous benefits of travelling by rail to continental Europe.
  There appears to be indecision about where the various freightyards and co-ordinating points will be. It is important that British Rail does whatever it can to remove that indecision. I must sound a political note to my hon. Friend the Minister. There is little use in bodies such as Lancashire county council continually writing to Members of Parliament berating them on this subject. When I write to them and ask, "Where is your strategy and plan? Where would you like the freightyards?" they reply, "We are concerned about it, but we do not have any specific ideas."
  There is a great danger that bodies such as Lancashire county council are trying to exploit difficult decisions simply for narrow political gain, and I object to that. Conservative Members have shown their dedication and commitment to the channel link and will fight hard for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale has pointed out, no Opposition Member from the north-west is present.
  It is important that British Rail does all that it can to induce a railway culture for those who, until now, have transported freight by road. There is a generation of freight managers who might say, "Yes, we will use the channel tunnel rail link," but, at the moment, their thoughts are road-bound. Fully to exploit the potential, industry must demonstrate its positive commitment to using the rail link. That would encourage British Rail to take an even more positive attitude to this important development.
  10.27 am
  Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. I thoroughly endorse the comments by my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on this important topic. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his new role, and I urge him to persuade British Rail—I know that it has made considerable progress over the past decade—to make a new effort to improve its passenger and freight facilities to the level that we now regard as the norm in air transport. I should like the great improvements that have been made in consumer comfort and the operating procedures of air transport networks—more specifically through the privatisation of British Airways—to be applied to our ground transportation system, and to British Rail in particular, so that the customer is put at the head of the queue and is provided with the best possible transport service. That is vital for people in the north-west and for others in this country.
  Great Britain is on the edge of Europe. The channel tunnel will make certain that, in terms of travel time, this country is much closer to many continental centres not only in western Europe but increasingly in eastern Europe as that part of the continent, under the light of free enterprise, moves towards a much more sophisticated and prosperous economy in the years ahead. That is even more true of the north-west. Great Britain is on the edge of Europe; clearly, we in the north-west feel that we are even further from the centres of Europe than the south-east is. In many ways, the channel tunnel is even more important to the north than it is to the south-east.
  Let us consider the distances and times it takes to reach places in Europe, and the distance and time it takes to reach London. It takes the same time to travel from Newcastle to London as it does from Preston to London, although the distance from Newcastle to London is considerably greater. In terms of travel to London, let alone to the continent, the north-west is the poor relation of the north-east. For one reason or another, our rail link has been neglected in the past. It is important that it is improved, especially with the completion of the channel tunnel only two or three years away.
  There are two areas for which it is important that action is taken quickly on the rail link. First, the port of Liverpool could benefit tremendously from the channel tunnel as an entrepot to Europe and as a one-stop facility for cargo coming across the Atlantic or from elsewhere. Cargo could come to Liverpool rather than to Rotterdam and containers could be taken through the channel tunnel. Liverpool can be revived provided that there is a decent rail link between that great city and the continent. It is important that British Rail appreciates that fact.
  Secondly, and a little closer to home, in the Fylde we have our own little silicon valley which is rapidly building up. Its core is British Aerospace and around it are the high-tech facilities that such a core activity tends to draw together. If we are to develop that area, it is vital that the communications are there so that people who want to work and live in the Fylde area, but who need to correspond, to travel and to meet people on the continent who are involved in similar activities are given the facilities to do so. That would draw the area closer to the centre of Europe. The channel tunnel link and a faster rail link to the north-west would help to achieve that.
  412
  Nineteen ninety-two will be with us in a few years. We must take advantage of that common market and we can do so with the construction of the channel tunnel. However, in the north-west, it is increasingly being seen that the direct rail link with the tunnel will be vital for the port of Liverpool and for the area around British Aerospace, and for the whole economy of the north-west to take the best advantage of the opportunities provided by the unitary market in the coming decade.
  10.32 am
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I want to begin my remarks at the point where my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) finished his. Clearly, the major danger for the north-west is that we shall be on the periphery of the main activity in the economy unless we have connections to the main artery of the future and to the biggest British trade market, which is Europe. It is essential that, when the tunnel is in full operation, the north-west is not left out.
  At present, the estimate for future north-west freight to Europe is 2 million tonnes a year. That means that, along with north Wales, the north-west is the biggest freight region in the country. It is bigger than the Home Counties or the south-east, so it is a market that should be considered. As my hon. Friends have said, we cannot underestimate the importance of the channel tunnel to the export markets for north-west companies. The proximity to the tunnel will determine the location of new factories and jobs, and inward investment. If we do not have those connections, we are likely to be left out.
  As my hon. Friends have said, we need two essential factors in our favour. First, we must have good freight links to the tunnel; secondly, we must have good passenger links. At present, there are no final decisions on the main terminal and the fast link from London to the tunnel. The only option available to us in the north-west is King's Cross and the fast link through Kent.
  The other option, of Ove Arup and Stratford, is irrelevant to us, as Stratford is too remote from the north-west main line and will slow down the passage of freight from the north-west to the tunnel. The Ove Arup proposal has not been properly costed, especially in relation to tunnelling under the Thames. Ove Arup proposes a Berne gauge from Europe which will reach us in the north-west in 2003, which is far too long to wait. The whole north-west economy could have been destroyed by the time it arrived.
  There is a need for an imminent decision by British Rail about the freight terminals so that planning can go ahead. There are only three options. The first is to develop a sea port for Merseyside, at Garston or Seaforth, which is container-based; secondly, there could be a similar one at Trafford Park, which my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) has already mentioned; thirdly, there could probably be one in the centre of Lancashire at Haydock, joining up at Crewe for onward passage to the tunnel. It is important to note that freight is viable when the distance travelled is more than 200 miles, so it is a viable option for us to send freight through the tunnel from the north-west to the European markets.
  British Rail's estimates for passengers are far too conservative. It proposes to order 18 trains for passenger use, of which only seven will be capable of going north of

  413
  London because they will need to be divided. British Rail envisages only one train a day going beyond London, compared with the 15 trains it envisages will come from Paris and stop at London. That is not adequate. We believe that we shall be able to develop the necessary traffic that will go on to the north-west. If one is keen on skiing, for example, it would be possible to go all the way to Moutiers. We shall be able to pack those trains with north-west skiing enthusiasts through the winter months.
  British Rail must start making decisions. We are three years from the opening of the channel tunnel and two years from the implementation of the single market. Not a yard of track has been laid, and final decisions have not been made on essential structural matters which are important to the north-west. If it is not to be left behind in industrial development, decisions must be made soon. I know from experience that my hon. Friend the Minister is a man of action. I look to him to speed up the process and to see that the north-west is properly catered for.
  10.37 am
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) for his kind remarks at the beginning of this brief debate. I note with interest that there is strong Conservative representation from the north-west. The debate was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale and we have had excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack), for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). I notice also here my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) and, not least, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad). That is a truly magnificent sign that Conservative Members strongly support the best interests of business and industry in the north-west and that they want to ensure that, when the channel tunnel opens, the north-west makes immediate, active and thorough use of the enormous opportunities that it will present.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: As the Minister seems to be taking a roll call, I am intervening simply to make the point that I am here. The Minister referred to the paucity of Liberal Democrat Members for the north of England. I suppose that I could be regarded as one of the Liberal Democrats with a seat nearest to the north-west, so I hope that the Minister will accept that Liberal Democrats are interested enough to listen to and participate in these debates.
  Mr. Freeman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman reminded me of the paucity of Liberal Democrats representing the north-west.
  One of the most important responsibilities from now on is to ensure that, when the channel tunnel opens in 1993, we and British Rail have taken the necessary steps in terms of our public infrastructure—not only for passengers but for freight—to ensure that we exploit the channel tunnel and the great advantages that it offers in 1993, let alone at the turn of the century. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West that I shall concentrate not only on the grand design, but on the detail of our plans.
  The debate has been most useful and has aired the north-west's wish to participate in the benefits that the
  414
  channel tunnel will bring to the United Kingdom as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale will be pleased to know that a major objective of Government policy is to ensure that the regions beyond the south-east can benefit as much as possible from the new direct rail link between the United Kingdom and the continental rail networks that the tunnel will provide. One of the most important benefits that the tunnel will bring to the more distant regions is the opportunity of the provision of through rail freight services. Such services will assist economic development throughout the United Kingdom and, by encouraging the transfer of freight from road to rail, will bring environmental benefits throughout the United Kingdom.
  Prompted by the debate, it would be a good idea if I were to put something on my desk that would serve as a reminder that, when looking at public transport infrastructure expenditure proposals, we in the Department of Transport must always remember the need to think about the whole of Great Britain, and not just about London and the south-east, where there are great and pressing problems. I assure my hon. Friends that, when I return to the Department of Transport later this morning, I shall take steps to ensure that the first thing that I shall see on my desk when I return after the Whitsun recess is a notice to remind myself to "Think Britain". It will remind me to think about the implications for the whole of Britain when considering not only British Rail's investment, but investments in light rail schemes, buses and road programmes. I use those words advisedly.
  I well understand the attitude of some—although I think that it is misguided—who fear that the north-west might be cut off from the economic developments on the mainland of Europe unless there are proper investments in the infrastructure to link us, by rail, with the rest of Europe through the tunnel. I shall explain briefly why I think those fears are misplaced. When reviewing investment propositions from British Rail, we should constantly remind ourselves of the importance of linking the regions and provinces of Britain into the tunnel and onwards into Europe.
  It is important that we do not get the importance of the tunnel out of context. Although it will be extremely significant to Britain's economy, it is estimated that, when it opens in 1993, it will rank 12th or 13th in importance when set against Britain's ports. It will take only a relatively small proportion of our freight traffic. Although, as I have said, I do not underestimate its significance, we must not forget Britain's great ports, which will continue to contribute to our economic prosperity and growth.
  Last December, British Rail published its plan for international services. This followed an extensive consultation exercise and the proposals represent British Rail's current view of commercially viable services using the tunnel. It has been said that these proposals are inadequate. We must remember, however, that British Rail is required by the Government—and by Parliament—to run its international services on a proper commercial basis. Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which prohibits subsidy to British Rail for its international services, was widely supported at the time, despite the current claims by the Opposition that it should be repealed.
  It is interesting that the Labour party's current official policy is to consider repealing section 42, and hence permit a subsidy from the taxpayer for the international services

  415
  —I draw a distinction between international and provincial services, such as Network SouthEast—which would therefore permit unfair competition with the ferries and the airlines, which are not subsidised. The Labour party is going back on its previous clear commitment and clear support for section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act. The Government will not repeal or suggest the repeal of that section. It was introduced to ensure that ferries, ports and other international transport operators would not face unfair competition from a subsidised rail service. We do not believe that the situation has changed. British Rail already runs its freight and InterCity operations successfully on a commercial basis and there is no reason why its international services should not enjoy similar success.
  It is perhaps worth reminding the House that British Rail's so-called "section 40" plan sets out its current view of commercially viable services. I pay tribute to those in the north-west who, in a large measure, were instrumental in encouraging the adoption of section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act and for the document that was published in December 1989, which is headed "International Rail Services for the United Kingdom", a copy of which is in the Library. I hope that all hon. Members will have the chance to study it. I know that all my hon. Friends, with their great interest in the economic prosperity of the north-west, have already done so.
  Section 40 requires British Rail to bring forward its current assessment of the passenger and freight opportunities that are presented by the channel tunnel. I repeat that the Act requires British Rail to publish the document now. It is current. We should not fall into the trap of believing that this is British Rail's last word, especially on freight traffic. British Rail must naturally be realistic, cautious and pragmatic about its present assessment of the passenger and freight opportunities that are presented by the tunnel. However, the position will change and I hope that, during the months and years before the opening of the services in 1993, my hon. Friends will not be reluctant to draw to the attention of British Rail and the Department of Transport any opportunities for passenger and freight business that they believe that British Rail is missing.
  British Rail will keep its section 40 responsibilities and report under review both up to the opening of the tunnel and thereafter, as it is required to do under the Channel Tunnel Act. The plan will be modified as the developing pattern of demand and the associated commercial opportunities become clearer. I am sure that British Rail would welcome some input from local businesses and business organisations, so that it can formulate an accurate assessment of the demand for its services.
  I should like to come to the north-west at an early date, not only to meet my hon. Friends again, but also to meet businesses and other organisations there to discuss their views of the opportunities that will be presented by the channel tunnel. If my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale would be kind enough to chair such a meeting, I should be delighted to attend. If they can, I hope that my other hon. Friends will participate in such a meeting so that we can demonstrate yet again both the Government's and my hon. Friends' commitment to the prosperity of the north-west.
  416
  British Rail's initial proposals for the north-west provide capacity for some 540,000 passengers per annum on the daily services to Paris and Brussels. That is about two and a half times the number of passengers who chose to fly between Manchester and those destinations in 1988. In addition, a night service from Glasgow will also call at Manchester, offering further passenger capacity. So it is not fair to castigate British Rail for providing insufficient places from the regions. One difference between the rail and air facilities is of course that, whilst one can catch a flight at various times throughout the day, one will be able to catch a train only twice a day—once during the morning and once at night—in order to reach one's destination, whether Paris or Brussels, through the tunnel.
  However, each train, represents a huge investment by British Rail—it plans to invest over £1 billion to enable a full passenger and freight service to London and beyond to commence on the day that the channel tunnel opens—and British Rail must be satisfied that any further services would be commercially viable. It is not open to British Rail simply to accept statements that a market might grow up if the extra train is run; the market must be clearly demonstrable. In any event, British Rail could not match the frequency of the current high-quality InterCity services from the north-west to London that run throughout the day.
  There will always be passengers who find it more convenient to use the InterCity services and change in London for services from Waterloo through the channel tunnel. The alternative would be to use the through-train services, but, as I said, they will, unavoidably and inevitably, be relatively infrequent. It is important that we should not place on British Rail any obligation to run subsidised services. My hon. Friends would not thank me for placing a burden on British Rail that worsened its financial results. British Rail must respond in a forward-looking way to commercial opportunities that are available, not only for passengers and freight. That is its best judgment at present, but undoubtedly that judgment will change as we obtain a clearer picture of the opportunities for freight and passenger traffic through the tunnel.
  Some passengers will always opt for air travel because of time considerations. It is important to remember that the travelling time by rail from Manchester to the continent is likely to be between five and six hours, whereas flying time is only about one hour. I am now dealing with 1993—I shall come on to 1998, the turn of the century and the rail link in a moment. However, rail journeys will have the advantage of offering the passenger travel from city centre to city centre without having to change. I know that that is an important consideration for some people, particularly when they are on holiday. That time difference may be an important consideration for those travelling on business, although perhaps of less significance to tourists and leisure travellers.
  As I said earlier, one of the major benefits to the regions of the tunnel will be the opportunity to provide through rail freight services between the United Kingdom and the Continent. British Rail has said that it expects 70 per cent. of channel tunnel freight to come from the regions. It is important, however, that the ability of rail to supplant road transport should not be exaggerated—a 50 per cent. increase in rail transport would reduce road transport by less than 5 per cent.

  417
  I take the point made by my hon. Friends about the environmental benefits of moving freight by rail as opposed to road. I am a frequent commuter on the M1 to my constituency and on up the M6 to Manchester and the north-west, where my family roots and those of my wife are. I am a frequent user of the motorways and I understand the strength of my hon. Friends' point. However, it is important to realise that the reduction of road congestion by moving a significant proportion of freight by rail is relatively limited, simply because so much greater a proportion of the movement of freight is already by road.
  Nevertheless, British Rail estimates that its services will take 400,000 lorry journeys off the roads, with the environmental benefits that that will bring. BR is negotiating with the private sector for a network of regional freight terminal sites, at least one of which will serve the north-west region, and it will announce the chosen sites during this year.
  I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde and other hon. Friends that the sooner that British Rail can announce the location of the freight depot the better. That will enable industry in the north-west to plan its affairs in a more logical and coherent way. I accept the strength of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde and I shall encourage British Rail to reach a sensible and commercial decision as quickly as possible.
  There have been calls to provide further terminals in the north-west. I stress again that all British Rail's investments must be commercially viable. British Rail is currently negotiating with the road haulage operators and industry to find out what locations and facilities would meet their needs so that it can ensure that businesses have the best possible access to the rail network. British Rail is anxious to compete effectively in the international freight transport market. It intends to use new wagon technology which can provide the same loading capabilities as those in mainland Europe. It is considering the possibility of developing a fleet of "swap-body" wagons so that containers can be more easily transferred between rail and road transport.
  The part played by both the proposed second international passenger station at King's Cross and the proposed dedicated rail link between the tunnel and London in relation to regional services is sometimes misunderstood. I should emphasise that neither of these initiatives is essential for commencing the running of through services in 1993 when the tunnel opens. British Rail plans to operate the services on existing lines as soon as the tunnel opens. That is not to say that the two projects would not, in due course, lead to reduced journey times and, in the case of King's Cross, provide an easier interchange to the inter-capital services for those passengers who choose to take the inter-city connections to London from the north. I should also stress that neither development would affect freight traffic, which British Rail intends to run on existing lines.
  418
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale mentioned the Hampstead curve. I attach some importance to that. I understand that British Rail has a Bill before Parliament to give it power to construct that curve—the link between the west coast main line and the terminal at King's Cross. My hon. Friend and others who spoke on the subject raised the importance of further investment in the west coast main line, which was electrified 15 to 20 years ago. It needs further infrastructure investment to straighten the line and improve the speed of services from the north-west.
  The Hampstead curve is important. It will enable passengers travelling down the west coast main line—an improved line in the later 1990s—to come straight into the King's Cross terminal, either for through services or for connecting services, if that is more convenient. British Rail attaches great importance to that, and so do I.
  I have so far concentrated on the rail links from the north-west to the channel tunnel. The Department is also undertaking a major programme of trunk road expansion as announced in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" last May. Schemes which will improve links from the region to London and the tunnel include widening of the M6, M1 and M25, as well as substantial provision for trunk road improvements in Kent, which will naturally bear the brunt of the additional traffic—although, even here, the additional traffic arising from completion of the tunnel will be small compared with the overall growth of traffic.
  To sum up, both the Government and British Rail fully appreciate the important opportunities that the tunnel will open up for the more distant regions of the United Kingdom as well as for the south-east. We support British Rail's strategy of providing commercially attractive services to its customers. British Rail's proposed services for the north-west form the first step in assessing the market for tunnel traffic. They will be revised if the emerging pattern of demand shows an opening for further commercial services so that the tunnel's opportunities for all regions are exploited to the full.
  I look forward to coming to the north-west, as I have promised my hon. Friends. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale will set up and chair a seminar or conference and that he will invite to lit commercial organisations that are interested in the future prosperity of the north-west, which has been ably represented by the ample number of hon. Members from the north-west present this morning. I look forward to discussing with him and his colleagues their views on further steps that British Rail could take to improve services, not just between now and the opening of the tunnel, but for the next decade.
  It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to the Order [11 May].

  Business of the House
  11 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Tim Renton): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement. I apologise to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for cutting into the time for his Adjournment debate.
  The business for Wednesday 6 June will now be as follows:
  Opposition day (14th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on the welfare of children on an Opposition motion followed by a motion on the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1990.
  The business for the rest of the week remains as announced.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Next Wednesday we shall seek to demonstrate the Government's betrayal of the younger generation and the lack of support for families throughout the decade of Conservative Government. We also welcome the opportunity afforded by the order to demonstrate the Government's shabby treatment of the teaching profession over the past decade, not least the removal of the basic democratic right to negotiate their own wages.
  Can the Patronage Secretary tell us whether the Prime Minister has informed the deputy Prime Minister of the major change in Government policy that she will announce tomorrow on the Government's U-turn—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is rather wide of the business for 6 June.
  Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a business statement. We have learnt only today that the Government are making a statement—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to page 296 of "Erskine May". This is a Back Benchers' day and he should not ask questions that go wide of the statement.
  Mr. McNamara: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Government have chosen to interrupt today's business to make a business statement. Today the Government announced from No. 10 Downing street that tomorrow the Prime Minister will make a major policy statement on global warming, but not in the House. Clearly, the Government have changed their policy. When the Government's business manager comes to the House, the Opposition are entitled to ask when the House will have an opportunity to ask the Government about their change in policy and the implications that it has for a whole range of policies.
  Mr. Renton: If, as the hon. Gentleman says, he will tell the House next Wednesday about the Labour party's views on teachers' salaries, he will find the House empty, because we shall all be on holiday. Perhaps there is a slight mistake in his calendar. He is wrong to say that the order demonstrates shabby treatment of teachers by the Government. On the contrary, it gives effect to the teachers' pay settlement for 1990–91. Many authorities have not felt able to pay the new rates until the parliamentary process is finished. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is simply
  420
  anxious to get the teachers' new salaries into their pockets as soon as possible and preferably in time for their July pay. That is why we are arranging for the order to be debated as soon as possible.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Particularly since the Bank of England has had the report on the House of Fraser since August 1988, and in view of the Select Committee report, is there any possibility of the House having an opportunity to find out why the Bank of England has not yet decided whether the Fayeds are fit and proper persons to hold a blanket licence?
  Mr. Renton: I note my hon. Friend's remarks. As I said in my brief business statement, the business for the rest of the week when the House reassembles after the Whit recess remains unchanged. I shall certainly see that my hon. Friend's remarks are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Mr. George Foulkes: On 6 June, the Secretary of State for Scotland will answer Scottish questions. There is widespread anxiety at today's announcement that Nirex is planning to drill 6,000 holes in Caithness and Sutherland in its exploration to find a dump for nuclear waste. People are fed up with that part of Scotland being seen as the repository for nuclear waste, with all the dangers that it entails. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on 6 June to give Scottish Members from all parts of Scotland and from all parties an opportunity to ask questions about this matter of great concern?
  Mr. Renton: It is perhaps fortunate that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting close to me on the Front Bench. He has reminded me that these are testing holes only and that Scotland is not alone in having this privilege. I understand that similar testing holes are being drilled in Cumbria. Nevertheless, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise that, on 6 June, when the Opposition have a Supply day, they will not give the House a first opportunity to scrutinise the Labour party policy document issued today? Does that not show that the Labour party continues to wish to hide it from proper scrutiny by this House?
  Mr. Renton: At the risk of enlarging the subject slightly, I note that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the shabby treatment shown by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in not making a policy statement to the House tomorrow, although the House is to be in recess. Indeed, my hon. Friend is right: if there is to be any policy statement in the House, it should be a Labour policy statement. We have heard a great deal about it on the news this morning and a certain amount about it from Conservative Back Benchers yesterday, but we have not heard anything about it from the Labour Front Bench.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Government's desire to have extra pay put in the July pay packet of teachers in England and Wales. Could such a facility be extended to Northern Ireland, and perhaps even Scotland, by an early statement to that effect?
  Mr. Renton: The draft order that we shall debate on Wednesday 6 June follows a pattern similar to that of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are passed on to the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend will have been in the House yesterday when my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) moved the Second Reading of his excellent Bill on the roof tax. He will undoubtedly have noticed that no Labour Member voted in favour of it, although two voted against it. Will he take an opportunity to talk to his opposite number during the first week after the recess and suggest that perhaps the Labour party could use time on its Opposition day to introduce a debate on the roof tax so that the rest of us and the country can find out what it has in mind?
  Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting suggestion. It is possible for the Opposition to split their Supply day on Wednesday into two halves. I note that the Opposition Chief Whip is sitting opposite. He will undoubtedly inform his colleagues of the suggestion that the Labour party might decide to debate the roof tax on the first half of Wednesday afternoon.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: After we have dealt with the business proposed for the evening of Wednesday 6 June, may we have a debate on the future of the footwear industry? Yesterday it was announced in Cockermouth in my constituency that a famous footwear manufacturer was in financial difficulties, a receiver had been appointed and 400 jobs were at risk. The reason for that dreadful news is that interest rates and imports are damaging the industry severely. May we have a debate on that important matter, because I have many anxious families in that area at this time?
  Mr. Renton: I am sorry, as the House will be, to hear the news about the firm in the hon. Gentleman's constituency going into receivership. I shall pass his remarks on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to raise this in an Adjournment debate after the Whitsun recess.
  Mr. Michael Jack: Could my right hon. Friend assure me that the time allowed for debate on teachers' pay will be adequate to rebut the misleading statements we have just heard from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)? Will it also include an opportunity to review briefly the Government's new arrangements and proposals for the restitution of teachers' pay rights? Perhaps we could also discuss the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has agreed to the excellent results from the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay?
  Mr. Renton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's second point. The simple purpose of the order is to ensure that all education authorities can proceed immediately to pay the new rates of pay. Some have already done so without waiting for the outcome of the parliamentary process, and others are hesitant to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is anxious to get the salary increases into the pay packets as soon as possible. Given
  422
  my hon. Friend's customary ingenuity, I am sure that he will find an opportunity to widen the debate slightly on that Wednesday evening.
  Mr. Greville Janner: After announcing the business for Wednesday 6 June, would the Minister be kind enough to consider having a debate on crowd safety? In June there are two major pop festivals at Glastonbury and Knebworth and at a recent concert of a group rejoicing in the name of New Kids on the Block—
  Mr. Foulkes: Excellent.
  Mr. Janner:—which I assume from my hon. Friend's reaction is an excellent group. Nevertheless, that concert resulted in 30 people being taken to hospital and between 600 and 700 being injured. After the problems at the Donington race course concerts in the county of Leicestershire, when youngsters were killed, the time has now come for the Government not merely to ask the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidelines that no one must follow, but to take urgent action. We should have a debate on that matter swiftly.
  Mr. Renton: Although I appreciate the seriousness of the subject that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, I would again point out that Wednesday 6 June is an Opposition day. It would be possible for the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to decide to have half a day only on the welfare of children and to devote the other half, if not to Labour's roof tax, to the subject of crowd safety. That apart, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise this serious and important subject during an Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the debate on 6 June will enable the Government to confirm that teachers' pay is 30 per cent. better in real terms than it was in 1979 when the Government came to office? There are now more teachers per pupil than ever before. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is having firm negotiations with teachers unions within recent days, according to my inside knowledge—
  Mr. Foulkes: Inside?
  Mr. Greenway: Inside, in the sense that I have heard from the unions concerned of discussions with the Secretary of State about the restoration of their negotiating rights. That is supported by all of us.
  Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend, with the precision and accuracy that befits an ex-headmaster, puts the case very well. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be pleased to confirm the precise point my hon. Friend has made about the beneficial treatment of teachers at the moment.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Patronage Secretary realise that it is important that we have an urgent statement on the current report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests in which a particular lobbyist has said that he has been paying undisclosed sums to unnamed Members, but has refused to give information about that on the ground of commercial confidentiality? We need a statement as soon as we come back from the recess, as we cannot have a

  423
  situation in which lobbyists use commercial confidentiality to subvert the purposes and intentions of our Register of Members' Interests.
  Mr. Renton: My understanding is that the Select Committee on Members' Interests, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), is looking into the question of lobbying. It is for that reason that the evidence to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred was given to that Select Committee. I do not believe that the Committee's report is ready yet, but it is actively looking into the subject, and I am sure it will lay a report before the House as soon as it is ready to do so.
  Sir Hal Miller: Further to the call by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for a debate on crowd safety, would my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that the Opposition opposed the football safety measures we put before the House and the requirement in many local authority byelaws that adequate notice should be given of processions? Does my right hon. Friend agree that they should do a great deal more to ensure that events such as anti-poll tax protests do not get out of hand and cause not only a great threat to public safety, but a great deal of commercial damage?
  Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The Opposition's attitude to crowd safety, particularly at football matches, is dominated by hypocrisy in their regular resistance to the positive measures that we have sought to introduce. The real worry about the anti-poll tax campaign is that, if it continues, there will be fewer and fewer Labour Members left on the Opposition Benches, as we presume that more and more of them will resign the Labour Whip because they will feel that they cannot, in all conscience, remain members of the parliamentary Labour party.
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise an important matter with you. Yesterday the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, in reply to a question, said that he was holding urgent investigations into allegations about the allocation of resources in the Bradford metropolitan district council. Despite the fact that the outcome of that investigation was unknown to him, he went on to urge community charge payers in those areas to examine
  "whether they have some recourse under the law as it now stands."—[Official Report, 23 May 1990; Vol. 173, c. 280.]
  The Minister holds quasi-judicial responsibilities in relation to local government, including my district council of Bradford. It is clear that he will also hold a pivotal position in reaching decisions about the allocation of resources to local authorities, including my own.
  424
  Is it not extraordinary for a Minister in that position to make a statement urging people in Bradford, including my constituents, to examine whether they can take legal action against an authority on matters that are still under investigation by that Minister? Obviously that will bear an important relevance to decisions he will make shortly about the distribution of resources to Bradford.
  Mr. Speaker: I am constantly asked to monitor answers to questions, but that is not the role of the Chair. The Minister must take responsibility for any answer he gives; it is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) asked my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary about the Knebworth and Donington concerts. The implication was that the Government are doing nothing about that matter. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman misled the House, because, the Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Bill, a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), which was debated in this House and is now in the House of Lords, proposed that anyone with a licence to hold an entertainment event should be fined a maximum of £20,000 or be subject to six months imprisonment if they were in breach of that licence granted by local government. The Labour party opposed that clause tooth and nail in Committee and—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not have a debate on this; the Bill is not yet law and it has not had its Third Reading in the House.
  Mr. Hind: I appreciate that, but I am making the point that, far from doing nothing about it, the Government supported that Bill and—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be, but it is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private Members' day and the hon. Member should bear in mind the fact that he is taking time from other hon. Members.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am wondering whether you would be prepared, Mr. Speaker, to censure those hon. Members who on 12 January of this year shouted "Smear" at me when I raised the question of payments made by Mr. Greer to Members of Parliament, since what I alleged at that time has now been proved to be correct. Is it not now—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is taking up time. That and other matters will no doubt be raised legitimately when we debate the Select Committee's report.

  Primary Roads (Edinburgh)
  11.21 am
  Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
  Mr. Speaker: Since time has been taken out of this debate, perhaps the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will take 10 minutes less for his Adjournment and will split the time with the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), who has the following Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful to you for that guidance, Mr. Speaker.
  I welcome this opportunity to discuss in detail the Government's proposals for primary roads south of Edinburgh. I wish to make it clear at the outset that, in my view, the consultation process in which the Government engaged, through the Scottish Office and the roads directorate, to get as open and extensive a debate as possible on the consultation document published last October was also welcome. It was a positive exercise, with the number of responses, at more than 200, providing constructive and helpful contributions. It has been a useful way to proceed when such important decisions are being taken. Therefore, I have no quibble with the process that led to the recent Government announcements and conclusions following the study.
  The report having drawn extensively on responses from the general public, the Government's position has now been made clear. The purpose of this debate is to probe further the intentions of the roads directorate and Government policy in general. Clarification is needed of some of the consequences of the decisions that have been announced, and in this debate it may be helpful for me to cite some of the views of my constituents.
  There were three main subject areas of the consultation process on the routes south of Edinburgh, and they are laid out in order in the Government's response. The first was the question of access to border towns; the second, the question of the future improvement of the A1 between Edinburgh and Newcastle; and the third, the new Government proposals for the M74 and M8 fast link and the prospective tolls provision for the building of that new road.
  The conclusions of the report are good so far as they go, but, certainly in relation to my constituency, they do not go far enough. The provision is adequate for access to the border area but not for travellers southwards from the principal border towns. In other words, the northern section of the region will be properly served as a result of the announcements contained in the document, but not the southern half of the region.
  I accept that there is never enough money, particularly for projects like roads and capital infrastructure investment. I also accept that there are equally strong competing claims from other regions, and the debate on transport in the Scottish Grand Committee illustrated that, for the Minister was bombarded on all sides by constituency claims from hon. Members.
  Nor do I believe that every trunk route can be brought up to either dual carriageway or motorway standard. But there is an argument for claiming that the planning period covered by the study is extremely long. It will last for 15 or perhaps 20 years and during that time many far-reaching
  426
  changes will take place in society as a whole and in the areas to be served by the new roads. For example, there are bound to be great changes in the development of tourism, which is crucial to the future of the border area.
  The provision being made in the Government's plans is not adequate for the planned routes south of the border region over the time scale about which we are speaking, and there are two particularly important aspects of that in my constituency. The first is the provision being made for the A1 south of Dunbar and the second is the provision being made southwards from Hawick to Carlisle.
  Concerning the A1, I pay tribute to the members of the all-party campaign, the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and in particular the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who co-ordinated the all-party campaign which produced an excellent document which argued for the upgrading of the A1. It was entitled, "The A1—A Case for the Improvement to Dual Carriageway Standard between Newcastle and Edinburgh". Those hon. Members would have been in their places today to support the case I am making had they not had other important constituency engagements.
  That campaign, which also involved the Minister's opposite number south of the border, from the Department of Transport, and key officials from, and members of, the local roads authorities involved, represented a worthwhile exercise and served to inform the debate that led to the Government's conclusions. Unfortunately, not all the arguments contained in it have been adequately taken into account.
  The Minister should this morning say as much as possible about future provision in prospect for the A1 south of Dunbar, and, particularly for the purpose of this debate, the provision in the county of Berwickshire. I do not have time to rehearse all the arguments that have been made for the upgrading of the A1. The accident rate on the road is much too high and is a constant source of concern in my constituency. There are limited overtaking opportunities and drivers overtake on single carriageway stretches where the provision is extremely substandard.
  There is increasing worry about the high volume of heavy goods traffic using the road, and positive recognition that it is a better all-weather route, with the road being kept open during the winter months. There is a strong case to be made for improving the road to improve journey times, and there is every reason to improve it to dual carriageway standard to avoid some of the difficulties that are occurring with the mixture of local, particularly agricultural, traffic with the through trunk road traffic that also uses the road.
  On page 6 of the Government response, concerning their policy for the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh, it is said that it is their
  "general policy to provide sections of improved road to allow safe overtaking opportunities and to improve road safety."
  What does that mean? They also say that
  "dual carriageway is not ruled out in the very long term."
  Local people are wondering how long the "very long" is likely to be. There is strong feeling locally that rural sections of trunk routes should not be prejudiced simply because they travel through rural areas. A trunk route is a trunk route, whether it passes through arable countryside, or passes through or bypasses towns and villages as it makes its way south or north.

  427
  I want to ask, first, what the time scale is for improvements to the dualling of the A1 road south of Dunbar.
  Second, has the Scottish Development Department made plans to make the A1 road on the northern side of the English border adequate to cope with the planned dualling of the road on the south, the English, side of the border? There is much local concern that the higher grade of road on the English side of the boundary will disgorge traffic at a high rate on to an inadequate section of the A1 on the southern side of the border. That will have safety implications in the future if something is not done about it in the short term.
  Finally, when can we expect details of the work of the steering committee, which I am pleased the Government readily accepted when it was suggested by the all-party group that considered the future provision for the A1? When can we expect details to be announced about when the committee will start work, and what its detailed remit and the time scale for its work will be? We in the eastern side of the county of Berwickshire look with some envy at the excellent work that has been done on the A96 Inverness to Aberdeen road, and some of the route action studies that have been so successful in improving that road. I hope that similar criteria will be applied to the A1.
  Page 8 of the report gives the Government's proposals for the A7 south of Hawick. It states:
  "South of Hawick, improvements to the A7 will continue to be made to achieve specific local objectives, however. These will include a programme of accident remedial schemes and smaller improvement schemes where appropriate."
  Will the Minister spell out exactly what that all adds up to? As he will know, Hawick is by far the biggest border constituency, and certainly the biggest community in my constituency. The Borders and that section of the Border community relates to communities in the south just as much, if not more than, to those in the north. Work is being done to develop Carlisle, south of Hawick, as a key road and rail junction. When one considers the prospect for the new European markets that will open in 1992 and all the aspects of the Borders' commerce and industry including textiles, electronics and tourism, it is obvious that there will be greater traffic flows in the period covered by the report.
  There are no alternative rail links available to us. It is 20 years since the Waveley route was withdrawn from the Borders region, and the area has been suffering severely from lack of adequate transport provision ever since. There are psychological as well as social, commercial and tourist justifications for having a proper road south of Hawick, between Hawick and Carlisle. If the Government's plans are successful—I hope that they are—in dualling the A7 to Galashiels and improving the Galashiels to Hawick link, they will provide even more traffic to be served by a totally inadequate road south from Hawick. That problem will not go away, but will get worse before it gets better. It would be helpful if we could have some idea of the Government's plans to produce an improved standard of road for that stretch in the next 10 to 15 years.
  I shall concentrate on the A7 south of Hawick at four different levels. I assume that there is no question but that the maintenance and repair of that stretch of road will continue to be adequate. May we have an assurance about
  428
  that? Secondly, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify what can be achieved by route action plans. I have already referred to the significant improvements made to the A96. I accept that significant improvements can be made, but what do they add up to? I understand that, perfectly properly, the Government are trying to reduce accidents by up to a third by the year 2000, and I support that because it is welcome. I also understand that some new money—not a large amount in the global totality of capital expenditure on roads—is available. How much of that money can we expect to be devoted to the A7 south of Hawick?
  Thirdly, I understand that the local authority has identified half a dozen or so proposals for improvement schemes that would all come with a price tag of less than £1 million for each individual project. If carried out over a reasonable period—put into the planning process over the next five years—they would make a significant improvement to overtaking opportunities on the A7 south of Hawick. That would be just about adequate to cope with the road's present needs.
  At the higher level there are two major road work schemes that would cost more than £1 million, although not much more. The Borders roads authority has identified them on the stretch of road from Hawick to the Dumfries boundary. If they could be brought into the planning process during a five-year period, they would bring the road up to a state at which it could be argued that it was beginning to be adequate to cope with the needs of the local community.
  I know that the trunk and key principal road network review that the Government are undertaking for the road network in central Scotland will compete with some of the claims and requests that I am making this morning. However, according to the study, the total motorway budget is £650 million, so the amount of money that I am asking for is not extravagant in terms of the whole budget.
  There is a degree of confusion about whether the Minister is coming to see us and, if he is, who he is coming to see. He kindly wrote to me about that, and an answer will clarify some of the confusion. If he comes—I hope that he does—I hope that he will not ignore either the roads authority or me. I recognise that there is a particular head of steam among the public in the town about the state of the A7 south of Hawick. It would be good if the Minister were prepared to come and expose himself to public opinion. If he is willing to come and discuss these important matters, I am sure that he would not dream of doing so without taking the roads authority and the sitting Members of Parliament into account.
  As a result of the trunk road that goes straight through the centre of Hawick, there is internal traffic chaos at present that is building up unacceptably in the town. There are now real problems. I fully understand that some are claiming that we should have a bypass, but my information is that a bypass would take only 10 per cent. of the through traffic away from the town and so it will, by itself, not be a long-term solution. The only long-term solution would be internal new traffic arrangements with single flows in both the north and south directions to separate the trunk route traffic. In addition, the River Teviot will have to be crossed again by another bridge in order to rationalise the internal traffic congestion that is building up.
  I hope that the Minister will not leave the local roads authority to rely on its section 94 consent but will

  429
  substantially assist it with any major capital schemes to try to resolve some of the problems in Hawick. It would be helpful if he could say something about the time scale that will be used to deal with that problem. If we could have some reaction to the work that the local authority has done on the congestion, it would go a long way to alleviating some of the evident anxieties in the town.
  As one of the principal users of trunk routes south of Edinburgh is the Lowland-Scottish Bus Group and there is a great deal of expectancy, anticipation and concern about the group's disposal in the near future, I hope that the Minister, if he has time, will say when we may expect a Government decision on that important matter.
  11.39 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I should tell the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that the proposals for Lowland-Scottish are now being considered and we hope that a decision will soon be made. We are aware of the interest in that subject. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the consultation about routes south of Edinburgh. This is a worthwhile debate and I am keenly aware of the interest in the matter shown by the hon. Gentleman and by other hon. Members.
  As I said in April, our consultation about routes south of Edinburgh was a successful exercise. There were more than 220 responses covering a wide range of interests. I announced at that time our response to the views that were presented and our decisions on the way ahead. Those will result in a package of major road improvements likely to cost upwards of £140 million which will complement and enhance the existing roads programmes.
  We have set in hand the A1 past Dunglass improvement scheme which provides a bypass to Cockburnspath and quality overtaking opportunities. That work will begin in the summer. Secondly, we have announced plans and proposals for dualling sections of that route. I have announced that consultants will be appointed as soon as possible to start preparing a dualling scheme to Haddington bypassing Glasgow, and they will carry out detailed evaluation of further dualling in due course to Dunbar. It is envisaged that the dualling will initially terminate near Haddington, but that will be the subject of a feasibility study and safety will be taken into account.
  A natural break point in traffic levels will be an appropriate point for the dualling to start. It is too early to comment on phasing of the further dualling past Haddington and onwards to Dunbar, but it may be possible to undertake the rolling programme for this work and it is likely that the same group of consultants will be used.
  The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) also expressed interest in this matter, and I shall deal quickly with the points that he made about heavy commercial traffic using the route to east coast ports. Our study considered all types of traffic using the route and concluded that dualling the whole road would not attract enough traffic to justify the high cost. The joint working group will lead local authorities to monitor the situation, and we shall also press on with the dualling to Haddington and with improvements east of Haddington.
  Generally, we need and are developing an improvement strategy for the more likely traffic route south of Dunbar.
  430
  Detailed plans will be prepared as quickly as possible on the dualling to Haddington. Consultants will be commissioned to prepare dualling plans as far as Dunbar and will consider phasing the work. It is certainly possible that the dual bypass of Haddington could follow at a fairly early stage and perhaps as a direct follow-up to the dualling up to the town.
  I was asked about the planning timetable. The economic appraisal of road schemes looks forward over 30 years. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked about the time scale for improvements. I am glad that he recognised that we are looking 15 to 20 years ahead and fully appreciated that there will be changes in traffic levels and society over that time. Our consultants for the main study looked at traffic levels, but the A1 steering group will continue to monitor traffic and councils, and other consultants who are looking at the A7 will also take a wide and long-term view.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the steering group. It will monitor traffic and, more immediately, will identify accident remedial and overtaking opportunity schemes. The time scale for accident remedial schemes can be rapid or immediate and there should be no delay in implementation. Other schemes may take longer to prepare, but I hope for early action in relation to overtaking.
  The stretch of road which crosses the border will soon be considered by the steering group with a view to a possible joint dualling scheme in conjunction with the Department of Transport. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that there would be no sense in having a dual carriageway that suddenly stopped at what in road terms is an artificial border. He asked about A7 schemes that had been identified by regional councils. All possible schemes identified by councils or other parties will certainly be considered as part of the remit given for further study of proposals for the A7 south of Hawick. I agree that a single high quality carriageway is fully justified. The Tower to Dunbar scheme is an important step towards this, and in both England and Scotland the general policy for the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh is to provide sections of improved road to allow safe overtaking opportunities and improve road safety.
  Work is now under way on the A96 Inverness to Aberdeen trunk road to develop techniques to identify effective sets of schemes which, taken together, prevent the build up of long platoons of traffic. That will be done by providing the necessary overtaking opportunities where they are needed and are most economic to provide.
  It may be possible to take advantage of these new techniques to provide a similar improvement package for the A1. The hon. Gentleman is correct about that. That is why, following discussions with the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, for East Lothian, for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), I announced that a steering group with representatives from local and central Government from north and south of the border will be formed to monitor traffic growth on the A1 and to develop a suitable programme of improvements. That has rightly been welcomed. Terms of reference are currently being drafted and will be considered at the first meeting of the group which it is expected will take place on 21 June. Invitations will shortly be sent out to the participating roads authorities.

  431
  The package of improvements that are planned for the A1 is likely to cost about £50 million and will provide substantial benefits to road users. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will be interested to know whether the steering group will include elected members. It will primarily be a technical working group and will therefore be at official level, but I am sure that regular reports will be made to elected representatives and of course we can always have meetings with elected representatives as and when they are required.
  I shall now deal with the proposals for the Borders. The most important immediate improvements will be to the A68 Dalkeith bypass for which draft orders will be published in June. More generally, traffic volumes clearly show that the greatest need for the Borders is quality access to the capital. Such access would be greatly improved by our proposal to dual the A7 between Edinburgh and Galashiels. We shall appoint consultants to investigate possible alignments for this improvement and they will take full account of the environmental issues that are involved. The consultants will also consider the scope for further improvements between Galashiels and Hawick and will define the strategic benefits of an A68-A7 link.
  The Borders communities will benefit substantially from our plans for the A68-A7 which are likely to cost at least £100 million. This major improvements programme will be further augmented by the route action plan that we are commissioning for south of Hawick. I am confident that this package of measures, which was formulated in the light of responses to our consultation paper, will provide a substantial improvement to the network.
  I am aware of the anxiety that the hon. Gentleman expressed in connection with a section of the A7 south of Hawick. That road is important to the local economy, especially to the tourist and textile industries. The possibility of a bypass at Hawick can certainly be considered, but I cannot give a commitment at this stage. To be economically viable, an improved A7 would have to attract traffic from the M74, and, as motorways are the safest category of road, the consultants' study predicted a reduction in road safety. Money to fund the improvements cannot be diverted from the A74 project without economic and environmental penalties.
  Constructing a three-lane M74 allows Scotland's main artery, the A74, to be kept fully open during the decade of construction. It also allows much of the new road to be constructed on line, thereby reducing severance and adverse environmental impacts on local communities and the surrounding countryside. For south of Hawick, improvements to the A7 will continue to be made to achieve specific local objectives. I have announced our intention to commission regional councils to design a route action plan. That will involve accident remedial schemes and smaller improvement schemes, especially for improving overtaking opportunities as and where appropriate. Langholm bypass is already in the traffic road programme and the required preparatory work and statutory procedures are under way. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made strong representations about the A7. He is very much involved because it runs through his constituency.
  432
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire may be assured that any proposals already identified by regional councils or others will be considered as a matter of course. I said in April that improvements from Galashiels to Hawick would together cost up to £20 million and that still more would be spent south of Hawick. That will bring substantial benefits and ensure that any traffic coming off the future dual carriageway at Galashiels will find a continuing high standard road on which it can travel safely.
  The remit to the councils will also specifically include Hawick, where it is clear that some early improvements are required for trunk road traffic through the town itself. Consideration will be given to suitable traffic management measures in the town to provide more satisfactory arrangements for both through traffic and local people. The most advanced traffic signals are already located in the town of Hawick. They are the only signals of their sort currently in operation in Scotland. Our proposals for the Borders are expected to cost upwards of £100 million and will provide significant long-term benefits to the whole area. It is obviously necessary to introduce remedial action programmes for safety reasons.
  It has been confirmed that the M74 fast link is a potentially useful addition to the Scottish road network. With a substantially increased public investment in motorways and trunk roads, especially in central and southern Scotland, resources for the project cannot be found in the foreseeable future without a significant impact on other schemes. It is intended further to examine the feasibility of introducing private finance. We have commissioned management consultants to hold detailed discussions with the many private sector interests that have indicated that they may wish to pursue the option of a privately funded fast link.
  The proposals outlined in our route south of Edinburgh study are clear evidence of our substantial commitment to the improvement of the road network in south-east Scotland. I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point about the dual carriageway stopping at the border and I have made our position clear. On the question of road improvements south of Dunbar and the costs involved, we must first assess need. The new steering group will advise us on the needs and the priorities. Of course, the Borders need access by a good A7 to the M6 and the motorway network. I agree that the A7 from Hawick to the border should be a good quality single carriageway and the remit to the consultants will reflect that. The consultants will also take full account of the need for a smooth transition over a safe, high-quality single carriageway south of Hawick.
  I have already referred to our plans for Hawick. A bypass would be unlikely to bring the town a great deal of relief from traffic, and because of the surrounding hills it would be very expensive. It is likely that we will concentrate on traffic management measures, but I shall look to the regional councils for their advice on that matter.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have another two minutes. That is what Mr. Speaker said.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: My understanding is that Mr. Speaker asked the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to reduce his speech by 10 minutes. I have now lost 10 minutes of my speech.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister has until 11.55 am.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That was my clear understanding of Mr. Speaker's request. I should not dream of taking a single second from the next debate.
  Safety on all trunk roads is of absolute priority. We intend route action programmes for remedial schemes to be prepared as quickly as possible and to be implemented without delay. Our proposals show that we have a strong commitment.
  A trunk and key principal road network review for Scotland has been going on for some time. It is essential that the increased funds that we are providing are directed to the right places. The study is expected to be completed in about a year's time and we shall examine all the relevant issues.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about a meeting with Members of Parliament and those locally elected. The chief executive has contacted Mrs. Findlay-Maxwell and an approach has been made to me on behalf of the council and the elected members and the proper procedures will be followed. I look forward to suitable arrangements being made in due course. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising these relevant and important matters.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a speech in the House on Tuesday evening I mentioned the firm of Taylor Woodrow, with which I have a small professional interest which is registered in the Register of Members' Interests, and omitted to mention that interest before I made my speech. I am sorry about that. It was a complete oversight and I apologise.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but it provides an opportunity for me to remind all hon. Members that during debates it is now a rule of the House—not a convention, as was previously the case—for every hon. Member to declare any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have. It is wise for hon. Members to declare that interest at the beginning of a speech.

  Kidney Patients
  11.56 am
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate to air some of the problems facing kidney patients—that is, those suffering from end-stage renal failure who are either on dialysis or awaiting a transplant.
  First, I must declare an interest: I am a kidney patient on haemo-dialysis which I receive at home, and I am president of the National Federation of Kidney Patients Associations.
  Kidney disease is the fifth most prevalent and fatal illness in Britain, hut, with the advent of an ever-increasing number of haemo-dialysis machines and the introduction of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, it is no longer the killer disease that it once was. With successful transplantation, it is an illness which can be almost completely overcome. The United Kingdom used to lag behind many European countries in the number of patients receiving dialysis, but my most recent figure of 55 patients per million of the population receiving treatment bears favourable comparison with many of our neighbours, even if we still have a fair way to go to catch up with the Federal Republic of West Germany and Switzerland in the number of patients receiving dialysis per million of the population.
  But I understand that those needing dialysis are increasing at the rate of 500 patients per year and that probably between 80 and 100 patients per million now require renal support, although, sadly, many of them do not get it. Kidney transplantation has been on a steadily rising trend since 1983 and has almost doubled during the past 10 years. All that says much for the Department of Health and the regional and district health authorities which have accepted renal replacement therapy as a form of treatment which should be available for all who need it. A dialysis machine manufacturer recently told me that demand for his equipment had fallen back to a fairly steady figure of about 300 machines a year from the time when two of three times that number were being ordered.
  What matters now is to update the older machines and encourage the creation of small, more localised, minimum care dialysis units so that kidney patients will not need to be bussed long distances to a general hospital with a dialysis ward. As I suggested during the debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, money going with the patient may have a beneficial effect in that direction, particularly when districts realise how much they are spending on kidney dialysis in regional hospitals.
  Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis has made huge strides and is running neck and neck with haemo-dialysis in the number of patients using it. CAPD allows the kidney patient to be free of machines and to live at home. Home-based haemodialysis machines achieve almost the same result, except that the patient must have a carer in attendance, or at least in earshot, all the time while he or she spends four to six hours hooked up to the machine. However, home-based dialysis, like CAPD, takes the pressure off hospital dialysis units and gives patients much greater freedom.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, dialysis requires the placing of two needles in one of the patient's arms, from which blood is drawn into the dialysis machine, cleaned by the dialyser, and then returned to the body. The

  435
  arm being used for that purpose cannot be moved, so if the machine alarms, the helper must put matters right—as she does in linking the patient up to the machine and taking him off it.
  A dialysis session lasts between four and six hours, so the attendant has to give up a fair proportion of the day to be available to the patient. All kidney patients on home dialysis receive an attendance allowance of £25. That may be enough if it is the husband or wife who helps, but not if the patient has to engage the services of a carer. My first plea to my hon. Friend the Minister is to discuss with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security whether more money can be provided. Some charitable funds are available in certain areas to help boost the money available to pay carers, but not everywhere. Few carers will work for much less than £25 per day.
  When I first suffered kidney failure, I suffered—as others do—the attendant problems. In particular, I suffered from acute anaemia, as what was left of my kidneys was failing to secrete the substance that creates haemoglobin, except at a very low level—rather less than 50 per cent. of normal. I had the characteristic yellow-white face of the anaemic renal patient, and I was aware of my acute lack of energy and a loss of general well-being.
  In 1988, my consultant asked whether I would be willing to be a guinea pig in clinical trials of what is in effect a wonder drug called erythropoetin, which aims to replicate the secretion missing from the kidneys of renal patients—and which could, he assured me, give me back my haemoglobin, my energy, and the colour to my cheeks. I agreed to join the programme, and today I would find it hard to be a kidney patient not in receipt of EPO, as it is known for short.
  I am well aware that I am one of the lucky ones. I know that EPO is very expensive, and I know also that some regional health authorities will not allow it to be prescribed to any of their kidney patients because their budgets are already overstretched. But I cannot stay silent. Not every kidney patient needs or would benefit from erythropoetin. My consultant suggests that about 1,500 of the 8,000 patients on dialysis ought to receive it, but in Oxford where I am treated he has funds enough for only 50 per cent. of those who could benefit.
  Elsewhere, the story is too often the same, yet I am told by so many, "Yes, we know that it is a wonder drug, that it can offer a dialysis patient a much-improved quality of life, and help him to return to employment—but we do not have the funds to pay for it." That is a heartbreaking message—as tough on the consultant who wants to prescribe EPO as on the patient who knows by hearsay what he or she is missing.
  I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to re-examine that issue, and I ask him to consider this question: what is the point of creating wonder drugs if, when they have been developed, the medical authorities cannot afford to prescribe them? I know that I will be told that it is for regional health authorities to decide how they spend their budgets, and that it is for them to include or exclude something such as EPO—but surely the Department can earmark part of the money going to regions specifically for
  436
  meeting the costs of new drugs, or hold back that money unless a region gives details of the drugs on which it is to be spent.
  Something must be done as a matter of urgency—or EPO must be licensed and made available on prescription from local general practitioners, even if patients still come under hospital renal consultants. I am aware that the Department of Health quite rightly believes that successful transplantation is a better and less expensive treatment than dialysis, but it has to be accepted that not everyone can have a successful transplant. While there is a shortage of organs for transplantation, dialysis is the only remedy.
  Naturally, that brings me to the subject of the transplant programme and the supply of organs. More organs are needed. We should applaud the increasing number of transplants that have taken place in the past six years, and the efforts that have been made to improve supply, but one cannot escape the ethical questions involved in transplanting pieces of the human body. Transplantation in my opinion is acceptable only when the organ is a voluntary gift from one family to another. To that extent, I am opposed to opting-out schemes, which mean that if one does not state that one's organs are not to be taken they can be plundered, whether the next of kin like it or not. However, I welcome every initiative to improve the supply of organs.
  The audit carried out under the auspices of the Medical Research Council last year gave us a much clearer picture of how many potential donors arise in intensive therapy units. It came up with a figure of 1,700, which is roughly half the old estimate, and that clarifies how much more needs to be done.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman)—who was the Under-Secretary of State for Health—who organised a seminar last November, given by the Department, on the subject of the donor scheme and the constructive suggestions that came out of that meeting.
  I wish to dwell on one idea—that of enhancing the kidney donor card scheme, or perhaps I should have said the organ donor card. The scheme could be more successful. The idea of a donor card is excellent. If one wants to give an organ, one carries a card to say so, and if anything happens, the card is there for the hospital staff to see and to act upon. It sounds so simple. However, the chance of the card going into the intensive therapy unit with the casualty is extremely slight, as the first thing that happens is that clothes are taken away before anyone is taken into the unit. Staff in the unit will not spend a great deal of time searching through possessions to see if the patients have a donor card, as they are concerned with saving life.
  A consultant asked me to question the Department about how many times the donor card produced organs for transplantation. It was unable to give me an answer. That speaks volumes about the fact that the card is not working as we would wish.
  Even if staff in the intensive therapy unit find the card, they only act upon it to the extent that they will then telephone next of kin to ask for permission to take organs. They do not only ask next of kin: they will almost certainly ask the husband or wife and other close members of the family. If anyone objects, the organs will not be taken. That seems to fly in the face of what the donor card system is meant to achieve. While there is no legal requirement for anyone to be consulted if the card is signed by the donor,

  437
  I understand that the medical profession believes it has a duty to obtain family consent, or at least the consent of the next of kin, before taking organs, and I do not wish to argue with that.
  That does not entirely invalidate the donor card, as it performs another important role. It encourages people to think about and to accept organ donation as part of everyday life, and it has been valuable. It is true also that too many card carriers have not told their families that they carry cards and therefore that they wish to donate their organs. I suggest to my hon. Friend the new slogan "Carry the card and tell your family."
  If the card is not accepted by the medical profession as having the same legal imperative as a person's will—clearly, removing organs is of a different order from leaving goods and chattels—perhaps the solution lies in the donor card being countersigned by the next of kin. It would then be unnecessary for the transplant co-ordinator to telephone the next of kin, and it would mean an end to the emotional trauma that follows the death of a loved one, when those being asked whether organs may be taken are in the wrong frame of mind to consent. That so many people consent speaks volumes for the skill and diplomacy of transplant co-ordinators who are currently at work.
  I go one stage further. I want my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the schemes in Wales and Derbyshire—Lifeline Wales and Lifeline Derbyshire; I believe that there is a similar scheme in Glasgow—whereby the names of all those carrying donor cards are stored on computers that are available to intensive therapy units. The name, address and age of a donor is placed on the computer register. Of course, if I have my way, the request to be a donor will have been made known to the next of kin. That system works in Wales. Lifeline Wales has a donation rate of 20 donors per million of population—the best in the country. There are more than 300,000 on the computer register, with a further 400 being signed up every week. The computer is connected to all intensive care units in Wales.
  Lifeline Derbyshire is similar, except that it works on a computer at Manchester university, with a terminal situated in the Chesterfield royal hospital, and is connected to local hospitals in which there are intensive therapy units. Lifeline Derbyshire has produced a modified donor card, on which is added a form on which the information to be put on to the computer can be added. I understand that, like Lifeline Wales, Lifeline Derbyshire is proving to be effective.
  Using either example, it is clear to me that putting the names of organ donors on computer is the way to make the donor card a real success. I have given my own opinion about the countersignature by the next of kin, because people responsible for Lifeline Wales agreed that that procedure would help. However, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister carefully to consider this procedure, even if it is only the donor's name which is put on the computer and the next of kin still telephoned.
  I know that there are resource implications in the proposal but, if it was possible to put the names of people wishing to give organs—all those currently carrying donor cards; I am speaking not only about kidney donors but about all those who wish to give organs—on a national computer held by the United Kingdom transplant service or on regional computers held by the various regional health authorities connected to intensive therapy units, we might increase the number of organ donors, in line with
  438
  the Welsh and Derbyshire experience. In turn, we might increase the supply of organs that are so desperately needed at this time.
  I do not need to tell my hon. Friend the Minister I hat successful kidney transplants are a much more economical way of overcoming end-stage renal failure than dialysis or dialysis coupled with the use of erythropeotin. I therefore commend the idea to him.
  12.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) on securing this debate on an issue of great importance not only to him, but to the whole community. I appreciate the irony that my arrival at the Department of Health was prompted by the departure from Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), with whom my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and I share a link. I followed my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury as parliamentary private secretary to our right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend set a high standard which I sought to emulate—incompletely, I suspect.
  It is a great pleasure to respond to the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend. Today, as always, his speech has demonstrated the depth of his experience and his understanding of the problems associated with the treatment of kidney patients within the National Health Service.
  It is important to set the issues my hon. Friend raised within the context of the NHS treatment of kidney patients, which is one of the great success stories of recent years. The increase in the number of patients whose lives have been extended by renal care since 1979 has been considerable, both for patients on various forms of dialysis and for patients who have benefited from transplants. Both groups have increased substantially. In 1979, there were just over 6,000 patients whose lives had been extended by renal care. That figure has now risen to more than 16,000 patients whose lives have been saved by the NHS because of advances in renal medicine. That is a great success story, of which everyone associated with the NHS has every reason to be proud.
  It is also important to say that we are not complacent about the future development of this aspect of care within the NHS. My hon. Friend mentioned the work sponsored by the Renal Association, which shows the scale of need for renal care in the community. The study suggests that we need to increase the number of new patients coming into renal support above the level already achieved, based on epidemiological research.
  The Renal Association came to see me last week to talk about that and I complimented the association on the quality of its research, which I believe to be soundly based and to be an object lesson, from which I hope that others will learn, on how the new health authorities after the Health Service reforms next April should discharge their responsibilities for seeking to measure need and to establish the level of need for different types of care in the NHS. In that way, as in many others, those involved in the care of kidney patients have led the way.
  My hon. Friend began by arguing the case for an extension of local dialysis units and he suggested that it might be a more appropriate way to treat kidney dialysis patients than to encourage them to come into large centres

  439
  in hospitals. Ultimately, that is a matter for each health authority to decide according to the available resources and circumstances in its own area. That issue will certainly present itself in a new and acute form after next April, when the health authorities will be established as purchasing agents on behalf of kidney patients and they will seek to ensure that the treatment available to patients is the most appropriate for those patients. It is wholly possible that that development will occur after next April.
  That change will impact to a degree on my hon. Friend's first request about the extension of attendance allowance payments to those who need carers to assist in the dialysis process at home. I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but have just one reservation about it. Other issues may argue against the provision of dialysis at home for patients who, in the normal course of events, live alone. My hon. Friend may well have suggested an alternative way forward when he referred to the need for local dialysis units rather than for assistance to be given for dialysis at home in the form of more generous attendance allowance payments. I simply enter that reservation.
  However, that is ultimately a matter for the Department of Social Security, which, in these new enlightened days, has been split from the Department of Health. I shall therefore communicate with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who is just down the corridor from me, but in another Department. I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury when my hon. Friend and I have had the chance to consider his suggestion in more detail.
  The second of my hon. Friend's substantial points related to the future of the wonder drug which I shall call EPO, because, unlike my hon. Friend, I have not learnt to pronounce its name in full. I am very much aware of the tremendous advance that that drug represents for renal medicine and of the need to ensure that we can find a way to make it available to kidney patients just as, over the past 15 years, we have made available to kidney patients all the other advances that have been made, many of which are much more expensive than EPO. We must find a way of making certain that the drug is available to the patients who need it. There is no division between my hon. Friend and I on that point.
  However, I am afraid that I do not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that the way to achieve that is through some form of central funding of the local authority's need for that drug. Ultimately, central funding can be achieved only by top-slicing the money—to use the jargon of the Department of Health—that is provided by us to the regions, and from the regions to the districts.
  In other words, if the Department of Health funds something centrally, less money is available for the regions and the districts to spend on their own account. That happens from time to time, but in my view it should happen only for the purpose of concentrating resources in areas where there might be some regional disparities. If, as is the case for kidney patients, facilities are spread fairly evenly across the country, there seems little point in top-slicing the budget of, for example, the Northern regional health authority simply to return to that health
  440
  authority a roughly equivalent amount of money that will allow it to purchase the drug or any other form of treatment.
  Therefore, I do not think that top slicing and central funding, which are two sides of the same coin, would advance the argument very far. However, I undertake to seek to work with the regions and the health authorities to ensure that, as far as possible, that drug is available. Following my meeting last week with the Renal Association, I have already asked to be given the up-to-date position about the availability of the drug, region by region. It is important that each region carefully assesses the clinical need for the drug within its own facilities and makes the appropriate plans to ensure that that need is met. That is the way forward, rather than attempting to centralise control at Richmond house.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Perhaps my hon. Friend is not aware that a kidney patient who receives erythropoetin can go back to work. If a person with a manual job suffers kidney failure, he cannot normally work, but that is not the case for someone receiving erythropoetin. If the patient goes back to work, he starts to pay taxes and those taxes go into a central pool. My hon. Friend is right to talk about top-slicing that which would otherwise go to the region in total, but I am suggesting that, through erythropoetin, the Treasury might gain more money than my hon. Friend would be giving the regions. Perhaps that additional money could be considered to be part of the grant funding.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend, as always, advances a seductive argument. Unfortunately, it is one that he must ultimately address not to me but to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We have to work on the basis that the budget available to the NHS is fixed and is part of the public expenditure survey round. I am sure that there is no division between me and my hon. Friend about the enormous advance that EPO represents and the desirability of making it available. It is simply a question of mechanics and how that can be done. The correct way is to seek to work with the regions to eliminate any blockages in the system. I should add that that is another example of a blockage in the NHS management system. We shall seek to eliminate such blockages through the reforms that will be introduced next April.
  As soon as we establish more clearly the principle that money should follow patients and that money should be directed to where patients need to be treated, problems which currently seem to represent substantial bureaucratic logjams suddenly seem simpler to resolve.
  My hon. Friend's third point was about transplants. I accept the principle that he espoused, that it is preferable, both from a clinical and a financial view, to treat a patient ultimately by a transplant rather than on dialysis. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said against moving to a system of opting out of donorship. I do not believe that that represents the way forward.
  Various options should be considered to encourage voluntary donorship of organs. I sought to do that at breakfast time this morning. I had been asked to attend the launch of a new balloon that is sponsored by two drug companies—Sandoz and Du Pont—to draw attention to the donor card system. On the way to the launch I made certain that I had my donor card with me because I was conscious that there was a risk—
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I am glad that my hon. Friend survived.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am, too. I wondered whether I would survive when the balloon collapsed on top of me. I thought that it was perhaps a new way of promoting transplants. The balloon is a serious attempt to attract media interest in the donor card system. I welcome that, and will do everything that I can to support it.
  My hon. Friend correctly drew attention to the enormously valuable work of my predecessor on organ donorship. If I can do as well as he did to promote the cause, I shall be pleased.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned some of the disadvantages of donor cards and suggested ways in which the system could be enhanced. In particular, he suggested that the card should be countersigned by the next of kin to avoid the problem of medical ethics that doctors are unwilling to use organs simply on the basis of a signed donor card. I should not like to become involved in medical ethics. They are not properly the province of politicians. However, I take note of my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps he would like to take up the matter with the appropriate medical authorities. When politicians start to advise doctors on ethical values, I suspect that we are getting into relatively deep water.
  My hon. Friend argued the case for a central computerised register, a cause which he has espoused before and for which he is well known to be an enthusiast. We are not opposed to that idea, but, in view of the practical problems, the Government should not commit taxpayers' money to a central register unless there is clear evidence from the local schemes to which my hon. Friend referred that a register would be a cost-effective way of
  442
  increasing the availability of organs for transplant. That was the conclusion reached by the working party chaired by Sir Raymond Hoffenberg which reported to us in 1987. We have implemented its main recommendations.
  I am aware of the scheme in Wales to which my hon. Friend referred. I suspect that there are other factors in the Welsh experience in addition to the register which contribute to accounting for the improved donorship record there. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Wales may have played a part in that; I do not know. We are looking at the Welsh experience and the experience in Birmingham. Although I have not been informed that we are looking at the scheme in Derby, we shall do so.
  We recognise the complexity of organ donation and accept the conclusion of the Hoffenberg working party that there is unlikely to be a simple answer to the shortage of organs. There is no panacea, but I hope that we have begun to pinpoint the real issues. As many of them are medical questions, the royal colleges have agreed to take them forward and we shall await the outcome of their deliberations with considerable interest.

  Kidney Patients

    ROYAL ASSENT
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Before I call the next hon. Member, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

    1. Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1990.

    2. Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

    3. Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990.

    4. Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990.

    5. Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990.

  Telephone Tapping
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in 1985 one of your predecessors announced to the House that the Queen had graciously assented to the passage of the Interception of Communications Act. It was the result of long concern in the House, among the public, and, in particular, among the personnel of British Telecommunications. I am particularly pleased that today's debate is attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who has a long record of representing the union that organises members within British Telecommunications.
  The Act was not forced on the House by public pressure, nor by the unease of British Telecommunications' employees. It was forced on the Government by a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Malone judgment. The Act provides the minimum degree of protection and it is deeply flawed in several ways. First, it provides a remedy only to those who are able and choose to complain about their telephone having been tapped. That implies that the person concerned knew of the tap in the first place and of the nature of its operation. In 99 out of 100 cases there is no such knowledge. Moreover, there is no requirement in the Act to inform the subject, either subsequently or during tapping, that the tap is in place.
  An amendment moved to the Bill before it was enacted is highly relevant to this Adjournment debate. It would have provided immunity to employees of British Telecom should they choose to report what they believed to be an unauthorised and unlawful tap. The amendment was rejected by the then Government.
  Perhaps the biggest flaw of all is that the Act created an interception of communications tribunal to which an aggrieved member of the public could complain. However, the tribunal is limited to investigating only those cases where a warrant has been issued to identify whether a warrant has been properly issued. It has no authority to investigate whether a tap has been placed without a warrant. If the aggrieved complainant has a tap placed without a proper warrant, the tribunal cannot proceed further. It will not notify the aggrieved complainant that his or her telephone has been tapped without a warrant. All that happens is that the complainant receives a response from the tribunal concluding that there has been no contravention of section 5(2) of the Act.
  That information can mean one of two things: either that a warrant was properly granted and the tribunal, having examined the matter, has concluded that there was full authority and therefore no contravention of the Act, or that there was no warrant and no authority and the tap was placed unlawfully, but the person receiving that information was none the wiser and did not have the information available for further action.
  As a result of the Act at least we have an annual statement from the commissioner of the tribunal who provides a report on the scale of telephone tapping. I have with me the most recent report that provides figures for the warrants issued by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland in each year since 1985. There is an intriguing feature to those figures in each of those five years as the number of warrants issued in Scotland is far higher pro rata of population than the number issued for
  444
  England by the Home Secretary. If one made a simple arithmetical calculation based on population—I appreciate that that is a crude approach to a complex subject—the number of warrants issued in Scotland is consistently 50 per cent. higher than the number issued in England. I find that puzzling as I am not aware that Scotland is facing a significantly greater terrorist or subversion threat than the metropolitan areas of England. I would appreciate some guidance from the Minister when he replies about why a consistently larger number of warrants is granted in Scotland than in England.
  The great omission from the report is that the figures provided by it relate only to the warrants issued by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. They do not cover any warrants or authorisations issued by the Foreign Secretary. That is a critical point as there is a growing belief that most telephone tapping, given the sophisticated nature of electronic communications, is now conducted by GCHQ—not MI5 or special branch—which answers to the Foreign Secretary and therefore obtains its authorisations from the Foreign Office.
  Two weeks ago a senior official of the National Communications Union was quoted in The Guardian as saying:
  "If there was an independent investigation into the number of taps at any one time, the public would be amazed"
  Against that background I want to consider the specific case of my constituent, Mr. T. McSherry. The history of his experience can be briefly told. Mr. McSherry is the acting manager of the telephone exchange in Livingston new town, in my constituency. He experienced a pattern of interference on his home telephone line and, being a technician and the acting manager of the telephone exchange, he reasonably decided to sort out the problem himself. He climbed up a set of stairs and traced his line in the attic of the excQhange. I am sure that "attic" is not the proper term, but my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon will put me right on that.
  In a remote corner of the telephone exchange Mr. McSherry found that a device had been placed on his line, which he traced to a connection in Edinburgh. As he is a technician for British Telecom, he is capable of recognising a telephone tap. Just to be certain, however, he summoned two fellow qualified engineers in the exchange to act as witnesses to the existence of the device and to the probable explanation of the device as a tap on his home telephone line.
  British Telecom has since responded to that alarming discovery by explaining that the device was one that it had placed on a number of telephone lines at random at the request of Oftel to provide random checks on the precision of the billing mechanism of British Telecom. That device would record all the telephone numbers that were called by that line.
  There are, however, a number of problems with that explanation. First, British Telecom initially responded that it had been unaware that the line belonged to one of its employees because the line was in the name of the employee's wife. That is factually incorrect: the line is in the name of Mr. McSherry and the bill is sent to him. Secondly, it is inconceivable that any engineer intending to place such a device on a line to provide a check on the billing and pricing mechanism on that line would climb to the top of the exchange, go round the back of the display unit and place the device in a hidden corner of the exchange. Any engineer placing a number of such devices

  445
  on a random basis will put them in places of the greatest convenience to him and not in places of the greatest concealment to other workers in the exchange.
  The reason why the explanation seems implausible is that Mr. McSherry is the acting manager of the telephone exchange. It seems unlikely that British Telecom has been through an exercise of placing random checks on lines in his telephone exchange without him or anyone else in the exchange being aware of it.
  Mr. John McWilliam: I declare my interest as a Member sponsored by the National Communications Union. I have checked the matter about which my hon. Friend is speaking. The device discovered was not of the nature of a device normally used to check meters. The witnesses who checked out the existence of the tap found that it was just that—a tap.
  Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great technical qualification. We have, then, a situation in which three employees of British Telecom, all skilled and qualified personnel, recognise a tap placed on a line of an employee of BT.
  I have had two full discussions with my constituent seeking to identify whether there is any basis for Mr. McSherry becoming a legitimate target for surveillance, and I must report that I am baffled. Mr. McSherry has no criminal record, he has not the remotest link with any terrorist organisation, he has not been particularly active in his union, and he is not a member of any political organisation or has any history of political activity. I do not, in saying that, concede that had he been a trade union activist or a member of a political party he would have been a legitimate target for suspicion. I merely report that he was not, which makes it even more baffling to understand why anyone in the security services should have regarded him as a legitimate target for surveillance or why he should have become subject to a telephone tap.
  I also report—I do so without necessarily endorsing it—that there is a suspicion in some quarters that, as Mr. McSherry at the time was the acting manager of the exchange, there may have been a desire on the part of people in higher quarters of BT to assure themselves of Mr. McSherry's loyalty and soundness before making his appointment and promotion permanent. I am not in a position to take a view on that. But if it is indeed the case that the tap was not placed by the security services nor by BT acting for them, but that BT so acted without warrant, then BT committed a criminal offence, and we should view that with gravity.
  I wrote to the Secretary of State—as I am sure the Minister will have been briefed—drawing attention to the situation, and I can report satisfaction to the extent that, within days, the tap was removed from the line. I have subsequently received a reply from the Secretary of State providing me with a leaflet about the interception of communications tribunal, but not much else. I wish to share with the House this critical passage in that letter:
  "If Mr. McSherry believes that his telephone is being unlawfully intercepted, he should report his suspicions to the police. The police cannot, however, investigate questions relating to any interception which may have been authorised by the Secretary of State under section 2 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. This is a matter for the Interception of Communications Tribunal."
  There followed a passage saying that I was being sent a leaflet about that tribunal.
  446
  The problem with that response is that at present neither my constituent nor I knows, nor are we informed by the letter, whether the interception was authorised. Moreover, the House will recall from my opening remarks that should we complain to the interception of communications tribunal and it finds that it was not properly authorised, it will not tell us. The tribunal will merely report that it has not found a contravention of section 2 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
  That begs an interesting problem for my constituent and I. We have evidence that there was a tap, that that tap was witnessed by three people each of whom was qualified to recognise a tap and that there is patent evidence on which one could go to the police and say that an interception took place and that it should be investigated to identify whether there had been a criminal offence. But to go to the police we are first required to know whether the tap was authorised, because, if it was, the police have no role in the matter.
  I have sought to raise this matter before in circumstances in which a Minister must reply, and the critical question for which one looks to the Minister for guidance is whether we should properly complain to the police because the tapping was not authorised or properly complain to the tribunal because it was authorised. Even in terms of the Secretary of State's reply, we are entitled to that guidance to know which authority to place our complaint before.
  I raise the case partly because I have constituents, both Mr. McSherry and his wife, who have been much distressed by the experience and believe that they have a legitimate grievance. I also have constituents who are fellow employees of Mr. McSherry in the telephone exchange and feel a degree of stress because when one of their colleagues comes under surveillance it brings into question their own relationship with British Telecom. However, it is not just to ventilate the grievances of those constituents that I use the procedure of the Adjournment debate. I do so also to raise the wider issues that arise out of my constituents' history.
  If a telephone exchange manager is not safe from being tapped, which member of the public is? If the manager of a telephone exchange, owned and run by British Telecom, cannot obtain satisfactory replies to his inquiries and representations at British Telecom, which member of the public or British Telecom client can? That is why I have raised the matter in the House. I hope that the Minister, who has 15 minutes in which to respond, will be more forthcoming than the Secretary of State has been by letter or British Telecom has been to its employee.
  12.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): In the course of his remarks the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) asked about the number of Scottish warrants. I cannot comment on the number of Scottish as opposed to English warrants, but the commissioner has attested in his annual report to the fact that all Scottish warrants have been properly issued for the correct purposes.
  I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said about the alleged tapping of his constituent's telephone line. I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of

  447
  State on 3 April this year and received from him a letter outlining the action open to his constituent if he believed that his telephone calls were being unlawfully intercepted.
  It has been the convention of successive Governments not to discuss individual cases of alleged interception. I have no intention of departing from that practice today. Therefore, I have no comment on the allegation made by Mr. McSherry, which, in the first instance, is a matter for British Telecom. Thereafter, Mr. McSherry may wish to take account of the advice in the letter of my right hon. and learned Friend to the hon. Member for Livingston to the effect that, if Mr. McSherry believed that his telephone calls were being unlawfully intercepted, he should report his suspicions to the police. The letter of my right hon. and learned Friend also informed the hon. Gentleman that questions relating to any interception that may have been authorised by a Secretary of State under section 2 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 are matters for the interception of communications tribunal. Therefore, it may be helpful to the House if I explain the provisions of the Act and the protection it affords the individual who believes that he may be the subject of unlawful interception.
  It was a Conservative Government who introduced the Interception of Communications Act 1985, which put on a statutory basis for the first time the framework and procedures for the lawful interception of communications. One of the most important aspects of the Act, and one to which Parliament gave particularly close attention, was the need to provide protection for the individual by making unlawful interception a criminal offence. The Act also sought to provide an effective means of redress for any individual in respect of whom a warrant had been improperly issued. I shall deal in more detail with those important points in due course.
  The Government believe that the properly controlled interception of communication for certain limited but important purposes is not only justified but essential in the public interest. For example, major criminals, or those engaged in subversive terrorist or espionage activity, should not be free to make use of the postal or telecommunications systems to further their activities with immunity from protection.
  If normal methods of investigation are not available, it is right that the means should exist to obtain information about such activities through the interception of communications, as long as this is carried out under clear safeguards and strict controls. Interception has made possible the prevention and detection of serious crime, including major robberies, crimes of violence and, increasingly, drug offences, and has led to the prosecution of those responsible. It has also been vital in the prevention of terrorism and for safeguarding the security of the nation.
  The Interception of Communications Act 1985 empowers Secretaries of State to issue warrants for the interception of communications. The postal and telecommunication companies to whom the warrants are addressed are obliged to disclose the contents of the communications covered by the warrants. My right hon. and learned Friend signs warrants in respect of Scotland at the request of the police and Customs and Excise for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime and at the
  448
  request of the police in certain counter terrorist cases. The circumstances in which warrants can be issued, the criteria applied and those to whom the intercepted material can be disclosed are set out in section 2 of the Act.
  In relation to warrants that are issued by my right hon. and learned Friend in respect of serious crime, I should perhaps explain that section 10(3) of the Act defines serious crime as conduct which, being an offence, involves the use of violence, or results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common criminal purpose, or is an offence for which a person of 21 years or more without previous convictions could reasonably be expected to receive a term of imprisonment of three years or more. For warrants issued in respect of counter terrorism, my right hon. and learned Friend must be satisfied that there is terrorist activity likely to injure the interests of national security. Section 2 of the Act also provides that my right hon. and learned Friend would not consider a warrant necessary unless the information required could not reasonably be obtained by other means.
  As I have already said, the Interception of Communications Act provides very clear safeguards and controls and it is important that I should remind the House of these. Under section 1 of the Act it is a criminal offence for any interception of communications in the public telephone and postal systems to take place outside those statutorily provided for by warrant signed by a Secretary of State. This is a key protection for private communications. The interception of communications is a most serious matter and having committed their communications to the public systems members of the public are entitled to expected confidentiality. The improper use of information gained from unlawful interception could have very serious consequences for individuals personally, for their businesses or in other ways. The seriousness of the offence of unlawful interception is reflected in the maximum penalties available. On conviction on indictment an accused could face imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
  Mr. McWilliam: I do not think that any of us takes issue with interception of communications in the context of the crimes that the Minister mentions. In 1983 the Government had a chance to make interception of communications lawful for such crimes but they voted down my amendments to the Telecommunications Bill. Those amendments gave proper redress to citizens who thought that they might be unlawfully tapped. At the present time citizens have no redress.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman tabled amendments when the Telecommunications Bill was being debated. However, in this debate the principle is absolutely clear. It is the normal practice of Ministers neither to confirm nor to deny suggestions that interception has taken place. The courses of action open to people who believe that their telephones have been intercepted are evident. They may either approach the police or complain to the interception of communications tribunal.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I should like to pursue that specific point. The Minister is right to say that the Secretary of State has pointed to those two alternatives which are available to my constituent. The problem for my

  449
  constituent and me is that the police cannot investigate tapping if it was authorised and the tribunal cannot investigate it if it was not. Before we can follow the Secretary of State's advice, we need to know whether the tap was authorised because, without that information, we do not know to whom we should take our complaint.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman answered his own question in his letter of 3 April, when he wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland as follows:
  "I would myself of course like to know whether a warrant has been issued in this case, but appreciate that you may not be able to confirm or deny the existence of such a warrant."
  Questions of interception under the Act involve matters of national security or serious crime. To discuss publicly details of any individual case would risk compromising that system, which I am not prepared to do. However, during the debate I hope that I shall succeed in explaining the safeguards and controls in the system.
  The police have a role in investigating complaints made to them about unlawful interception. They cannot, however, investigate questions relating to the propriety of any interceptions that have been authorised by a Secretary of State under section 2 of the Act. For that purpose, the 1985 Act established an independent tribunal to investigate complaints about the improper use of the power of the Secretary of State to issue, renew, modify or cancel warrants. The tribunal president is Mr. Justice Macpherson of Cluny and the other members of the tribunal are senior figures in the legal profession. The tribunal is quite independent of Government. It acts only on receipt of an application and it determines whether there has been a warrant associated with the applicant in the manner specified in the Act, and for that purpose it has full powers to call on any official documents or information that it may need.
  If a warrant exists, the tribunal investigates whether there has been any contravention of the Act in relation to it, applying for that purpose the principles of judicial review. If it concludes that there has been a contravention, it must give notice to the applicant of its conclusion and it is required to report its findings to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I should, however, make it clear that only if it concludes that there has been a contravention does it inform the applicant of the existence of a warrant. The tribunal can also take a number of other steps if it concludes that a contravention has taken place. It can quash the relevant warrant or order the destruction of material intercepted under it and award compensation to the applicant. There is no appeal against the tribunal's decisions.
  450
  The Act also provides for the appointment of a commissioner to keep under review the carrying out by the Secretaries of State of their functions under the Act. The Act requires that the commissioner shall be a person who holds or has held high judicial office, and since the commencement of the Act in 1986 that task has been carried out by Lord Justice Lloyd. The commissioner has the task of reviewing the system of authorised interception and has access to those who are engaged in it in order to establish whether the system is being properly conducted.
  The commissioner is concerned with both statutory requirements and administrative procedures. He also has a duty to give the tribunal all the assistance it may require. He is therefore able to advise the tribunal, as it may see fit to ask him, on any matters falling within his knowledge that are relevant to the tribunal's functions under the Act. In turn, the tribunal is required to send the commissioner a copy of every report it makes to the Prime Minister in any case where there has been a contravention of the provisions of the legislation falling within his jurisdiction. The Act also requires the commissioner to make ad hoc reports to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister if at any time it appears to him that there has been a contravention of those sections of the Act empowering Secretaries of State to issue warrants which have not been the subject of a report by the tribunal. In addition, the commission is required under the Act to make an annual report to the Prime Minister, as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, on the carrying out of his functions. The Prime Minister is required to lay before Parliament a copy of every annual report submitted by the commissioner.
  I hope that that explanation demonstrates the seriousness with which the question of interception is dealt with, the explicit safeguards against unlawful interception that are provided for by the 1985 Act and also the remedies for unlawful interception that are available. Hon. Members who wish to assess in detail the operation of the Act may care to refer to Lord Justice Lloyd's annual reports—as indeed, the hon. Gentleman did. I appreciate that this is a sensitive and controversial matter, but the Interception of Communications Act 1985 provides a very tightly controlled framework within which Secretaries of State must operate. I hope the whole House will be reassured in the light of what I have said that matters relating to interception of communications are given very careful attention and are fully subject to the controls provided for in the Act.

  Mr. and Mrs. F. Howard
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for coming to the House to deal with an important point affecting two of my constituents. She has had to reschedule an important meeting with the National Association of Probation Officers, but I know that, just as it deals with the welfare of individuals, so must Back Benchers and Ministers deal with individuals as individuals when the need arises, and this is one such instance.
  My hon. Friend will know from having seen the correspondence in respect of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Howard of 5 Kentchurch close, Hereford, that we have been in correspondence on the matter for some two years now. That is not to say that the problem arose two years ago. It started in 1978 and came to a head in 1983. It was as a consequence of a festering sense of grievance that Mr. Howard first came to see me in 1988. Since then we have been running the issue and, accordingly, I felt it appropriate to explore it on the Floor of the House.
  My hon. Friend will know that Mrs. Howard reached retirement age on 10 May 1977 and on 31 May 1978 decided to draw the graduated retirement benefit to which she had contributed. My hon. Friend will be aware of the defects of the old graduated retirement pension scheme, and the amount involved was a matter of coppers. On that basis, not unnaturally, Mrs. Howard did not bother to tell Mr. Howard that she had taken that course of action. To Mrs. Howard it was a matter of peanuts; and to Mr. Howard, it was, in his phrase, "a few coppers" and irrelevant.
  At that time, the receipt of graduated pension did not debar a wife from reaping the benefits of the husband working beyond retirement age to enhance their pension entitlement—to achieve the increments to her basic retirement pension as well as his. Here we reach the start of the area of confusion.
  My hon. Friend will know that the regulations changed on 5 April 1979. Since Mrs. Howard retired before that change in 1979, the question of any problem arising as a consequence could not occur. Therefore, Mrs. Howard could not be aware of any difficulties that might come about as a result of continuing to draw her graduated pension when her husband reached retirement age in October 1980 after the change in regulations.
  When, perfectly properly, the Department of Health and Social Security, as it then was, sent Mr. Howard form BR1 asking whether he intended to retire or to continue working, he completed it to the best of his ability with the knowledge that he had. This was a personal matter. He discussed with his wife whether he should continue working if the opportunity arose, but he completed it in June 1980 still unaware that his wife was drawing the graduated retirement benefit. I emphasise that he answered "No" in good faith to the question in section 5 asking whether he was aware of his spouse being in receipt of graduated pension or of any other benefit of that nature.
  Having examined the form myself, I may say that that question is not designed to ring alarm bells. To those in the know and who work on such matters all the time, the words "graduated retirement benefit" mean something. The ordinary person in the street may understand the meaning of "graduated retirement pension" and of
  452
  "graduated retirement contributions", but not of "graduated retirement benefit". There is a failure to match the two. It certainly did not ring any alarm bells for Mr. Howard.
  Because of Mr. Howard's negative response to that question, when the form arrived back at the DSS office, it did not ring any alarm bells there either. There was a misfit. There was not the facility for the office to tell Mr. Howard, "Because you answered yes to that question, a different set of circumstances apply." Because the question was answered in the negative, the office went along the path that told it there was nothing to worry about and that no problems would arise.
  I take this opportunity to pay fulsome tribute to DSS officials in Hereford. They have been very helpful to Mr. Howard in trying to research his difficulties and to put their fingers on where the problems lay. Not unnaturally, Mr. Howard spent some time consulting those officers before coming to see me, and they were extraordinarily helpful. Perhaps I ought not to use the word "extraordinarily", because I find the DSS people in Hereford to be always very good. I count myself very fortunate in that regard. Nevertheless, the officers there were unable to throw much light on the saga, except to emphasise that there appeared to be an element of confusion.
  Mr. Howard decided to accept his firm's invitation to continue working beyond retirement age, in the belief that by so doing he would enhance the retirement pension for both himself and his wife. Because he and the DSS were unaware of his wife's receipt of a graduated retirement pension, the office did not, and could not, advise him of the option that became available after the change in regulations, for a wife to withdraw from receipt of her graduated pension, so as to be able to enjoy increments in basic pension in due course. So the problem ground on.
  After working for an additional three years and four months, Mr. and Mrs. Howard—Mr. Howard especially—were devastated to discover that their income was not to be as they had anticipated. When that first came to light, the shortfall was £5·11 a week, and the discrepancy has now increased to £7·05 a week. That is no small amount to someone whose sole income is a state retirement pension. Having worked beyond retirement age, the Howards find that being £7·05 a week out of pocket puts a different complexion on matters and on how they view their retirement.
  In the correspondence that has been exchanged, the question arose whether Mrs. Howard was at any time informed of the situation. On the face of it, the mechanism for doing so is comprehensive. Lord Henley, who is my hon. Friend's colleague as Under-Secretary for Social Security in the other place, pointed out to me in his letter of 8 January 1990 that the Department's practice is to keep a record of forms issued and the relevant dates. According to the DSS, Mrs. Howard's pension papers are clearly marked as BR2101 and were issued on 28 July 1980.
  BR2101, which has undergone a number of revisions since it was first published in 1979, would have set out for Mrs. Howard, had she received it, the current position and the way in which any changes could affect her. If Mrs. Howard had received it, it would have set out the position on her graduated pension.
  Two issues result from that. First, it is obvious that there was some confusion when the regulations changed. The wording of the forms advising people of their options

  453
  is now far better than it was in 1979–80. When the regulations changed, it was not clear that some confusion could arise, and when it did, the forms were improved. It would be difficult now for people to fall into the trap that Mr. and Mrs. Howard find themselves in. Secondly, Mrs. Howard keeps personal papers meticulously, and it is clear that she did not receive the form BR2101, and as she did not know that she should have received it—why should she?; we only retire once—she did not look for it.
  As far as I am aware, DSS papers are not normally sent by recorded delivery. In my experience, the Post Office is usually reliable, and special precautions are not required. However, I am disclosing a chapter in which one disaster followed another. I sometimes console myself with the saying that, if something starts to go wrong it will go right royally wrong. Macpherson's law of cussedness comes into play. It is not unknown for the occasional letter to go astray. All of us have experience of that happening. Although it is not a regular occurrence, it often happens to important papers with infuriating predictability.
  I have much sympathy with Mr. Howard, or I should not have pursued the matter for the past two years. He has a genuine grievance—the knowledge that, if his wife had never worked and had not contributed in her own right, the extra time that he spent working would have resulted in an increased basic retirement pension for her at the full level, not the reduced level that she now receives. His extra three years and four months of work would have resulted in an enhanced pension for both of them.
  In his letter to me on 22 August 1988, the then Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Social Security, the noble Lord Skelmersdale, pointed out that, until the April 1979 change, ability to receive full basic increments and graduated retirement benefit was an anomaly. I am not convinced of that. The anomaly is the reverse. Perhaps there was not much understanding of graduated retirement benefit, but it was perceived to be different from normal national insurance contributions. The contributions were put into two different columns on the payslip. The anomaly is the reverse because Mrs. Howard made graduated pension contributions—as did many other people—for no return.
  I have a two-part solution to suggest to my hon. Friend because, in the Howard case, a genuine grievance needs to be redressed and we must consider how the problem should be addressed in future.
  Surely, in a genuine difficulty of this kind, the first possible solution is that Mrs. Howard should be topped up to the extent of an additional £7·05 a week, as that would properly reflect the extra contribution that was made by Mr. Howard in his extra working time, without sacrificing the basic principle of having no duplication of benefit. The taxpayer is in exactly the same position. Mr. Howard is in exactly the same position as he would have been if he had tackled the matter the other way around, and Mrs. Howard would be in receipt of the £7·05. That is not unreasonable, because that is what the taxpayer would have expected to pay out had there not been a "misfit" of paper work.
  The second possible solution is that arrangements be made for Mrs. Howard now to discontinue the receipt of graduated pension and therefore to qualify to receive the retirement pension increment of £7·05. That would roughly equate to the same position.
  Those are the two ways in which I should like the difficulty to be resolved. My hon. Friend the Minister may
  454
  have reasons why they will not be practicable, and I should like to hear them. It has been agreed by all that graduated pensions were a con and were understood by all too few. They needed scrapping, and they were scrapped. There is obviously still scope for confusion and injustice.
  I should like my hon. Friend to tell me that she will review all the arrangements relating to the hangover of graduated pension and will look carefully again at the regulations to see how such nonsense can be ameloriated. There is a great danger that the state will be seen to be mean when genuine people are caught up through circumstances that may or may not have been in their control but in which they acted in good faith at all times.
  1.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I should like to begin by echoing the sentiment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) regarding the circumstances of Mr. and Mrs. Howard's case. It is always unfortunate when individuals feel aggrieved by what they perceive to be unfair treatment by a Government Department. I knew that my hon. Friend has pursued this matter mast diligently with my Department on behalf of his constituents over a considerable period. I must congratulate him on his determined advocacy—as patient and courteous as always—and on the elequence of his speech. I thank him for his generous tribute to Department of Social Security staff in Hereford.
  I shall address the points that my hon. Friend raised. However, he will understand that, as is often the case in social security matters, this case raises a number of complex and interrelated issues—first, the continued payment of graduated retirement pension; secondly, the position of individuals who decide not to claim their pension and earn increments to it; thirdly, the question of a woman's pension based on her husband's contributions; fourthly, the effect of claiming one benefit on another; and, fifthly, the responsibilities of the Department and the claimant. I should like to refer first to the graduated retirement pension.
  As my hon. Friend is aware, between 1961 and 1975 a graduated pension was introduced as part of the state scheme. Its aim was to relate a person's retirement income to his or her pre-retirement income by way of an earnings-related element payable in addition to the basic pension. Payment of graduated contributions based upon one's level of earnings built up units of entitlement to graduated pension, and the size of graduated pension was determined by the number of units earned. My horn. Friend mentioned the change in legislation, and it is the case that the retirements of Mr. and Mrs. Howard spanned the change in legislation, but of course the point at issue is the choice that they made when Mr. Howard decided to retire. I shall refer to that point, of course.
  The change in legislation was the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, which replaced the graduated pension scheme with the state earnings-related pension scheme. However, there are still many individuals with an entitlement to graduated pension on the basis of their contributions between 1961 and 1975—indeed, I am one of them. I should not wish to insult my hon. Friend by suggesting that he is as well.
  The Social Security Pensions Act 1975, as amended by the Social Security Act 1989, provides that a person on

  455
  reaching pensionable age may choose not to claim state retirement pension and may earn extra pension—known as increments—for five further years. The practical effect of this is that an individual can increase the value of his or her pension by 7·4 per cent. per annum—37 per cent. over the five years.
  Many individuals choose to do that and for many different reasons. For example, they may choose to do so for tax reasons or because they have a younger spouse and wish to retire at the same time. Many wish to continue in work beyond pensionable age and prefer to increase their pension by not claiming it until they either cease work or reach the age of 65 for women, or 70 for men, whichever comes first.
  The concept underlying the policy of pension increments is to increase the pension of individuals who, by choice, forgo claiming any part of their pension entitlement from the state. It is not uncommon, as indeed was the case for Mr. and Mrs. Howard, for a woman to reach retirement age before her husband, at which stage she has the right to claim and receive any retirement pension she has earned on her own contributions during her working life. Her husband will continue to pay national insurance contributions in respect of his future state pension. As my hon. Friend will be aware, under pensions legislation, a man's contributions also provide his wife with an entitlement to state pension.
  Again, it is not uncommon for a husband whose wife has already reached pensionable age on reaching pension age to continue in work or, for whatever reason, to choose to defer claiming his state pension entitlement. Should he do so, he will earn extra pension increments as long as he chooses not to claim his pension, up to a maximum of five years. His decision will also affect his wife, in that she likewise will not receive her pension derived from his contributions. In those circumstances, she too will earn increments, but only if she is not receiving any part of her own pension entitlement, including graduated retirement pension. I stress that point, as that is the case with my hon. Friend's constituents.
  Central to a contributory benefits policy is the effect of the receipt of one social security benefit on the receipt of another. The arrangements affecting graduated pension and pension increments are consistent with that policy and are supported by logical argument. I remarked earlier that the underlying concept of pension increments is to recognise the situation of individuals who choose not to draw on their entitlement to contributory benefits. It follows that, if any claim to those benefits is made, no extra pension may be earned. As I will now explain more fully, those are the circumstances in which Mr. and Mrs. Howard found themselves.
  I hope that hon. Members will not consider it inappropriate if I repeat some of the points made by my hon. Friend in describing the action taken by my Department in Mr. and Mrs. Howard's case. So that the House can fully consider Mrs. Howard's case, it may be useful to outline the circumstances surrounding her claim. Mrs. Howard reached 60 years of age in May 1978. She claimed her entitlement to state pension and was awarded graduated retirement benefit of, as my hon. Friend said, a
  456
  matter of pence per week to commence on 1 June 1978. Mrs. Howard chose, as many people do in that situation, to receive her payments of graduated pension annually.
  Mr. Howard reached 65 years of age on 13 October 1980. In June of that year, my Department issued Mr. Howard with the necessary claims package to enable him to claim, or not claim if he so chose, his state pension. In reply, Mr. Howard said that he wished not to claim his pension from October, but would continue in work beyond pensionable age.
  Subsequently, on 28 July 1980, my Department sent a provisional entitlement notice to him. The form contained information about the effect of deferring retirement upon one's pension and also pointed out the effect of a spouse receiving any part of her own pension during the period of deferment. The form included a specific reference to graduated retirement pension.
  From correspondence and from what my hon. Friend has said, I am aware that his constituents contest that they received the form BR2101, which contains the information regarding deferment and pension increments. We have of course looked into this carefully and our records confirm that both Mr. and Mrs. Howard were separately sent the relevant documents. Had they not received the forms, they would not know the outcome of the pension application which Mr. Howard had made in June. Routinely, both of them were sent a form, and the issue of those forms was recorded by the Department.
  Obviously the Department has a responsibility in administering social security benefits to ensure that information is made available to help customers to make informed decisions—I believe that the Department does everything possible to discharge that responsibility.
  My hon. Friend correctly noted that there are provisions which allow my Department to consider making ex gratia payments to compensate for any loss of income. The criteria for making such payments are clear: the onus of proof lies with the claimant to prove that he or she has been misled or misinformed by an official of the Department and, because of this, has suffered a loss of income. If we receive representation that this is the case, as with the case of my hon. Friend's constituents, we examine the circumstances carefully and sympathetically to establish whether there are grounds for considering an ex gratia payment. There are occasions on which the Department has considered itself at fault in cases and has taken the necessary steps to make compensatory ex gratia payments.
  We have, of course, given this consideration to the Howards' case. Indeed their case would have been considered each time my hon. Friend sent in the next instalment of the story. However, I am satisfied that, as I have outlined, there are no grounds to support making such a payment. I do not believe that the Department misled or misinformed Mr. and Mrs. Howard. Indeed, according to the Department's records, Mr. and Mrs. Howard were sent notices of entitlement, which informed them of the effect of Mrs. Howard continuing to claim her graduated pension.
  My hon. Friend feels that it is unfortunate that an individual who has worked and earned an entitlement to a small sum of graduated pension ends up receiving less than someone who has no entitlement to a pension based upon his or her own contributions. Perhaps it will help the House if I comment briefly on the national insurance fund and graduated contributions.

  457
  Although graduated contributions were calculated separately from flat rate contributions, it is a mistake to think that they were reserved exclusively for the payment of graduated pensions. Together with flat rate contributions and the Exchequer supplement, they were paid into the national insurance fund from which the full cost of all contributory benefits is met. An individuals' contributions are not invested for his or her own future use or that of their dependants. I know that my hon. Friend understands that the scheme is by its nature redistributive and operates on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, with today's benefits being paid for by today's contributors, who will in turn be supported by the next generation of contributors.
  I am also aware that my hon. Friend believes that this case should be resolved so as to leave Mrs. Howard no worse off than she would have been had she not received her graduated pension. As I have already explained, the only mechanism open to the Department is that of ex gratia payments, and I have already explained why that mechanism would be extremely difficult in this case. In any case, I do not believe that such payments would be appropriate where a claimant represents that he or she wishes to reconsider a decision that was made many years earlier.
  I reassure my hon. Friend that we have examined every aspect of this case most carefully—again and again. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to him today. I also assure him that the good faith of Mr. and Mrs. Howard is not in question; nor has it been questioned at any stage in correspondence between my hon. Friend and the Department. I congratulate him again on the way in which he presented his case. He has allowed the House to discuss the important issues raised.
  I regret any case in which individuals feel that they have been unfairly treated. I sympathise with any such individuals, but I am satisfied that, in this case, the Department has acted fairly and impartially in applying the law as it relates to the circumstances of Mr. and Mrs. Howard.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend examine the regulations to see whether any improvements can be made, as I requested?
  Mrs. Shephard: I reassure my hon. Friend that the Department continually reviews and monitors the performance of all its benefits.

  Health Service (Gwynedd)
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Debates on the financial crisis in Gwynedd health authority seem to have become a regular feature in the Chamber. We had one in June 1988 and another in March last year. The Minister of State has good reason to remember the latter debate because on that occasion, as on this, he had to stand in for his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who was then, as now, indisposed. We send him our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
  The Minister also deserves our commiserations because once again he has picked up a poisoned chalice. He needs no reminding about the financial crisis and cuts in the Health Service in Gwynedd. For example, the closure of services at Llandudno general hospital has been a matter for public outcry in his constituency. Whatever brief he may have today, the Minister knows in his heart of hearts that the present situation cannot continue. There must be a resolution of the perpetual state of crisis in the Health Service in Gwynedd.
  The present position goes back to three years ago when a team of consultants published a damning indictment of the lack of budgetary control in Gwynedd health authority. The authority then had a cash shortfall of £1·3 million. A desperate programme of action was drawn up to bring the authority back into balance, supposedly by March 1990. The consultants said that the plan was feasible but to my mind it was entirely and hopelessly unrealistic.
  The programme was based on closing six valuable community hospitals. The consultants thought that that could be achieved within 12 months. How on earth the Welsh Office allowed such a palpably unrealistic time scale to be adopted defies credulity when it was clear that five of the six proposals would be fiercely opposed by the communities affected. The closures also showed a cavalier contempt for the Welsh Office planning paper SPP5 representing a complete departure from its procedures. Even if the five hospitals had been closed 18 months ago as the consultants assumed, the claimed saving would have amounted to about £1 million a year. The shortfall now facing the authority is £4 million a year. So let us have no excuses that the delay in the closures caused the present crisis.
  While I am referring to hospital closures, I again protest that Porthmadog, in my constituency, will be left without a single hospital as a result of the changes. It will be dependent on a converted workhouse in a nearby village. I also protest at the way in which Caernarfon has been treated and the closure of the cottage hospital there. It is a much-loved hospital which has served the town well. I know that because it was at that hospital that our two sons died. I remain committed to turn every stone possible to ensure that the health authority and the Welsh Office are not allowed to get away with robbing the town of such vital services.
  I ask the Minister to look again at the way in which Caernarfon is being left with no casualty cover whatever following the cottage hospital closure. Will he review the lack of information given to the public about alternative provision? In particular, will he undertake to review the working of the alternative arrangements that the health

  459
  authority is preparing in the context of long-term plans for the health services in the Caernarfon area, about which the Secretary of State wrote to the authority on 20 April.
  Will he also review the provision of GP beds in Caernarfon to see whether it is possible to replace the lost 14 beds at the cottage hospital by using the empty fourth ward in Eryri hospital in Caernarfon for that purpose?
  Can the Minister clarify what will be the position when the cottage hospital building is disposed of by the authority? It was built largely by voluntary subscription in the town. If a use for that building can be found that is compatible with the original purposes—perhaps in the context of developing care-in-the-community proposals in the wake of the NHS Bill—could the authority be prevailed on to regard such a proposal sympathetically? Can the Minister guarantee that any funds obtained from the sale of the hospital will be available to improve the Health Service provisions in the Caernarfon area?
  The crisis facing Gwynedd health authority is infinitely worse. I understand that Deloittes, the consultants, are again investigating the position. Can the Minister tell the House when we can expect their findings?
  The extent and depth of the crisis was brought home graphically to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and me last month when we met some 200 employees of the health authority. They poured out their souls to us, describing their despair at the way in which cuts were hitting services. It was not in any way a politically motivated gathering. It was a cross-section of professional health care workers, from ancillary to consultant level, who told us of the extent of the rundown.
  We heard of wards being left empty, posts frozen and nurses who worked all day, going home at six o'clock only to return at 10 pm to work a night shift because of the lack of cover caused by frozen jobs. I was told of stroke victims unable to get physiotherapy or speech therapy because of staff shortages. We heard of services, such as the child development unit, in danger of being closed and of cuts in the family planning service. The staff spoke of the breakdown of trust between the top administration and those delivering the services. They felt that they were being asked to shoulder an ever-increasing workload with inadequate staff resources.
  An example of how this continuing crisis has affected one department can be seen from the case of radiology. In 1983, in the old hospitals, about 1,200 cases were being treated a month by 28 radiographers. Initially after opening ysbyty Gwynedd, the number of radiographers increased to 32, but it quickly dropped back to 28. In 1990, the same complement of staff is having to deal with 5,000 cases a month. Because of the freeze on heads, there are only 24 radiographers in situ. Over the summer, with the holiday period at hand and any further freezing of jobs, the number could be down to 15. Clearly, that is inadequate. A year ago the waiting list was only three weeks, but now it is up to 20 weeks and it is likely to worsen this summer to about 30 weeks. Those who are caught by such a waiting time include patients possibly suffering from cancer of the colon. One member of staff has even suggested that the policy of freezing radiography posts is deliberately undertaken to reduce the number of cases that have to be treated, thereby avoiding expenditure on patients. The situation is grotesque.
  460
  During the past three weeks there was a strike by senior secretaries—mercifully it was settled this week—who since last November have been trying to negotiate a settlement, but they have found nothing but prevarication.
  All that has had a traumatic effect on staff morale. There seems to be a breakdown of confidence between senior managers and those who provide the services. One specialist told me that he had not seen a senior administrator for six months or a member of the authority, other than the chair, for six years. No wonder morale is at rock bottom.
  If asked, the health authority attributes the cause of the dilemma to three factors. The first is underfunding by the Welsh Office. Provision is too low to cover wage settlements and inflation. The allegation was supported by the Deloittes report of 1987, which stated that that had
  "contributed significantly to the deterioration of the financial position."
  Since 1987 that has cumulatively worsened.
  Secondly, the health authority says that the capital allocation, based by the Welsh Office on a formula which is unfair, gives Gwynedd, which has more than 80 per cent. of the population of Wales, a capital allocation of under 4 per cent. I understand that the Welsh Office is undertaking a review of the capital allocation methods. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when that will be completed.
  The third bone of contention is the revenue allocation formula which is used by the Welsh Office. The health authority feels that the use of an element called the standardised mortality ratio is unfair because the authority is penalised for keeping people alive. If more people died, it would get more money. Clearly that is ridiculous. I understand that in England the weighting given to the ratio is being halved. Will the Minister undertake to make a similar change for Wales?
  The health authority contends that it is the most efficient in Wales and it has used Welsh Office figures to show that the cost per standard unit of work at ysbyty Gwynedd is the lowest in Wales. In 1988 it was £713 per unit compared with the Welsh average of £864. However, because that authority is strapped for cash by the Welsh Office, it is having to shut hospitals, close wards, reduce services and worsen the health care available to the people of Gwynedd. The irony is that, once the authority closes the community hospitals, it will not be able to move patients out of ysbyty Gwynedd to those hospitals and that will have a significant effect on their efficiency. A study by Kernick and Davies showed that, if a community hospital is not available, it is likely that half of the patients will need to be admitted to a general hospital.
  The important message that emerges from the reasons given by the health authority for its overspend is that, in each instance, it claims that it is the Welsh Office's fault. Time after time health authority people have gone on record to say that. That allegation is not made by a so-called loony-left authority, nor by a politically motivated cabal putting out anti-Government propaganda. The Gwynedd health authority is controlled by hand-picked people; they have been picked by the Welsh Office to do the job asked of them. They are the people, however, who are now telling the Welsh Office that they cannot maintain standards of service because they have not been given the necessary resources.
  As I understand it, the Welsh Office has replied by saying that Gwynedd health authority has been given quite enough cash, that it is one of the best-funded health

  461
  authorities in Wales, and that it should get on with the job and stop squealing. Both claims cannot be right. If the authority has adequate resources, it is obviously using them wrongly by spending too much on bureaucracy and working inefficiently. If that is the case, how much longer is the Welsh Office prepared to tolerate such an inadequate performance? The final responsibility for the health authority rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Secretary of State. If it is doing a hopeless job, he should be aware of that and do something about it.
  Alternatively, perhaps the health authority is not as ineffective and incompetent as Ministers would have us believe. Perhaps health care in Gwynedd is underfunded, which is a direct cause of the crisis. If that is so, the blame again rests entirely on the shoulders of the Welsh Office. After successive years of alleged underfunding, we are now faced with a mega-crisis.
  In my opinion, for what it is worth, Gwynedd health authority has not been very clever in its financial control, nor in its ability to justify capital expenditure projects. Gwynedd has been desperately underfunded in terms of capital, possibly because of its inability to present persuasive evidence to the Government. If Gwynedd had received the average capital allocation per head of population for Wales, it would have received an extra £14 million in the past five years. Current expenditure in Gwynedd on health has been 9 per cent. lower than the Welsh average for the past five years. If that expenditure had been in line with the Welsh average, we would have had between an extra £4 million and £5 million per annum and there would have been no crisis.
  The leadership of the health authority seems incapable of getting the message across or compiling a coherent strategy to give the Government the confidence to back its judgment with the necessary cash.
  Is the Minister satisfied with the performance of the health authority in the past three years? Does he believe that it is putting forward an adequate case for capital investment? Does he believe that the health authority membership understands the strength of feeling in places such as Porthmadog, Caernarfon, Llangefni and Llandudno and taken it sufficiently into account? Are monitoring systems available to the Welsh Office to scrutinise the performance of Welsh authorities adequate? Is he happy that Gwynedd health authority has a coherent, strategic plan to which it is working? In the light of experience in Gwynedd, can he seriously claim that the Health Service is safe in Conservative hands?
  The previous Secretary of State for Wales had no interest in the Health Service and during his term of office the situation got out of hand. One way or another, the Welsh Office must bear responsibility if there is a health authority in Wales that it regards as inadequate and in which it has lost confidence. The Welsh Office should sack that authority and start again. On reflection, however, if the Welsh Office finds that it has been underfunding the authority, particularly on the capital side, now is the time to be honest, admit the mistake and give the health authority the money it needs at least to sustain basic services rather than totter from crisis to crisis.
  The choice for the Minister is simple: either he backs the authority with more cash, or sacks it for incompetence. The one thing the Welsh Office cannot do is continue to ignore the problem in the hope that it will go away. The need for leadership and positive action is great, and now is the time for it.
  1.45 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn) rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Member have the consent of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and of the Minister to speak?
  Mr. Jones: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Minister will be aware of the Welsh proverb, dyfal donc a dyr y garreg. He will agree that, on this issue, each donc has been very dyfal indeed.
  It gives neither my colleagues nor I any pleasure constantly to highlight the financial crisis which faces Gwynedd health authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, this is the third time in 14 months that we have taken part in a debate of this nature.
  The authority has been facing recurrent cash crises for a number of years. We are told by the Minister and others that the authority has plans in hand to deal with its financial problems, yet we find ourselves in a real mess. When will the buck-passing stop?
  The Secretary of State carries the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the delivery of a comprehensive health care service in Wales. That is made clear in the legislation that established the service and has been repeated in amending legislation ever since. While the Secretary of State delegates responsibility for the day-to-day provision of health care in Wales to area health authorities, if an authority fails to discharge its responsibility to provide a comprehensive service, the Secretary of State has a duty to intervene.
  How can Gwynedd health authority provide that level of service if it closes small hospitals without replacing them with decent community provision, if it closes wards, cancels operations, prepares to sack up to 200 of its staff, faces a massive loss of confidence by consultants and other medical staff and has its management team severely criticised by consultants sent in by the Welsh Office?
  Any further delay by the Welsh Office in tackling this problem will be a massive dereliction of duty. The Minister must assure us that he has a plan of action to solve the crisis. If that plan is positive and imaginative, he will have our full support.
  1.47 pm
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The provision of health services in Gwynedd has always been a problem, and I speak as a Gwynedd Member of 20 years' standing. Llandudno hospital, for example, in my constituency has been under some kind of threat throughout most of those years, and even before I became a Member it was threatened.
  The problems of Gwynedd health authority are particularly acute at this time because the authority has, properly, tried to put through a rationalisation scheme which would enable it to stay within budget in future years. The rationalisation scheme has meant taking painful decisions about closures of local hospitals which are very dear to the hearts of local people because of the great service that they have rendered in the past.
  All of that might be bearable if the prospect of better services in future was bright and clear but, sad to relate, it is not so; and the authority's present problems are exacerbated by its current deficit which it is trying to

  463
  eliminate by a variety of measures involving a curtailment of services. That—very much in outline—is the background against which this debate is taking place.
  The crucial questions are, as hon. Members have noted, whether the authority is adequately financed currently and to achieve better levels of service which are its aim for the future. I say in parenthesis that I have yet to meet an authority that, however generous its allocation, could not do with more money. The demand for finance is endless in the NHS. No authority relishes the prospect of a closure. It knows only too well of the popular outcry that ensues.
  The authority claims to be underfunded, so I will make clear Gwynedd health authority's position. The authority's revenue funding this year, taking account of the funding for the review bodies' pay awards, is £69·6 million, an increase of £4·7 million, or 7·2 per cent., in cash terms over last year's allocation.
  The authority is forecasting a likely overspend of about £4 million this year. Its problems result from the burden of overspending which built up in previous financial years and which it has not yet successfully tackled. It is, with the help of management consultants, currently working to retrieve the situation and to identify further remedial measures which will allow it to achieve financial balance.
  The authority has a statutory obligation to plan its expenditure within its notified allocations, and this is what it is in the process of doing. So long as it can demonstrate that it has a sound strategy for achieving financial balance, it will continue to receive sympathetic consideration from the Welsh Office as regards any reasonable request for temporary financial assistance.
  We dispute the authority's claim to be under-resourced. The authority is in fact shown by both the capital and revenue formulae used to assess the relative funding position of Welsh health authorities to be one of the best resourced authorities in Wales.
  Gwynedd health authority has questioned the validity of the formulae assessments, and last year commissioned a firm of management consultants to review the formulae. This was subsequently considered by the joint NHS-Welsh Office resource allocation working group which was conducting its own review of the formulae. RAWG recommended, and following consultation with other health authorities my right hon. Friend accepted, that there should be no major changes to the revenue formula and that various changes proposed in respect of the capital formula should be deferred, pending further consideration of the impact of the White Paper "Working for Patients" on allocation arrangements generally. I shall return to funding issues later, but I want to be absolutely sure that I deal as adequately as I can with Caernarfon cottage hospital, which featured prominently in the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for understandable reasons.
  Gwynedd health authority's proposals for Caernarfon cottage hospital entailed the closure of 14 GP beds and the minor casualty service. It suggested that the physiotherapy service planned for the hospital would not be started, the dental service currently provided at the hospital would be reprovided elsewhere, and the speech therapy offices would be relocated in alternative accommodation.
  The hon. Member referred in particular to the loss of the minor casualty unit at the Cottage hospital. The writ
  464
  provided treatment only for minor casualty cases and major accident victims were, and will continue to be, treated at ysbyty Gwynedd. When he considered the authority's proposals, my right hon. Friend was of the view that during GP surgery hours minor casualty cases would be likely to be treated at local GP surgeries, but he accepted that such cases seeking treatment outside those hours would be likely to have to travel to ysbyty Gwynedd, some seven miles away. Gwynedd health authority has given its assurance that ysbyty Gwynedd will be able to deal with the additional demand on its accident and emergency unit as a result of the closure of the minor casualty service at Caernarfon.
  I understand that a notice has been placed at the cottage hospital redirecting casualty patients to ysbyty Gwynedd and that public notices of the closure of the unit are appearing in various local papers during the course of this week. The health authority accepts that ideally it should have advertised its alternative arrangements earlier.
  The consideration of future minor casualty provision in Caernarfon is for the health authority to decide, but I am certain that it will take into account the hon. Gentleman's useful suggestions in any plans that it may bring forward.
  Turning to the hon. Member's discussion of possibilities of reproviding the GP medical beds formerly at the cottage hospital, let me say that their reprovision was not a proposal put to my right hon. Friend by the health authority, which made it clear that it needed to make the revenue savings associated with their use. Approval was therefore given to their closure on that basis.
  Whether any GP medical beds might be provided elsewhere, such as at Eryri hospital, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, is a matter for the health authority and the decision letter made it clear that my right hon. Friend expected the health authority to keep health service provision in the Caernarfon area in the long term under review and to publish its updated plans.
  Following my right hon. Friend's approval of the closure proposal, disposal of the cottage hospital building is a matter for the health authority once it has complied with the conditions set down in the decision letter for full closure. The authority will be entitled to retain the capital receipts in order to augment the resources available for its capital programme. Should a voluntary organisation or the social services department make an acceptable offer to purchase the building, I am sure that the health authority would give it serious consideration.
  Much has been said about revenue and capital funding, and I shall deal with those issues as far as I can. In terms of revenue funding, the White Paper changes require health authorities to be funded in line with their weighted population share rather than, as now, in terms of the catchment areas that they serve. Therefore, that formula disregards cross-boundary flows of patients but will otherwise be like the present formula in so far as it will reflect the size and age structure of each authority's population and will take account of other factors, such as morbidity, that reflect differences in relative needs. Proposals for the new formula are being developed in consultation with RAWG and will be subject to further consultation with the service as a whole later this year. It is, of course, important that the formula is generally acceptable to the service.

  465
  At present, capital allocations are based on the well-known capital formula. White Paper changes, particularly in relation to the new roles of health authorities and hospitals, mean that the formula approach needs to be recommended. RAWG has been consulted on the options for allocating future capital in the light of the new arrangements and a consultation paper will be issued to the service early in the summer.
  I am aware of the constraints that Gwynedd health authority feels that the existing capital formula shares approach places it under. I am aware of its desire to see changes in the revenue and capital formula. I remind the House that the existing formulae are accepted by the other authorities in Wales as reasonably fair. The capital formula was unanimously supported by health authority chairmen when it was introduced in 1984.
  The new capital formula will be introduced after 1991–92 because, in order to allow stability for planning purposes, health authorities have been advised that capital allocations in that year will be based on the present formula. The exact timing of the introduction of the new capital funding arrangements has yet to be determined. It will depend on the outcome of the consultation process and, as with revenue, there will need to be a transitional period for phasing in the changes.
  I hope that what I have said makes it clear that we are developing an approach to the future of revenue and capital funding of authorities in Wales in consultation with the service. However, until the details have been settled it will not be possible to be specific about the effect of changes and the time scale in which they can be achieved.
  In terms of the future, hon. Members will know that Gwynedd health authority has engaged management consultants, Coopers and Lybrand, Deloitte, to assist with a review of its finances and services. I stress that the
  466
  management consultants have not been appointed by the Welsh Office or to dictate to the authority the way forward. The authority is being assisted by the management consultants in looking at the current position and possible options for the future. In June, which is when we expect the consultants' report, authority members are due to consider a report from its officers, drawn up with the assistance of the management consultants. It is likely that the report will set out options for the future which will have to be considered and decided upon by the authority members. Any substantial changes in the service considered necessary in the future will be subject to consultation before they can be implemented.
  I would not wish to disguise my or my colleagues' disappointment at the continuing problems of financial control in Gwynedd health authority. None the less, there is evidence that the authority is addressing both these problems and the opportunity represented by the NHS reforms.
  Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to some of the issues that I raised. Does he recall that we were in exactly this position about two years ago, in 1987? At that time there were commitments, and the authorities still blame the Welsh Office for not having enough cash. How long do we have to go along this road before some positive action, some leadership, is taken by the Welsh Office to find more cash or to sort out the authority?
  Mr. Roberts: Positive action has already been taken in the NHS White Paper and in the legislation. I assure hon. Members that my colleagues and I are determined that the health authority is placed on a sound footing so that it can offer its residents the quality service to which they are entitled.

  Community Care (Mentally Handicapped)
  2 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his appointment. I owe him a double debt of gratitude because not only is he responding to this debate, but he visited Bolton earlier this week when he had only just taken on his new responsibilities. It was his first regional ministerial visit, and it was most helpful and useful.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall that he visited the Heywood pilot project for day therapy services and met some of those suffering from profound physical and mental handicaps and also their families. Those people benefit from the much-needed services provided by that pilot project. Later that day, my hon. Friend visited the health authority headquarters for a unique meeting with people in the area responsible for community care. Six groups were represented: the parents handicap action group; the social services, through its newly appointed chairman and the director of social services; the North Western regional health authority; Bolton health authority; the community health council and the Brookvale voluntary centre at Prestwich, which sent two directors. That centre provides a service that does not really fit the North Western regional health authority model. However, it provides a high quality of service at a relatively low cost, and it has a long waiting list of parents who want their children to go there. The meeting was remarkable, because it enabled many people to get together who otherwise would not often have the opportunity to talk about the need for services.
  I wish to concentrate on those who suffer from profound mental and physical handicaps, as they have the greatest priority need. The meeting discussed the need for a centre of excellence in Bolton to provide a service for those people. We discussed the need for both capital and revenue funding and also the need for both the centre itself and the provision of a network of homes. We must not think that we can rely simply on a dispersed network of homes to provide all the necessary facilities and services.
  Bolton faces a crisis of need for severely handicapped people with challenging behaviour. There is a chronic shortage of day care therapy, respite care and residential care. The causes of the crisis are numerous, but, in particular, handicapped people are now living much longer because of the better care available. There is a crisis in the immediate locality because of the stop placed on admissions to long-stay mental institutions such as Brockhall and Calderstones. Bolton has a particular problem because of the excess cost of the network homes, which has resulted in a shortfall of provision. There is also a shortfall in the provision of other domiciliary services for those who are still at home. There is a complete inadequacy of domiciliary therapy services for the profoundly multiple handicapped who are at home.
  The result of all that is a major problem. There are children who, after they reach the age of 19, are regressing because of the lack of suitable services. Parents are at breaking point. If my hon. Friend the Minister had spent longer in Bolton, he could have met parents such as Mrs. Hargreaves. She has often written to me saying that she does not know how she can continue to look after her son.
  Because of the lack of facilities in Bolton, people are being sent elsewhere, and that is the complete opposite of
  468
  what I understand by community care. In addition, because wards at Brockhall are being closed, people are being moved from pillar to post, from ward to ward, because there is no alternative provision for them in Bolton. As the chairman of the social services committee said, we now have a two-tier service in Bolton. For some there are the neighbourhood network homes, and for others, who are still in the family home, there is a most inadequate service.
  The solution that I put forward at the meeting and which I press again now is that we should build and staff a centre of excellence in Bolton which will provide day therapy services for 20 or 25 people each day, and a respite care service with some 12 beds. That would provide a support and advice service for some 80 families and, possibly, a service to other areas—a mini Peto centre in Bolton.
  I want to link such a centre of excellence with the need for a medium secure unit, as has been accepted in many of the reports that have been available in recent years which suggest that a unit with two times 12 beds should be considered for Bolton. I press my hon. Friend to investigate the need for such a service in Bolton and to question the North Western regional health authority on its attitude to the provision of funds for such a centre, asking it to explain further its preoccupation with looking only at the provision of neighbourhood network homes on a dowry basis for those coming out of the long-stay institutions.
  I mentioned to my hon. Friend the other day that a former permanent secretary at the Department of Health and Social Security said that, if one is not confused about community care, one is not thinking clearly. I have found this a difficult subject to think clearly about, but it is much simpler to understand the issues if one considers where the greatest priority lies. I have no doubt that the greatest priority is those people who suffer from profound mental and physical handicaps and who present challenging behaviour. According to the Department of Health's 1989 report entitled, "Needs and Responses", they present
  "One of the most serious challenges to care in the community".
  In a recent letter to me, Mencap said that its research into the needs of that group shows
  "an abysmal lack of appropriate help, support and relief for these families".
  Therefore, in this short debate, I want to concentrate on the needs of that group as the greatest area of priority.
  There is no doubt that in Bolton that group experiences the greatest shortfall, and I am sure that that is the case nationally as well. The people we are talking about are not only mentally handicapped; many of them are blind and/or deaf and/or paralysed. It is difficult to think of people with greater needs. We must bear in mind the suffering of those people, the massive burden of care on their relatives and the great love that those relatives give their children, but also the great sacrifices involved.
  If it is possible to prove blame in a court of law, damages in excess of £1 million can be assessed for people with such severe handicaps. Various figures have been given, but in a letter that I received yesterday Mencap estimates that there are about 32,000 such people nationally, approximately 50 per 100,000 of the population—a higher figure than some of the estimates that I have seen. If we multiply the 32,000 people by £1 million as the value of the damages that would be assessed

  469
  if it were possible to prove some blame, we would be looking at a problem which nationally has a value of £32 billion. That is the size of the problem that we are addressing in this short debate.
  The problem has been dumped largely on the shoulders of loving carers such as Mrs. Cummings, whom my hon. Friend met. She did not volunteer for the task, but she has taken it on magnificently, and we owe every possible help to such people. In many cases, the problems are too great for parents to cope. We know from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that 5,500 severely handicapped children are in institutional care because their parents cannot cope with the severity of their handicaps.
  It is totally wrong for such children to be living in institutions of that kind. They need the loving care of a family even more than ordinary children. During the debate, I shall refer briefly to the work of Peggy Jay and Exodus, which has campaigned for years for children to leave long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped. The figure has fallen from 4,000 many years ago to about 500 currently, but Peggy Jay is concerned that 12,000 children are still admitted annually for short stays in such hospitals.
  When I met Peggy Jay yesterday, I noted some of the points that she made. She said that it was a long-standing problem. From the days of the Curtiss committee in 1946, when mentally handicapped children in residential long-stay mental hospitals were described as the most deprived group in the community, they have consistently been overlooked by successive Governments. In 1981, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, my noble Friend Lord Jenkin, said that long-stay hospitals were no place for children. The present Government, says Peggy Jay, are to be congratulated on reducing the number to 500—but at 12,000, the number of short-stay admissions is far too high.
  Until the Government decree that no child should be admitted to long-stay mental institutions, local authorities will continue to fail to provide proper alternatives for respite care, including properly developed fostering and adoption services. I may add that anyone who has visited the Sunflower ward at Brockhall knows how unsuitable those facilities are not only for the children but for adults who are there. I return to last Monday's meeting in Bolton. It is ironic that the problem should have reached crisis proportions in Bolton, because it pioneered the establishment of community care network homes. What has gone so wrong in Bolton? The Parents Handicapped Action Group voices the massive concerns of parents, and the national development team's report published in March 1987 included a lengthy catalogue of failures in Bolton, despite the spending of massive sums on network care homes. At one stage, £1·7 million was provided over three years for the largest pilot scheme in the country. I contend that the bureaucrats failed to identify and serve the real needs of the population.
  I quote briefly from the team's report. Paragraph 9 says that joint groups
  "have failed in their major objective … of service provision as a whole"
  Paragraph 43 says:
  "A network to be truly effective needs to offer a comprehensive locally-based service. Bolton Neighbourhood Network Scheme does not as yet offer such a service to clients with special needs … Unless access is obtained to additional resources, wide gaps in the service seem likely to remain."
  470
  Paragraph 93 says:
  "All efforts should be made to extend the availability of short-term care for adults with mental handicaps. This should include those with special needs and profoundly handicapped people. There is clearly a great deal of unmet need in this respect within Bolton."
  Paragraph 140 says:
  "Adult residential provision is sadly lacking in quality and quantity and adult special needs provision requires considerable development in terms of day care, residential care and domiciliary support. It is understandable but inexcusable that the most needy individuals should be given the lowest priority in the development of community services."
  Paragraph 144 says:
  "Short-term care is desperately lacking, in particular for special needs adults."
  Paragraph 145 says:
  "A separate unit is urgently needed for this handful of individuals, staffed and equipped for this difficult task."
  Paragraph 146 says:
  "The neighbourhood networks offer an exciting variety of types of accommodation for adults but parents are adamant that there is a place for imaginative accommodation for larger groups which offer more protection and local social stimulation than that which is currently fashionable. Eager young administrators and care workers ignore parents' views at their peril on this matter. Current philosophies may fade as their shortcomings are revealed. We ask that any plan be judged in terms of the quality of life it promises rather than conforming to contemporary and possibly temporary theoretical notions."
  That is the very point on which I should like my hon. Friend to question the North Western regional health authority most closely. I asked the North Western regional health authority to carry out a survey of unmet needs in all its areas. I was somewhat surprised to find that it received responses from only two thirds of the areas, but hopefully we will get responses from all of them. However, the responses received show that there is a high level of unmet need.
  In a note dated 2 February, Bolton said:
  "A major initiative is required if a service crisis is to be avoided … people with profound handicaps, and challenging behaviour … are finding that services are grossly inadequate … Suitably skilled staff must be recruited so that we do not end up with an army of community carers unable to provide the skilled input required."
  Bolton community health council sent me a copy of a letter addressed to my hon. Friend the Minister in which the same problem is pointed out:
  "there is a major shortfall of accommodation for people who have never been in long-stay hospital. It is estimated that a further 200 residential places are needed right now. … The day service in Bolton is full. … Often people with the greatest need seem to get the least."
  What is to be done? The 1989 report by the Department of Health on needs and responses discussed the pros and cons of specialist units versus community placement and gives one of the disadvantages of a specialist unit as "staff burn-out". I have not shown that report to my wife, but I think that she will feel that that is not just a problem for specialists but one that is faced by all those who care for the severely disadvantaged groups that I am concentrating on in this debate.
  There is no time to discuss the need for a centre of excellence in detail. The plan has been costed at £1 million a year. I do not know whether all that is totally necessary, but it shows the level that Bolton health authority is considering. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will question the North Western regional health authority about its rigid adherence to a model. I do not

  471
  believe that any other regional health authority is insisting on such rigid adherence. I ask the Minister to press the regional health authority to look sympathetically at the need to fund a centre of excellence. When he considers the problem nationwide, I ask him to consider whether he can direct more resources towards the care of the profoundly mentally handicapped.
  2.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on his choice of subject for this debate, as it is one of substantial importance to a great many people, and to no one more than to him. I am not referring solely to those who suffer from a mental handicap. Equally important, the issue is of concern to parents, to relatives and to friends of people with mental handicap including those, like my hon. Friend, who have adopted mentally handicapped children.
  My hon. Friend has raised an important issue about services in the north-west region. I will respond specifically to that issue in a moment, but I would like first to set out the national situation, as we see it, as the context for the regional issues that he raised.
  Historically, the place for mentally handicapped people, particularly the severely handicapped, has been seen to be the hospital, under the care of consultants, and particularly of mental handicap nurses. Over recent years, however, it has become increasingly recognised that mentally handicapped people's needs are largely for what we now call social care—accommodation, social support, day services and assistance with using the general facilities of the community such as sports and leisure facilities.
  Of course mentally handicapped people need health care, but much of that can be provided through the general services of the National Health Service and does not need to be provided specifically in mental handicap hospitals. Thus, over the past 20 years or more, we have seen a shift away from the residential placement of severely mentally handicapped people in hospital towards caring for them in a variety of community facilities. In parallel with that there has been growing recognition that the lead responsibility for services for people with a mental handicap lies with local authority social services departments rather than with district health authorities.
  The Government's decisions on the Griffiths report, set out in our White Paper "Caring for People", emphasise the role of local authority social services departments in providing social care. As such, our proposals go "with the grain" of the way services for people with a mental handicap have been developing in recent years.
  But the Government are far from believing that the introduction of the proposals in our White Paper and in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will address all the issues of importance to people with a mental handicap. It is for that reason that my predecessor, now the Minister for Public Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), set in hand a linked series of initiatives which officials in the Department, in collaboration with people from health and social services and the voluntary sector, are currently taking forward. I
  472
  should like to set those out, partly because this is my first opportunity as Minister to do so, to emphasise that I am keen that the work should go ahead.
  First, we are having a look at the whole question of the residential needs of people with a mental handicap, particularly those with a severe handicap. On the one hand, there are people who take the view that the only form of acceptable provision is community-based living in ordinary houses with just three or four mentally handicapped people supported by professional staff. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the security, companionship and skilled nursing support available in mental handicap hospitals offers an important model that should not be allowed to wither away.
  My officials have been engaging in a series of visits to a variety of types of residential service in Holland and in this country, and have just completed a series of three full-day seminars to explore the findings of those visits with a much wider range of interests concerned with such services. They have been looking at the underlying values of different sorts of residential service, the practical advantages and disadvantages and, necessarily, costs.
  Secondly, in parallel with this review of residential care, the social services inspectorate has carried out a study of day services provided by local authority social services departments. Its report was published last year under the title "Individuals, Programmes and Plans". The Department is now exploring the findings of the series of inspections with a view to seeing what implications there are for current national policy and for the possible issue of guidance to social services authorities.
  Thirdly, we are undertaking a fundamental rethink of the continuing role of the National Health Service in relation to people with a mental handicap. As I have already said, the role of the specialist mental handicap hospital in the range of services for people with a mental handicap seems to be in decline. There is certainly a growing recognition that many of the health needs of people with a mental handicap can be met through the ordinary services for people provided by the National Health Service, and that no segregated provision is necessary.
  On the other hand, there is recognition that people with a mental handicap have some health problems that need specialist services, and there is concern that, as the move to community-based services develops, the necessary specialist health care will cease to be available. Earlier in the year, the Department established a working party of health and social service managers and professional staff to examine those issues. The working party has already met three times, and it is due to report before the summer holidays.
  I now refer to the issue that my hon. Friend referred to as the greatest priority: how to provide services for people with a mental handicap who show severely disturbed behaviour—often called challenging behaviour. Last year, we issued a document called "Needs and Responses", which was a distillation of the best practices that the Department had been able to identify. This year, we aim to set up a series of workshops to explore the views about "Needs and Responses" of professionals and others concerned with providing services for this small but very important group. The workshops will aim to identify whether the Department should undertake any further initiatives in this matter. Again, I hope that those workshops will be held well before the end of the year.

  473
  My predecessor's aim in initiating the separate streams of activity was to focus on what he and the Department believed to be four key issues for the development of services for people with a mental handicap, given the general trend of the past 20 years towards community-based services. I cannot, of course, anticipate the outcome of those initiatives, but our hope is to have something substantial to say to health and social service authorities about the development of future services by around the turn of this year.
  I have set out the national perspective in some detail because we are aware that some people believe that services for people with a mental handicap are being neglected relative, for example, to the services provided for people with a mental illness. It is certainly the case that, over the past year or two, the Government have had to respond to a range of problems arising from the implementation of the 1975 White Paper, "Better Services for the Mentally Ill" and this has led to the introduction of the care programme approach and the proposed mental illness specific, grant. Both are important advances in the provision for the mentally ill. We have certainly not been overlooking the needs of people with a mental handicap. On the contrary, as I have sought to show, we have initiated a major review of the key policy issues in the area, which I intend will give renewed impetus to the development of appropriate services for the mentally handicapped.
  I would now like to turn specifically to the problems that my hon. Friend identified in relation to the services for the mentally handicapped in North Western regional health authority. I was pleased, on my first ministerial visit, to be able to go to my hon. Friend's constituency this Monday and to see for myself some of the services for the mentally handicapped provided in his city of Bolton. Regrettably, as time was short, I could not see as much as I should have liked. In particular, I wish that I had had time to visit some mentally handicaped people who had been resettled into ordinary homes in the Bolton area.
  My hon. Friend referred specifically to the concerns of Exodus about the number of children with a mental handicap who are still in hospital. Many of them were admitted to hospital for conditions unconnected with their handicap and should be in hospital for no longer than necessary. Planned admissions for treatment, assessment, therapy or short-term care should normally lead to a special children's unit in or near the neighbouring community. There will often be a managerial part for the children's department of a mental handicap hospital.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the issues related to the number of children in mental handicap hospitals will be part of the wider review of residential care, which was one of the four elements I described as being under way at present.
  Mr. Jack Aspinwall: Will my hon. Friend consider visiting the Wessex region? In the past few weeks, respite care has been highlighted, because the local health
  474
  authority has contemplated making cuts in the number of houses available for mentally handicapped people. The problem is that people who use respite care are often on the edge of viability for looking after severely mentally handicapped people and only the fact that respite care is available enables them to continue. I ask my hon. Friend to visit the Wessex region soon and to see the position of respite care in the Wansdyke area.
  Mr. Dorrell: I will look at the position of respite care in Wansdyke, to which my hon. Friend referred, and I will write to him specifically on that issue. I look forward to the opportunity, which I am sure will occur sooner rather than later, to travel to my hon. Friend's part of the world.
  When I was in Bolton this week, I was interested to hear different views expressed by the various groups in the area on a range of subjects. It is clear that there is a fund of good will to succeed with resettlement and community services such as therapy and respite care. However, I detected a certain frustration, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East referred, that the regional health authority appears to be rigid in its interpretation of care in the community and that this is having two effects. First, it is preventing a full range of residential arrangements from being developed; secondly, in directing funds exclusively to the arrangements pioneered by the Bolton neighbourhood network scheme, it is likely to slow down the rate of resettlement out of the hospitals. This arises because that scheme puts a premium upon community support services which are extremely demanding of professional staff time. These are, of course., potentially serious disadvantages, if they are justified. because they stem directly from an explicit agreed policy of the regional health and social services departments.
  We are not yet ready to give further guidance on the range of residential care to suit all degrees of mental handicap, because that is part of the process of the policy study, but in view of the feelings I heard expressed in Bolton this week, which my hon. Friend repeated, I shall ask the regional chairman of North Western region to see whether the time has come to begin discussions with all interested parties to see whether a less rigid approach to resettlement funds is required. It may be that the rigidity is seen by some simply because a particular scheme has not succeeded in the past, but the best way to clarify the matter is to ask the regional health authority chairman to pursue it, and I intend to do that. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that I have responded at least in part to his concerns on that issue.
  Finally, I thank my hon. Friend for his hospitality when I visited Bolton earlier this week. I frankly acknowledge that there are some worries about current provisions and that these issues will need to be addressed as our current initiatives in this field are fully developed. In the meantime, I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome my proposal to ask North Western region to consider whether it should be more flexible in the future than it has been in the past.

  Industrial Tribunals
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I am grateful for this opportunity of raising the case of Mr. Tobitt, a constituent, who has suffered considerable grievances over several years. I recognise that the House might not be able to redress those grievances, but I hope that this debate will make industrial tribunals and employers think carefully before they handle cases in future in the way in which this case was handled.
  The appalling sequence of events followed a minor and largely unrelated disciplinary offence at Mr. Tobitt's work. Mr. Tobitt had worked for the Financial Times for six years—from 1982 until his dismissal on 19 May 1988. He was a satisfactory employee, but unfortunately his good record did not stand him in any stead in the events that then unfolded.
  The facts, which are not disputed, are that Mr. Tobitt was arrested at work on 3 May 1988 for an alleged offence not connected with his later dismissal. It was alleged that he attacked a woman with acid and stole her handbag. The attack took place in Walthamstow at 7 am when Mr. Tobitt was at home in Hammersmith. The police alleged that his car was in the vicinity of the attack. Mr. Tobitt thinks that the police linked him to the attack because the lady was his ex-girlfriend. The police searched his car and found four copies of pornographic photographs, which had been reproduced on a Financial Times machine. Although the Financial Times was not part of the alibi, it was informed about the photographs by the police because—the police said—the photographs might have been used in court. The Financial Times then decided to suspend Mr. Tobitt for
  "damaging the reputation of the company".
  In dealing briefly with the court case, I hope that I shall not underestimate its importance and its effect on both Mr. Tobitt and the later handling of the case. The court case took place between 14 and 16 November 1988 at Snaresbrook Crown court. A witness stated that the attacker—the person who threw the acid in the face of the lady—was white. Mr. Tobitt is black. The case should have been dismissed. As was later acknowledged, the evidence did not stand up. At this stage—amazingly—the judge said that, although Mr. Tobitt was not the attacker, he could have been aiding and abetting, and he was therefore found guilty of that and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
  An appeal was lodged by Mr. Tobitt's solicitors, which he then won, but not before he had spent a month in prison for an offence that everybody agrees, and that the court made clear, and not only on technical or legal grounds, he could not possibly have committed or been connected with in any way. In other words, Mr. Tobitt left the appeal court with a clean reputation. The appeal court said that it was obvious that only one person was present at the attack.
  It is important to note that the judge has ruled that the photographs, which were brought to the attention of the Financial Times by the police, should not have been used in court. That is an important point because of the issue of the reputation of the Financial Times.
  On 16 May 1988 the first disciplinary hearing took place. There were two charges. The first was that Mr. Tobitt had been using the company's materials to produce
  476
  the photographs. The second charge was that he was bringing the company into disrepute. The Financial Times had made it clear that the first charge—using the materials—was not sufficient ground to warrant dismissal. Indeed, that was stated several times, not least in a letter dated 19 May 1988 from the Financial Times to Mr. Tobitt which said that the use of the materials was not
  "in itself sufficient grounds for dismissing you."
  The Financial Times seemed to believe that if the material was used in court its reputation might be besmirched. That is pretty incredible. It is hypersensitive and absurd beyond reason. If many of us were in that position, we would think first and foremost that a person in this country was innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, we should not assume that what is produced and used in court is necessarily used in the appropriate way. The judge later ruled that the photographs should not and could not form part of the evidence. Again, that is important and it is a point that was overlooked.
  Even if the Financial Times thought that the case would besmirch it, why did it not wait until after the court case? I draw attention to another quotation from the letter. It said:
  "Four of the photographs still have the Financial Times name on them and are now in the possession of the police. It is highly likely that these photographs will be used in evidence in open court."
  The Financial Times was wrong: it was not likely. In my judgment and that of the solicitor, it was highly unlikely. Nevertheless, that was the conclusion of the Financial Times. I shall return to that later.
  When Mr. Tobitt appealed against the dismissal, the case seemed to centre more on the use of the photographs and of the machine than the reputation of the company. In any event, the tribunal decided against him. I should add that the tribunal hearing took place only a few days after Mr. Tobitt's release from prison. That is not exactly the best time for a hearing for someone who has had that experience for an offence that he did not commit. He had to go through a tribunal hearing at which no one represented him. That is one of the main points of the case, as the Minister will appreciate, and I shall return to it.
  The Financial Times' thinking—inasmuch as it was thinking—seemed to be out of touch with reality and out of all proportion to the incident. It was entirely insensitive to the suffering that Mr. Tobitt had been through.
  In the letter to Mr. Tobitt dated 11 May the Financial Times said:
  "Your letter makes the point that the photographs you had produced on the company's equipment were not, in the end, used in open court"—
  this was after the case—
  "and therefore did not cause the company any embarrassment. This does not detract from the fact that at the time the decision was taken to dismiss you, it was highly likely that information about them and the circumstances surrounding their production would have become public knowledge. In the industrial tribunal's words the photographs were what the ordinary reasonable person would describe as pornographic".
  I shall come back to that point, too. The letter continued:
  "Therefore, any publicity about them linked to the Financial Times' name was likely to bring the reputation of the Financial Times into disrepute. In the end, although no publicity was received in open court, there was some publicity in the press … However, Mr. Gilbert"
  one of the managers who judged the dismissal—
  "had to consider whether your return to work, having been charged with such an offence, would have had an effect on the rest of the St. Clements press employees."

  477
  St. Clements press is the company under which the Financial Times operates. The letter goes on:
  "I understand that Mr. Gilbert decided this was not relevant."
  I should hope so. Who on earth even put that thought in the management's mind, given that Mr. Tobitt was found not guilty?
  The case goes from bad to worse. The evidence is overwhelming that the Financial Times assumed that the photographs would be used in court. Indeed, it said so. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the Financial Times assumed that Mr. Tobitt was guilty. It took no account of his defence.
  The report of the disciplinary hearing states of the police:
  "We were interested that they had inferred that the photographs could be exhibited in court. That's why I asked if you had anything else to say. Don't want to go into your case. But the pictures are an integral part of the case."
  That was the view of the Financial Times and the police. It was not anyone else's view.
  It is acknowledged that Mr. Tobitt produced the photographs at the request of the girl who wanted them done for a portfolio. The company, thinking that its image had been damaged, stated:
  "Therefore, we have decided to summarily dismiss you for gross misconduct on the grounds that you have conducted yourself in a manner which has, and will, damage the reputation of the Company. The reputation of the Financial Times is of crucial importance."
  The way in which the FT handled the case is damaging to it. It should be thoroughly ashamed of itself.
  At the appeal hearing against dismissal two of Mr. Tobitt's representatives, who are trade union representatives, were absent. His other representatives said at the hearing that his side of the case was disadvantaged because it lacked full representation. Nevertheless, the hearing went ahead. The case shows the mess and panic that the FT got itself into. I have great respect for it as an economic and political journal, but its handling of the case was disgraceful. A short clip about the case appeared in The Sun and Daily Mirror. An FT manager, speaking at the appeal tribunal, said:
  "I know that the Sun claim a circulation of four million readers and a readership of twelve million. The reason I make this comment is that the Financial Times is a paper with a unique reputation."
  Why on earth is a strong and, presumably, responsible paper like the Financial Times panicking about a short piece appearing in The Sun and the Daily Mirror and fearing that it might damage its reputation? I am not sure that the FT knows anything about the readership of The Sun or the Daily Mirror. I would not think that the readership would be completely surprised that some people in the printing industry occasionally use machines to print pictures that should not be printed. One must be fairly out of touch with reality and, indeed, the reality of the print industry not to know that. Nevertheless, that does not justify its handling of the case.
  Mr. Tobitt fully accepts that he should never have got involved in producing the material. He makes no issue about that, and the FT accepted that he agreed that he should never have done it. It is worth putting on the record why he did it. At the hearing he was asked:
  "Why did your girlfriend want these photos reproduced?"
  He said:
  "She's a difficult girl and doesn't take a lot exactly. When she has had a few drinks, says she hated that sort of thing and said she did not know where to go, what to do. I suggested
  478
  that she got a better job. She calmed down. Later, this was the first time the photos came up. She said, 'I know what you can do for me'. She works in a nightclub. She is always being asked out. Then she said she could make a book. I know how the actual thing came about. Her idea was to make a book with the photos. The idea was just to look at them, not create a sophisticated item. I suggested I would take them. I knew what she wanted to do. I wanted to keep control of them. I did not want to get mixed up but felt I could wean her off the idea of the photos. My idea was to drag it out."
  It is worth pointing out that Mr. Tobitt was also helping the girl in other ways, including paying some of her bills because he found that when she was under less stress she could break away from some of the situations that she was getting herself into. One might say that he was doing a good voluntary service job, but I would not expect the FT', the police or anyone else to accept that.
  The FT had counsel at the industrial tribunal, but the essential issue in this case is that Mr. Tobitt had no one at the tribunal and had just come out of prison. He could not afford a lawyer and his trade union felt that the tribunal, rightly or wrongly, was not the best machinery to deal with the case. Thus, Mr. Tobitt, just out of prison, was totally unrepresented at the tribunal. Surely in hearings linked to a court case a person should be offered legal aid. Mr. Tobitt's case was linked to a serious charge, which was later found to be utterly unfounded.
  The FT argued that the reason for dismissal was that Mr. Tobitt had brought the paper into disrepute; he was not dismissed for printing the pictures. Curiously, the industrial tribunal said:
  "The respondents"—
  the FT—
  "said that had the matter merely been that the applicant had used the respondents' equipment for the production of the photographs for his own purposes it is unlikely that dismissal would have resulted. It was more probable in those circumstances that the applicant would have been warned as to his future conduct. They based their decision to dismiss on the nature of the photographs themselves; the fact that on one set of photographs there appeared the 'Financial Times' logo".
  Everyone agrees, however, that that logo was to be cut off before the photographs were used. The tribunal went on to say that the police told the FT
  "it was probable that the photographs would be used at the applicant's trial for the purpose of attempting to establish where the applicant might have been at particular times and that consequently by his actions the applicant knew or ought to have known that he was bringing the respondents' names and or the name of the 'Financial Times' into disrepute, in that the facts would indicate that the specialist equipment at the 'Financial Times' was being used for the production of pornographic photographs, thus indicating either that the management connived in such activities by the staff or that the management was so lax that the staff were able to carry out this type of activity."
  I do not reach that conclusion. From time to time such things happen. We all agree that they should not, but one would not necessarily conclude that the management was lax or bad or colluded with such activity. It is clear that the industrial tribunal was already moving away from deciding whether Mr. Tobitt had brought the paper into disrepute and was considering the fact that he had produced the documents. The tribunal also stated:
  "We do not here think that the test is, are these photographs pornographic or obscene in contravention of any statute but what would be the reaction of a reasonable person looking at these photographs and what would he think of them. Would he consider that they are simply the ordinary sort of photographs which one can see in many newspapers these days or do they go beyond this into the realms of what

  479
  might be described by the ordinary person as pornography? We are unanimously of the opinion that the ordinary person would describe these photographs as pornographic."
  I have not seen all the photgraphs, but Mr. Tobitt accepts that one could interpret them as pornographic to some extent. One concerns a spanking scene, but I do not believe that a court of law would necessarily define spanking as pornographic. The case in the industrial tribunal, however, was that the pornographic content of the photographs was the reason for dismissal. The Minister will be aware that, in law, pornography is a much more difficult case to prove. The industrial tribunal wanted to assume that the photographs were pornographic on the basis of reasonable assessment. I cannot say for sure, but I do not believe that that would stand up in a court of law.
  The FT and the industrial tribunal assumed that the police case was correct, including the use of the photographs. That assumption is one of my serious criticisms of the case. The industrial tribunal said:
  "We think that the test is what would a reasonable person in the position of Messrs Gilbert and Rhodes"—
  the two managers who dismissed Mr. Tobitt—
  "have thought of the information which was given to them by the Sergeant in charge of the case at Walthamstow police station?"
  So the industrial tribunal is saying that the information given by the prosecution mattered. At no time was any check made with the defence. In other words, the case was assumed to be proven even after it had been dismissed. That cannot be right.
  Why on earth is an industrial tribunal—let alone what happened at the first hearing—and the management of the Financial Times asking for only the prosecution side? Does it not have a duty to ask for the defence side? Did it not have a duty to ask the solicitor and not just Mr. Tobitt, who all along was making the points that I have been making? It cannot be right to assume guilt.
  To summarise my points, the Financial Times has brought itself into disrepute by the handling of this case. It was a disgraceful overreaction by what is, by any standard, a good newspaper. It should never have got itself into that position. It was a pathetic display of almost paranoid fear of what might be said in papers such as The Sun and the Daily Mirror. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would not even be here if we had such fears. Indeed, it might be said that we might be brought into disrepute if the House of Commons reacted in such a way.
  An industrial tribunal must be weak in a situation in which a case is closely linked to a court case and the only contact is with the prosecution side. That is an important part of my case. It cannot be right for an industrial tribunal, a disciplinary hearing and all involved from that point of view to communicate with the prosecution but not with the defence lawyer, who deals with the case but who cannot represent the client at the tribunal because the client does not have any money.
  The reason for dismissal by the industrial tribunal related only marginally to the reasons given by the Financial Times. It seems that the tribunal assumed, as did the Financial Times, that Mr. Tobitt was guilty. That was a disgraceful slur on the reputation of a man who had already suffered far more than any of us will suffer in that way in our lives. It should never be allowed to happen again.
  2.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will appreciate that I know much more now about his concerns, having heard his speech, than I could have known beforehand. Inevitably, in the nature of these matters, the titles of debates do not always yield up their secrets as well as they might.
  The hon. Gentleman will accept that I cannot pass comment on the criminal court case to which he referred. Nor can I speak about the quality of the judgment made by the industrial tribunal. He would be the first to complain, and rightly so, if he felt that in any sense Ministers reserved unto themselves the right or privilege to go through findings made by an industrial tribunal and comment on them.
  Having said that, I will respond to some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman voiced, and it might help if I began by setting out the sequence of events as I understand them to have occurred. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the arrest and what followed. A search was made of the effects, which led the police to find the photographs in the boot of the car, and they obviously saw that some of them bore the Financial Times logo. Some of them had been trimmed and others had not.
  At that stage, the police asked officials of the Financial Times to examine the photographs and, on the basis of that examination, formed the conclusion that the photographs were pornographic. Obviously, an explanation was called for from Mr. Tobitt. The police felt that an explanation was called for because it appeared that one set of photographs at least had been printed on Financial Times specialist equipment. That was clearly the case because they bore the FT logo.
  I understand that at that stage the senior industrial relations executive and the production manager interviewed Mr. Tobitt and that, while mentioning his arrest, he did not refer to the photographs. They did not take any immediate action at that stage but told him to report for work as usual. They then themselves examined the photographs, which were still held by the police. They had a further interview with Mr. Tobitt, who at that stage was represented by his union representative, and again he did not mention the photographs.
  At that stage, the FT executive and manager themselves raised the subject and, after a short adjournment, declared that they would be considering disciplinary charges, and I believe I am correct in saying that Mr. Tobbit was suspended on full pay pending a disciplinary hearing. That was conducted some days later, in accordance with the disciplinary procedures, after a full letter had been sent to Mr. Tobbit detailing the charges against him. At the disciplinary hearing, Mr. Tobitt was represented by his union. Matters were thoroughly gone into and it was decided that he should be dismissed.
  I understand—this is clear from what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said—that none of those facts is in dispute. But subsequently a case for unfair dismissal was brought before the industrial tribunal on the ground that it was reasonable to dismiss him merely for producing the photographs. The respondents in the case argued that they had based their decision to dismiss him on the nature of the photographs, the fact that the Financial Times logo appeared on one set, their likely use in the police

  481
  proceedings and the fact that the applicant knew, or ought to have known, that his actions could bring the name of the Financial Times into disrepute.
  I understand that the industrial tribunal agreed that the employers' action was reasonable in the circumstances and was unanimous in dismissing the applicant's case of unfair dismissal. That decision was sent to both parties on 25 January last year. As I understand it, Mr. Tobitt made no attempt after that to appeal to the employment appeal tribunal.
  I should emphasise, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept, that industrial tribunals are independent judicial organisations, responsible for reaching their own decisions without interference from Government. It would clearly be quite wrong for Ministers to attempt to become involved in particular cases or to try to get decisions changed.
  It is not my Ministry's normal practice to comment on the merits or demerits of particular decisions. However, the hon. Gentleman was particularly concerned that the lack of representation at the hearing might have meant that Mr. Tobitt was treated unfairly. I have been through the tribunal's findings, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has, because he has quoted from them. He will have formed his own views, but it seems to me that the tribunal was in no doubt about the decision it should make. It did not seem to dispute any of the facts as given by Mr. Tobitt, and obviously its members had to form a view.
  I should emphasise two points. First, the tribunal said:
  "We do not here think that the test is, are these photographs pornographic or obscene in contravention of any statute, but what would be the reaction of a reasonable person looking at these photographs and what would he think of them. Would he consider that they are simply the ordinary sort of photographs which one can see in many newspapers these days or do they go beyond this into the realms of what might be described by the ordinary person as pornography?
  We are unanimously of the opinion that the ordinary person would describe these photographs as pornographic. We were originally shown only the photographs which bore the Financial Times logo but later at the request of the applicant we saw the whole set of photographs and we have no hesitation in saying that the ordinary reasonable person would describe these photographs as pornographic or, as Mr. Gilbert put it, going over the line."
  Perhaps most importantly for the hon. Gentleman, the tribunal said:
  "For these reasons therefore we are unanimously of the opinion that to dismiss the applicant not for the use for private purposes of the 'Financial Times' equipment but for the use for private purposes for producing pornographic
  482
  photographs was a reasonable action taken by the employers and consequently the applicant's claim of unfair dismissal is dismissed."
  It is not my responsibility to double-guess the decision made by the industrial tribunal. I merely say in passing that, having read the transcript, I feel that it is one of the more clear-cut cases that come before industrial tribunals. I merely hold an opinion—if the hon. Gentleman disagrees, I accept that there may be two views on it—but I believe that a common-sense view would be that using an employer's equipment to produce pornographic photographs is not the sort of action that is normally thought to be compatible with normal harmonious relationships between employers and employees.
  The hon. Gentleman perfectly properly raised the issue of whether legal aid should be available in industrial tribunal cases. The hon. Gentleman knows that the idea behind industrial tribunals is that, as far as possible, they should be a quick and informal way for people to obtain redress. The Government have always felt that it is inappropriate to extend legal aid to unfair dismissal cases for precisely that reason. I might have a professional interest in this as a lawyer, but there are times when it is a good idea not to have the system gummed up by lawyers. Having realised that difficulty, the hon. Gentleman said that that should not be so where an unfair dismissal is connected with other cases, in this instance, a criminal one.
  I accept—and I am sure that it will have been perfectly obvious to the House from the way the hon. Gentleman presented his constituent's case—that he knows his constituent and has talked to him. Clearly Mr. Tobitt feels badly about it, as does the hon. Gentleman. It seems clear from the tribunal's decision that it did not take into account, in a pejorative or beneficial way, the fact that there was another case pending. As I understand it, from what the hon. Gentleman said, when talking about the admissibility of the photographs the judge was referring to the earlier hearing. Even on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman says, the photographs would clearly be irrelevant to that.
  The hon. Gentleman clearly feels strongly about this matter on behalf of his constituent. However, at the end of the day the industrial tribunal considered the matter, which clearly was well canvassed. The tribunal reached its decision having heard the evidence, and, however strongly the hon. Gentleman feels, it would not be appropriate for me to say whether the tribunal should have reached that decision. The tribunal took a certain view, and I do not feel that I can double-guess it.

  Heliport (Cannon Street Station)
  2.59 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I am grateful for the opportunity to mention the fact that a consortium of business companies wants to construct a heliport in the very heart of London—on a platform over the River Thames next to Cannon street station, halfway between St. Paul's and Southwark cathedrals, both of which ought to be havens of peace and quiet. The provost of Southwark cathedral wrote to me yesterday to say that Southwark cathedral is bang opposite the proposed site. Bang is the word. He says that his daily programme of services, concerts and conferences would be severely damaged by the noise.
  Noise is the central issue. The applicants want permission at the outset for 25,000 flights per year, which is an average of over 70 per day. Twin-engined helicopters would be used, which produce more noise than single-engined helicopters, but it is not just a matter of volume measured in decibels—the character of the sound is also important. The rotor blades of helicopters make a most unpleasant high-pitched whirring sound, so that for any given volume, in both pitch and tone there is a type of vibration which is different from the noise made by winged aircraft. That noise can penetrate walls and air conditioning systems as well as windows, so double glazing is not the entire answer. It will disturb and reduce the efficiency of people working in offices. It will spoil their enjoyment of the Thames and its walkways when they are on their lunch breaks and it will affect the views of St. Paul's cathedral. The proposal is an utter disgrace to the otherwise normal and sensible people who are promoting it. It is uncivilised and wrong. It should be shot down hard, and shot down quickly.
  I am concerned not only about my constituents who work in the City but because some of the helicopters might overfly Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons and Whitton on their way to Heathrow. That would destroy people's quiet enjoyment of their homes and gardens.
  I have campaigned for years against aircraft noise and am well aware of the Government's record in this field. No Minister has done more about aircraft noise in relation to the environment than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, first as Secretary of State for Transport and later as Secretary of State for the Environment. Following strong representations from hon. Members affected by Heathrow, he refused planning permission for the fifth terminal there, stopped the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link and curtailed the number of night flights allowed at Heathrow—a decision subsequently endorsed by subsequent Secretaries of State for Transport, my right hon. Friends the Members for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson).
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Environment, who is to reply to the debate, can confirm that the present Secretary of State for the Environment will be just as robust in protecting my constituents and people who work in central London from the consequences of unpleasant noise as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he held that post. If so, he should prove it when he decides on the application for the heliport in question. He will have to take the decision because he has now called it in.
  484
  I remind my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport that in 1984 the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), said in a debate on civil aviation:
  "Noise can be a potent destroyer of the quality of life. The Government care about the environment … Helicopters seem to have a special pitch of vibrating noise … in the light of the environmental disturbance caused by the service"—
  he was talking about the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter service—
  "we could not justify allowing it to continue in operation … we must give due weight to environmental considerations in dealing with such cases."—[Official Report, 22 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 655.]
  Of course, that followed the completion of the M25 motorway, which linked Heathrow and Gatwick. Now that a fast train is to run from Heathrow to Paddington, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm—I gave him notice of this question—that it remains Government policy to uphold the principles set out by the former Minister in 1984.
  The decision is to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Because of my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial responsibilities, I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot comment on the planning merits as that would anticipate any decision that my right hon. Friend might take. However, I ask him to confirm that he will take note of all the points raised in the debate, not only because they will come out at the public inquiry, but because there is considerable parliamentary opinion on this matter. That is not surprising as the Select and Standing Committee Rooms of both Houses face the Thames and risk being disturbed by the noise of helicopters flying along the river to a heliport in the Pool of London.
  I draw my hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 753, which has been signed by 23 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House. Although, in essence, it asked for the decision on the planning application to be called in, which has since happened, it also expressed views and attitudes on the planning merits, such as the environment, the noise, the views of St. Paul's, public transport safety on the adjacent railway at Cannon street station and safety on the river and for residents throughout London. There is thus considerable parliamentary opinion, which I hope the Department will take into account when weighing up the relevant planning aspects as on planning grounds it is obliged to do.
  The site for the heliport falls within the constituency of the City of London and Westminster, South, which is represented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He is precluded from speaking in the debate because if he did he would be deemed to be giving advice to another Minister on a departmental matter falling within the ambit of that second Minister. However, I am aware that he has visited the site and it is open to him to put the various views of his constituents to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  The site is on the edge of the City of London. Although the Secretary of State's decision to call in the planning decision means that the Government will make the final decision, the Corporation of London will still have an important role in the forthcoming planning inquiry. I understand that members of the corporation are likely to be divided on the matter, both in the planning committee and in the full corporation. If so, I hope that any division

  485
  will be reported to the inquiry and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Corporation of London will not be taking an executive decision as a planning authority—it will merely advise, and if that advice is divided, it makes sense for that fact to be conveyed to those making the decision.
  The application is opposed by the following boroughs: Southwark, which faces the site, Richmond upon Thames, which includes my constituency, Wandsworth, Tower Hamlets and the City of Westminster. I hope that my hon. Friend will note that those five local authorities have different political complexions.
  The application is also opposed by six City livery companies, numerous residents' associations and several important companies which have offices in the vicinity where many people do important work. For example, British Telecom has its international nerve centre nearby. It would be a great pity if its work were jeopardised either by noise or by the risk of a crash. Barclays de Zoete Wedd would also be affected. Here I must declare an interest as I am on the list of the shareholders of Barclays bank, although my interest is not beneficial but as a trustee of a trust. It has many people who do important and useful work. Speyhawk could also be affected. That company is well known to me because 15 years ago its headquarters were in Twickenham and the quality of its work enjoys tremendous respect. It would be shocking if what it is doing to develop Cannon street were marred by thousands of helicopters flying over Cannon street station. Today I received a message from the chairman of Speyhawk, Mr. Trevor Osborne, who said:
  "A heliport in this location would be environmentally damaging and contrary to the tremendous improvements to the character of this riverside location which have taken place in recent years and are taking place even now."
  He went on to say:
  "The area around the proposed site has rapidly become a financial centre of considerable commercial importance which could be spoilt by the nuisance of an inappropriate development".
  The site is next to Cannon street station and I must draw attention to the safety risks. Helicopters are becoming less safe. A report in Flight International for the week 7–13 February 1990 quotes the Civil Aviation Authority as saying:
  "The encouraging [helicopter-safety] trend of the past couple of years has now been reversed."
  The number of helicopter crashes is unfortunately tending to increase and it would be batty to have a heliport next to a main commuter railway station where a crashing helicopter might derail a train or even drop on a platform crowded with commuters.
  It would be bad to set a precedent to build out into the River Thames. English Heritage and the Services Committee of the House had some strong words to say on a recent planning application for some floating pontoons with shops alongside Westminster pier, jutting out just to the north of Westminster bridge and facing County Hall. Their advice was taken by the Secretary of State for the Environment following the planning inquiry and planning permission was refused. Platforms and other works jutting out into the Thames would create a bad precedent. Furthermore, it would be bad for the work of the House to have large numbers of helicopters going by.
  There are only two arguments in favour of the proposal—the usual commercial one, and the fact that each trip would save a few business tycoons about half an hour.
  486
  I hope that the public inquiry will scrutinise with the utmost scepticism the argument that a heliport would benefit the City of London as a financial centre. The noise would cut the efficiency of people working in offices nearby. No other European city has a central heliport—unless one counts the heliport at Issy, which is as far from the commercial centre of Paris as the existing Battersea heliport is from the City of London.
  I happen to know a number of successful business men as well as some who are unsuccessful. Some dash about to offices and plants in different places, while others are the quiet type of millionaires who work from one point. Most tend to be sensible and reasonable people who take carefully measured decisions. That is especially true of the more successful among them. In general, they do not need or want to disturb thousands of people on the ground just to save themselves half-an-hour's travelling time. It is the second-rate businesss men—the grade 2 and grade 3 busines men—who are much more likely to rush about like scalded rabbits and would want to brag to their children, or possibly to their girl friends, that they have been up in a helicopter. The demand may be there, but the need is not.
  It is for the Government to decide what is right. Usually, the Secretary of State for the Environment can accept the advice of his planning inspectors, but sometimes he does not. If my hon. Friend the Minister has time, perhaps he will tell me the percentage of cases falling into each of those categories. I can give three prominent examples of an Environment Secretary refusing to accept the advice of inspectors following planning inquiries.
  The first concerns the fifth terminal at Heathrow, where a public inquiry lasted two years. The inspector—a distinguished barrister—recommended that a fifth terminal be constructed. I am glad that the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), chose to heed the advice of Members of Parliament representing constituencies in the Heathrow area rather than that of the inspector, and refused permission for the scheme to go ahead. My right hon. Friend made that decision on planning grounds, giving different weights to the various arguments from those assigned by the inspector.
  The second case was the extension to the National gallery. After the Prince of Wales had described the proposed scheme as
  "a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a well-loved friend",
  the then Secretary of State refused planning consent.
  The third case was the reverse. The planning inspector had recommended refusal, as had Richmond borough council, of the scheme to construct a Sainsbury superstore which is to open to the public on Tuesday 29 May. That planning decision placed in the hands of a local charity, Hampton Fuel Allotments Trust, the sum of £21 million for the land, so what had been a relatively small village charity suddenly has an income of £1·5 million per year for the benefit of my constituents. I believe that most of my constituents are glad about that decision, just as they are about those relating to Heathrow and the National gallery.
  Very often, when a Secretary of State for the Environment refuses the advice of planning inspectors, his decision is right not only politically but in terms of value judgments and planning considerations. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in the forefront of his mind the fact that, whatever a planning inspector recommends, he is no more than an adviser—albeit a distinguished adviser. Ultimately it is for the Secretary of

  487
  State to reach a judgment, and it would be wrong for him ever to sacrifice his judgment to that of a planning inspector.
  I hope that when the planning inquiry takes place it will not be too long before the inspector reports to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will consider the matter carefully, and that he will refuse planning permisson for this frightful application.
  3.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I can respond immediately to the last matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) brought to my attention. I have the details that he requested. The chief inspector's report for the year ending March 1989 shows that the Secretary of State did not accept the inspector's recommendations in nine cases out of 100. My hon. Friend was therefore accurate when he mentioned the principle that the honorary advice received from inspectors following inquiries is further considered by the Secretary of State, who has to determine the outcome of any such appeal and does not need to accept that advice automatically. Nevertheless, the inspectorate is of first-rate quality and we are fortunate to have people with such first-rate minds applying themselves to problems which are often complex.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham on winning his place in the ballot. As he said, the planning application for a heliport alongside Cannon street railway bridge was called in by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 22 March, and a public inquiry is to be held before one of his inspectors, starting on 2 October.
  The City of London Heliport Ltd. (CLH), a consortium which includes BAA, Hanson, Midland bank, Trafalgar House and the Carroll group of companies, submitted a planning application to the City of London on 12 December for a heliport. The proposal is to locate the heliport on the north bank of the Thames between London bridge and Cannon street railway bridge. The heliport would be cantilevered out over the river, and the deck would be slightly above the level of London and Cannon street bridges. The application provides for a maximum of 25,000 movements per annum, equating to approximately 91 a day. The application is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment, which covers such issues as noise, safety, water quality and cultural heritage.
  The proposed heliport would be restricted to certain twin-engined helicopters, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. That is to ensure that, should a helicopter suffer an engine failure, it will be more able to land safely. That is required to satisfy the requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority in respect of an elevated heliport such as CLH.
  Mr. Jessel: Does that not imply that there is a conflict between safety and noise abatement? To make the heliport safer, helicopters will have to have an extra engine which will make them more noisy. One way or another, the public will suffer—either from more noise or from less safety.
  Mr. Moynihan: I make no qualitative judgment—it is for the inspector to consider noise and the important issue of safety.
  At present the Department has received 223 representations, including 10 from local authorities. They are split fairly evenly between those in favour and those against. It appears that the arguments have fined down to the important questions that my hon. Friend has raised—noise and safety, versus need for the heliport. That is borne out by the representations received so far.
  In the first instance, the application was made to the corporation of the City. The Government's policy is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of the local planning authority unless it is necessary to do so, to be very selective about calling in cases for the Secretary of State to decide, and generally to call in applications only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved—for example, those which in the Department's opinion could have side effects beyond their immediate locality, could give rise to substantial regional or national controversy, might conflict with national policy on important matters, or could involve interests of national security or of foreign Governments.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided that this was such a case, and that he should take the decision himself after a public inquiry. He will consider all planning aspects of the proposed development, and he has said that on the information so far available the following matters appear likely to be relevant to his consideration of the application: first, the provisions of the local plan adopted on 12 January 1989 so far as material to the application; secondly, the effects of noise and pollution arising from the proposed development; thirdly, the suitability of the site for the proposed development; fourthly, the effect of the development on the character of the area; and, fifthly, the likely effect of the development on traffic movement in nearby streets. Clearly, the important issue of safety is relevant to some of those considerations.
  The inquiry will be held at the City of London Corporation Guildhall at 10 am on Tuesday 2 October 1990. The inspector will be Mr. Brundel. The inquiry will provide the opportunity for all those concerned to put their views to the inspector, and the best course is to attend or to be represented there. Interested persons may give evidence at the discretion of the inspector. Those wishing to give evidence are advised to attend on the first morning of the inquiry to assist the inspector in determining the order of appearance.
  A pre-inquiry meeting is to be held at the same venue at 10 am on Tuesday 31 July. The purpose of the meeting is to help the parties prepare for the actual inquiry and so enable the proceedings to be conducted as smoothly and efficiently as possible. It will also help the parties to concentrate on the main issues in dispute, saving time and expense for all concerned. It is not for the purpose of hearing evidence, which is for the inquiry itself.
  The Government recognise the need to balance environmental concerns with aviation interests.
  My hon. Friend appreciates that I cannot comment on the merits of the case. As he rightly stated, that might prejudice my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role. However, on the most important point I can say that his views will be carefully noted by both my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport.
  Mr. Anthony Nelson rose —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) have the consent of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)?
  Mr. Jessel: If there is time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have further points to put to my hon. Friend the Minister.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Twickenham objecting to the hon. Member for Chichester?
  Mr. Jessel: I am not objecting, but I thought—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Toby Jessel.
  Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend the Minister has not so far had time to answer one of the points that I put to him. I should be grateful if he would find the time to do so, as we have approximately three and three quarter minutes left.
  I gave my hon. Friend the Minister notice of this matter by telephoning his private secretary or another official in the Department of the Environment who was in touch with his private secretary this morning. I refer to an extract from the debate on civil aviation as reported in the Official Report of 22 June 1984. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) was the then Minister who replied to the debate. As I said 20 minutes ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West said:
  "Noise can be a potent destroyer of the quality of life. The Government care about the environment … Helicopters seem to have a special pitch of vibrating noise … In the light of the environmental disturbance caused by the service we could not justify allowing it to continue in operation … we must give due weight to environmental considerations in dealing with such cases.—[Official Report, 22 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 655.]
  The official to whom I spoke assured me that it would be possible for the Department of the Environment to locate a copy of the Official Report of 22 June 1984 and place it before my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not know
  490
  whether that happened. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say whether the sentiments in the speech by the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West, remain Government policy? It is crucial to this matter. The Minister can comment without prejudicing the Secretary of State's decision at the public inquiry. It is merely an expression of Government policy, but it is important for me to know. I feel that I have the right, on behalf of my constituents, to ask whether the notion of not allowing the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link to continue because of the exceptional environmental disturbance of helicopter noise remains Government policy.
  Mr. Moynihan: I have not seen that speech, but I will respond to my hon. Friend and ensure that he has a detailed answer in writing. If it is not directly relevant in terms of pre-empting or prejudging the specific issue to be considered by the inquiry, the reply will made available to him in the usual manner through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: In the dying moments of the debate, may I, with the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), say a few words in favour of the proposals? I should regret it if the opinion were to be put about that the House was universally against them. There are strong arguments why a heliport is essential for the City of London to retain its pre-eminent position as a financial centre, and I hope that British Telecom—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, Before I put the question, I express the hope that all hon. Members and those who serve us will have an enjoyable and relaxing recess.
  It being half-past Three o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order [ 11 May] and the Resolution [23 May] till Tuesday 5 June.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have so far opted for grant-maintained status; and how many applications are at present being processed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has so far approved 37 proposals for grant-maintained status and has announced that he is minded to approve a further three proposals subject to agreement with the governing body about minor modifications to admissions arrangements. Eleven proposals have been published following parental ballots in favour of an application for grant-maintained status and will reach my right hon. Friend for decision shortly. The governing bodies of six schools where parents have voted in favour of an application have yet to publish proposals.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many primary schools have shown an interest in seeking grant-maintained status.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No ballots have so far been held at primary schools on grant-maintained status. Of the 37 schools which my right hon. Friend has so far approved for grant-mantained status, 35 are secondary schools and two are middle-deemed secondary schools. Recently numerous of the larger primary schools have requested copies of the DES booklet "Grant Maintained Schools: Questions Parents Ask".

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of opt-out ballots have resulted in a decision in favour of grant-maintained status; and at how many schools there has had to be a second ballot.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Parental ballots have been held at 89 schools—parents at 68 of these schools (75 per cent.) have voted in favour of an application for grant-maintained status. Second ballots have had to be held at eight schools because the turnout in the first ballot was below 50 per cent. A second ballot may also be held at a school where at least 12 months have elapsed since the first balloting took place. One school has held a second ballot in such circumstances—in this case parents voted against an application in 1989, but in favour of an application in 1990.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many of the schools which have opted for grant-maintained status are(a) grammar schools, (b) voluntary-aided schools and (c) single-sex schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Of the 37 schools which my right hon. Friend has so far approved for grant-maintained status 268
  (a) 14 are selective and 23 are non-selective schools; (b) six were voluntary-aided schools, six were voluntary-controlled schools, one was a special agreement school and 24 were county schools; (c) 13 are single-sex boys' schools, six are single-sex girls' schools and 18 schools are co-educational.

  Of the three schools which my right hon. Friend has announced that he is minded to approve for grant-maintained status (a) one is a selective school and two are non-selective schools; (b) all three are county schools; (c) one is a single-sex boys' school and two are co-educational.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average turnout figure in parental ballots taken in schools on whether to obtain grant-maintained status.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The average participation rate so far in parental ballots is 67·5 per cent.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the level of rises or falls in admissions to grant-maintained schools; and where such changes have taken place.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information about admissions to grant-maintained schools in September 1990 is not yet available. However, earlier this year the Grant Maintained Schools Trust carried out a survey of applications for places for September 1990 at a number of grant-maintained schools. It found that applications had increased by 40 per cent. on average over last year at those schools for which it had information. For example, at Baverstock school in Birmingham there were 350 applications for 210 places, representing an increase of 50 per cent. over last year. At Hendon school there has been an increase of 100 per cent. in applications over 1989.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local authorities are selling back services to schools which have become grant-maintained.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Detailed information is not collected by the Department. But our understanding is that many local authorities are selling services to schools which have become grant-maintained. For example, Lincolnshire LEA is offering to sell a range of services including payroll, school meals, ground and property maintenance, advisory, architectural and financial services and in-service training for teaching staff. Grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire have bought a number of these services on a selective basis.

  Governor Training
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent on support grants for governor training in the year 1988–89; and how much is planned to be spent in the current year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No education support grant was allocated for governor training in the financial year 1988–89. Accounts are not yet finalised for 1989–90, but the amount made available through the education support grant programme for governor training in that year was £4,900,000. The amount which is being made available in the 1990–91 financial year is £5,152,700. The programme is scheduled to continue for a further year.

  Schools, North Wiltshire
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools were closed in each of the past five years within the constituency of Wiltshire, North.

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

  Schools, Leicestershire
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received, and from whom, regarding opting out of schools in Leicestershire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has so far received one application for grant-maintained status from a school in Leicestershire. The proposal for GM status from Longfield high school in Melton Mowbray, and the objections received, were given careful consideration by my right hon. Friend before he announced his decision to approve the request for grant-maintained status with effect from August 1990.

  Rothera Point Airstrip, Antarctica
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the containment capacity of the retaining berm for the fuel tank farm under construction at the Rothera Point airstrip in Antarctica.

  Mr. Jackson
  The retaining berm for the fuel tank farm at Rothera Point has a capacity of approximately 125,000 imperial gallons.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measure he proposes to take to reduce the incidence of dust covering the site of the Rothera Point airstrip in Antarctica; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Measures to be employed by the contractor to reduce the incidence of dust during construction of the Rothera Point airstrip in Antarctica are given in the final comprehensive environmental evaluation published in September 1989 by the NERC. A copy is in the Library.

  Schoolgirls (Achievement)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what steps the Government are taking to encourage schools to enable girls to achieve across the curriculum;

  (2) what advice the Government have given to local education authorities regarding equal opportunity for girls across the curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The duties of local education authorities and others under the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 were explained in circular 2/76 (WO 20/76).

  The broad and balanced education provided by the foundation subjects of the national curriculum is intended to prevent premature specialisation by either boys or girls. The non-statutory subject working groups established to
  270
  advise on the national curriculum have been asked to bear in mind that the curriculum should provide equal opportunities for boys and girls; and circular 6/89, which accompanied the mathematics and science orders laid under section 4 of the Education Reform Act 1988, advised that it would be particularly important to ensure that boys and girls have equal opportunity and equal encouragement to undertake the full model A science course.

  The criteria for initial teacher training specify equal opportunities as an example of a cross-curricular dimension that students should be able to incorporate into their teaching by the time they qualify. It is also required that students learn to guard against preconceptions based on gender.

  Government objectives in this area are also supported by the DE Training Agency-funded technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI). One criterion of TVEI, in which nearly all local education authorities are now involved, is that action will be taken to avoid sex stereotyping both in curriculum options and in teaching and learning styles.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [pursuant to her reply, 8 May 1990, c. 8–10]: My right hon. Friend has been asked by several local education authorities to make the necessary regulations to permit them to include special schools in their statutory local management of schools schemes. Before making his decision, he intends to give very careful consideration to all the implications, both for special schools and for pupils with statements of special educational need in primary and secondary schools. He has therefore invited Touche Ross Management Consultants to undertake a detailed feasibility study, and to report their findings to him. Copies of that report will be placed in the Library and will also be sent to LEAs and special schools in both England and Wales. In the light of that report the Government will consider whether, and, if so, when, it will be appropriate to make enabling regulations.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how great a percentage of the average school budget, excluding those which have opted for grant-maintained status, is controlled by the local authority under local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) on 5 February 1990 at column 451.

  Cash limits
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether there are any changes to the cash limits for his Department's votes.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 February 1990, c. 397–98]: Subject to parliamentary approval to the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class XI vote 1: schools, research and miscellaneous services, will be reduced as follows:

  271

  Class XI Vote 1 (£)

  Current cash limit

  653,421,000

  Change

  -80,000

  Revised cash limit

  653,341,000

  The reduction results from the appropriation in aid of receipts originally expected in 1989–90 from private sector cash sponsorship for the project to build a school in Armenia following the 1988 earthquake. These more than offset increased gross provision in 1990–91 for the project which is nearing completion.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. K. J. Warne
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide the hon. Member for South Hams with a copy of the original signed judgment of the appeal to the social security commissioners by Mr. K. J. Warne of 61 Clobeills, South Brent, South Devon; and the supporting material sent to Mr. Warne by his office during the week commencing 14 May.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. I have written to the hon. Member enclosing the documents requested.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any changes will be made to the Lord Chancellor's Department's cash limit and running costs limit for 1990–91.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Lord Chancellor's Department, class X, vote 1 will be increased by £1,832,000 from £319,300,000 to £321,132,000.

  The increase reflects transfers from other Departments, of £1,915,000 from the Property Services Agency to cover responsibilities formerly exercised by that agency and of £20,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry for work to be undertaken by the Law Commission. It also reflects a transfer of £103,000 to the Department of Social Security for additional work falling to the legal aid assessment office.

  The supplementary estimate also gives effect to an increase of £2,000,000 in the Department's provision for departmental estate maintenance which is fully offset by an increase of £2,000,000 in net recoveries from civil fees. These increases will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The running costs limit for the Department will be increased by £1,898,000 from £279,084,000 to £280,982,000.

ENVIRONMENT

  Office Complex, Warwick
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why he decided not to call in the planning decision of Warwickshire county council to allow the firm Conoco to build an office complex at the Warwick technology park.
  272
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Outline planning permission for Warwick technology park was granted by Warwickshire county council in 1986. It is very rare for the Secretary of State to call in a reserved matters application and this application by the county council did not appear to justify such an exceptional procedure.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any officials of his west midlands regional staff have been disciplined as a result of the advice given, or failure to give advice, arising from Warwickshire county council's decision to allow Conoco plc to build an office complex at Warwick.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. I am, however, writing separately to my hon. Friend with a full explanation of the events in question.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the 100-day rule for liability for the business rate for bed-and-breakfast establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this matter; and I have met several of my hon. Friends to discuss their concerns.

  Many home owners providing bed-and-breakfast have argued for a more generous exemption but others, particularly the hotel trade, believe that any exemption in this area could lead to unfair competition. The tourist authorities have represented that the rule could lead to a shortening of the season in which such accommodation is available. We are considering these arguments and others that have been put to us.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those organisations which responded to his consultation paper of December 1988 on the application of the business rate for bed-and-breakfast establishments.

  Mr. Chope
  The following organisations responded to the consultation paper on "The boundary between domestic and non-domestic property", issued in December 1988:

  The Association of District Councils

  The Association of County Councils

  The Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  The National Association of Local Councils

  Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

  Blackpool Borough Council

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  Cambridge City Council

  Carrick District Council

  City of London

  Cleethorpes Borough Council

  Eastbourne Borough Council

  East Dorset District Council

  Fylde Borough Council

  Borough of Great Yarmouth

  Hertfordshire County Council

  Huntingdonshire District Council

  Kennet District Council

  Lancaster City Council

  Borough of Luton

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme

  New Forest District Council

  North Norfolk District Council

  273

  Penwith District Council

  Preston Borough Council

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  Somerset County Council

  South Herefordshire District Council

  Tendring District Council

  Tonbridge and Mailing Borough Council

  Vale Royal Borough Council

  West Somerset District Council

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  Wyre Borough Council

  Country Landowners Association

  The Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers

  Institute of Housing

  The Institution of Civil Engineers

  The Rating Officers Guild

  The Rating Surveyors Association

  The Rating and Valuation Association

  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

  Edward Erdman Surveyors

  Gerald Eve Chartered Surveyors

  Grimley J. R. Eve Chartered Surveyors

  Matthews and Goodman Chartered Surveyors

  J. P. Sturge Chartered Surveyors

  Association of Independent Businesses

  British Holiday & Home Parks Association Ltd.

  The British Hotels Restaurants and Caterers Association

  British Property Federation

  British Retailers Association

  British Self Catering Federation

  Chalfont St. Peter Chamber of Commerce

  Cumbria and Lakeland Self-Caterers Association

  Federation of Cornwall Hotels and Tourism Associations

  Historic Houses Association

  The Land Institute

  London Chamber of Commerce

  The National Association of Warehouse Keepers

  The National Council of Hotels Associations

  National Federation of Retail Newsagents

  The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Limited

  The National Licensed Victuallers' Association

  Skegness Holiday Flat Owners Association

  The Water Companies Association

  Action With Communities in Rural England

  British Mountaineering Council

  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom

  Forestry Commission

  Oxford Polytechnic

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  Community Charge
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of gross income is paid in community charge by persons earning(a) £5,000 per year, (b) £10,000 per year and (c) £20,000 per year when the community charge is (i) £300, (ii) £400 and (iii) £500.

  Mr. Chope
  The amount paid in community charge would vary depending on entitlement to community charge benefit. The level of benefit applicable in each case would depend on the family and financial circumstances of the individual involved.

  Aviation Fuel Pollution
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that certificates issued under clause 142(4) of the Environmental Protection Bill will not prevent effective action being taken against pollution from Royal Air Force training exercises involving the deliberate burning of aviation fuel and other substances.
  274
  Mr. Trippier
  My Department is currently discussing with the Ministry of Defence whether amendments may be necessary to the Environmental Protection Bill to ensure that the operational activities of the armed services are not unduly restricted. I will write to the hon. Lady about the outcome of those discussions.

  VDUs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in respect of safeguards for operatives working with VDUs within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department aims to provide safe systems and methods of work that are without risk to health for its employees. In providing for the comfort and health of the users of VDUs the Department takes account of the guidance produced by the Health and Safety Executive and jointly by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency and the Council of Civil Service Unions.

  Local Government (Cost)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in real terms the cost of local government between 1979–80 and predicted 1990–91 on the basis of(a) total expenditure and (b) expenditure pro rata for a comparable level of services and the equivalent level of income tax that would be required to finance local government expenditure (a) at present levels of services and (b) at service levels equivalent to 1979–80, in each of those years.

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

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

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimates:

  (a) the cash limit for class VIII, vote 2 (miscellaneous housing administration and grants) will be reduced by £24,876,000 from £122,908,000 to £98,032,000. There will be a reduction of £25,000,000 on housing action trusts (HATs) as a result of the decision of tenants not to proceed with a HAT in Sunderland. This reduction will be partly offset by increases totalling £124,000 elsewhere on the vote;

  (b) the cash limit for class VIII, vote 5 (central environmental services, etc.) will be reduced by £700,000 from £358,596,000 to £357,896,000. This reduction relates mainly to the transfer of responsibility for the Football Licensing Authority (£670,000) to the Home Office from my Department. There is also a transfer of £30,000 to my Department's class VIII, vote 6 (royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings, ancient monuments and the national heritage) to provide additional funding for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission to recreate certain documents of importance that were accidentally destroyed;

  (c) the cash limit for Class VIII, Vote 6 (royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings etc.) will be reduced by £305,000 from £150,152,000 to £149,847,000). This reduction relates to the transfer of responsibility for external repair of Horseguards Building to the Ministry of Defence (£235,000), and for road rescue archaeology to the Department of Transport (£100,000). The net reduction of £305,000 on this vote takes account of £30,000 transferred from class VIII, vote 5 to which I referred earlier.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to publish the report on the care of redundant churches carried out by Mr. Richard Wilding.

  Mr. Trippier
  Mr. Wilding's report, which was presented to Ministers and to the Church Commissioners at the end of March, is being published today, by HMSO. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report gives a valuable overview of the operation of the redundant churches fund and the context in which its work is carried out. In general, the report concludes that the present system for handling and financing the preservation of Church of England churches works well. But it identifies a number of ways in which the present arrangements could be improved, and makes a number of recommendations relating to this and to the handling of redundant churches and chapels of other denominations.

  The recommendations also relate to the respective responsibilities of the Department of the Environment and the Church Commissioners in respect of the fund. A number of them, if implemented, would require amendment either of the Pastoral Measure 1983 or of the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969. My right hon. Friend welcomes the general thrust of the report. He will be considering all the recommendations most carefully in consultation with the Church Commissioners and there will be discussions with the fund and the advisory board for redundant churches before any conclusions are reached. During this process, they will also take into account any views which other bodies or individuals may wish to make: such comments should be sent to the Department at room C11/02,2 Marsham street, London SW1P 3EB or to the Church Commissioners at 1 Millbank, London SW1P 3JZ, by 31 August.

  I hope that with the aid of this useful and readable report we shall be able to improve still further on the systems for ensuring that the best of our heritage of historic churches which are no longer needed for pastoral use are preserved in the mutual interests of the Church and the nation.

  Local Government Employees
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the total annual cost and the average annual cost of full-time local government employees; and if he will break down the average cost for a full-time equivalent post into pay, national insurance, superannuation and other costs, such as office space, heating, lighting, etc., for each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: Actual figures are not available. It is estimated that for 1988–89, the position was as follows:

  £

  Total local government employees costs

  23,300 million

  Average annual cost per full-time equivalent of which:

  12,100

  Pay

  10,400

  National insurance

  700

  Superannuation

  1,000

  276
  Note: Associated employees' costs such as office space, heating, lighting etc, are excluded.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report, in tabular form for each local authority in England and Wales, the recommended community charge level, the total amount in central Government grant, the number of over-18-yearolds within the area, identifying with an asterisk those authorities which have been charge-capped by his Department.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: I am arranging for information to be placed in the Library of the House showing for each charging authority in England

  (a) the average community charge at 1 April.

  (b) the charge that would have been set had each notifiable authority spent broadly at the level of its SSA.

  (c) the amount of revenue support grant, adjusted for the area safety net, and special transitional grants receivable and

  (d) the relevant population for 1990–91 calculated in accordance with the population report.

  Comparable figures for Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total level of central Government assistance per charge payer, as expressed on the community charge collection notice for(a) Westminster, (b) Castle Morpeth, (c) Alnwick and (d) Berwick-upon-Tweed.

  Mr. Portillo
  The figures are as follows:

  Revenue support grant

  Special grants

  Area safety net

  Westminster

  865·84

  53·32

  -75·00

  Castle Morpeth

  180·25

  —

  -5·84

  Alnwick

  193·84

  —

  48·16

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  186·48

  17·34

  52·18

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each charging authority in England in receipt of safety net grant the amount to be withdrawn in (i) 1991–92 and (ii) 1992–93, expressed both in £ million and £ per head.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposed last November that transitional protection for the years 1991–92 to 1993–94 would be paid by way of a special grant calculated so that the equivalent of £25 per adult or 25 per cent. of the combined protection given by the safety net and the low rateable values area special grant in 1990–91, whichever is the greater, is withdrawn each year. I will place in the Library a table exemplifying the effects of these proposals.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been issued by his Department on the practice of managing agents charging residents of blocks of flats sums of money to pay the poll tax of live-in staff such as caretakers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  A person who is subject to a personal community charge is individually liable to pay the
  277
  community charge as it has effect for the year. Only where the joint and several liability provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 apply would another person—the spouse—also be liable for the same amount. It is possible, however, for any person to pay another person's community charge for him or her. If an employer pays an employee's charge, the employer is chargeable to income tax on the amount concerned. Whether or not in such circumstances managing agents seek to defray their costs through charges to residents of blocks of flats will be a contractual matter for agreement between residents and the agents.

  Caravans and Chalets
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish new legislation governing the designation of caravans and chalets for standard community charge or business rate; and if he will make a statement on the precise changes he intends to introduce.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) on 30 March 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), at columns 346–47.

  Residential Holiday Centres
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department has issued on the designation of accommodation used by staff at residential holiday centres for the collective community charge; what monitoring of such designation he has undertaken: and if he has any plans to review the use of such designations.

  Mr. Portillo
  A building may be designated for the purposes of the collective charge if, in the opinion of the community charges registration officer, the building is used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of individuals most of whom reside there for short periods and are not undertaking full-time courses of education and if it would probably be difficult to maintain the register and collect payments in respect of the building if a designation were not made. Advice on the application of the collective community charge was given to local authorities in the Department's practice note 14. A person may appeal against a designation for the collective charge first to the charging authority and then to a valuation and community charge tribunal. We will continue to monitor the application of the collective charge, but at present I see no need to change the provisions governing designation.

  Tied Tenants
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the situation of tied tenants who own separate accommodation for retirement or job loss and are liable for both personal and standard community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In addition to the classes of circumstances which have been prescribed by the Secretary of State, authorities have wide discretion to specify their own standard charge classes so as to reduce the standard charge 278
  multiplier or to levy no charge. We have given authorities advice on the scope and exercise of their discretion. It is open to authorities to provide for cases where a person is required to live elsewhere as a condition of his employment, such as in the case of tied tenants.

  I am concerned that not all authorities are using their discretion sensitively and my right hon. Friend is considering what further adjustments may be needed for 1991–92.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Stockton, North,Official Report, 9 May, columns 166–67, he will estimate (a) the proportion of low and intermediate-level nuclear waste created by the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from foreign contracts, which will make up the initial inventory for the Nirex repository and (b) the time period over which high-level nuclear waste arising from foreign spent fuel reprocessing contracts will remain in the United Kingdom before being returned to the country of origin.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand from British Nuclear Fuels plc that intermediate-level waste arising from the company's overseas reprocessing contracts prior to 1976 is estimated to be in the order of 1 per cent. of the intermediate-level waste included in the initial inventory for the Nirex repository. Low-level waste arising from such contracts will be disposed of at Drigg and not in the Nirex repository.

  For the disposal of wastes arising from BNFL's post-1976 contracts and the time period for returning high-level waste from such contracts, I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 2 May 1986, at columns 500–01.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates he has made of the impact of(a) the commission of new gas-fired generating capacity and (b) the importation through east coast ports of low-sulphur content coal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The extent to which the generators construct new gas generating capacity and import low-sulphur coal will depend on the level of electricity demand, fuel prices and capital costs.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates he has made of the impact of the cancellations of plans to instal flue gas emission cleaning equipment in British power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The electricity generators' present declared intention is to fit flue gas desulphurisation equipment to 8 GW of generating plant. In the longer term, the challenge for British Coal is to make its coal sufficiently attractive to the generators so that they would choose to retrofit further power stations with FGD equipment.
  279
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration he gave to the effect on the balance of payments when he permitted the target of 12,000 MW to be fitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment to be reduced to 8,000 MW.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is for the electricity generators to decide how best they can achieve the reduction in emissions of sulphur dioxide called for in the EC large combustion plants directive. The Government, while determined to ensure compliance with the reductions set out in the directive, do not seek to control imports of oil or coal.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from British Boilermakers about the amount of generating plant to be fitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have received a number of representations from the United Kingdom power plant construction industry concerning various issues, including the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment.

  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what level of fuel oil stocks were held by the Central Electricity Generating Board in 1989–90 and each year since 1984–85.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Information relating to the levels of oil stocks for the purposes of section 6 of the Energy Act 1976 is supplied to the Department on a "commercial in confidence" basis and is therefore not published.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what, in respect of Sizewell B, is the latest estimate for(a) the date of fuel loading and (b) the date of full commercial load; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has just received a major report from Nuclear Electric plc on the progress of Sizewell B and is considering it in detail with the company. We understand that Nuclear Electric remains committed to its existing timetable.

  Nottinghamshire Coalfield
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Union of Democratic Mineworkers about job losses in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet officers of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Dinorwig and Maentwrog
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when a generating licence for the pump/storage generation stations of Dinorwig and Maentwrog was granted to the National Grid Company.

  Mr. Baldry
  A generating licence was granted to the pumped storage division of National Grid Company on 26 280
  March 1990 and came into force on 31 March. Copies of the licences which came into force on vesting day have been lodged with the Libraries of both Houses.

  Hinkley C
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to publish the inspector's report from the Hinkley C inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The inspector's report from the Hinkley C inquiry is still awaited. My right hon. Friend will decide on the arrangements for its publication once it has been received.

  Coal Supply
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many tonnes of coal British Coal is contracted to supply to National Power and PowerGen this year and in the two succeeding years.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The British Coal Corporation is contracted to supply the following approximate coal tonnages, at prescribed calorific values, to National Power and PowerGen:

  National Power

  44 million tonnes for 1990–91 and for 1991–92

  40 million tonnes for 1992–93

  PowerGen

  26 million tonnes for 1990–91 and for 1991–92

  25 million tonnes for 1992–93

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what level of coal stocks were held by British Coal and the Central Electricity Generating Board in 1989–90 and each year since 1984–85.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The level of coal stocks in million tonnes at the end of December was:

  British Coal

  Power stations Great Britain

  1984–85

  20·75

  14·40

  1985–86

  9·23

  23·94

  1986–87

  8·70

  27·98

  1987–88

  6·14

  25·29

  1988–89

  7·33

  27·00

  1989–90

  10·05

  27·35

  Source: Energy Trends, April 1990.

  Power stations stocks include those held by the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland electricity board.

  Spent Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has carried out as to the value of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on 26 June 1989, at column 357.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Wrongful Imprisonment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by year for the last 10 years, how many people have been wrongfully imprisoned; and what was their length of stay in custody.

  Mr. John Patten
  The tables give details of the cases referred to the Court of Appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in respect of conviction, since 1980 (table I); and of free pardons (for convictions involving custody) (table II).

  Table I References by the Home Secretary to the Court of Appeal under Section 17(1) (a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in respect of conviction

  Years

  Number of cases referred

  Number of defendants

  Appeals allowed

  1980

  3

  3

  1

  1981

  1

  1

  0

  1982

  4

  7

  4

  1983

  3

  3

  3

  1984

  12

  14

  3

  1985

  4

  4

  2

  1986

  4

  4

  1

  1987

  6

  13

  3

  1988

  2

  2

  0

  1989

  13

  6

  2

  Total

  42

  57

  19

  1 one to be heard

  Table II Free Pardons (for convictions involving custody)

  Number

  1980

  0

  1981

  1

  1982

  1

  1983

  0

  1984

  0

  1985

  0

  1986

  0

  1987

  0

  1988

  0

  1989

  0

  Vagrancy Arrests
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many homeless persons have been arrested under the Vagrancy Act in central London in each year since 1980 and how many in each month since January 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  Prosecutions were brought under the Vagrancy Act for sleeping out in the metropolitan district and the City of London as follows:

  Numbers

  1980

  188

  1983

  45

  1986

  4

  1987

  9

  1988

  12

  Figures for 1989 will be available later in the year.

  Trafalgar Square (Incident)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the 25 mounted officers deployed to disperse demonstrators in Trafalgar square on 31 March were women.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that five of the 25 mounted officers deployed to disperse demonstrators in Trafalgar square on 31 March were women.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to which factors account for the increase in applications for political asylum in 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Provisional figures suggest that the number of asylum applications increased from 5,105 in 1988 to 12,570 in 1989. The arrival of some 3,700 Turkish asylum seekers in the second quarter was an important factor but there were also significant increases in the number of applications from Somalia, Sri Lanka and Uganda. The overall increase is in line with trends elsewhere in Europe. Individual decisions to seek asylum are rooted in personal circumstances and conditions in countries of origin. In some cases would-be migrants claim asylum in an attempt to circumvent firm controls on other categories of immigration.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have sought political asylum so far this year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A provisional breakdown by nationality of applications made in each quarter is supplied to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Copies are placed in the Library. The provisional total for the first quarter of 1990 is 2,031 applications.

  Immigration
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) of 21 May, what information he has with regard to present whereabouts of the 670 immigrants detained on the Earl William in 1987.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no central records of those who were detained on the Earl William in 1987.

  Seals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to amend the Seals Act 1970 so as to increase protection of seals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have no plans to do so.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make any changes to the 1990–91 cash limits within his responsibilities and to his Department's running costs limit.
  283
  Mr. Waddington
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on class IX, vote 3, Home Office administration, immigration and police support services, England and Wales, will be increased by £2,302,000 to £758,925,000. The additional provision is necessary because of several new initiatives, primarily a new drugs demand reduction task force, increased aid to Colombia for anti-drug trafficking measures, and the expected cost of police investigations if the War Crimes Bill receives Royal Assent. This increase of £1,607,000 will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Responsibility for the new Football Licensing Authority has also been transferred to the Home Office from the Department of the Environment and the cash limit for class VIII, vote 5, has been reduced accordingly.

  The Home Office running cost limit will be increased by £267,000 from £1,012,392,000 to £1,012,659,000. In addition to the cost of the Football Licensing Authority transferred from the Department of the Environment a further £25,000 has been offset by a corresponding decrease within the Department of Transport's running cost limit (class VIII, vote 2).

PRIME MINISTER

  High Commissioner for India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has met the new high commissioner for India; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. I look forward to working with him and to seeing Indo-British relations improve still further during his time in London.

  Gujarat
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her meeting with the Chief Minister of the Gujarat on 8 May.

  The Prime Minister
  I had a useful discussion with the Chief Minister about current events in Gujarat, and about the Gujarati community in this country.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the current findings of the inquiry into the possible link between cot deaths and toxic gases.

  The Prime Minister
  I am not yet able to add to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave the hon. Members for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) on 16 May, at column 414.

  Inner-city Development (Leicester)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will appoint a Minister to oversee inner-city development in Leicester.

  The Prime Minister
  In December 1989 the Government announced the formation of a new team of Ministers to help co-ordinate action in inner-city areas covered by city action teams and task forces. Baroness 284
  Hooper, Under-Secretary of State for Health, advises the city action team which co-ordinates the Government's inner-city programmes in Leicester.

  Advisers
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply of 21 May,Official Report, column 17, if she will list in the Official Report the specialism for which each of her advisers who were not career civil servants for each year since 1981 were employed by the Cabinet Office, where relevant; what salary was agreed between each adviser and the Cabinet Office, in those cases where payment was made out of public funds; and what other employment those advisers recorded whilst working in the Prime Minister's office.

  The Prime Minister
  Advisers offer advice on a range of issues. It is not my normal practice to provide information on individual salaries, or on other employment held by part-time advisers. Special advisers are subject to the requirement applying to all civil servants that they must avoid any conflict of interest with their official duties.

  Secretary of State for Energy
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what official back-up is being provided to the Secretary of State for Energy in his new co-ordinating role; to which Department those officials will be allocated; and what provision is to be made for parliamentary questions on his performance of these new responsibilities.

  The Prime Minister
  The Secretary of State for Energy will be supported by my chief press secretary and his office. He will receive advice as necessary from the Cabinet Office on questions of propriety of Government publicity. Questions arising from the Secretary of State's new responsibilities should be addressed to him. Questions on publicity issues relating to a specific Department should be addressed to the Minister concerned.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Area Offices
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the staff turnover figures for each of the traffic area offices in the last three years for which information is available.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following are the figures:

  Percentage Turnover

  Traffic Area Office

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  North East (Newcastle)

  8·5

  8·6

  2·4

  North East (Leeds)

  12·3

  4·5

  27·0

  North West

  15·4

  8·0

  12·4

  West Midlands

  15·6

  18·2

  13·6

  Scottish

  26·2

  6·3

  15·6

  South Wales

  19·6

  8·7

  8·1

  Western

  16·1

  11·1

  9·7

  Eastern (Nottingham)

  10·8

  6·1

  10·1

  Eastern (Cambridge)

  22·8

  22·8

  20·0

  South East

  24·3

  17·4

  16·6

  Metropolitan

  25·4

  43·5

  20·2

  (These figures do not include internal transfers)

  Rail Electrification
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the estimated rate of return on the investment approved for the electrification of the Carstairs-Edinburgh line.

  Mr. Freeman
  Electrification of the Carstairs-Edinburgh line for InterCity services was approved by British Rail itself, on the basis that the scheme meets BR's normal criterion of an 8 per cent. financial return for investment in its commercial sectors.

  Electric Freight Locomotives
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the expected operational range, in the continental direction, of the new electric freight locomotives, approval for which was announced on 18 May by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Freeman
  BR currently plans to operate the new electric freight locomotives as far as Frethun, just beyond the French channel tunnel portal, where trains will be re-formed for journeys into France and beyond.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of rail coaches, or train sets, constructed, purchased, or modified for use on channel tunnel services, other than those on London-Paris and London-Brussels services, which he expects to be used on through services beyond London.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a commercial matter for British Rail. British Rail published its plans for services beyond London on 14 December and I refer to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) on that date at column 767. It has not yet submitted its investment proposals.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to apply and publish a cost benefit analysis comparable to that applied to the building of the London Victoria line to the proposed line between London and the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the disposal procedures adopted for those polychlorinated byphenyls associated with the work begun on a channel tunnel in 1974.

  Mr. Freeman
  Disposal procedures were generally a matter for the companies concerned. In one instance a contractor, contrary to the terms of his contract, spilt a considerable quantity of polychlorinated byphenyl on site in the course of removing a tunnelling machine. The Department subsequently disposed of the contaminated soil in accordance with procedures based on the recommendations of a firm of consulting engineers, and agreed with the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of the Environment and Kent county council.

  Traffic Office, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to announce the conclusions of his review of the northern area traffic office in Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 17 May 1990 at column 543.

  Speed Restrictions
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current criteria for speed restrictions on A roads through villages; and if he has any plans to revise them.

  Mr. Atkins
  The current criteria for speed limits on all roads including those through villages are set out in circular "Roads" 1/80 and 4/83. Copies of these are available from the Library of the House. They are kept under review.

  Railways
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals for further investment in the railway system have been put forward for when the present diesel fleet of high-speed trains are taken out of service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has no current proposals for the premature replacement of its high-speed diesel train fleet. British Rail expects these trains to remain in service on a number of routes until around the end of the century.

  Midland Main Line
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the report of the midland main line strategy study entitled "Electrification of the MML—a Key to Prosperity"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have not received this report.

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will set in hand an examination of the state of the British merchant shipping industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I am pleased to announce the setting up of a joint working party, under my chairmanship and that of the president of the General Council of British Shipping, to establish the present circumstances in which the British shipping industry operates both domestically and internationally. The working party has been asked to report no later than 14 September 1990.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current size of the British merchant fleet in terms of(a) the total number of vessels and (b) total tonnage; and what were the comparable figures 10 and 20 years ago.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested has been set out in the form of a table:
  287

  Trading vessels registered in the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies of 500 gross registered tonnes (grt) and above

  Date

  Number of vessels

  Tonnage

  grt 000

  dwt 000

  31 March 1990

  441

  6,072

  8,530

  31 December 1979

  1,305

  25,232

  41,221

  31 December 1969

  2,002

  22,274

  32,386

  dwt = deadweight tonnage.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the size of the British merchant fleet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We receive representations from all sections of the shipping industry, including most recently NUMAST. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier today, announcing the setting up of a joint working party with the General Council of British Shipping.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number and tonnage of new merchant vessels registered in Britain in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Figures for new registrations of British ships are provided in the table, which shows separately the vessels registered in the United Kingdom's Crown dependencies and dependent territories. The figures relate to the calendar year 1989 and to trading vessels over 500 gross registered tonnes (grt).

  Number

  Tonnage 000'sgrt

  United Kingdom

  20

  137

  Crown Dependencies

  10

  183

  Dependent Territories excluding Hong Kong

  18

  274

  Hong Kong

  33

  1,039

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to make to the cash limit and running costs limit for his Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary and revised estimates, the cash limits in class VII will be changed as follows:

  Current cash limit £000

  Change £000

  Revised cash limit £000

  Class VII Vote 2

  256,266

  -3,030

  253,236

  Class VII Vote 4

  129,904

  + 3,005

  132,909

  These changes to the cash limits take account of the following transfers from class VII vote 2:

  (a) £2,813,000 to class VII vote 4 of certain departmental running costs;

  (b) £192,000 to class VII vote 4 as a result of the transfer of responsibility for medical fees for heavy goods vehicle and public service vehicle driving licence applications to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. These fees will be reclassified as running costs; and

  (c) £25,000 of departmental running costs to class IX vote 3 for some civil aviation services.

  288
  The Department's running cost limit has been increased from £320,734,000 to £320,901,000.

  The changes do not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  General Council of British Shipping
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of the General Council of British Shipping; and what was discussed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Secretary of State and I regularly meet the General Council of British Shipping to discuss a wide range of shipping issues of mutual concern. The last such meeting was on 3 April.

  Radiation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the typical annual radiation dose equivalent exposure for crew members serving on board ships for a typical voyage duration owned and operated by Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd., and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Over the period 1983 to 1989 inclusive, the average annual radiation dose received by crew members serving on board ships owned and operated by Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd. ranged from 0·1 to 0·4 mSv. Over the same period the maximum annual radiation dose received by an individual was between 0·5 and 1·7 mSv.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions within the last 15 years there has been an accidental release of radiation or exceptional levels of emission from irradiated fuel flasks or other radioactive material containers on board ships owned and operated by Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There have been no significant releases of radioactivity from irradiated fuel flasks or other radioactive material containers on board ships owned and operated by Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd. Transporting spent fuel by sea has been carried out safely since the mid-1960s.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration has been given to the provision of alternative methods, other than central crash barriers, of preventing crossover accidents on dual carriageways.

  Mr. Atkins
  Consideration has been given to a number of alternatives including earth bunds, dense shrubbery and "arrester strips". All were assessed to be less safe, less practicable or otherwise less effective than safety fences and barriers.

  M66
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress on the M66; and when he expects it to be open.

  Mr. Atkins
  Supplementary orders for the northern section of the scheme in the Rhodes and Heaton Park area
  289
  (which involves widening of the existing M66) were published this week. Construction of this section should start next year. Supplementary orders for the rest of the scheme will be published in the autumn with a view to start of works in 1992. The Department aims to have the whole of the new motorway open in 1996.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of, and total value of, bypass schemes in the forward road programme at 1990 prices.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are at present more than 150 bypass schemes in the road programme, with a total works cost of about £3·5 billion at 1990 prices.

  British Rail (Grants)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money the Government have provided in grants to British Rail in each of the last five years and for what purposes, at current prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  Figures for Government support paid to the British Railways Board are given in the table. They include both the public service obligation grant under EC regulation 1191/69 and section 3 of the Railways Act 1974, which compensates BR for maintaining loss-making passenger services on Network SouthEast and provincial (InterCity services were removed from the obligation on 1 April 1988), and level crossings grant under EC regulation 1192/69. Final claims have yet to be agreed for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Cash

  1990–91 prices

  1985–86

  838

  1,110

  1986–87

  689

  882

  1987–88

  783

  951

  1988–89

  557

  632

  1989–90

  511

  544

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much money the Government have provided in grants to London Buses Ltd. in each of the last five years and for what purposes, at current prices;

  (2) how much money the Government have provided in grants to London Underground Ltd. in each of the last five years, and for what purposes, at current prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government pay grant to London Regional Transport which is responsible for distributing it to its subsidiaries, including London Buses Ltd. and London Underground Ltd.

  The total grant for the last five years at 1989–90 prices has been as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  391

  1986–87

  347

  1987–88

  271

  1988–89

  203

  1989–90

  287

  The purpose of the grant is to meet LRT's cash deficit; the Government do not pay specific grants to LRT for
  290
  specific purposes. Over the last five years the proportion of the grant devoted to revenue subsidy has reduced while the proportion supporting capital investment has increased. The effect has been that LRT's investment has grown by 42 per cent. in real terms over the same period.

  Civil Aviation (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the Civil Aviation Authority's net safety benefit analysis, particularly in relation to validity of the statistics used and the assumptions made concerning time and duration of fires.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The net safety benefit analysis is not the sole basis for the CAA's position on smoke hoods. It is the way in which the benefits and disbenefits of passenger smoke hoods can be weighed in a situation where there is a potential for loss of life due, for example, to delay in evacuation, as well as the saving of life. In the light of the inevitable lack of precise evidence as to the progress of an aircraft fire, and the time taken to evacuate in such incidents, both the CAA and the Department accept that there will always be some element of subjective assessment in work of this nature.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the process and procedures of evaluation to be undertaken(a) by his Department and/or (b) by the Civil Aviation Authority in order to measure the effectiveness of alternative smoke hood systems for aeroplanes and to certify those that meet the required performance standards.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. The required level of passenger protection to be provided by any smoke hood is set out in CAA specification No. 20 which was developed in consultation with industry. I am advised that the authority has received our initial applications for approval of smoke hoods, now reduced to three by the withdrawal of one applicant. To date no evidence has been provided or demonstrated to the authority that any smoke hood can provide the specified level of protection in the event of an aircraft fire.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make it his policy to make smoke hood provision mandatory in civilian aeroplanes once equipment has been certified as being capable of meeting the appropriate Civil Aviation Authority standard.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. The mandatory provision of smoke hoods on civilian aeroplanes is a matter for the authority.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what development period he estimates will be required before he will be able to legislate for water spray systems to be fitted as standard on civil aeroplanes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The statutory responsibility for the regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). I am advised that the
  291
  CAA, the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Transport Canada are currently co-operating in a research programme to test the effectiveness of cabin water spray systems in civil aircraft. The CAA's research into narrow-bodied fuselage systems should be completed by later this year. FAA research into wide-bodied aircraft fuselage fires is also expected to be completed by the end of this year. If these tests prove satisfactory, work to finalise a specification for such systems can start in early 1991.

  M67-M66-A57 Junction (Traffic Lights)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to approve the scheme to install traffic lights at the roundabout junction of the M67, M66 and A57.

  Mr. Atkins
  I expect to approve the design of this scheme shortly, with the intention of starting works in the current financial year.

  Catamaran (Loss)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the loss of the catamaran Bootlegger off Lulworth cove, Dorset, on 30 July 1988; what investigations have been carried out by his Department into the cause of the loss; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Roads
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total value of the forward road programme at 1990 prices; and what percentage(a) road building and (b) maintenance comprise of the total.

  Mr. Atkins
  The works value of the entire trunk road construction programme, as published in "Trunk Roads, England: Into the 1990s" is £16,750 million at 1990 prices. Maintenance is not planned in the same way as the construction programme, and figures are available only for the three years to the end of 1992–93; for that period the value of maintenance is £1,685 million cash.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money his Department has spent on its road programme in each of the last five years at current prices.

  Mr. Atkins
  Expenditure on the roads programme in the last five years at 1990–91 prices is as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  801

  1986–87

  800

  1987–88

  784

  1988–89

  832

  1989–90

  1985

  1 Provisional

  These figures are net of receipts and exclude expenditure on road and bridge maintenance.

  Road Junction (Audenshaw)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider the decision not to allow the construction of an improved junction for Stamford road/Corporation road, Audenshaw, in Tameside's transportation policies and plans settlement for 1990–91.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have accepted £203,000 of Tameside's expenditure on minor works for transport supplementary grant in 1990–91. It is for the local highway authority to decide how best to use these and any other resources.

  Railway Links (London)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates his Department has made as to the approximate cost of constructing(a) new cross-London railway links and (b) new underground railway links in London, at 1990 prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  The east-west crossrail and Chelsea to Hackney line proposed by the central London rail study would respectively cost about £1·4 billion and £1·8 billion to build at today's prices. The Jubilee line extension will cost over £1 billion at today's prices. No other proposals for new cross-London or underground links have been submitted to the Department.

  Rail Industry (Injuries)
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway staff have been killed or suffered major injuries for the period 1979 to 1983 and 1984 to 1988; and what they represent as a proportion per 1,000 railway staff employed.

  Mr. Parkinson
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: In the period 1984 to 1988, 98 staff died and 979 suffered major injuries, totalling 1,077. The average number of staff employed during that period was 181,200. The proportion of deaths and major injuries to 1,000 employed was 5·94 per cent.

  In the period 1979 to 1983, 153 railway staff died and 1,613 suffered major injuries, totalling 1,766. The average number of staff employed during that period was 228,200. The proportion of deaths and major injuries to 1,000 employed was 7·74 per cent.

  In the period 1974 to 1978, 209 railway staff died and 3,023 suffered major injuries, totalling 3,232. The average number of staff employed during that period was 264,400. The proportion of deaths and major injuries to 1,000 employed was 13·1 per cent.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the total figures of death and major injuries in the railway industry for the period 1979 to 1983 and 1984 to 1988; and what is the total percentage increase.

  Mr. Parkinson
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: In the period 1974 to 1978 there were 500 deaths (including passengers, staff and others) and 3,855 major injuries, totalling 4,355. In the period 1979 to 1983, there were 374 deaths and 2,330 major injuries, totalling 2,704. This represents a reduction of 37·9 per cent. In the period 1984 to 1988, there were 448 deaths and 1,983 major injuries, totalling 2,431. This represents a reduction of 10·1 per cent.

  Railway Inspectorate
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many professionally qualified inspectors were employed by the railway inspectorate for each year since 1979; and what was the full establishment level for each year.

  Mr. Parkinson
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: The number of professionally qualified staff in post at 31 December of each year, together with the establishment for that year, is set out in the table.

  Year

  Staff in post

  Establishment

  1979

  22

  22

  1980

  22

  22

  1981

  22

  22

  1982

  22

  22

  1983

  22

  22

  1984

  23

  222

  1985

  23

  222

  1986

  19

  222

  1987

  19

  24

  1988

  16

  24

  11989

  24

  32

  1 Includes one part-time.

  2 + 1 supernumerary.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recommendations were made by the departmental review on the railway inspectorate; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. Parkinson
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: A report of the review was presented in 1987, and included numerous recommendations. A copy is in the Library of the House. Many of the recommendations have been implemented. Work continues on the others.

  Speed Limits (Coaches)
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider adding to the MOT test the verification of speed limiters on relevant coaches as soon as possible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [ holding answer 23 May 1990]: I am considering adding a check of speed limiter fitment to the annual tests of relevant coaches.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission whether the commission has appointed new auditors for the National Audit Office.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  Yes. The commission has appointed the firm of Clark Whitehill. The appointment will be for a period of up to five years from 1 April 1990.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if there are any proposals to change the 1990–91 cash limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service.
  294
  Mr. Luce
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XIX, vote 1) will be increased by £978,000 from £42,643,000 to £43,621,000. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The increase is required to cover the additional cost of making physical security improvements; the initial costs of a new unit to co-ordinate efforts to improve British representation in European Community institutions; the cost of upgrading the management information system for the Civil Service Commission in anticipation of its move to agency status in 1991–92 and the cost of improvements in services provided by the civil service college (this charge will be offset by increased appropriations in aid). Provision is also sought to cover the additional cost of recruitment for the purchasing and supply specialism and recruitment costs of the scheme to prepare candidates for entry to the European Community institutions. The cost of the purchasing and supply recruitment scheme will be met by recoveries from participating Departments together with an increase in expected recoveries from Departments for existing recruitment schemes. The proposed supplementary estimate identifies the cost of civil service college training courses for the staff of the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service offset by recoveries from the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service together with a reassessment of the college's recoveries from other sources.

  Some of the changes in provision have a consequent effect on the Department's running costs limit which will be increased by £403,000 from £33,319,000 to £33,722,000.

  Crown Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will publish a further report on business appointments of former Crown servants.

  Mr. Luce
  I have today placed copies of a statistical report entitled "Acceptance of Outside Appointments by Crown Servants—1989" in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Business
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the cost to public funds of providing an answer to the question tabled by the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on parliamentary business,Official Report, 11 May, column 243.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Approximately £40.

  Printing Costs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his estimate of the total cost to public funds and the volumes of newsprint that have been involved in the printing this Session of(a) the Order Paper, (b) the notices of questions, (c) the written and oral questions reprinted after appearing for the first time, (d) notices of motions, (e) Votes and Proceedings of the House, (f) Standing Committee proceedings and Division lists, (g) remaining Orders of the Day and (h) the Vote bundle as a whole.
  295
  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The total cost to public funds for the supply of the Vote bundle as a whole in this Session up to the end of April, is estimated at £4·1 million. The volume of paper consumed in production of the Vote bundle for the same period is 159 tonnes.

  It is not possible to produce the estimated cost to public funds of printing the individual categories of the Vote bundle without incurring disproportionate expense.

  Creche
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he has taken to consult(a) staff unions and (b) the staff creche committee about the design of the survey of demand for a workplace nursery in the House.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Following initiatives by the House of Commons Commission and the Services Committee, the Administration Department has been asked to undertake a feasibility study of the provision of child care facilities in the House or in conjunction with other public services in the Westminster area. Once that study is complete any consultation exercise will necessarily embrace all those with an interest.

  Railway Warrants
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to change the number of spouse railway warrants allocated to Members in view of the change in ticket validities recently announced by British Rail.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The resolution of 22 July 1975 limits the number of free return journeys for a Member's spouse to 15. We have no plans to change this.

  Stationery
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list each item of stationery issued by the Serjeant at Arms stores and the percentage content of recycled paper in each item of scale zero to 100 per cent.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: A list of each item of stationery issued by the Serjeant at Arms stores is shown on the Members' stationery demands form. Currently the ruled writing paper contains 100 per cent. recycled paper and the buff envelopes and file covers contain at least 50 per cent. recycled paper. I understand that approval has now been given by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee for a number of items, including printed memos, compliment slips and typing top sheets to be replaced by recycled ranges once existing stocks are exhausted and that orders should be placed on an experimental basis for a range of writing paper and envelopes in recycled paper to be available.

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Members' offices in the new parliamentary building, phase 1, will contain marble fireplaces; and whether provision of such fireplaces has affected the timetable for completion of phase 1.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and his colleagues on the New Building Sub-Committee can be assured that there is no basis for the allegations made by
  296
  the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 17 May at column 1020. There are no fireplaces in the new Members' offices and those in the restored accommodation are either already in place or are off site being restored. This work is not on the critical path and is not expected to cause problems.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the effect of his proposals on workplace nurseries on the number of women in the work force.

  Mr. Lilley
  The proposal to exempt workplace nurseries from tax as a benefit will remove a perceived obstacle to the growth of such facilities. The measure will thus assist employers who wish to set up nursery or similar facilities and the employees who use them; but it is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the likely effect of this change on the number of women in the work force.

  Corporation Tax
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the number of firms benefiting from raising the ceiling on corporation tax to £200,000.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is estimated that 20,000 companies will benefit from the increase in profit limits for the small companies' rate of corporation tax and associated marginal relief.

  Pay Statistics
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the latest statistics on top people's pay.

  Mr. Ryder
  Rates of pay are a matter for the parties directly concerned as only they can know what is right for their particular circumstances. The Government have said repeatedly, however, that we are opposed to excessive pay increases since they threaten jobs.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the Madrid conditions for exchange rate mechanism participation to be satisfied.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 26 April, at column 475.

  Civil Service
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of civil service jobs which he proposes to devolve to(a) Leeds and (b) Newcastle upon Tyne, indicating to which Departments these jobs apply, together with the original location of these jobs.

  Mr. Ryder
  Decisions on relocation venues rest with departmental Ministers. I would refer the hon. Member to
  297
  the statements made by the Secretaries of State for Social Security and for Health on 14 November 1989, at columns 170 and 197, about the relocation of DSS and Department of Health posts to Leeds; and to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 1 May 1990, at column 466, concerning the relocation of intervention board posts to Newcastle. In addition, the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 25 April during a visit to the north-east that 1,000 jobs dealing with national insurance contributions work would be transferred to Newcastle from other regions over the next 12 months.

  VAT (Water)
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the estimated annual cost to industry in Scotland of applying value added tax to water supply from 1 July;

  (2) what is the estimated annual cost to industry of applying value added tax to water supply from 1 July;

  (3) what is the estimated annual cost to industry in Wales of applying value added tax to water supply from 1 July.

  Mr. Major
  Negligible. VAT to be charged on water supplies to industry after 1 July will, in virtually all cases, be reclaimable as input tax by those affected.

  Capital Taxes Office, Shepherds Bush
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of employees presently employed at the capital taxes office in Shepherds Bush he expects to be unwilling or unable to relocate; and what efforts his Department will be making to find other suitable work for those employees.

  Mr. Lilley
  All the work of the capital taxes office in Shepherds Bush will be relocated to Nottingham. The number of employees presently working there who will be unwilling or unable to relocate is not known because staff have not, as yet, been asked to state their preferences about moving to Nottingham.

  The Department will make every effort to redeploy in other parts of the Inland Revenue or in other Government Departments those employees who cannot or do not wish to move.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of employees at the capital taxes office in Shepherds Bush he expects to be relocated to sites in Nottingham within the next three years.

  Mr. Lilley
  The capital taxes office will be relocated to Nottingham. The number of employees who will move to Nottingham is not yet known.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the site of the capital taxes office in Shepherds Bush once the relocation to Nottingham has taken place.

  Mr. Lilley
  The future of the site in Shepherds Bush following relocation of work to Nottingham will be for the Department of the Environment (Directorate General of Property Holdings) to determine.

  Schedule D (Actors and Artists)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to amend the appropriate regulation and/or legislation in order to restore arrangements which allowed actors and artists with a similar work pattern to be taxed under schedule D.

  Mr. Lilley
  When the House debated this subject on 27 February, as reported in the Official Report, at columns 250–56, I promised to consider carefully the suggestion that a statutory provision should be introduced to ensure that performers should be treated as self-employed and not subject to PAYE, irrespective of their position under the usual tests of employment/self-employment laid down by the courts. Having done so, I concluded that it would not be appropriate to make this change. That would be unfair to other taxpayers whose tax treatment is governed by the general rules on employment/self-employment, and would raise the other difficulties I explained in the debate.

  I conveyed my conclusions on this issue to the industry shortly after the Budget. It is of course open to it, or any individual actor, to challenge the Inland Revenue's view of the law in the courts. The Revenue will do everything it can to help in selecting suitable cases for appeal if the industry decides it wishes to do so.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was to Her Majesty's Treasury of higher-rate mortgage tax relief for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates for financial years are as follows:

  Cost of mortgage interest relief at excess over the basic rate of income tax

  Year

  £ million

  1987–88

  430

  1988–89

  310

  11989–90

  430

  1 Provisional.

  Cash Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many value added tax registered traders are eligible to adopt cash accounting; how many have done so; at what cost; and what would be the cost were all those eligible to adopt cash accounting.

  Mr. Ryder
  Of the 1·7 million businesses registered for VAT, 1·3 million are eligible to apply for cash accounting as their taxable turnover is less than £250,000 a year; but of these, only an estimated 375,000 businesses would benefit from the scheme. Businesses which already benefit from other special schemes, for example, those for retailers and those that regularly receive repayments of tax from Customs and Excise, would gain no additional benefit from cash accounting. To date, some 85,000 businesses have adopted cash accounting at an estimated take-up cost to the revenue of £40 million. If all businesses that would be likely to benefit adopted the scheme the estimated cost to the revenue would be about £180 million.

  Pool Betting Duty
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will cut pool betting duty from 42·5 per cent. to 40 per cent. as proposed in his Budget statement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  In my Budget statement I proposed reducing the rate of pool betting duty from 42·5 per cent. to 40 per cent., subject to review after five years, on condition that the benefit of the reduction is transferred to the Football Trust for use in implementing Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations for improving comfort and safety for football spectators.

  I am glad to say that the Football Trust, the pool promoters and football authorities have entered into binding arrangements which will ensure payment by the pool promoters of the whole of the duty reduction to the Football Trust, for use on capital works at Football League and Scottish Football League grounds and the three national stadiums—Wembley, Hampden Park and Windsor Park, Belfast. In addition, the Football Trust expects to allocate £75 million to professional football over the next 10 years from contributions made to the trust from the Pool Promoters Association's spot-the-ball competition. Accordingly, I propose to reduce the rate of pool betting duty to 40 per cent. from 28 May 1990. The new rate will apply to bets made at any time by reference to any event taking place on or after 28 May 1990.

  The Football Trust has undertaken to account separately for the moneys made available to it by the reduction in pool betting duty; and to produce an annual statement of this separate account, to be audited by an independent auditor whose report will be made available to Government.

  We will be introducing a new clause on the Report stage of the Finance Bill seeking to reduce the duty with effect from 28 May 1990.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to public funds in the current financial year, and with retrospective effect to 6 April, of increasing the entitlement to transitional relief so as to reflect the actual community charge levied rather than the figures assumed by the Government for local authorities.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: Basing the community charge transitional relief on actual charges would have increased the cost of the scheme by over £1 billion in England. Transitional relief was designed to give some protection to households in the changeover to the new system; it was not designed to insulate charge payers from increases in local authority spending.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what rate of income tax would be necessary to finance all current local government expenditure in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what rate of value added tax would be necessary to finance all current local government expenditure in the United Kingdom;

  (3) what rate of corporation tax would be necessary to finance all current local government expenditure in the United Kingdom.
  300
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: If local authorities spent in line with total standard spending in England and Wales, and total current expenditure in Scotland, total current expenditure would be around £39·8 billion. Assuming that central Government grant to local authorities ceased and that expenditure currently funded in part by local authorities all fell to central Government, this would imply additional central Government expenditure of around £11 billion.

  This is equivalent to an increase of around 7½p in the basic rate of income tax, or an increase of 5½ percentage points in the VAT rate, or an increase of around 28 percentage points in the full rate of corporation tax. These calculations take no account of any consequential behavioural effects, which are likely to be significant.

SCOTLAND

  Roof Tax
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recent representations he has received supporting a roof tax.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a handful of letters supporting the Labour party's proposed local tax on houses.

  Rents into Mortgages
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State For Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of his rents-into-mortgages scheme; if he has any plans to extend its scope; how many tenants have made firm applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Response to the scheme has been encouraging so far and indications are that it is attracting the interest of the intended target group. As at 30 April, Scottish Homes the body responsible for the administration of the scheme had received 135 firm applications to purchase. The scheme will continue to be closely monitored with a view to evaluating the case for any adaptations or extensions which appear to be appropriate.

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the National Radiological Protection Board and nuclear installations inspectorate took to locate and recover the lost caesium at Dounreay seven months ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate is satisfied that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has conducted a thorough search for the sealed source and has taken all reasonable steps to protect and inform both its employees and members of the public.

  Grampian Health Board
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he approved the 10-year strategy of Grampian health board; what are the estimated annual costs of this strategy; and what financial allocations have been made or are to be made for each of the years covered by the 10-year strategy.
  301
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Grampian health board's 10-year strategy will be the subject of discussions between NHS management executive and the board at an autumn meeting to review progress on delivering the priorities set out in the SHAPE and SHARPEN reports. The board's strategic plans are expected to consider a range of assumptions about the level of financial resources that might be allocated to it in the future.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the projected population for the year 1990–91 within the area served by Grampian health board; what is the weighted population used by the Scottish Home and Health Department for grant allocation purposes; and what difference in grant allocation results from these population figures.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The estimated resident population served by Grampian health board in 1990–91 is 505,156. In common with other boards in order to reflect the relative health needs of the area the crude population figure is adjusted to take account of the age, sex and estimated morbidity of the population. The 1990–91 adjusted figure for the Grampian health board is 471,000. Grampian health board's allocation was increased by £13·762 million in the current year.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost to Grampian health board of pay and price inflation for the financial year 1990–91; and what sum of money has been allocated by SHHD to meet these costs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth:
  The allocation to Grampian health board in 1990–91 for recurrent expenditure on hospital and community health services was £187·725 million.

  The figure was based on the relative health needs of the board's resident population.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial allocation was made to Grampian health board for general purposes and medical equipment for the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is for boards to determine their spending priorities on medical equipment and other matters within their available resources.

  M8 Kingston Bridge
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the structural safety of the M8 Kingston bridge in Glasgow.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The M8 Kingston bridge in Glasgow is the responsibility of Strathclyde regional council. The Scottish Development Department has been assured by the director of roads for Strathclyde region that there is no concern for public safety or to users of the Kingston bridge.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of Scottish registered fishing vessels currently using 110 mm nets and what was the figure for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lang
  Under the North sea management arrangements announced in March, 17 Scottish-based 302
  vessels have chosen to use 110 mm nets as opposed to limiting the number of days in which they fish in the North sea. Information on the net sizes used by Scottish fishermen in past years is not readily available.

  Training
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage LEC consortia to submit outline bids for a training credit pilot programme.

  Mr. Lang
  The Industry Department for Scotland encouraged all local enterprise company consortia which had been awarded development funding by 27 March 1990 to consider bidding to run a training credit pilot scheme. Three consortia (Caithness and Sutherland Enterprise, Grampian Enterprise and Fife Enterprise) submitted outline bids by the deadline of 4 May 1990.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of managing agents providing work-based training under YTS in Scotland are approved training organisations.

  Mr. Lang
  In Scotland, 99·7 per cent. of managing agents providing work-based training under YTS are approved training organisations.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the source of the table on page 68, appendix 3(ii), of the Scottish Health Service Advisory Council's publication of December 1989 entitled "Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease in Scotland".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The table was compiled from the following three sources:

  1. Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, Diet and Cardiovascular Disease (The COMA Report), London: HMSO, 1984. (Reports on Health and Social Subjects No. 28).

  2. National Advisory Committee on Nutritional Education: Proposals for Nutritional Guidelines for Health Education in Britain (The NACNE Report), London: Health Education Council, 1983.

  3. Thomson M et al. Alcohol Consumption and Nutrient Intake in Middle-aged Scottish Men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1988; 47: 139–45.

  Copies of the first two reports are in the Library.

  Eastern General Hospital, Edinburgh
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been invested in the Eastern General hospital, Edinburgh, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Capital expenditure at the Eastern General hospital in the last five years was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1985–86

  264,155

  1986–87

  174,130

  1987–88

  898,092

  1988–89

  968,719

  1989–90

  505,655

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make changes to the cash limits for 1990–91 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XV, vote 27: hospital and community health services, family practitioner services (part) and other health services, Scotland, will be increased by £24,274,000 from £2,031,840,000 to £2,056,114,000. This is to provide funds towards the costs of the pay awards to medical staff recommended in the reports of the review bodies for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine and on doctors' and dentists' remuneration and to allow for increased receipts and increased capital expenditure by health boards.

  The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Tobacco Works, Glasgow
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to bring more jobs to the east end of Glasgow, in the light of the proposed closure of the tobacco works in Dennistoun; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: The announcement of the closure of the Imperial Tobacco factory at Dennistoun—with the associated loss of jobs—is to be regretted. I understand that the decision has been taken on strictly commercial grounds as part of an overall rationalisation programme to enable the company to compete within the single European market. The company's northern trading division will remain in Glasgow.

  While the decision is ultimately one for the company, in the light of its commercial judgment, we are concerned that Imperial Tobacco should take all possible steps to alleviate the economic and social effects of the closure on the east end of Glasgow. In this context, it is reassuring that Hanson International, which owns Imperial Tobacco, is to undertake a major counselling, re-training and job search exercise, in addition to its offer of generous redundancy terms to staff who will lose their jobs.

  The local enterprise trust, the East End Executive, will be available to complement the company's efforts through the provision of business counselling and advice.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Gordon,Official Report, 11 May, column 240, when discharges of liquid sodium metal or other occurrences with potential safety implications ceased to be operational matters for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority; and at what point his Department assumes responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: The safe operation of the civil nuclear installation at Dounreay is a matter for the operator, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, at all times.

  Details of incidents at such establishments having significance or potential significance for the health and
  304
  safety of the work force or the general public, are provided by the operator to the Health and Safety Executive and to interested Departments and their respective Ministers. This is done in accordance with the incident reporting criteria set out in the statement made in this House on 30 April 1987 by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad).

  In the event of an incident in Scotland with potential off-site consequences there are comprehensive plans available which would be invoked if necessary. Within those general arrangements the Scottish Office would become the lead Department.

  There was no danger to either the work force or to the general public from the incident at Dounreay on 24 April.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate for each of the periods 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990 and 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991 of the average amount per place of employer contribution for ET and for YTS.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government do not publish estimates of the average employer contribution per place.

  The level of contribution will justifiably vary between employers, trainees and types of provider and contributions are made in a variety of ways, for example sponsorship, support in kind and payments for work experience provision.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give, based on the information given in the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1006), the estimated total percentage of all employment training leavers going into jobs, further education, or training and self-employment in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: Th.e estimated percentage of all employment training leavers going into jobs, self-employment, further education or training is as follows:

  Per cent.

  1990–91

  44

  1991–92

  48

  1992–93

  51

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the actual spend and the budgeted spend in the standard regions on employment training for 1989–90.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Provisional outturn expenditure in 1989–90 on employment training (ET) for each region Js shown in the table. Information on budgets is for internal management purposes.

  £ millions

  South East

  31·21

  London

  46·11

  South West

  25·60

  West Midlands

  43·23

  East Midlands and Eastern

  33·08

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  50·97

  305

  £ millions

  North West

  56·11

  Northern

  42·10

  Wales

  32·74

  Scotland

  60·70

  National Providers Unit

  109·30

  Note: These figures exclude expenditure on trainee allowances and other centrally administered ET expenditure.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, for each region, and for Great Britain, for each month since October 1988, what was the number of entrants to(a) job clubs, (b) employment training, (c) restart courses, and (d) enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information for(b) and (d) is given in the following tables. As parts (a) and (c) of the question refer to programmes under the operational control of the employment service, Mr. Mike Fogden, the chief executive of the employment service, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

  Training agency regions of England

  South East

  London

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  Northern

  Wales

  Scotland

  Great Britain1

  1989

  January

  2,300

  3,800

  2,100

  4,300

  2,900

  5,500

  5,500

  3,600

  2,900

  3,700

  36,700

  February

  2,500

  3,400

  2,500

  5,000

  3,600

  6,100

  7,100

  4,800

  3,600

  5,400

  43,900

  March

  2,100

  3,800

  2,300

  4,900

  3,200

  5,400

  6,500

  4,700

  3,200

  6,000

  42,200

  April

  2,300

  3,100

  2,000

  4,100

  3,100

  4,900

  5,800

  3,800

  2,900

  4,400

  36,300

  May

  1,600

  2,600

  1,700

  3,300

  2,400

  4,100

  4,800

  3,200

  2,300

  4,400

  30,000

  June

  2,400

  3,100

  1,900

  3,800

  2,800

  4,500

  6,300

  4,100

  2,600

  4,800

  36,400

  July

  4,500

  3,100

  1,500

  3,300

  3,000

  3,800

  5,300

  3,600

  2,700

  3,400

  34,200

  August

  1,900

  2,700

  1,200

  3,200

  2,500

  3,500

  4,500

  3,000

  2,300

  4,500

  29,300

  September

  3,400

  4,800

  2,300

  4,500

  3,500

  5,500

  6,200

  4,900

  3,700

  5,600

  44,200

  October

  2,500

  3,300

  1,900

  3,800

  2,800

  4,600

  5,200

  3,700

  2,900

  4,800

  35,600

  November

  2,300

  3,600

  1,700

  3,800

  2,800

  4,800

  5,600

  3,700

  2,400

  4,900

  36,200

  December

  1,500

  2,600

  1,400

  2,900

  2,100

  3,700

  3,700

  2,900

  1,900

  3,500

  26,300

  1 Great Britain total includes small number of trainees at Residential Training Colleges and Large Contractors not included in regional figures.

  Training agency regions of England

  1990

  January

  February

  March

  South East

  2,800

  2,600

  3,300

  London

  3,900

  4,100

  4,500

  South West

  2,000

  1,800

  2,500

  West Midlands

  3,600

  4,500

  5,300

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,500

  3,100

  3,700

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,400

  5,100

  6,100

  North West

  5,400

  5,900

  7,300

  Northern

  3,300

  4,100

  4,900

  Entrants to the enterprise allowance scheme: October 1988 to April 1990 Training agency regions of England

  London

  South East

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  North West

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Wales

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  1988

  October

  896

  811

  763

  790

  675

  1,211

  452

  777

  502

  639

  7,516

  November

  1,015

  812

  809

  881

  721

  1,303

  465

  739

  601

  648

  7,994

  December

  820

  769

  690

  657

  693

  1,139

  391

  774

  513

  542

  6,988

  1989

  January

  748

  658

  653

  592

  627

  884

  343

  629

  444

  453

  6,031

  February

  828

  768

  768

  697

  673

  1,106

  429

  678

  542

  622

  7,111

  March

  891

  782

  788

  792

  770

  1,209

  482

  763

  574

  680

  7,731

  April

  758

  746

  745

  743

  721

  1,123

  514

  719

  520

  649

  7,238

  May

  904

  887

  920

  878

  884

  1,426

  542

  948

  644

  795

  8,828

  June

  675

  608

  643

  669

  667

  1,039

  440

  634

  439

  594

  6,408

  306

  Numbers starting employment training with training managers: October 1988 to March 1990 Training agency regions of England

  1988

  October

  November

  December

  South East

  2,100

  2,000

  1,700

  London

  3,100

  3,100

  2,400

  South West

  1,700

  2,000

  1,700

  West Midlands

  3,700

  3,800

  3,300

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,700

  2,900

  2,200

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,500

  5,500

  4,400

  North West

  5,000

  5,500

  4,100

  Northern

  3,200

  3,600

  2,900

  Wales

  2,000

  2,700

  2,200

  Scotland

  3,100

  4,100

  3,900

  Great Britain

  31,100

  35,200

  28,900

  1990

  January

  February

  March

  Wales

  2,500

  3,100

  3,400

  Scotland

  3,900

  5,300

  6,300

  Great Britain1

  34,400

  39,600

  47,300

  1Great Britain total includes small number of trainees at Residential Training Colleges and Large Contractors not included in regional figures.

  307

  London

  South East

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  North West

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Wales

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  July

  830

  828

  686

  785

  823

  1,164

  507

  723

  606

  695

  7,647

  August

  664

  602

  543

  512

  532

  891

  385

  627

  382

  497

  5,635

  September

  699

  614

  529

  580

  532

  952

  380

  571

  405

  541

  5,773

  October

  882

  797

  615

  788

  822

  1,279

  446

  900

  528

  674

  7,731

  November

  827

  635

  529

  609

  643

  1,003

  397

  713

  450

  510

  6,313

  December

  728

  708

  605

  600

  592

  899

  370

  673

  431

  608

  6,214

  1990

  January

  636

  539

  493

  377

  509

  731

  249

  491

  310

  385

  4,720

  February

  672

  643

  513

  558

  527

  832

  313

  537

  353

  495

  5,443

  March

  706

  646

  550

  611

  631

  908

  342

  636

  382

  524

  5,936

  April

  663

  655

  564

  590

  694

  940

  351

  563

  440

  628

  6,038

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, for each region, and for Great Britain, how many(a) employment training agents there are and how many have got through either stage one or stage two of the ATO process (b) employment training managers there are, and how many have got through either stage one or two of the ATO process and (c) youth training managing agents there are and how many have got through either stage one or stage two of the ATO process.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on the numbers of employment training agents by region who have achieved approved training organisation status, stage one and stage two at 30 April 1990 is given in table 1. Table 2 shows similar information for training managers. Area offices and training and enterprise councils hold details of YT managing agents and ET training agents and training managers with whom they have contracted. To obtain the information would incur disproportionate cost.

  Table 1

  Training Agents

  Total who have achieved stage I at 30 April 1990

  Scotland

  18

  Northern

  13

  North West

  22

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  15

  Wales

  9

  West Midlands

  15

  East Midlands

  10

  South West

  9

  South East

  25

  London

  17

  Great Britain total

  153

  Note: There are no stage II completions for training agents at 30 March 1990.

  Table 2

  Training Managers

  Total who have achieved A TO stage I at 30 April 1990

  Total who have achieved A TO stage II at 30 April 1990

  Scotland

  157

  —

  Northern

  90

  —

  North West

  117

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  105

  1

  Wales

  94

  —

  West Midlands

  68

  1

  East Midlands

  77

  1

  South West

  47

  —

  South East

  56

  —

  London

  47

  —

  308

  Total who have achieved A TO stage I at 30 April 1990

  Total who have achieved A TO stage II at 30 April 1990

  RTC Unit

  15

  —

  ET LCU

  Great Britain total

  873

  3

  RTC—Residential training college

  LCU—Large contractors unit

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of contracts with training providers under the employment training scheme which have been re-negotiated, broken down by the standard regions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much notice was given to employment training providers by the Training Agency concerning the end of existing contracts.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As required by contract, at least four weeks' notice in writing was given to all employment training providers concerning termination of agreements.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether training and enterprise councils or employment training training managers are empowered to alter the child care payments being paid to single parents who have already started their training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils and area. offices of the Training Agency have discretion over the. means of providing child care support, but they must ensure that the costs of caring for children under 16 are met for lone parents on employment training.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to designate employment training as an approved training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department has no plans to designate employment training as an approved training scheme. About 670,000 unemployed people to date have taken advantage of the help it offers them to obtain the skills and experience they need to get jobs.

  Action for Jobs
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the total expenditure on the action for jobs campaign in 1987–88 was spent on(a) press advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) outdoor advertising, (d) exhibition material and (e) research.

  Mr. Eggar
  A total of £820,000 was spent on press advertising on the action for jobs campaign in 1987–88; £194,000 was spent on radio advertising; £1,380,000 was spent on outdoor advertising; £500,000 on exhibition material; and £6,000 on research.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the main headings of expenditure on action for jobs, in addition to expenditure on television advertising and printed material, in 1986–87.

  Mr. Eggar
  The main headings of expenditure on action for jobs in 1986–87, in addition to expenditure on television advertising and printed material, were press, radio and outdoor advertising, presentations, exhibition material and research.

  Compact Scheme
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the compact scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  Excellent progress has been made since the launch of the initiative in 1988, when the Government announced funding for 15 inner-city compacts.

  Local education/business partnerships have shown considerable interest in the initiative and as a result 40 compacts had been granted funding by the end of 1989. Given this success my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced in January 1990, that funding would be made available for compacts to be developed in all the remaining urban programme authority (UPA) inner-city areas from April this year.

  There are now 29 operational compacts and 20 under development. A further eight are about to commence development. A full list is given in the table.

  Information from the operational compacts show that the initiative is receiving a great deal of support:
  4,000 employers and training organisations are actively involved in compact activities and committing some 20,000 jobs with training to those young people who meet their goals.
  230 schools are participating and 40,000 young people have signed their compact agreement.
  In 1989 over £3 million was contributed by employers, education authorities and others to match Government funding.

  The initiative has shown clearly what can be achieved by local compact partnership. This will be further enhanced by the advent of training and enterprise councils (TECs) which will progressively take over responsibility for compacts arrangements (where the education partners agree).

  Operational Compacts

  Birmingham

  Blackburn

  Bolton

  Bristol

  Cleveland

  Coventry

  Doncaster

  Dudley

  East London

  Hull

  310

  Kirklees

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Newham

  North London

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Sheffield

  South East London

  Walsall

  West London

  Wolverhampton

  Wrekin

  Scotland

  Clydebank

  Dundee

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  Development Compacts

  Barnsley

  Bradford

  Burnley

  Halton

  Haringey

  Knowsley

  Lambeth

  Plymouth

  Preston

  Rotherham

  Sefton (Bootle)

  South London

  Tyneside (Newcastle/Gateshead)

  Wandsworth

  Wigan

  Wales

  Clwyd

  Mid Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  South Glamorgan

  Scotland

  UPAs/Priority area not covered by a compact

  England

  Brent

  Derby

  North Tyneside

  Oldham

  South Tyneside

  St. Helens

  Sunderland

  Wirral

  Scotland

  Coatbridge

  Inverclyde

  Motherwell

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing employment in manufacturing industry by standard economic region in Great Britain and for each Welsh county for each year since 1979, each quarter of 1989; and the first quarter of the current year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Table 1 shows employees in employment for each of the standard regions in Great Britain up to December 1989, the latest date for which information is available.
  311
  Figures for the counties are available only from censuses of employment taken in 1981, 1984 and 1987 and are given in table 2.

  Table 1

  Employees in employment in the manufacturing industry1 for each of the standard regions of Great Britain

  (Thousands)

  South East

  Greater London

  East Anglia

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  North

  Wales

  Scotland

  Great Britain (sum of regions)

  June 1979

  1,871

  n/a

  206

  439

  985

  606

  708

  971

  410

  315

  604

  7,115

  June 1980

  1,820

  n/a

  203

  427

  933

  582

  669

  931

  387

  290

  564

  6,806

  June 1981

  1,684

  n/a

  185

  397

  817

  532

  583

  810

  339

  240

  510

  6,099

  June 1982

  1,604

  649

  180

  385

  757

  514

  542

  744

  321

  226

  477

  5,751

  June 1983

  1,533

  609

  178

  366

  713

  485

  500

  694

  291

  213

  444

  5,418

  June 1984

  1,483

  573

  185

  373

  706

  482

  481

  669

  277

  212

  434

  5,301

  June 1985

  1,447

  539

  184

  375

  693

  487

  480

  664

  278

  211

  433

  5,254

  June 1986

  1,390

  506

  178

  367

  673

  487

  476

  653

  272

  210

  416

  5,122

  June 1987

  1,340

  465

  174

  367

  663

  483

  471

  657

  272

  217

  407

  5,049

  June 1988

  1,329

  452

  179

  370

  667

  491

  485

  673

  279

  233

  409

  5,116

  March 1989

  1,321

  437

  180

  371

  669

  491

  485

  681

  282

  241

  418

  5,141

  June 1989

  1,319

  442

  176

  369

  668

  493

  484

  678

  283

  243

  416

  5,128

  September 1989

  1,316

  432

  179

  375

  673

  503

  490

  686

  290

  250

  423

  5,185

  December 1989

  1,308

  426

  178

  376

  667

  499

  487

  685

  291

  250

  424

  5,165

  The figures are unadjusted for seasonal variations.

  1 Standard Industrial Classification 1980 Division 2–4.

  Table 2

  Employees in employment in the manufacturing industries1 in counties of Wales2

  Thousands

  September

  1981

  1984

  1987

  Clwyd

  33·7

  35·2

  39·1

  Dyfed

  17·1

  15·9

  14·5

  Gwent

  52·8

  46·1

  49·1

  Gwynedd

  11·5

  9·3

  10·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  52·5

  44·7

  52·1

  Powys

  7·0

  6·9

  8·4

  South Glamorgan

  26·6

  25·2

  22·8

  West Glamorgan

  36·9

  28·8

  27·9

  1 Standard Industrial Classification 1980 Division 2–4.

  2 Counties are defined in terms of ward boundaries as at September 1981.

  Wages (Underpayment)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will name the employers in each year since 1979 who have been prosecuted for contravention of wages council legislation, specifying the contravention in

  Injuries to employees reported to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates and local authorities, 1988–893

  Fatal

  Major

  Over 3 day

  Ratio of fatal to other injuries

  Age of injured person

  No.

  Rate1

  No.

  Rate1

  No.

  Rate1

  Under 16

  —

  n/a

  22

  n/a

  40

  n/a

  —

  16–19

  25

  0·01

  1,686

  0·83

  9,071

  4·47

  1:430

  20–24

  37

  0·01

  2,209

  0·72

  18,499

  6·06

  1:560

  25–34

  48

  2—

  3,609

  0·67

  35,986

  6·70

  1:825

  35–44

  61

  0·01

  3,346

  0·64

  31,332

  6·04

  1:568

  45·54

  56

  0·01

  3,324

  0·83

  26,239

  6·57

  1:528

  55–59

  30

  0·02

  1,550

  1·02

  10,104

  6·68

  1:388

  60–64

  28

  0·03

  817

  1·01

  5,246

  6·49

  1:217

  65+

  4

  0·01

  103

  0·36

  166

  0·59

  1:67

  Not known

  13

  n/a

  1,571

  n/a

  9,091

  n/a

  1:820

  Total

  302

  0·01

  18,237

  0·82

  145,774

  6·55

  1:543

  1 Rate per 1,000 employees.

  2 Rate less than 001.

  3 Provisional.

  312
  each case, and, where the prosecution occurred for underpayment of wages council rates, if he will specify the hourly rates paid to the affected employees.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Industrial Accidents
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for the last year for which figures are available for the age groups(a) below 19 years, (b) 20 to 29 years, (c) 30 to 39 years, (d) 40 to 49 years and (e) over 50 years information regarding industrial accidents on (i) the number of people injured or killed, (ii) the number of deaths and injuries per 1,000 people in each age group and (iii) the ratio of deaths to injuries in each age group.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information is given in the table.
  313
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaths due to industrial accidents occurred on each day of the week, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information for the year beginning 1 April 1988 is provided in the table:

  Fatal injuries resulting from work activity reported1 to enforcing authorities2

  Day of week

  Numbers

  Sunday

  37

  Monday

  83

  Tuesday

  79

  Wednesday3

  262

  Thursday

  103

  Friday

  99

  Saturday

  50

  1Fatal injuries to employees, self-employed persons and non-employed persons injured as a result of work activity as reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985.

  2 Includes injuries reported to all HSC/E enforcing authorities.

  3 Includes the 167 fatalities of the Piper Alpha disaster. Without

  Piper Alpha the figure would be 95.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the changes in employment law which have affected part-time workers' employment rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Changes made to individual employment rights since 1979, which have affected both part-time and
  full-time employees, are as follows:qualifying period on unfair dismissal increased progressively from 26 weeks to two years;
  qualifying period for written reasons for dismissal increased from 26 weeks to two years;
  dismissal for non-membership of a trade union made automatically unfair in all circumstances;
  maternity provisions amended to strengthen notification requirements, exempt very small firms in certain circumstances, and introduce a new right to time off for ante-natal care;
  industrial tribunal procedures amended to provide for pre-hearing assessments and power to introduce pre-hearing reviews and require deposits; widen rule on award of costs; remove requirement to provide written reasons for decisions in all cases; amend provisions on the basic award; change the onus of proof for unfair dismissal; and require tribunals to take into account the size and administrative resources of the employer;
  paid time off for trade union officials restricted to duties in respect of which the union is recognised;
  guarantee pay provisions changed from fixed to rolling quarters;
  employers with less than 20 employees exempted from the requirement to provide note on disciplinary rules.

  Workfare
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to commission a feasibility study on the possibility of introducing a workfare system for dealing with the long-term unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is constantly looking for ways of improving the effectiveness of its measures to help long-term unemployed people back to work. As part of that process we announced recently a number of changes 314
  which will extend and improve the employment service's present system of offering counselling and advice to unemployed people. My right hon. and learned Friend also announced to the House on 11 May our intention to introduce regulations later this year which will enable employment service staff to require the attendance at a restart course of those who have been unemployed for two years or more and who refuse to participate in any of my Department's employment and training programmes. We shall continue to keep all these measures under review.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research his Department is doing or commissioning into the problems of repetitive strain injury.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) supported a major study at the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) in Edinburgh, whose report can be found in the Library, deposited paper No. 5131. It has funded a further study by the institute which aims to produce an ergometric guide or assessment aid to enable non-experts to identify work activities which may lead to upper limb disorders. A report is expected in July.

  The Health and Safety Executive has also funded a study by the university of Birmingham, which attempts to link specific upper limb disorders to particular work routines, to analyse these routines and to evaluate methods aimed at prevention. The report is still awaited.

  The Health and Safety Executive intends to follow up this work by commissioning further studies to investigate repetitive strain injuries in specific occupational groups, and is currently negotiating with the Institute of Occupational Medicine to carry out a study of keyboard users.

  In addition to these extra-mural studies the Health and Safety Executive is itself carrying out a wide-ranging study of musculo-skeletal symptoms in supermarket cashier operators.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, 11 May,Official Report, column 270, on adult earnings, if he will make a statement on the criteria he uses in answering questions from hon. Members regarding earnings statistics.

  Mr. Nicholls
  When the information available to answer a question on earnings has already been published, it is the long-standing practice to refer the hon. Member to that source. The source publication referred to for earnings questions is predominantly but not exclusively the annual new earnings survey report.

  VDUs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the present analysis of the potential health implications resulting from prolonged exposure to VDUs.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Visual display units in themselves are not a hazard to health. Prolonged work at a VDU can cause some people to experience problems such as headaches,
  315
  temporary eyestrain, or pain and sometimes disorder in the hands and arms; but none of these are specific to VDU work. They can be avoided by ergonomic design of furniture, equipment and lighting; and by good design of work tasks to allow changes of activity and avoid prolonged spells without changes in posture.

  Youth Training Allowances
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what would be the real value of the youth training allowances for 16 and 17-year-olds if they had been raised by(a) the rise in the retail prices index and (b) the rise in average earnings since their introduction as the YOP allowance in April 1978; when was the last rise in the allowances; what plans he has for further rises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The weekly allowance paid to young people on the youth opportunities programme (YOP) in April 1978 was £19·50, equivalent to £49·45 if adjusted for changes in the retail prices index and equivalent to £63·48 if adjusted for changes in the index of average earnings.

  The lower level of the youth training allowance—£29·50 per week—was set in July 1988. The higher level of the youth training allowance has remained unchanged since it was set in April 1986. There are no plans to increase these training allowances, but from the introduction of youth training on 29 May, young people will receive the higher level of allowance from their 17th birthday rather than on completing a year of training, so that most young people will receive the higher level earlier in their training.

  YTS and—especially—youth training, incorporates substantially higher quality training than YOP. In contrast with YOP, youth training will provide all trainees with the opportunity to obtain a recognised vocational qualification. It is therefore misleading to compare the values of the YOP and YTS youth training allowances, which reflect the fact that trainees are still learning.

  Increasing numbers of employers have been supplementing the minimum trainee allowances and many trainees are now in receipt of more than the minimum. Many are also employed, and receiving wages.

  Footwear and Textile Industries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 638, on employment in the footwear and textile industries, if he will break down the figures by region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the price received for the 27 skill centre sites sold to Astra Training Services Ltd.; what conditions are imposed on the sale; and how he applied the provisions of appendix IV, principal lease terms, of the information memorandum issued by Deloitte Corporate Finance on his behalf.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 May 1990]: The sale of the skill centre sites to Astra Training Services Ltd. formed part of the overall sale package, which will involve a
  316
  payment from the Government to Astra of some £11 million. My right hon. and learned Friend gave details to the House on 13 February 1990 at column 144 of the conditions that would apply to the sale in respect of any development gains made by Astra.

  My sale advisers took full account of the principal lease terms set out in appendix IV of the information memorandum in their negotiations with successful bidders.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the sale of the Liverpool skill centre to METEL; and what information he has on the decision to make redundant all the staff transferred from the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: The sale of the training business at Liverpool skill centre to Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Limited (METEL) was negotiated in good faith and completed on 14 May. I regret the decision of METEL to make staff from the skill centre redundant. My Department has given support to its former employees by offering them access to legal advice on the severance terms being offered by METEL.

  Action Credit
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the employers involved in the three action credit pilot schemes and provide the lowest, highest, and median hourly rates of pay to participants in each of the three pilots.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1990]: This information is not available.

  Ticket Touts
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to make the resale of tickets at pop concerts by touts unlawful; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no such plans to make unlawful the activities of ticket touts at pop concerts. The tout pays the asking price for tickets, so the ticket seller does not lose and the person purchasing a ticket from the tout is willing to pay above its face value in order to obtain it.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Private Medical Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why his Department has employed AMI Healthcare Group to carry out medical health checks of staff at some benefit offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The health screening is a three-month pilot exercise to assess the costs and benefits of this provision for staff. AMI Healthcare Group was selected from a number of leading companies in the field of corporate health screening invited to submit tenders.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list his Department's benefit and other
  317
  offices where the AMI Healthcare Group is carrying out medical health checks on the staff; what is the cost to his Department per individual; and what is the total cost to his Department.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The estimated 3,000 members of staff participating in the health screening exercise are from our local offices at Ayr, Basildon, Devonport, Edmonton, Gateshead, Glasgow (Springburn), Hull (West), Manchester (Sale), Mansfield, Norwich (Mountergate), Poole, Rotherham (South), St. Helens, Southampton, Telford, Worcester, central offices at Blackpool and Newcastle, the Information Technology Services Agency at Lytham St. Annes, the London South regional office and London headquarters offices. To disclose the costs of the exercise at this stage would prejudice competition should there be negotiations with other companies following an assessment of the results of the pilot programme.

  War Disablement Pension
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time for the determination of an application for war disablement pension; and what is the reason for the delay after notifying the applicant that the injury has been accepted before a final decision is made.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The average length of time for the determination of a claim for a war disablement pension is about 36 weeks. The notification to a claimant that an injury has been accepted as attributable to or aggravated by service is normally in effect the final decision on the claim. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind I should be pleased to look into it.

  Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has considered the effect of the introduction of the age-related addition in severe disablement allowance on 16 and 17-year-olds in receipt of income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Nearly 9,000 16 and 17-year-olds were receiving severe disablement allowance in April 1988. It is estimated that about 4,000 who will qualify for the age addition in December will no longer need to be dependent on income support.

  Community Charge
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the level of net income at which full community charge becomes payable for people earning(a) £310 per week, (b) £320 per week, (c) £325 per week, (d) £345 per week, (e) £355 per week, (f) £360 per week, (g) £385 per week, (h) £390 per week, (i) £415 per week, (j) £420 per week, (k) £430 per week, (l) £435 per week and (m) £440 per week (w) for a single person (i) under 25 years, (ii) over 25 years, (iii) 60 to 75 years, (iv) 75 to 80 years and (v) over 80 years, and (x) married couples with (i) no children, (ii) two children under 11 years and (iii) one child under 11 years and one aged 11 to 15 years, (y) a pensioner couple aged under 75 years and (z) a lone parent with (i) one child under 11 years and (ii) two children under 11 years.
  318
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The hon. Member's question cannot be answered because the level of net income at which full community charge becomes payable also depends upon the level of the community charge set by the local authority. The question does not specify any level for the community charge.

  Practitioners' Handbook
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place any recent amendments to the delegated medical practitioners' handbook in the Library.

  Mr. Scott
  I have today placed in the Library copies of amendments made to the handbook for delegated medical practitioners since it was published in 1988. The handbook contains guidance for doctors who decide on behalf of the attendance allowance board whether the attendance needs criteria are met for payment of attendance allowance. I understand that the board intends to reissue the handbook later this year.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there have been any changes to the cash limits or running costs limit of his Department for 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XIV, vote 7 (administration and miscellaneous services) will be increased by £3,080,000 from £1,703,179,000 to £1,706,259,000. The revision takes account of the work involved in the change to capital limits announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement (£4,520,000); increased activity in the recovery of maintenance payments from liable relatives (£6,750,000); a transfer to the Department of Health (class XIII, vote 3) of £3,561,000; a transfer from Lord Chancellor's Department (class X, vote 1) of £103,000; a transfer from Treasury Solicitors Department (class X, vote 9) of £47,000 and a transfer from Department of the Environment (property holdings) (class VIII, vote 7) of £1,500,000. The additional requirements are partially offset by an increase in receipts from the national insurance fund to the vote of £6,279,000. The balance will be charged to the reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure. As a result of the changes the running costs limit of the Department of Social Security is increased by £7,859,000 from £1,922,467,000 to £1,930,326,000.

  Pension Arrears
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason his Department has not paid over to a constituent of the right hon. Member for Woking the arrears of pension remitted to it from France on 31 October 1989, under the Department's reference 3392/AA229393A/OVB A3P.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department has been unable to trace any record of receipt of arrears of French pension which the French authorities state was sent on 9 or 31 October 1989. Inquiries are continuing but in the meantime arrangements are being made, exceptionally, to
  319
  pay the pensioner the sum estimated to be due to her after adjustment to take account of other benefit paid to her over the period covered by the arrears.

  Part-time Students
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether unemployed claimants who are solely in receipt of unemployment benefit and are available for and actively seeking work can study part time on courses of advanced education and higher education; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether unemployed claimants who are on income support and available for and actively seeking work can study part time on courses of advanced education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Yes. Claimants may continue to receive both unemployment benefit and income support whilst studying part time provided they satisfy the availability for work and actively seeking work conditions.

  Pneumoconiosis
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been awarded disablement benefit arising from pneumoconiosis (D1) in each year; and how many people had their claim for disablement benefit dismissed because it was decided that they do not suffer from pneumoconiosis in each year.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is set out in the table:

  D1 pneumoconiosis: diagnoses by special medical boards

  Boarding excluding reassessments

  Diagnosed

  Not diagnosed

  1989

  1,940

  661

  1,279

  1988

  1,929

  562

  1,367

  1987

  1,996

  652

  1,344

  1986

  2,336

  747

  1,589

  1985

  2,300

  702

  1,598

  Social Fund
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to his Department of the publication of leaflet SFL 10 from March 1990: and how many copies of the leaflet were produced.

  Mr. Scott
  The cost to the Department of the publication of leaflet SFL 10 ("Have you been refused a Social Fund Loan or Grant? A recent High Court decision may affect you") since March 1990 has been £5,900. Six hundred thousand copies have been produced.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds have received payments from the social fund for each quarter since April 1988 and for each standard region.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been awarded disablement benefit arising from asbestosis in each available year; and 320
  how many people have been refused disablement benefit because it has been decided that they do not suffer from asbestosis in each year.

  Mr. Scott
  Asbestosis is not itself a prescribed disease, but falls within the definition of pneumoconiosis—fibrosis of the lungs due to silica dust, asbestos dust or other dust. The numbers of claims for pneumoconiosis arising out of employment in the asbestos industry which were referred to special medical boards in the years 1985 to 1989, are set out in the table.

  Pneumoconiosis in the asbestos industry

  References (excluding reassessments)

  Diagnosed

  Not diagnosed

  1989

  741

  268

  473

  1988

  688

  202

  486

  1987

  758

  247

  511

  1986

  426

  312

  614

  1985

  748

  273

  475

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have received a lump sum backdated payment of severe disability premium; and when such payments were made(a) for each standard region and (b) for each Merseyside office.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met the trustees of the independent living fund; and what was the outcome of the discussions.

  Mr. Scott
  I met the trustees of the independent living fund on 5 April 1990. At that meeting the trustees agreed to write to me outlining their proposals for the fund's operation during 1990–91.

  Household Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a list of the dates on which the low-income family, households below average income statistics have been published since May 1979, indicating the year to which the statistics refer.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information available is in the table:

  Publication date

  Years covered

  Low income families

  7 April 1982 (revised 20 July 1982)

  1975, 1976, 1977, 1979

  24 October 1983

  1977, 1979, 1981

  25 July 1986

  1979, 1981, 1983

  19 May 1988

  1981, 1983, 1985

  Households below average income

  19 May 1988

  1981, 1983, 1985

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (I) what would be the additional cost, net of savings in other benefits, of reducing the male state
  321
  retirement pension age to 64, 63, 62, 61 and to 60 years (a) on the basis of current male contributor dependant and survivor benefit rights and (b) on the basis that male contributors receive the same dependant and survivor rights as female contributors do currently;

  (2) what would be the saving, net of additional costs in other benefits, of increasing the female state retirement pension to 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 years (a) on the basis of current female contributor dependant and survivor rights and (b) on the basis that female contributors receive the same dependant and survivor rights as male contributors do currently.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of women pensioners and the proportion of total women pensioners, who receive a reduced pension as a result of the married woman's half test.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Complete figures are not available in the form requested. The latest available figures show that on 31 March 1989 there were 6·11 million women pensioners in Great Britain.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what age the state retirement pension age could be equalised at nil additional cost taking savings in other benefits into account.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The latest available figures based on 1985–86 benefit rates are that the cost of equalisation at age 63 is £800 million while at age 65 there is a saving of £500 million.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to take steps to help pensioners presently disqualified from community charge benefit due to(a) receipt of an occupational pension or (b) the tariff income rules on savings above £3,000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no such plans. It is a common feature of all income-related benefits, including community charge benefit, that income from occupational pensions and any tariff income from savings is counted as income when benefit claims are assessed. This approach achieves the Government's policy of targeting help on those who need it most.

  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to increase in 1991 the number of disabled people employed as a result of the sheltered placement scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The sheltered placement scheme is the responsibility of my Department. The Department is committed to support for the scheme and will be reviewing, later in the year, the arrangements for funding in the context of the Department's expenditure plans.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the 28 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who were arrested during an operation on 9 October 1989 have been charged with firearms offences; and what form of apology has been given to those who were not charged.

  Mr. Cope
  All police operations in the Province are the responsibility of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and he has informed us that nine members of the Ulster Defence Regiment were charged with 11 firearms offences. I know of no apology issued to those who were not charged.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what statements were issued following the arrest of 28 Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers on 9 October 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I understand that 25 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment were arrested on 8 October 1990 and a further three on 9 October. Deputy Chief Constable Stevens issued a statement on 8 October and a further one on 13 October.

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any assurances have been sought or given to the Government of the Irish Republic concerning bail conditions for those charged by the Stevens team.

  Mr. Cope
  The Irish Government have not sought any assurances concerning bail conditions for those charged in connection with the Stevens inquiry, and none has been given.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations there have been in the inter-governmental conference under the Anglo-Irish Agreement with the Government of the Irish Republic concerning the Stevens inquiry team.

  Mr. Cope
  There have been no consultations with the Irish Government concerning the staff seconded to the Stevens inquiry.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the gross expenditure for hospital purposes by each of the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland for 1989–90; what is the allocation to each for such purposes for 1990–91; and if he will express all such figures in terms of per capita spending in each board area.

  Mr. Needham
  The information for 1988–89, the latest year available, is as follows:
  323

  Hospital Gross Revenue Expenditure

  Population Figures1

  Expenditure Per Capita

  £

  £

  Northern Board

  61,944,350

  384,300

  161·19

  Southern Board

  65,403,315

  289,800

  225·68

  Eastern Board

  244,551,304

  645,200

  379·03

  Western Board

  64,333,977

  258,800

  248·59

  1These are the resident populations within each board area. No adjustment has been made for patients who, while being resident within one board area, receive hospital treatment within another board area (cross-boundary flows). This happens, for example, in the provision of regional specialties by the Eastern board.

  Information is not held centrally on the amount each board will allocate to hospital services for 1990–91. Allocations to the health and social services boards are made by the Department of Health and Social Services on a block basis and it is a matter for each board to arrange its services, commensurate with regional strategic priorities.

  Police Pay
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the annual pay rates for(a) a Royal Ulster Constabulary constable after two years' service and (b) a Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve constable after two years' service.

  Mr. Cope
  The annual rate of pay for a constable with two years' service in both the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the full-time reserve is £12,462. A constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary part-time reserve is paid on an hourly basis according to the hours of duty actually performed.

  Security
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the number of arms, explosives and other equipment captured by the security forces since 1 January.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 10 May 1990]: During the first quarter of 1990 a total of 63 firearms and 3,388 lbs of explosives were found by the police and Army. Other finds included 7,038 rounds of ammunition, 66 detonators, seven rocket/mortar launchers and seven rocket/rounds.

  Investment
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to encourage American companies to invest in the constituency of Newry and Armagh.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: The Industrial Development Board is currently intensifying its efforts to attract industry from the United States, with the establishment of an independent representational network. We are already beginning to see an encouraging flow of new projects. I am undertaking a programme of visits to the United States, in some cases with the support of local politicians, and will be actively promoting the Newry and Armagh areas as prime locations within Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have also had discussions with representatives of the local community
  324
  and are prepared to consider close co-operation between local representatives and Government Departments and their agencies in order to encourage industrial development and economic regeneration.

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

  Mr. Needham
  [ holding answer 22 May 1990]: The latest published statistics show that the number of registered child minders in Northern Ireland, as at 31 December 1987, was 2,729. The provisional figure for 31 March 1989 is 3,091.

  BPA Deprivation Supplement
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what areas listed in the deprivation supplement to the basic practice allowance are covered by those designations which do not refer to electoral wards; and what are the criteria for selecting areas other than strictly by electoral ward.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: None. All the areas designated are based on electoral wards.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the deprivation supplement to BPA in Northern Ireland as to why a proposed formula and area list circulated among general practitioners prior to the contract date was withdrawn; and what are the differences between that formula and list and those which have now been decided.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: Following consultations with the General Medical Services Committee (Northern Ireland) agreement was reached on 25 January 1990 on an index of deprivation to be used to calculate the deprivation supplement to BPA. Subsequently representations were made to the Department of Health and Social Services that the index could operate unfairly in Northern Ireland because variables for the "under fives" and "unskilled working population" had been omitted. These groups had been subject to under-enumeration in the 1981 census. An exercise to refine the Northern Ireland index was carried out. This exercise has been completed and agreement on a revised index using other sources of data was reached on 25 April with GMSC(NI). The variables used in both indices were:

  Original index Per cent.

  Revised index Per cent.

  Unemployment

  Unemployment

  Elderly living alone

  Elderly living alone

  Single parents

  Single parents

  Overcrowded households

  Overcrowded households

  Households lacking one or more amenities

  Households lacking one or more amenities

  —

  Under-5s

  —

  Unskilled

  —

  Moved House

  The following table lists the electoral wards included under each index:

  325

  Original index

  Revised index

  High

  High

  Londonderry

  St. Columb's Wells

  Belfast

  Cromac

  Belfast

  Falls

  Belfast

  Shankill

  Belfast

  Shankill

  Belfast

  Court

  Belfast

  Ballymacarrett

  Belfast

  New Lodge

  Belfast

  New Lodge

  Belfast

  Strabane East

  Belfast

  Clonard

  Belfast

  Falls

  Belfast

  Cromac

  Belfast

  Ballymacarrett

  Belfast

  North Howard

  Belfast

  Strabane West

  Belfast

  Central

  Belfast

  Grosvenor

  —

  —

  Belfast

  The Mount

  Medium

  Medium

  Belfast

  Court

  Belfast

  North Howard

  Belfast

  The Mount

  Londonderry

  St. Columb's Wells

  Belfast

  Island

  Belfast

  St. George's

  Cookstown

  Ardboe

  Cookstown

  Ardboe

  Newry and Mourne

  Crossmaglen

  Moyle

  Glenaan

  Dungannon

  Washing Bay

  Newry and Mourne

  Creggan

  Londonderry

  Creggan South

  Belfast

  Island

  Belfast

  Whiterock

  Moyle

  Bushmills

  Belfast

  Wood vale

  Belfast

  Clonard

  Belfast

  Duncairn

  Belfast

  Crumlin

  Belfast

  Donegal

  Limavady

  Coolessan

  Moyle

  Ballintoy

  Belfast

  Wood vale

  Dungannon

  Killymaddy

  Newry and Mourne

  Crossmaglen

  Moyle

  Glenaan

  Armagh

  Lurgyvallen

  Londonderry

  Brandywell

  Belfast

  Ardoyne

  Strabane

  Glenderg

  Newry and Mourne

  Forkhill

  Magherafelt

  Lower Glenshane

  Armagh

  Keady

  Omagh

  Drumquin

  Londonderry

  Shan tallow

  Moyle

  Knocklayd

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  Coalisland North

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  Forkhill

  —

  —

  Magherafelt

  Gulladuff

  —

  —

  Low

  Low

  Belfast

  Ardoyne

  Londonderry

  Riverside

  Londonderry

  Westland

  Belfast

  Donegall

  Strabane

  Dunnamanagh

  Dungannon

  Killymaddy

  Newry and Mourne

  St. Patrick's

  Moyle

  Glenariff

  Moyle

  Bushmills

  Belfast

  University

  Londonderry

  Banagher

  Newry and Mourne

  Camlough

  Strabane

  East

  Londonderry

  Creggan South

  Limavady

  Greysteel

  Newry and Mourne

  St. Patrick's

  Omagh

  Drumnakilly

  Belfast

  Whiterock

  Newry and Mourne

  Ballybot

  Cookstown

  Killycolpy

  Ballymoney

  Benvardin

  Dungannon

  Coalisland, South

  Omagh

  Sixmilecross

  Dungannon

  Coalisland, North

  Strabane

  West

  Newry and Mourne

  Daisy Hill

  Dungannon

  Altmore

  Magherafelt

  Draperstown

  Fermanagh

  Rosslea

  Belfast

  Duncairn

  Newry and Mourne

  Creggan

  Limavady

  Magilligan

  Cookstown

  Killycolpy

  Moyle

  Glendun

  Craigavon

  Woodside

  Craigavon

  Woodside

  Craigavon

  Court

  Limavady

  Binevenagh

  Dungannon

  Ballygawley

  Dungannon

  Washingbay

  Craigavon

  Church

  Craigavon

  Woodville

  Belfast

  Suffolk

  Londonderry

  Waterloo

  Cookstown

  Dunnamore

  Limavady

  Dungiven

  Magherafelt

  Draperstown

  Craigavon

  Brownlow

  Fermanagh

  Newtownbutler

  Cookstown

  Gortalowry

  Cookstown

  Pomeroy

  Lisburn

  Collin

  Moyle

  Glenariff

  Omagh

  Owenglen

  Limavady

  Feeny

  Strabane

  Castlederg

  Ballymoney

  Kiloquin Upper

  Omagh

  Drumquin

  Armagh

  Downs

  Newry and Mourne

  Ballybot

  Strabane

  Clare

  Omagh

  Killyclogher

  Strabane

  Castlederg

  Londonderry

  Springtown

  Newry and Mourne

  Belleek

  Newry and Mourne

  Newtownhamilton

  Belfast

  St. James

  Limavady

  Feeny

  Londonderry

  Waterloo

  —

  —

  Limavady

  The Highlands

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  Churchland

  —

  —

  Magherafelt

  Bellaghy

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  Fathom

  —

  —

  Omagh

  Fintona

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  Newtownhamilton

  —

  —

  326 327

  Original index

  Revised index

  Belfast

  St. George's

  —

  —

  Belfast

  Grove

  —

  —

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the items discussed at the meeting of Foreign Secretaries of the member states of the European Economic Community at Parknarsilla, Eire, on 19 and 20 May.

  Mr. Maude
  This was a successful meeting. Ministers discussed political union, (on which the debate was constructive) and preparations for the Dublin European Council. They also covered relations with other states in Europe and north America. There was a brief discussion of South Africa, during which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave an account of President de Klerk's visit to this country. As is normal at informal meetings, no decisions were taken.

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the suspending of the screening process for Vietnamese boat people at the Upper and Lower Chi Ma Wan detention centres in November 1989.

  Mr. Maude
  Screening was suspended at the Chi Ma Wan centres in November 1989 because the boat people refused to attend the screening interviews.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average length of time between arrival in Hong Kong and a screening interview for a Vietnamese refugee at each detention centre.

  Mr. Maude
  Drawing on recent experience, we estimate that the average length of time between arrival in Hong Kong and a screening interview for a Vietnamese refugee is nine months.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is numbers and percentages of Vietnamese boat people screened in Hong Kong have(a) served in the armed forces of the former Government of South Vietnam, (b) been involved in political organisations opposed to the present Vietnamese Government, (c) recorded participation in religious activities in Vietnam, (d) complained of deprivation of economic and social rights and (e) been prosecuted or disciplined by the present regime in Vietnam.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the categories of people identified in this question are likely to have a strong case for refugee status. The composite screening-in rate (ie the combined total of those screened-in at the first instance and at appeal stages) is about 16 per cent.
  328
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Fore:ign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average length of a screening interview for Vietnamese refugees at detention camps in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  Most screening interviews take about half a day, but it is not uncommon for interviewing to take up to two days.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of Vietnamese boat people who have had their refugee status confirmed on the principle of family reunification.

  Mr. Maude
  A total of 663 people have been granted refugee status on family reunification grounds.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Vietnamese boat people who have not been granted refugee status after the first screening interview have applied for review of their cases; and with what results.

  Mr. Maude
  Ninety-nine per cent. of those screened-out at the first stage have applied for review by the refugee status review board. Of the reviews completed so far, 8·5 per cent. have been successful and in 91·5 per cent. of cases the board has upheld the director of immigration's initial decision.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of the rules for the conduct of refugee status review boards for Vietnamese boat people in the Library.

  Mr. Maude
  A copy is being placed in the Library of the House.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement concerning the findings of the detectives from Scotland Yard who visited El Salvador to assist investigations into the murder of the six Jesuit priests, their cook and daughter;

  (2) if he will place a copy of the Scotland Yard detectives' report into the murders at the Central American university in El Salvador, in the Library.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 21 May at column 33.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have made any representations to the Government of the United States of America concerning the levels of American military aid to El Salvador.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government
  329
  of El Salvador concerning the progress on the investigation into the murders at the Central American university.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We and our EC partners have frequently made clear to the Salvadorean Government the importance of bringing the investigation to a successful conclusion, and the murderers to justice.

  Indo-Chinese Refugees
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will a statement on the outcome of the informal working level meeting in Manila in 17–18 May of the steering committee set up under the comprehensive plan of action adopted by the 1989 Geneva conference on Indo-Chinese refugees.

  Mr. Maude
  Representatives of 26 countries, the EC Commission and the International Organisation for Migration met in Manila on 17–18 May to review all components of the comprehensive plan of action (CPA).

  On 16 May, representatives of the Governments of the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei and the United Kingdom/Hong Kong issued the following statement:
  "For over 15 years, countries in South-East Asia and Hong Kong have provided temporary refuge to Vietnamese boat people at tremendous cost to themselves. This burden has become intolerable and cannot continue. The CPA adopted by the ICIR in June 1989 is aimed at securing a durable solution to the VBP problem within a definite time frame of three years through the implementation of all its interdependent provisions.
  The viability of the CPA, however, has been undermined by selective implementation of its provisions. While countries of temporary refuge have been urged to continue to provide first asylum, crucial elements of the CPA have either not been given due focus or totally ignored. In particular, clandestine departures from Vietnam have continued and two CPA participants have blocked repatriation of non-refugees who do not volunteer to return.
  In the light of the above, countries of temporary refuge wish to stress the following:

  1. Responsibility for solving the problem of VBP rests primarily with Vietnam as the country of origin;

  2. Vietnam should take more effective measures to deter clandestine departure and promote the Orderly Departure Programme (ODP) as the sole mode of departure for emigration. On humanitarian grounds, all CPA participants have a duty to co-operate to bring to an end clandestine departures involving risky journeys across the sea or otherwise;

  3. The near consensus reached at the Steering Committee Meeting in January 1990 in Geneva, particularly the date for ending the moratorium on repatriating non-refugees who do not volunteer, should be implemented as from 1 July 1990;

  4. The repatriation of non-refugees who do not volunteer to return is essential to the CPA's viability and survival. Without it, the status determination procedure has no meaning or purpose;

  5. There is an obligation on any country which opposes the repatriation of non-refugees who do not volunteer to offer an effective intermediate solution, such as the setting up and financing on its own territory of a regional holding centre for all non-refugees, as envisaged in the CPA;

  6. In the event of failure to agree even an intermediate solution to the VBP problem, countries of temporary refuge must reserve the right to take such unilateral action as they deem necessary to safeguard their national interests, including the abandonment of temporary refuge.

  Countries of temporary refuge express their concern at the recent upsurge of Cambodian boat people in South-East Asia, noting that this category of boat people is not covered by CPA".
  330
  The overwhelming majority of participants at the Manila meeting reaffirmed that non-refugees should return to their country of origin in accordance with international practice reflecting the responsibilities of states towards their own citizens. If, however, agreement on the near consensus of the last steering committee on the duration of a moratorium on non-voluntary repatriation was again prevented, an intermediate solution, such as the establishment of a holding centre for non-refugees, should be found. They also agreed on the importance to tackle the root causes of clandestine departure from Vietnam through humanitarian programmes in that country. In that connection the British delegation announced a special scheme to support NGO activities in those parts of North Vietnam from which boat people come, for which purpose a sum of £1 million has been set aside. In addition, Vietnam has been added to the list of countries participating in the general joint funding scheme under which the ODA meets 50 per cent. of the costs of agreed NGO projects.

  Finally, the meeting recommended that the full steering committee should meet again in the very near future, possibly in late June in Geneva. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees was requested to bring the gravity of the situation to the attention of the Governments concerned and it was also noted that various demarches would be made to the same end by other participating states.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes to make any changes in his Department's diplomatic wing cash limits for 1990–91.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class II, vote 2 (other external relations) will be increased by £12,130,00 from £163,889,000 to £176,019,000. This change reflects increased costs on United Nations Observer Force in Central America (ONUCA), International Support and Verification Commission in Central America (CIAV), drugs, assistance to dependent territories and military assistance to Portugal. Part of this increase is offset by a transfer from class II, vote 1 (overseas representation) where the cash limit will be reduced by £1,330,000 from £536,052,000 to £534,722,000 representing a reduced provision for the overseas estate. Part is offset by transfer from Ministry of Defence class I, vote 2. The balance of the increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

HEALTH

  Health Authorities (Spending)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing for each of the health regions in England(a) the gross revenue spending per head of population and (b) the capital spending per head of population for the year 1989–90 and the corresponding allocations for 1990–91.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The 1989–90 annual accounts are not yet due for submission to the Department and information
  331
  derived from them will not be available until the autumn. It is not possible to publish comparable figures for allocations in 1990–91. This is because allocations to health authorities are made on a net basis and exclude such things as income generation receipts, Iand sales, etc. Details of net allocations per head of population, for both revenue and capital, are given in the table.

  Region

  1990–91 Revenue allocation per head of population

  1990–91 Capital allocation per head of population

  £'s

  £'s

  Northern

  298

  20

  Yorkshire

  283

  20

  Trent

  273

  21

  East Anglian

  272

  18

  North West Thames

  300

  19

  North East Thames

  343

  20

  South East Thames

  317

  19

  South West Thames

  311

  17

  Wessex

  263

  20

  Oxford

  392

  26

  South Western

  284

  19

  West Midlands

  280

  24

  Mersey

  302

  19

  North Western

  311

  22

  England

  298

  20

  Notes: At initial cash allocation levels.

  St. Ann's Psychiatric Unit, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the closure of St. Ann's adolescent psychiatric unit in Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received two representations about St. Ann's, including one from the hon. Member. I understand that Nottingham health authority plans to strengthen its adolescent psychiatric service by appointing a professor with a supporting senior lecturer and fifth mental health team. In the meantime, the health authority hopes to cover the consultant vacancy with a locum.

  Dental Technicians
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the qualifications required for a National Health Service dental technician.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Dental technicians are graded as medical technical officers (MTOs). The Whitley council agreement requires that MTOs should hold a Business and Technical Education Council/Scottish Vocational Educational Council qualification, City and Guilds or other suitable technical qualification in an appropriate discipline.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the scales of pay for National Health Service(a) dental surgeon assistants and (b) dental technicians.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The pay and conditions of service of these groups are matters for negotiation by the Professional and Technical Staffs B Whitley council.

  Current rates for dental surgery assistants (DSAs) effective from 1 July 1989, are set out in the table:
  332

  Student DSA

  DSA

  Senior

  Tutor

  £

  Age

  £

  £

  £

  3,885

  16

  5,523

  5,875

  7,291

  4,089

  17

  5,797

  6,187

  7,622

  4,513

  18

  6,063

  6,598

  7,934

  4,671

  19

  6,319

  6,959

  8,238

  4,816

  20

  6,567

  7,310

  8,558

  4,964

  21 and over

  7,025

  7,647

  8,869

  5,118

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,267

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,499

  —

  —

  —

  —

  I understand that negotiations on the staff side's pay claim for this group have not yet started.

  Dental technicians are graded as medical technical officers (MTOs). Current rates of pay, effective from 1 September 1989 following a grade restructuring, are set out in the table:

  Trainee

  MTO1

  MTO2

  MTO3

  MTO4

  MTO5

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  4,743

  6,751

  8,542

  11,241

  13,676

  16,639

  4,933

  7,021

  8,884

  11,690

  14,223

  17,304

  5,130

  7,302

  9,239

  12,158

  14,792

  17,996

  5,335

  7,594

  9,608

  12,644

  15,383

  18,716

  5,549

  7,897

  9,993

  13,150

  15,999

  19,465

  5,771

  8,213

  10,392

  113,676

  116,639

  120,244

  6,001

  18,542

  10,808

  114,223

  117,304

  121,053

  —

  18,884

  111,241

  114,792

  117,996

  121,895

  —

  19,239

  111,690

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  112,158

  —

  —

  —

  1 Salary points are for use when salary scales have been advanced to recognise special skills or additional responsibilities.

  I understand negotiations on the staff side's pay claim for this group are continuing.

  Hospital Beds, Greenwich
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of hospital beds in each of the past five years in the London borough of Greenwich.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information is given in the table.

  Average daily available beds, and in-patient cases treated, Greenwich district health authority, 1984–1988/89.

  Year

  Available beds

  In-patient cases treated

  In-patient cases treated per available bed

  1984

  1,586

  40,137

  25·3

  1985

  1,517

  40,381

  26·6

  1986

  1,334

  36,358

  27·3

  1987–88

  1,249

  36,943

  29·6

  1988–89

  1,150

  34,554

  30·0

  Source:

  SH3 return, 1984–1986

  KHO3 & SH3a returns, 1987–88 onwards

  DES/stilboestrol
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evidence he has on a connection between the use of the drug DES/stilboestrol to treat pregnant women and the incidence of cancer in their daughters in early womanhood;

  (2) if he has any evidence of effects on the sons of women who have been treated with the drug DES/ stilboestrol during pregnancy;
  333
  (3) if there is any evidence that treatment of pregnant women with the drug DES/stilboestrol gives rise to congenital abnormality in future generations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1971 a study was published reporting the occurrence in the United States of America of delayed onset genital tract cancer in the daughters of women treated with stilboestrol in pregnancy. In May 1973 the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) sent a letter to all doctors describing these findings, at which time no cases had been reported in the United Kingdom. A retrospective study by CSM in 1973 did not identify any case of genital tract cancer associated with maternal stilboestrol treatment. It was not until 1978 that the first United Kingdom case was reported in a publication. Further communications in 1981 between the authors and CSM described another patient. It has been estimated in the United States of America that the incidence of genital tract cancer is 1·4 per 1,000 women whose mothers received stilboestrol. It has been estimated that in the United Kingdom approximately 7,500 women received stilboestrol during pregnancy; on the basis of the incidence figures in the United States of America, we would expect no more than 11 United Kingdom cases of cancer in the second generation. It is possible that the incidence in the United Kingdom is less, since dosage and pattern of usage have been reported to differ from those of the United States of America.

  A paper published in 1975 reported cases of congenital structural abnormalities of the male and female genital tract in patients whose mothers were treated with stilboestrol during pregnancy. Since then there have been further published papers.

  CSM has received no reports of congenital abnormality of the reproductive tract associated with stilboestrol treatment.

  At present in the United Kingdom, stilboestrol is indicated for the treatment of prostatic cancer, and of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. It is contraindicated in pregnancy.

  Global Nutritional Guidelines
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if any decision was taken at the recent World Health Organisation meeting in Geneva concerning the adoption or development of global nutritional guidelines; what is his policy on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No decision was taken about global nutrition guidelines at the recent WHO (World Health Assembly) meeting in Geneva. We are aware that the WHO has this matter under consideration but no guidelines have yet been prepared. The Department of Health takes the lead in matters connected with the WHO and will be involved in any discussion on this topic. Our policy on nutritional guidelines is based upon advice from the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy and at present relates only to the United Kingdom.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many representations he has received, and from whom, in the past three years concerning the availability of a wider range of shades for National Health Service hearing aids;
  334
  (2) if he will make a wider range of shades available for National Health Service hearing aids; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  At least one model in each of the standard ranges of National Health Service post-aural hearing aids is available in dark brown as well as beige.

  I am advised by the Mersey regional health authority, which negotiates the national contracts for standard range models on behalf of the NHS, that demand for the dark brown models was very low until about two years ago. Since then an increased demand for dark brown aids led to a temporary shortage which caused a number of representations to Mersey RHA by hearing aid centres. I am pleased to say that this problem has been resolved and that both colours are now readily available.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hearing aids have been distributed by the National Health Service for each of the past 10 years to(a) children under 16 years of age and (b) adults over 16 years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Area Health Authorities (Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requests for changes or amalgamations he has received from area health authorities in Devon; and what is his response.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  Leicestershire Health Authority
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to deal with financial problems affecting the Leicestershire health authority; and if he will make a statement on what progress has been made in this matter.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As the hon. Member is well aware, district health authorities are responsible for living within their cash limits. Leicestershire health authority has a budget of £222 million for 1990–91 and has produced prudent plans to make sure it can balance its books.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any changes will be made to the cash limits and running cost limits for his Department in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  The cash limit for class XIII vote 1 (hospital and community health services, family practitioner services (part) and other services, England) will be increased by £178,800,000 (from £13,724,057,000 to £13,902,857,000) to help provide, from 1 April 1990, for the pay awards recommended in the 1990 reports of the review bodies for nursing staff, midwives and professions allied to medicine, and on doctors' and dentists' remuneration, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1 February 1990.

  The cash limit for class XIII vote 3 (Department of Health administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) will be increased by £1,531,000 (from £686,387,000 to £687,918,000).
  335
  This increase provides for £1,200,000 to meet, from 1 April 1990, the review body recommendations mentioned above; for a £40,000 transfer from class VI, vote 2, (Department of Employment, other programmes and central services) in respect of the workplace advisory services and a net transfer (£291,000) from class XIV, vote 7 (Department of Social Security, administration and miscellaneous services) in respect of printing and office machines. The provision for running costs on this vote and the Department's running cost limit is increased by £3,594,000 from £198,493,000 to £202,087,000.

  The public expenditure costs of these changes have been charged to the reserve and do not add to the public expenditure planning total.

  Regional Health Authority Chairmen
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on the appointment of regional health authority chairmen from 1 August.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The terms of office of 12 of the 14 regional health authority chairmen expire on 31 July 1990. I am pleased to announce that I have made four new appointments as follows:

  Northern RHA: Peter Carr

  North East Thames RHA: Tim Chessells

  South Western RHA: Charles Stuart

  Oxford RHA: Dr. Stuart Burgess

  These appointments run until 31 July 1992.

  The chairmen of the following eight RHAs have accepted my invitation to serve in these most important positions for another four years each:

  Yorkshire: Sir Bryan Askew

  North West Thames: Mr. William Doughty

  Trent: Sir Michael Carlisle

  South West Thames RHA: Baroness Cumberlege of Newick

  West Midlands RHA: Sir James Ackers

  Mersey RHA: Sir Donald Wilson

  North Western RHA: Mr. Bruce Martin

  Wessex RHA: Mr. Robin Buchanan

  Infant Milk Products
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether guidelines have been issued to hospitals on the use of infant milk products containing soya.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes. Advice to health authorities about infant feeding issued in July 1989 drew the attention of health care professionals to the report from the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy "Present day practice in Infant Feeding." This report stated that soya-based infant formulas can be used where an alternative to a formula based on cow's milk is clinically indicated but that in such cases a dietician's expert advice is essential to ensure that this does not lead to any nutritional deficiencies.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing, in the case of the Northern regional health authority, how the reduction in provision of hospital provision for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped has been translated into increased community care provision, using both output indicators and input indicators.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We do not hold information centrally that would enable us to establish a valid correlation between 336
  hospital provision for mentally ill or mentally handicapped people in the region and community care provision.

  I recently announced plans which will enable local authorities to increase the level of care they offer to mentally ill people being treated in the community. Health authorities will be required to ensure that any reduction in the number of hospital beds for mentally handicapped and mentally ill people does not outpace the development of alternative community services. The hon. Member may care to contact the chairman of the Northern regional health authority for more information.

  Abortion
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health district, for the last available year,(a) the percentage of second trimester abortions and (b) the abortion rate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to seek to change(a) the legal requirements concerning notification of abortions to the chief medical officer or (b) the penalties in cases where such requirements are not met; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The regulations relating to notification of abortions to the chief medical officer would need to be amended to meet the requirements of any changes Parliament decided to make to the law on abortion during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. We have no plans in relation to the penalty prescribed in section 2(3) of the Abortion Act 1967 as amended.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what explanations have been offered to the chief medical officer explaining late submissions of abortion notifications.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Most of the notifications in question were completed at the time of termination. The explanations given to the chief medical officer are usually admitted oversight, personnel changes, forms being temporarily mislaid through filing in hospital notes, or staff illness.

  Smoking (Children)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising and sponsorship being circumvented by the practice of tobacco companies paying film companies for the placing of brand name tobacco products in films likely to be televised and watched by children; and what steps he will take to stop this practice.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have recently received representations on the question of "product placement", as this practice is known, from ASH and Parents Against Tobacco quoting examples of American-produced films shown in the United Kingdom. We do not have any evidence that this practice is being used by the United Kingdom tobacco industry but if such evidence emerges we will raise the matter with it in the context of our system of voluntary agreements.
  337
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the illegal sale of single cigarettes to children; and if he will take steps to prohibit the practice of selling cigarettes from opened packs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received three representations on this subject, two of them from hon. Members.

  The sale of any tobacco product to a child under 16 years of age is already illegal. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering ways in which the relevant legislation can be strengthened.
  338
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to bring in legislation to tackle the problem of children smoking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are very concerned about children smoking and the way in which the law on the sale of tobacco to children is being flouted. The steps which might be taken to strengthen the law in this area are under review.

  Cot Deaths
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what stage his official scientific inquiry into cot deaths has reached; when he anticipates receiving this report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave the hon. Members for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) on 16 May at column 414.

  Secure Accommodation (Young People)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority social services departments provide secure accommodation for young people which can he used as an alternative to prison.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Local authority social services departments provide a range of facilities and services which may be used as an alternative to a custodial sentence or a prison department remand. This includes a national network of approved secure accommodation, currently provided by 27 social services departments in England in 34 individual secure units, to which all local authorities have access.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the population served of each district health authority; and how many accident and emergency centres each district has.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 May 1990]: The available information is given in the table.

  Comparisons between district health authorities based on the number of accident and emergency departments per head of resident population may be misleading as factors such as the population density, the numbers of holidaymakers or workers coming into the district, and ready access to specialised services in adjacent districts are taken into account when planning services. Furthermore the heading "accident and emergency" includes departments offering a wide range of levels of service.

  Resident population estimates, by district health authority, as at 30 June 1988, and numbers of NHS hospital sites having accident and emergency departments, by health authority, as at 31 March 1989 Northern RHA

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  Hartlepool

  88·4

  1

  North Tees

  176·8

  1

  South Tees

  287·9

  11

  East Cumbria

  179·4

  13

  South Cumbria

  172·6

  2

  West Cumbria

  137·2

  13

  Darlington

  124·5

  1

  Durham

  233·9

  1

  North West Durham

  85·9

  1

  South West Durham

  152·5

  1

  Northumberland

  301·4

  17

  Gateshead

  206·2

  1

  Newcastle

  279·6

  2

  North Tyneside

  192·9

  5

  South Tyneside

  155·7

  2

  Sunderland

  296·1

  2

  340

  Yorkshire RHA

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  Hull

  297·6

  9

  East Yorkshire

  198·8

  9

  Grimsby

  157·5

  1

  Scunthorpe

  196·6

  3

  Northallerton

  117·2

  7

  York

  264·7

  7

  Scarborough

  145·8

  7

  Harrogate

  135·8

  2

  Bradford

  337·0

  2

  Airedale

  176·7

  4

  Calderdale

  195·9

  1

  Huddersfield

  211·5

  1

  Dewsbury

  163·8

  1

  Leeds Western

  365·3

  2

  Leeds Eastern

  344·3

  2

  Wakefield

  145·2

  1

  Pontefract

  166·4

  4

  Trent RHA

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  North Derbyshire

  363·2

  10

  Southern Derbyshire

  530·8

  13

  Leicestershire

  885·5

  23

  North Lincolnshire

  273·2

  12

  South Lincolnshire

  309·4

  14

  Bassetlaw

  104·8

  1

  Central Nottinghamshire

  289·2

  2

  Nottingham

  613·7

  1

  Barnsley

  220·9

  1

  Doncaster

  291·6

  3

  Rotherham

  251·8

  1

  Sheffield

  528·3

  5

  East Anglian RHA

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  Cambridge

  275·6

  1

  Peterborough

  208·5

  5

  West Suffolk

  228·1

  5

  East Suffolk

  322·6

  9

  Norwich

  472·4

  11

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  200·1

  4

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  191·4

  7

  Huntingdon

  135·7

  1

  North West Thames RHA

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  North Bedfordshire

  251·6

  1

  South Bedfordshire

  279·1

  1

  North Hertfordshire

  186·0

  4

  East Hertfordshire

  294·6

  1

  North West Hertfordshire

  261·4

  2

  South West Hertfordshire

  243·9

  1

  Barnet

  301·4

  3

  Harrow

  197·1

  1

  Hillingdon

  231·7

  2

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  276·6

  6

  Ealing

  297·3

  I

  Riverside

  276·0

  4

  Parkside

  373·7

  4

  341

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  Basildon and Thurrock

  282·0

  2

  Mid Essex

  290·8

  1

  North East Essex

  311·6

  7

  West Essex

  249·9

  11

  Southend

  325·3

  1

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  453·1

  2

  Hampstead

  108·4

  1

  Bloomsbury

  126·7

  1

  Islington

  169·2

  1

  City and Hackney

  193·3

  2

  Newham

  207·0

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  161·8

  2

  Enfield

  260·9

  1

  Haringey

  192·3

  1

  Redbridge

  230·8

  1

  Waltham Forest

  213·3

  I

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Health Authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  Brighton

  308·2

  5

  Eastbourne

  235·2

  4

  Hastings

  169·3

  9

  South East Kent

  268·4

  4

  Canterbury and Thanet

  309·3

  12

  Dartford and Gravesham

  217·2

  3

  Maidstone

  199·3

  2

  Med way

  330·2

  3

  Tunbridge Wells

  196·0

  10

  Bexley

  220·4

  1

  Greenwich

  214·5

  2

  Bromley

  298·2

  3

  West Lambeth

  158·6

  1

  Camberwell

  210·5

  1

  Lewisham and North South wark

  316·3

  3

  South West Thames RHA

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  North West Surrey

  206·9

  8

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  277·6

  1

  South West Surrey

  181·1

  7

  Mid Surrey

  165·2

  5

  East Surrey

  182·6

  10

  Chichester

  182·6

  n/a

  Mid Downs

  276·8

  4

  Worthing

  244·0

  4

  Croydon

  317·2

  4

  Kingston and Esher

  177·2

  2

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  229·7

  1

  Wandsworth

  188·2

  2

  Merton and Sutton

  332·3

  5

  342

  Wessex RHA

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  East Dorset

  451·7

  11

  West Dorset

  203·9

  17

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  527·9

  17

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  419·7

  2

  Winchester

  212·3

  2

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  220·9

  1

  Salisbury

  121·0

  2

  Swindon

  234·2

  4

  Bath

  407·0

  12

  Isle of Wight

  129·8

  1

  Oxford RHA

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  East Berkshire

  362·1

  2

  West Berkshire

  454·2

  5

  Aylesbury Vale

  145·4

  2

  Wycombe

  268·2

  9

  Milton Keynes

  177·6

  1

  Kettering

  258·3

  1

  Northampton

  312·0

  1

  Oxfordshire

  545·9

  32

  South Western RHA

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  Bristol and Weston

  367·7

  4

  Frenchay

  221·8

  5

  Southmead

  232·3

  4

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  460·6

  23

  Exeter

  308·6

  24

  North Devon

  135·6

  19

  Plymouth

  334·3

  16

  Torbay

  242·6

  21

  Cheltenham

  212·4

  17

  Gloucester

  315·1

  12

  Somerset

  405·0

  18

  West Midlands RHA

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  167·1

  3

  Herefordshire

  157·3

  6

  Kidderminster and District

  102·6

  4

  Worcester and District

  243·9

  11

  Shropshire

  400·8

  36

  Mid Staffordshire

  313·8

  4

  North Staffordshire

  461·5

  3

  South East Staffordshire

  257·6

  8

  Rugby

  86·3

  1

  North Warwickshire

  175·1

  1

  South Warwickshire

  223·3

  7

  Central Birmingham

  180·2

  2

  East Birmingham

  196·9

  1

  North Birmingham

  164·0

  1

  South Birmingham

  246·1

  2

  West Birmingham

  206·6

  2

  Coventry

  306·2

  2

  Dudley

  304·3

  1

  Sandwell

  296·3

  1

  343

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  Solihull

  204·9

  2

  Walsall

  262·3

  1

  Wolverhampton

  249·4

  2

  Mersey RHA

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  Chester

  176·7

  1

  Crewe

  248·5

  2

  Halton

  143·6

  2

  Macclesfield

  179·9

  13

  Warrington

  187·7

  1

  Liverpool

  469·6

  13

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  346·0

  2

  Southport and Formby

  120·1

  1

  South Sefton

  177·5

  3

  Wirral

  354·3

  3

  North Western RHA

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  Lancaster

  131·1

  1

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  320·0

  13

  Preston

  128·1

  1

  Blackburn, Hynburn and Ribble Valley

  264·8

  3

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  228·3

  1

  West Lancashire

  105·4

  1

  Chorley and South Ribble

  196·8

  2

  Bolton

  263·6

  2

  Bury

  175·0

  2

  North Manchester

  139·7

  2

  Central Manchester

  122·4

  6

  South Manchester

  183·8

  2

  Oldham

  219·5

  1

  Rochdale

  214·2

  1

  Salford

  235·6

  1

  Stockport

  290·9

  1

  Tameside and Glossop

  247·0

  1

  Trafford

  215·8

  3

  Wigan

  307·6

  2

  Special Health Authorities

  Health authority

  Resident population (thousands)

  Number of hospital sites having A and E departments

  The Hospitals for Sick Children

  —

  1

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  —

  1

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

  —

  1

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's

  —

  1

  The Eastman Dental Hospital

  —

  2

  Source: Population estimates, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  A and E departments, KH03 return.

  n/a = not available.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for(a) the number of people on the community charge register, (b) the number who have applied for rebates and (c) how many of these have been successful, for (i) Carmarthen district, (ii) the borough of Dinefwr and (iii) Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest figures notified to me state the position as at 1 December 1989. These are:

  Numbers

  Carmarthen district

  44,208

  Dinefwr borough

  30,028

  Wales

  2,215,187

  Information about the matters listed under (b) and (c) is not yet available.

  Health Care (Elderly People)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions have been made to provide improved health care facilities for the elderly in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In addition to services provided specifically for them, the elderly have benefited from the considerable improvements made to health services in general. Since 1978–79, 41 per cent. more revenue resources in real terms have been provided and between September 1979 and September 1989 over 18 per cent. more staff directly concerned with patient care. Throughput of in-patients increased by 31 per cent. and new out-patients by 22 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1988–89. Further improvements are in prospect under the reforms proposed in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. In addition, the Department's initiative on the elderly in Wales has funded demonstration projects testing out new ways of providing the elderly with health and social care.

  Local Authority Dwellings
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the estimated capital investment in real terms on(a) renovation and (b) renovation grants of local authority dwellings for each local authority for each year since 1979

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information collected centrally for local authorities relates in general to the category new construction and works, which includes renovation work. The only area of local authority capital expenditure where separate information is available for construction alone is the building of dwellings, figures for which are shown in the following tables. Information for 1979–80 and 1980–81 was not collected on a comparable basis and is therefore not included.

  Capital payments on building of dwellings 1981–82 to 1984–85: Cash prices

  £000

  Local Authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  Alyn and Deeside

  657

  1,507

  894

  1,115

  Colwyn

  408

  514

  442

  439

  Delyn

  131

  91

  0

  849

  345

  Local Authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  Glyndwr

  1,250

  906

  317

  26

  Rhuddlan

  652

  832

  762

  709

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,067

  1,340

  1,493

  1,524

  Carmarthen

  1,659

  1,926

  1,933

  1,040

  Ceredigion

  1,619

  1,240

  2,630

  908

  Dinefwr

  263

  480

  1,003

  510

  Llanelli

  690

  666

  708

  1,287

  Preseli

  409

  178

  6

  304

  South Pembroke

  109

  109

  399

  431

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,523

  1,478

  549

  1,931

  Islwyn

  860

  648

  1,333

  760

  Monmouth

  1,382

  1,407

  2,186

  2,072

  Newport

  3,898

  2,092

  3,476

  4,290

  Torfaen

  1,230

  2,240

  1,963

  1,090

  Aberconwy

  183

  483

  390

  563

  Arfon

  703

  445

  609

  454

  Dwyfor

  250

  82

  84

  146

  Meirionnydd

  550

  619

  539

  71

  Ynys Môn

  1,008

  1,156

  1,545

  803

  Cynon Valley

  116

  252

  562

  306

  Merthyr Tydfil

  730

  425

  373

  96

  Ogwr

  1,659

  952

  1,897

  1,882

  Rhondda

  912

  131

  56

  54

  Rhymney Valley

  1,655

  1,790

  2,471

  1,200

  Taff Ely

  1,820

  1,613

  1,988

  411

  Brecknock

  428

  650

  480

  192

  Montgomeryshire

  229

  431

  424

  421

  Radnorshire

  270

  889

  743

  284

  Cardiff

  6,358

  5,703

  7,409

  2,484

  Vale of Glamorgan

  756

  731

  341

  603

  Pot Talbot

  250

  79

  0

  13

  Lliw Valley

  1,685

  1,611

  1,720

  739

  Neath

  801

  779

  782

  924

  Swansea

  1,988

  1,716

  1,799

  1,363

  Total Wales

  41,158

  38,191

  44,306

  32,294

  Capital payments on building of dwellings 1985–86 to 1988–89: Cash prices

  £000

  Local Authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Alyn and Deeside

  661

  1,112

  996

  1,076

  Colwyn

  210

  134

  0

  0

  Delyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glyndwr

  12

  6

  90

  897

  Rhuddlan

  714

  589

  526

  518

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,013

  854

  571

  412

  Carmarthen

  665

  907

  0

  292

  Ceredigion

  943

  1,196

  1,163

  563

  Dinefwr

  422

  848

  574

  128

  Llanelli

  1,800

  1,504

  1,718

  2,132

  Preseli

  250

  578

  377

  448

  South Pembroke

  106

  122

  9

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  629

  643

  1,718

  1,237

  Islwyn

  428

  1,639

  1,040

  451

  Monmouth

  1,980

  1,052

  469

  827

  Newport

  3,293

  1,682

  7,366

  3,354

  Torfaen

  757

  911

  681

  143

  Aberconwy

  185

  5

  30

  0

  Arfon

  217

  377

  526

  565

  Dwyfor

  126

  71

  21

  109

  Meirionnydd

  21

  27

  198

  203

  Ynys Môn

  662

  662

  801

  392

  Cynon Valley

  42

  221

  421

  103

  Merthyr Tydfil

  151

  85

  601

  0

  Ogwr

  973

  366

  1,039

  1,152

  Rhondda

  60

  14

  2

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  779

  385

  581

  458

  Taff Ely

  571

  1,257

  1,378

  1,886

  Brecknock

  439

  659

  799

  656

  Montgomeryshire

  328

  453

  550

  585

  Radnorshire

  205

  318

  75

  305

  Cardiff

  435

  350

  1,792

  582

  Vale of Glamorgan

  479

  545

  766

  692

  Port Talbot

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Lliw Valley

  587

  385

  726

  667

  346

  Local Authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Neath

  760

  847

  1,166

  901

  Swansea

  612

  1,146

  1,230

  1,171

  Total Wales

  21,521

  21,950

  30,000

  22,905

  Capital payments on building of dwellings 1981–82 to 1984–85: 1988–89 prices1

  £000

  Local Authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  Alyn and Deeside

  952

  2,036

  1,154

  1,371

  Colwyn

  591

  694

  570

  540

  Delyn

  190

  123

  0

  1,044

  Glyndwr

  1,810

  1,224

  409

  32

  Rhuddlan

  944

  1,124

  983

  872

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,545

  1,810

  1,927

  1,874

  Carmarthen

  2,403

  2,602

  2,495

  1,279

  Ceredigion

  2,345

  1,675

  3,394

  1,116

  Dinefwr

  381

  648

  1,294

  627

  Llanelli

  999

  900

  914

  1,582

  Preseli

  592

  240

  8

  374

  South Pembroke

  158

  147

  515

  530

  Blaenau Gwent

  3,654

  1,997

  709

  2,374

  Islwyn

  1,246

  875

  1,720

  934

  Monmouth

  2,002

  1,901

  2,821

  2,548

  Newport

  5,646

  2,826

  4,486

  5,275

  Torfaen

  1,781

  3,026

  2,533

  1,340

  Aberconwy

  265

  652

  503

  692

  Arfon

  1,018

  601

  786

  558

  Dwyfor

  362

  111

  108

  180

  Meirionnydd

  797

  836

  696

  87

  Ynys Môn

  1,460

  1,562

  1,994

  987

  Cynon Valley

  168

  340

  725

  376

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,057

  574

  481

  118

  Ogwr

  2,403

  1,286

  2,448

  2,314

  Rhondda

  1,321

  177

  72

  66

  Rhymney Valley

  2,397

  2,418

  3,189

  1,475

  Taff Ely

  2,636

  2,179

  2,566

  505

  Brecknock

  620

  878

  619

  236

  Montgomeryshire

  332

  582

  547

  518

  Radnorshire

  391

  1,201

  959

  349

  Cardiff

  9,209

  7,704

  9,562

  3,054

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,095

  987

  440

  741

  Port Talbot

  362

  107

  0

  16

  Lliw Valley

  2,440

  2,176

  2,220

  909

  Neath

  1,160

  1,052

  1,009

  1,136

  Swansea

  2,879

  2,318

  2,322

  1,676

  Total Wales

  59,611

  51,590

  57,182

  39,706

  1 Adjusted to a constant price basis using the GDP deflator.

  Capital payments on building of dwellings 1985–86 to 1988–89: 1988–89 prices1

  £000

  Local Authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Alyn and Deeside

  771

  1,255

  1,067

  1,076

  Colwyn

  245

  151

  0

  0

  Delyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glyndwr

  14

  7

  96

  897

  Rhuddlan

  833

  665

  563

  518

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,182

  964

  612

  412

  Carmarthen

  776

  1,024

  0

  292

  Ceredigion

  1,100

  1,350

  1,246

  563

  Dinefwr

  492

  957

  615

  128

  Llanelli

  2,101

  1,697

  1,840

  2,132

  Preseli

  292

  652

  404

  448

  South Pembroke

  124

  138

  10

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  734

  726

  1,840

  1,237

  Islwyn

  499

  1,850

  1,114

  451

  Monmouth

  2,311

  1,187

  502

  827

  Newport

  3,843

  1,898

  7,891

  3,354

  Torfaen

  883

  1,028

  729

  143

  Aberconwy

  216

  6

  32

  0

  Arfon

  253

  425

  563

  565

  347

  Local Authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Dwyfor

  147

  80

  22

  109

  Meirionnydd

  25

  30

  212

  203

  Ynys Môn

  773

  747

  858

  392

  Cynon Valley

  49

  249

  451

  103

  Merthyr Tydfil

  176

  96

  644

  0

  Ogwr

  1,135

  413

  1,113

  1,152

  Rhondda

  70

  16

  2

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  909

  435

  622

  458

  Taff Ely

  666

  1,419

  1,476

  1,886

  Brecknock

  512

  744

  856

  656

  Montgomeryshire

  383

  511

  589

  585

  Radnorshire

  239

  359

  80

  305

  Cardiff

  508

  395

  1,920

  582

  Vale of Glamorgan

  559

  615

  821

  692

  Port Talbot

  7

  0

  0

  0

  Lliw Valley

  685

  435

  778

  667

  Neath

  887

  956

  1,249

  901

  Gross renovation of local authority dwellings: cash prices

  £000

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Alyn and Deeside

  852

  1,170

  1,260

  1,428

  1,682

  1,918

  1,583

  1,827

  Colwyn

  602

  596

  733

  461

  965

  1,280

  853

  893

  Delyn

  760

  581

  1,122

  0

  858

  1,741

  1,376

  2,794

  Glyndwr

  129

  349

  670

  1,023

  924

  1,108

  1,119

  735

  Rhuddlan

  83

  154

  94

  131

  34

  286

  301

  175

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,248

  1,657

  2,355

  2,186

  3,046

  4,815

  5,653

  4,435

  Carmarthen

  228

  244

  529

  322

  659

  775

  2,321

  1,487

  Ceredigion

  222

  714

  1,165

  289

  724

  439

  798

  1,085

  Dinefwr

  349

  695

  202

  269

  433

  403

  805

  773

  Llanelli

  570

  923

  1,311

  144

  269

  356

  482

  256

  Preseli

  900

  1,806

  1,474

  1,442

  1,311

  1,353

  1,352

  1,298

  South Pembroke

  254

  506

  520

  244

  495

  428

  628

  557

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,210

  5,351

  3,385

  2,310

  2,533

  6,586

  4,920

  3,862

  Islwyn

  820

  2,442

  2,848

  2,638

  1,548

  1,617

  1,870

  1,687

  Monmouth

  190

  256

  592

  586

  2,296

  3,295

  4,317

  3,067

  Newport

  927

  2,655

  2,770

  2,727

  3,470

  3,366

  3,619

  2,751

  Torfaen

  1,630

  2,382

  2,080

  2,710

  2,733

  4,506

  3,242

  6,462

  Aberconwy

  331

  433

  1,118

  966

  808

  1,131

  1,240

  1,704

  Arfon

  1,108

  890

  1,406

  569

  594

  648

  1,084

  725

  Dwyfor

  58

  107

  120

  86

  59

  101

  54

  275

  Meirionnydd

  28

  112

  319

  314

  0

  44

  49

  271

  Ynys Môn

  272

  603

  993

  33

  118

  1,476

  1,492

  2,171

  Cynon Valley

  611

  801

  655

  456

  638

  943

  1,593

  1,139

  Merthyr Tydfil

  648

  1,363

  1,453

  1,454

  904

  2,231

  3,916

  2,600

  Ogwr

  731

  1,809

  2,907

  1,952

  1,975

  1,827

  2,426

  3,120

  Rhondda

  1,554

  1,981

  2,148

  1,093

  603

  668

  2,257

  8,355

  Rhymney Valley

  422

  1,414

  1,461

  1,843

  2,026

  3,990

  4,269

  4,830

  Taff Ely

  916

  1,376

  1,176

  942

  874

  2,399

  4,263

  2,355

  Brecknock

  237

  196

  383

  502

  603

  527

  246

  595

  Montgomeryshire

  286

  230

  460

  477

  299

  1,213

  1,392

  688

  Radnorshire

  71

  195

  141

  51

  206

  196

  126

  182

  Cardiff

  1,564

  3,898

  3,890

  4,392

  8,379

  7,025

  14,342

  19,243

  Vale of Glamorgan

  286

  1,383

  779

  803

  385

  1,682

  1,721

  1,132

  Lliw Valley

  303

  630

  858

  972

  1,033

  1,343

  1,907

  2,191

  Neath

  318

  1,107

  695

  235

  1,202

  1,583

  2,041

  2,440

  Port Talbot

  285

  1,243

  1,505

  1,887

  1,085

  1,580

  4,169

  3,921

  Swansea

  2,930

  3,744

  2,724

  4,968

  3,899

  3,904

  4,153

  3,378

  Total Wales

  23,933

  45,996

  48,301

  42,905

  49,670

  68,783

  87,979

  95,459

  Gross renovation from local authorities to the private sector: cash prices

  £000

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Alyn and Deeside

  193

  489

  781

  844

  323

  558

  729

  610

  Colwyn

  262

  557

  1,072

  692

  743

  749

  862

  802

  Delyn

  239

  495

  1,098

  459

  389

  512

  576

  424

  Glyndwr

  123

  574

  1,507

  1,511

  571

  458

  528

  636

  Rhuddlan

  14

  39

  67

  158

  74

  114

  163

  236

  Wrexham Maelor

  125

  268

  500

  407

  317

  289

  222

  293

  Carmarthen

  536

  1,083

  6,275

  2,766

  1,898

  1,917

  1,977

  1,657

  Ceredigion

  319

  925

  2,941

  1,833

  1,123

  1,609

  818

  643

  Dinefwr

  171

  201

  1,360

  840

  416

  364

  410

  388

  Llanelli

  227

  605

  2,119

  1,795

  770

  882

  1,232

  1,465

  Preseli

  459

  647

  2,411

  2,512

  1,240

  1,530

  1,485

  1,348

  South Pembroke

  427

  1,074

  2,607

  3,082

  1,884

  1,760

  1,901

  1,848

  348

  Local Authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Swansea

  714

  1,293

  1,318

  1,171

  Total Wales

  25,115

  24,774

  32,136

  22,905

  1 Adjusted to a constant price basis using the GDP deflator.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the estimated capital investment in real terms on(a) renovation and (b) renovation grants of local authority dwellings for each local authority for each year since 1979 (i) in cash and (ii) in real terms.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information available is shown in the tables. Information for 1979–80 and for 1980–81 was not collected on a comparable basis and is therefore not included.
  349

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Blaenau Gwent

  453

  2,206

  6,141

  3,496

  1,193

  2,137

  3,068

  1,530

  Islwyn

  408

  1,202

  2,748

  2,500

  2,650

  3,436

  3,178

  4,002

  Monmouth

  208

  857

  3,132

  1,058

  643

  902

  859

  417

  Newport

  1,252

  3,350

  4,019

  2,093

  2,380

  2,392

  2,118

  1,974

  Torfaen

  198

  390

  1,562

  2,082

  1,156

  1,396

  1,400

  1,524

  Aberconwy

  265

  340

  763

  530

  524

  412

  365

  557

  Arfon

  654

  883

  1,913

  1,913

  1,841

  1,786

  1,582

  1,322

  Dwyfor

  237

  674

  2,560

  1,190

  377

  665

  526

  461

  Meirionnydd

  194

  432

  2,599

  3,086

  1,465

  937

  256

  339

  Ynys Môn

  173

  654

  3,950

  1,116

  1,167

  779

  748

  776

  Cynon Valley

  255

  1,008

  2,554

  1,326

  1,123

  2,048

  3,849

  3,280

  Merthyr Tydfil

  383

  842

  2,419

  1,400

  1,228

  1,187

  1,468

  1,964

  Ogwr

  876

  1,815

  2,730

  3,083

  1,664

  2,180

  2,596

  3,190

  Rhondda

  1,277

  2,739

  9,016

  9,558

  6,001

  5,853

  5,543

  5,113

  Rhymney Valley

  503

  1,495

  2,918

  3,303

  1,408

  2,062

  3,132

  3,065

  Taff Ely

  1,238

  2,841

  5,902

  3,691

  1,782

  1,859

  872

  1,097

  Brecknock

  225

  535

  2,049

  984

  364

  407

  546

  571

  Montgomeryshire

  121

  603

  2,585

  1,094

  449

  530

  532

  753

  Radnorshire

  132

  337

  920

  552

  408

  289

  360

  381

  Cardiff

  1,292

  2,530

  10,623

  6,904

  7,378

  9,103

  10,764

  9,436

  Vale of Glamorgan

  423

  1,567

  3,409

  2,489

  1,013

  1,729

  1,288

  1,342

  Lliw Valley

  586

  1,206

  1,314

  1,081

  413

  792

  1,452

  1,315

  Neath

  284

  1,269

  2,602

  1,360

  923

  1,354

  1,400

  1,395

  Port Talbot

  270

  250

  500

  361

  738

  943

  1,135

  1,127

  Swansea

  1,483

  3,680

  5,796

  5,748

  5,095

  5,470

  3,839

  5,084

  Total Wales

  16,485

  40,662

  107,462

  78,897

  53,131

  61,390

  63,779

  62,365

  Gross renovation of local authority dwellings: 1988–89 prices1

  £000

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,234

  1,580

  1,626

  1,756

  1,963

  2,165

  1,696

  1,827

  Colwyn

  872

  805

  946

  567

  1,126

  1,445

  914

  893

  Delyn

  1,101

  785

  1,448

  0

  1,001

  1,965

  1,474

  2,794

  Glyndwr

  187

  471

  865

  1,258

  1,078

  1,251

  1,199

  735

  Rhuddlan

  120

  208

  121

  161

  40

  323

  322

  175

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,808

  2,238

  3,039

  2,688

  3,555

  5,434

  6,056

  4,435

  Carmarthen

  330

  330

  683

  396

  769

  875

  2,486

  1,487

  Ceredigion

  322

  964

  1,504

  355

  845

  495

  855

  1,085

  Dinefwr

  505

  939

  261

  331

  505

  455

  862

  773

  Llanelli

  826

  1,247

  1,692

  177

  314

  402

  516

  256

  Preseli

  1,304

  2,440

  1,902

  1,773

  1,530

  1,527

  1,448

  1,298

  South Pembroke

  368

  684

  671

  300

  578

  483

  673

  557

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,753

  7,228

  4,369

  2,840

  2,956

  7,433

  5,270

  3,862

  Islwyn

  1,188

  3,299

  3,676

  3,243

  1,806

  1,825

  2,003

  1,687

  Monmouth

  275

  346

  764

  721

  2,679

  3,719

  4,624

  3,067

  Newport

  1,343

  3,586

  3,575

  3,353

  4,049

  3,799

  3,877

  2,751

  Torfaen

  2,361

  3,218

  2,684

  3,332

  3,189

  5,086

  3,473

  6,462

  Aberconwy

  479

  585

  1,443

  1,188

  943

  1,276

  1,328

  1,704

  Arfon

  1,605

  1,202

  1,815

  700

  693

  731

  1,161

  725

  Dwyfor

  84

  145

  155

  106

  69

  114

  58

  275

  Meirionnydd

  41

  151

  412

  386

  0

  50

  52

  271

  Ynys Môn

  394

  815

  1,282

  41

  138

  1,666

  1,598

  2,171

  Cynon Valley

  885

  1,082

  845

  561

  745

  1,064

  1,706

  1,139

  Merthyr Tydfil

  939

  1,841

  1,875

  1,788

  1,055

  2,518

  4,195

  2,600

  Ogwr

  1,059

  2,444

  3,752

  2,400

  2,305

  2,062

  2,599

  3,120

  Rhondda

  2,251

  2,676

  2,772

  1,344

  704

  754

  2,418

  8,355

  Rhymney Valley

  611

  1,910

  1,886

  2,266

  2,364

  4,503

  4,573

  4,830

  Taff Ely

  1,327

  1,859

  1,518

  1,158

  1,020

  2,708

  4,567

  2,355

  Brecknock

  343

  265

  494

  617

  704

  595

  264

  595

  Montgomeryshire

  414

  311

  594

  586

  349

  1,369

  1,491

  688

  Radnorshire

  103

  263

  182

  63

  240

  221

  135

  182

  Cardiff

  2,265

  5,266

  5,020

  5,400

  9,778

  7,929

  15,363

  19,243

  Vale of Glarmorgan

  414

  1,868

  1,005

  987

  449

  1,898

  1,844

  1,132

  Lliw Valley

  439

  851

  1,107

  1,195

  1,205

  1,516

  2,043

  2,191

  Neath

  461

  1,495

  897

  289

  1,403

  1,787

  2,186

  2,440

  Port Talbot

  413

  1,679

  1,942

  2,320

  1,266

  1,783

  4,466

  3,921

  Swansea

  4,244

  5,058

  3,516

  6,108

  4,550

  4,406

  4,449

  3,378

  Total Wales

  34,663

  62,133

  62,338

  52,753

  57,964

  77,631

  94,244

  95,459

  1 Adjusted to constant price basis using the GDP deflator.

  350 351

  Gross renovation grants from local authorities to the private sector: 1988/89 prices1

  £000

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Alyn and Deeside

  280

  661

  1,008

  1,038

  377

  630

  781

  610

  Colwyn

  379

  752

  1,384

  851

  867

  845

  923

  802

  Delyn

  346

  669

  1,417

  564

  454

  578

  617

  424

  Glyndwr

  178

  775

  1,945

  1,858

  666

  517

  566

  636

  Rhuddlan

  20

  53

  86

  194

  86

  129

  175

  236

  Wrexham Maelor

  181

  362

  645

  500

  370

  326

  238

  293

  Carmarthen

  776

  1,463

  8,099

  3,401

  2,215

  2,164

  2,118

  1,657

  Ceredigion

  462

  1,250

  3,796

  2,254

  1,311

  1,816

  876

  643

  Dinefwr

  248

  272

  1,755

  1,033

  485

  411

  439

  388

  Llanelli

  329

  817

  2,735

  2,207

  899

  995

  1,320

  1,465

  Preseli

  665

  874

  3,112

  3,089

  1,447

  1,727

  1,591

  1,348

  South Pembroke

  618

  1,451

  3,365

  3,789

  2,199

  1,986

  2,036

  1,848

  Blaenau Gwent

  656

  2,980

  7,926

  4,298

  1,392

  2,412

  3,286

  1,530

  Islwyn

  591

  1,624

  3,547

  3,074

  3,093

  3,878

  3,404

  4,002

  Monmouth

  301

  1,158

  4,042

  1,301

  750

  1,018

  920

  417

  Newport

  1,813

  4,525

  5,187

  2,573

  2,777

  2,700

  2,269

  1,974

  Torfaen

  287

  527

  2,016

  2,560

  1,349

  1,576

  1,500

  1,524

  Aberconwy

  384

  459

  985

  652

  611

  465

  391

  557

  Arfon

  947

  1,193

  2,469

  2,352

  2,148

  2,016

  1,695

  1,322

  Dwyfor

  343

  910

  3,304

  1,463

  440

  751

  563

  461

  Meirionnydd

  281

  584

  3,354

  3,794

  1,710

  1,058

  274

  339

  Ynys Môn

  251

  883

  5,098

  1,372

  1,362

  879

  801

  776

  Cynon Valley

  369

  1,362

  3,296

  1,630

  1,311

  2,311

  4,123

  3,280

  Merthyr Tydfil

  555

  1,137

  3,122

  1,721

  1,433

  1,340

  1,573

  1,964

  Ogwr

  1,269

  2,452

  3,523

  3,791

  1,942

  2,460

  3,781

  3,190

  Rhondda

  1,850

  3,700

  11,636

  11,752

  7,003

  6,606

  5,938

  5,113

  Rhymney Valley

  729

  2,020

  3,766

  4,061

  1,643

  2,327

  3,355

  3,065

  Taff Ely

  1,793

  3,838

  7,617

  4,538

  2,080

  2,098

  934

  1,097

  Brecknock

  326

  723

  2,644

  1,210

  425

  459

  585

  571

  Montgomeryshire

  175

  815

  3,336

  1,345

  524

  598

  570

  753

  Radnorshire

  191

  455

  1,187

  679

  476

  326

  386

  381

  Cardiff

  1,871

  3,418

  13,710

  8,489

  8,610

  10,274

  11,531

  9,436

  Vale of Glarmorgan

  613

  2,117

  4,400

  3,060

  1,182

  1,951

  1,380

  1,342

  Lliw Valley

  849

  1,629

  1,696

  1,329

  482

  894

  1,555

  1,315

  Neath

  411

  1,714

  3,358

  1,672

  1,077

  1,528

  1,500

  1,395

  Port Talbot

  391

  338

  645

  444

  861

  1,064

  1,216

  1,127

  Swansea

  2,148

  4,971

  7,480

  7,067

  5,946

  6,174

  4,112

  5,084

  Total Wales

  23,876

  54,928

  138,691

  97,006

  62,003

  69,287

  68,321

  62,365

  1Adjusted to constant price basis using the GDP deflator.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new factory units have been built, and how much industrial land has been purchased by the Welsh Development Agency in Gwynedd during the past 12 months.

  Mr. David Hunt
  During the 1989–90 financial year the Welsh Development Agency completed 10 units totalling 19·5k sq ft at Porthmadog. Presently under construction are 18 units measuring 56k sq ft at Gaerwen and 14 units measuring 27k sq ft at Cibyn industrial estate, Caernarfon. The Welsh Development Agency will shortly be starting the construction of a 12k sq ft business centre at Parc Menai, near Bangor, which will be followed later in the year by four high specification units totalling 20k sq ft. During this financial year the Welsh Development Agency also intends to start construction on rural workshop schemes at Llangefni and Porthmadog each measuring some 10k sq ft.

  Land acquisitions in the county over the same period total 45 acres, and an option to purchase a further 20·5 acres was also completed in the year. Efforts to identify further strategic sites in the region are continuing.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was his estimate of the likely radiation levels in sheep in Wales in the period from the Chernobyl accident to May 1990; and what was the actual level.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In view of the complex factors involved, it is not possible to make meaningful estimates of this kind. The percentage of sheep failing the live monitor test when leaving the restricted areas fell from 14 per cent. in 1987 to 4 per cent. in 1989.

  National Health Service and Community Care Bill
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what mechanisms will exist after the implementation of he National Health Service and Community Care Bill to enable district health authorities to ensure that the wishes of their local communities are taken into account.

  Mr. Grist
  The interests of local communities in the health service in their district will continue to be represented by the community health councils. District health authorities will continue to consult on proposals for substantial developments or variations in the provision of the service.

  University Health Studies Centre
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is in a position to respond to the proposal for the establishment of a centre for health studies based on the university college of North Wales, Bangor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roberts
  The proposal that a centre for health studies should be established and based on the university college of North Wales, Bangor, is being considered in the context of the Department's consultation paper "The Health Service in Wales Towards 2000: Manpower Planning, Education and Training", responses to which are currently being considered.

  Employment Training
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money in total will be granted by the employment Training Agency for training programmes following the restructuring of funding for local training plans.

  Mr. Roberts
  During 1990–91 the Training Agency in Wales' estimated expenditure on training programmes is £114,000,000. How much of this will be allocated to training and enterprise councils will depend upon their individual start dates. Currently in the development phase, all seven TECs in Wales are expected to be operational by about the turn of the year.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much funding has been provided for training programmes by the employment Training Agency since its inception.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since the Training Agency was established in September 1988 to 31 March 1990, the latest data available, expenditure on training programmes in Wales has been £161,000,000.

  Welsh Development Agency Properties
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in the Official Report (a) the location of Welsh Development Agency properties sold to the private sector, for the last available financial year, where a sitting tenant existed, (b) the name of the sitting tenant in each case and (c) the rent paid before and after the property sale.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested in(a) and (b) above is as follows:

  Properties sold as Investments 1989–90

  Hendy industrial estate, Hendy, Dyfed

  Unit 3—Sooner Snacks Ltd.

  Unit 4—Wave Computer Supplies

  Unit 5—St. Teilo Training Services

  Unit 6—Dyfed Building Supplies

  Unit 7—Pavilion Engineering Company Ltd.

  Unit 8—Finning Limited

  Unit 9—Automotive and Industrial Chemicals Ltd.

  Maesgwynne industrial estate, Merthyr Tydfil

  Unit 2—Rayles Rewinds

  Court Road industrial estate, Cwmbran

  Unit 32—Data Stripe Ltd.

  Unit 33—Data Stripe Ltd.

  Unit 45—Photographic Images Ltd.

  Unit 46—Autobind Ltd.

  354

  Unit 47—Easyscene Ltd.

  Springvale industrial estate, Cwmbran

  Unit 50—R. J. B. Glass and Double Glazing Centre

  Unit 51—R. J. B. Glass and Double Glazing Centre

  Unit 52—W. E. D. Automatics Ltd.

  Unit 53—Sacol Hydraulics Ltd.

  The above information excludes sales to sitting tenants, which have comprised the majority of WDA property disposals to date.

  Details of rents paid by individual WDA tenants is commercially confidential information. In general however, it is agency policy to obtain the best consideration available under market circumstances.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what rights exist for a review of rent increases levied on sitting tenants in Welsh Development Agency properties sold into the private sector.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Both public and private sector organisations operate within the general framework of the Landlord and Tenants Act 1954 and tenants' rights conferred by this legislation would apply. In essence the Act provides that existing occupational leases and tenants' contractual rights will remain unaffected by a change of ownership, which means that rents will not be reviewed purely as a result of a sale. Tenants also have statutory protection in respect of security of tenure when the lease is due for renewal. There is a further provision for recourse to arbitration if settlement of rent cannot be achieved between landlord and tenant.

  Nurses
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the problems that will arise in respect of nurse recruitment in the border counties of Wales if the full introduction of the Project 2000 training initiative for nurses is not implemented as originally planned in 1990–91;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the problems that will arise in respect of nurse recruitment in health authorities in Wales if the full introduction of the Project 2000 training initiative for nurses is not implemented as originally planned in 1990–91;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the problems that will arise in respect of nurse morale in Wales if the introduction of the Project 2000 training initiative for nurses is not fully implemented as originally planned in 1990–91;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the problems that will arise in respect of administrative and personnel matters if the introduction of the Project 2000 training initiative for nurses is not fully implemented as originally planned in 1990–91;

  (5) what assessment he has made of the problems that will arise in respect of manpower planning in health authorities in Wales if the introduction of the Project 2000 training initiative for nurses is not fully implemented as originally planned in 1990–91.

  Mr. Grist
  The decision to phase implementation of Project 2000 in Wales was taken in the light of information obtained from draft implementation plans submitted by district health authorities, the financial implications of a simultaneous all-Wales implementation set against the resource requirements of the Health Service in Wales generally, and the complex planning task at the local level
  355
  in laying the foundations for the educational reforms which Project 2000 involves. The implications of the decision to phase for manpower issues are being addressed as part of the manpower resource planning process, and other work undertaken by the manpower steering group with health authorities in the wider context of demographic trends and increased competition in the employment field. There will also be administrative implications which each individual health authority will need to address.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy that the Project 2000 initiative on nurse training shall be implemented in south-east Wales, including Newport and Cardiff, in 1990–91.

  Mr. Grist
  No. It has been decided that there should be a phased approach to the implementation of Project 2000 in Wales with the new courses commencing in north Wales in 1991, in west Wales in 1992 and south-east Wales in 1993. The possibility of bringing forward the south-east Wales start to 1992 will be kept under review.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce the detailed timetable for the full introduction of the Project 2000 training initiative for nurses in each part of Wales, giving the specific implementation dates for each health authority in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Implementation of Project 2000 in Wales will proceed on a phased basis commencing with the introduction of the new courses in north Wales (Clwyd and Gwynedd) in autumn 1991, in west Wales (Pembrokeshire, East Dyfed, West Glamorgan and Powys) in 1992, and in south-east Wales (Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and Gwent) in 1993. In the case of west and south-east Wales, it is possible for the courses to begin in the spring of the relevant year, thus involving a delay of only six and 18 months respectively over the original planning assumption.

  The possibility of bringing forward the south-east Wales start to 1992 will be kept under review.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy as to whether the nine health authorities in Wales should continue to cover their present geographical areas during and after the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has no current proposals to alter the geographical responsibilities of the existing health authorities but the position will be kept under review in light of the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, including those for self-governing status.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to issue a directive to health authorities in Wales directing that when a patient at a National Health Service hospital needs to be transferred to another hospital within the same area for treatment or examination, the authority shall bear the responsibility and cost of transport for that transfer.

  Mr. Grist
  This is an operational matter for the district health authorities, which decide on the advice of the patient's clinician, the transport which is appropriate to the patient's needs.

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will hold urgent discussions with the chair of Gwynedd health authority concerning the effects of the industrial dispute relating to the pay of senior secretarial staff, on the ability of the authority to meet its statutory responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  We understand a settlement has been reached and all medical secretaries returned to duty on 22 May.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which officer members of the management team of Gwynedd health authority are appointed under fixed-term contracts; at what date each of these was first appointed; for what period; and when is their next renewal date.

  Mr. Grist
  Other than the district and unit general managers, no officer members of the district management team have been appointed on fixed-term contracts.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the general manager of Gwynedd health authority was first appointed and for what period of time; and when was the contract renewed and for what period.

  Mr. Grist
  The district general manager for Gwynedd health authority was first appointed in February 1985 on a short-term rolling contract for an initial period of three years. The contract is renewable annually and was last renewed this year.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on any formal or informal expressions of interest in the establishment of a National Health Service trust by(a) any hospital in Wales and (b) any health authority; and if he will list the bodies that have expressed any such interest.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has received no formal expression of interest to date. It would not be appropriate to list informal expressions of interest which may or may not have formalised.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy to allow the individuals and communities affected by any hospital or health authority opt-out proposals in Wales to take the final decision themselves;

  (2) if he will set out in full the requirements and pattern of consultation to be followed if any health authority in Wales or any hospital in Wales seeks to consider establishing a National Health Service trust.

  Mr. Grist
  Any application for self governing status will be the subject of consultation with interested parties, including, in particular, the health authorities concerned, hospital staff, general practitioners, community health councils and the local community. Detailed arrangements for consultation will depend on the nature of any particular applications received and decisions will take into account the comments of all consultees.

  Ozone Levels
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will establish a monitoring system and introduce a strategy aimed at reducing high ground-level ozone levels in mid-Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will estimate the annual effect of low-level ozone upon agriculture in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will estimate how adversely crop yield will be affected if (1) low-level ozone levels in Wales maintain their current rate and (2) they maintain their annual rate of growth; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) by what percentage he expects the level of low-level ozone in Wales to increase in the next decade; and what effects he foresees of its impact upon agriculture.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On behalf of the Government the Warren Spring laboratory operates an ozone monitoring network designed to provide a continuous assessment of the ground-level ozone climate for the whole of the United Kingdom. It includes a site in Wales, and the extent and coverage of the network is kept under review. In addition my Department is currently funding the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bangor, to carry out a study of the effects of typical rural concentrations of ozone and other atmospheric pollutants on the health of plant species in Wales.

  The effects of ozone on agriculture were considered in a report by the Department of the Environment's independent expert review group on photochemical oxidants. Copies of its first report have been placed in the Library of the House. Its findings, on the basis of research carried out in the United Kingdom and the United States of America indicate that sensitive crops such as turnip, bean, radish, barley, pea and spinach could be expected to show marginally reduced yields during the peak ozone concentrations monitored in Wales. If the rising trend in ozone levels were to continue, the effects on agriculture could be expected to become more severe.

  The Government are, however, already taking steps to reduce substantially emissions of the primary pollutants which react to form ozone. These are detailed in an answer given to the hon. and learned Member today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Community Mental Health Services
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if there are any plans to increase funding for community mental health services in Mid Glamorgan.

  Mr. Grist
  The county joint planning team (CJPT) in Mid Glamorgan has been offered initially £127,700 in 1990–91 to support developments under the mental illness strategy; these resources are in addition to those directly available to partner agencies in the team. Over £100,000 of the total relates to community-based developments of services for people with or recovering from mental illness. The CJPT has been invited to submit fuller details of its proposals in respect of community mental health teams, and we shall be considering these and the related bids for funding in due course.

  NHS (Kings Fund)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy not to use the formula proposed by the Kings Fund of half a million people when determining the scope and area to be covered by procuring authorities in the Health Service in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  We have no plans at present to adjust district health authority boundaries in Wales.

  Mental Illness
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what sums have been allocated on a health district or county basis in Wales to pay for the Welsh office strategy on mental illness;

  (2) how much money has been allocated in total for the Welsh Office strategy on mental illness in Wales for the current financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 30 April at columns 425–26.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if any authority in Wales has received bridging finance for the implementation of the Welsh Office strategy on mental illness.

  Mr. Grist
  The mental illness strategy recognises the need for help in meeting the transitional costs of moving from existing to new patterns of service. Much of the £1·6 million offered to county teams for 1990–91, whilst not specifically described as bridging finance, is intended to enable the transition by supporting the development of locally and community-based services; these are a prerequisite for the redeployment of resources currently tied up in those existing patterns of service which are to be superseded in due course.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what conditions attach to the use by district health authorities, when they sell land or buildings which they own, of capital receipts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 21 May 1990 and to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 30 April 1990.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines have been given to district health authorities in Wales in relation to their revenue performance related to their total asset base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Health authorities have a statutory obligation to manage both their revenue and capital within the cash provision allocated to them each year by my right hon. Friend. Additionally, they are required to commit at least 7·5 per cent. of their overall resource provision to the maintenance of capital assets. They are also required to submit performance reports for specific specialties and services against targets set by reference, as appropriate, to centrally prescribed strategic guidelines, published performance indicators and locally determined priorities within the framework of their financial plans. Authorities are also
  359
  required to achieve in 1990–91 cash-releasing cost improvements in their delivery of services of at least 1·1 per cent. of their recurring revenue provision and to generate additional recurring income equivalent to a further 0·2 per cent. of their recurrent revenue resources; and those authorities which failed to meet equivalent targets last year will be expected to make up the shortfall in 1990–91 as well as achieving this year's minimum targets.

  Health Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the authorities which will be responsible for providing health services in Wales and the area to be covered by each;

  (2) if he will list the authorities which will be responsible for purchasing health services in Wales following implementation of his White Paper proposals.

  Mr. Grist
  The following health authorities will be responsible for securing the provision of services for the population of the areas indicated from 1 April 1991:

  Authority

  Area

  Clwyd district health authority

  County of Clwyd

  Gwent district health authority

  County of Gwent

  Gwynedd district health authority

  County of Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan district health authority

  County of Mid Glamorgan

  Powys district health authority

  County of Powys

  South Glamorgan district health authority

  County of South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan district health authority

  County of West Glamorgan Preseli and South

  Pembrokeshire district health authority

  Pembrokeshire district councils

  East Dyfed district health authority

  Carmarthen, Ceredigion,Dinefwr and Llanelli district councils

  Health Authorities (Management Structure)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which health authorities in Wales have completed a review of their management structures in line with the Government's legislative proposals; and, in each case where this has been completed, whether the approval of his office has yet been given.

  Mr. Grist
  Health authorities are continuously keeping under review the appropriateness of their management structures and will be expected to look particularly at the implications of the Government's proposals set out in the White Papers "Working for Patients" and "Caring for People", and working papers issued subsequently, in that context.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many places there were, respectively, in(a) local authority elderly persons homes and (b) private residential homes for elderly persons in Gwynedd at the most recent available date; and what were the corresponding figures for 1980 and 1985.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of places at 31 March in each year were:
  360

  1980

  1985

  1989

  Local Authority Homes

  853

  855

  848

  Private Homes

  141

  630

  1,119

  Out-patient Clinics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list by district health authority in Wales, and by discipline, the non-district general hospital locations where out-patient clinics are currently held by consultant National Health Service staffs;

  (2) if he will list, by district health authority in Wales and by discipline, the non-district general hospital locations where in 1980 out-patient clinics were held by consultant National Health Service staff, but which no longer offer such services;

  (3) if he will list by district health authority in Wales, and by discipline, the non-district general hospital locations where out-patient clinics are currently held by consultant National Health Service staffs.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest available information is published in "Bed Use Statistics 1988–89" a copy of which is in the Library. Clinics run by general practitioners are identified separately. Comparable figures for 1980 have been published in "Bed Use Statistics" for that year, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Cervical Screening
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his further plans for the screening of women for cervical cancer in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend and I continue to regard the development of cervical screening services as a priority. All district health authorities in Wales now have computerised screening programmes in place for women aged 20–64 years. Since 1986–87 the Welsh Office has allocated some £1·3 million of recurring central funds to health authorities to help them extend and improve their screening services. Officials of the Welsh Office will continue to keep in close touch with progress and a multi-disciplinary working group is to be formed which will produce further guidance on an all-Wales basis concerning the management and quality assurance of the programme.

  Unit General Managers (Contracts)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the unit general managers serving health authorities in Wales are bound by fixed-term contracts; and whether any guidance is given by his Department as to the length of such contracts or the procedure for renewing such contracts.

  Mr. Grist
  All unit general managers in health authorities in Wales are appointed on short-term rolling contracts of between three and five years. Guidance on appointment procedures, the content, length and renewal of contracts and other related matters was initially issued in 1984 and again in 1986.

  Surgical Procedures
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list, for each health authority area in Wales, each of the non-district general hospital locations where
  361
  surgical procedures are still carried out by consultant-led teams; how many surgical cases were treated in each such hospital in the most recently available 12-month period; and what was the number of cases similarly treated in each such hospital in 1980 and in 1985;

  (2) if he will list the non-district general hospital locations in Wales where in 1980 surgical procedures were being carried out by consultant-led teams, but which no longer do so.

  Mr. Grist
  Details of in-patient hospital episodes in 1988–89 under the care of consultants in general surgery, ENT, traumatic and orthopaedic surgery, ophthalmology, urology, plastic surgery, thoracic surgery, dental surgery, orthodontics, neurosurgery, gynaecology, burns surgery and cardiac surgery are published in "Bed Use Statistics" a copy of which is in the Library. Comparable figures for 1980 and 1985 have been published in "Bed Use Statistics" for those years, copies of which are in the Library.

  Educational Medicine
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many nurses are engaged in educational medicine and the care of children in hospitals in Wales; and if he will give similar figures for the last five years.

  Mr. Grist
  Information is available centrally only on the total staff in post for all nursing and midwifery staff. Breakdowns of these figures into occupation category are not considered reliable.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limits for class XVI, votes 5 and 8 in 1990–91.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit for class XVI, vote 5 will be increased by £495,000 from £317,330,000 to £317,825,000 and the cash limit for class XVI, vote 8 will be increased by £11,125,000 from £951,713,000 to £962,838,000.

  The addition to class XVI, vote 5 largely covers (i) an increase of £245,000 in respect of discretionary assistance for higher education students, particularly those facing high accommodation costs, and (ii) payments to flood appeal funds in north Wales (£150,000), as announced on 15 March 1990, Official Report, at column 348.

  The remainder of the increase for class XVI, vote 5 (£100,000) and the increase for class XVI, vote 8 (£11,125,000) follow the decision to implement the recommendations of the review bodies for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine and on doctors' and dentists' remuneration, as announced by the Prime Minister on 1 February 1990 at column 260.

  The increase to class XVI, vote 5, in respect of the contribution to the north Wales flood appeal funds was offset by savings from class XVII, vote 5 in 1989–90. The other increases will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Consumer Council
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he has received a copy of the National Consumer Council report, "International Trade and the Consumer Working Paper 2: Textiles and Clothes"; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has received a copy of the National Consumer Council report, "International Trade and the Consumer Working Paper 3: Shoes; the Cost of Neglecting Consumers' Interests"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The National Consumer Council sent copies of its working papers 2 and 3, on textiles and clothes, and shoes, respectively, to all DTI Ministers. We welcome the general thrust of the NCC's conclusions in both papers that the cost to consumers should be taken into account whenever trade restrictions are under consideration. This is a point we regularly make in Community discussions. It needs to be balanced against other interests including those of our producers. I look forward to seeing the final conclusions of the NCC's study.

  European Training Programme
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the young European executives who will be visiting Japan to improve management techniques and gain proficiency in the Japanese language, under the European training programme funded by the European Commission, are British nationals.

  Mr. Redwood
  Nine British nationals will participate in the 10th ETP due to start on 28 May, out of a total of 46 European company executives.

  This is the highest ever number of British participants.

  Cash limits
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if any changes will be made to his Department's main supply estimates for cash-limited expenditure in 1990–91.

  Mr. Ridley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class IV vote 2 (Support for industry, international trade, statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection and administration) will be reduced by £58,000 from £787,435,000 to £787,377,000, and the running cost limit by the same amount from £304,292,000 to £304,234,000. Provision of £4,850,000 will be sought for outstanding ex gratia payments to Barlow Clowes investors and for administrative expenses incurred by the Government's agents in respect of the ex gratia payments, and provision of £2,000,000 for legal costs in connection with Barlow Clowes recovery actions. There will be a corresponding reduction of £6,850,000 in provision for support for industrial research and development, reflecting an anticipated underspend. Additional provision will also be sought for the Companies House executive agency and the radiocommunications executive agency in order to enable them to meet their planned requirements: in both cases, the additional provision will be fully matched by additional receipts. In addition, provision of £38,000 will
  363
  be transferred to class XIX vote 2 (the Cabinet Office) to cover the transfer of the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and provision of £20,000 will be transferred to class X vote 1 (the Lord Chancellor's Department) in respect of work being carried out for the Department.

  The proposed outstanding Barlow Clowes payments and recovery actions are new services and it is expected that some payments will fall due within the next few weeks. Pending parliamentary approval for these new services, expenditure will therefore be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Transnor
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission following the Transnor case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: My Department wrote to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on 30 April about the implications of the interlocutory judgment in the "Transnor" case given on 18 April by the United States district court for the southern circuit of New York. Since then the Department has had detailed discussions with the CFTC, culminating in a joint statement issued in London and Washington on 16 May. I have arranged for copies of the letter and statement to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Air Services
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what indications of support and opposition there have been to his own Department and to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission from(a) the regions of England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales regarding (i) the British Airways investment in Sabena World Airways and (ii) its proposals to develop services to and from regional airports in the United Kingdom and regional airports in Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: My Department has received a number of representations on this subject, the majority of them from Members of Parliament, including Members from Scotland, the north-west, the midlands, and the south-east of England. A number of the representations expressed views in favour of British Airways' investment in SWA. Fewer indicated support for proposals to develop services to and from regional airports in the United Kingdom and regional airports in Europe. Opposition has been indicated to the proposals from several quarters, expressing concerns about the impact of the BA/KLM/SWA arrangements on competition. As the merger created by BA's investment in SWA has now been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. Any representations made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are a matter for it.

  Computer-based Construction Models
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he proposes to take any steps to regulate the codes for computer-based models used for technical decision-making on new civil engineering projects, new building designs and alterations on existing buildings; and if he will make a statement.
  364
  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply. A person carrying out building work must meet the requirements of the building regulations, including those relating to structural stability. Computer programmes may he used for design purposes, but the building control authority will need to consider the basic design assumptions and be satisfied that the building will meet the requirements of the regulations. The possibility of allowing professionally qualified engineers to certify their own work is at present under consideration.

  European Community Trade Mark Office
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it remains his policy to secure the location of the proposed European Community trade mark office in London.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is our policy that the Community trade mark system should be introduced as soon as possible. Early introduction requires agreement in the Community on the location of the office. Our proposal that the office should be in London remains on the table.

  Junk Mail
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the representations he has received on junk mail posted within the United Kingdom and from abroad; and what plans he has to ban such mail.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I receive a small but steady flow of complaints from individuals about unsolicited mail. Recently, this has included complaints about some mail posted from abroad. Those who complain are primarily concerned about how their names and addresses were obtained.

  I have no plans to ban such mail.

  Hairdressers and Beauty Suppliers
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations his Department has had with the Institute of European Hairdressers and Beauty Suppliers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am not aware of any such consultations.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his responsibilites in respect of the operation of the Hairdressing Council under the Hairdressing (Registration) Act 1964.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no responsibilities in respect of the Hairdressing Council.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: The table shows the permanent staff employed by the Department (part-time staff are counted as half):

  Total staff in post (including executive agencies) as at 1 April 1990

  11,793

  365

  Proportion by standard region

  Percentage of total

  Northern Ireland

  0·04

  Scotland

  5·02

  Wales

  13·55

  North

  2·05

  North West

  3·10

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1·99

  East Midlands

  1·46

  West Midlands

  3·89

  South West

  1·73

  South East

  66·39

  East Anglia

  0·78

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when the appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 23 Ma)' 1990]: Appointments to public bodies for which my Department is responsible are set out in "Public Bodies 1989", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. A more up-to-date list with the full details requested by the hon. Member will be published next month by the Women's National Commission under the title "Women into Public Appointments". A copy of this will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Recycling
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress made so far by the advisory group on recycling.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: The recycling advisory group has met three times. Its latest meeting. held on 26 March, considered the reports of individual subject-specific working parties. These reports have now been revised to take account of the main group's comments, and the views and recommendations they contain will be taken into account in preparing the forthcoming White Paper on the environment.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has conducted a survey into the markets for(a) humus, (b) glass, (c) paper, (d) plastics, (e) metals, both ferrous and non-ferrous, and (f) other materials reclaimed from the domestic waste stream; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: Working parties covering these and other materials were set up by the recycling advisory group. They considered market and other factors influencing recycling rates. The working parties' reports will be taken into account in preparing the forthcoming White Paper on the environment.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to encourage chemical and medical companies to identify beneficial uses of flora in tropical rain forests; and if he will make a statement.
  366
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: My Department is taking no such steps. However such companies will no doubt have noted the recent conference on the rain forest harvest organised earlier this month at the Royal Geographical Society which highlighted such opportunities.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

  Eastern Europe (Information Technology)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage the involvement of further education's information technology programme with eastern European countries using the know-how fund.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are discussing with the Hungarian authorities whether they would welcome a computing/ information technology mission which would assess how best to use part of the know-how fund in this area. A similar mission is likely for Czechoslovakia. The terms of reference for the proposed mission would include determining which British academic or other institutions, firms or individuals should be involved.

  Programme of Action
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had urging support for SADCC's programme of action; and what response he has given.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have received a number of representations. The Government's support for SADCC's programme of action is substantial; our total commitments to date for SADCC's regional programmes and projects amount to £70 million. British aid for SADCC member states since 1980 amounts to well over £1,000 million.

  Mozambique and Angola
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report all projects recently undertaken or currently being planned to assist victims of conflict in Mozambique and Angola.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The table lists approved grants. A number of further proposals are currently under consideration.

  Mozambique

  In 1989–90 the allocations listed in the table were made under our emergency allocation for Mozambique. In addition we provided 19,000 MT of emergency food aid. For 1990–91 we have pledged £3·5 million plus 10,000 MT of food aid in response to the Mozambique emergency appeal.

  £

  Accord

  Provisional planning in Niassa

  30,000

  Action Aid

  Airlift of relief food supplies for Maganja

  106,895

  Appraisal of district health services by a Health Consultant

  5,893

  Distribution of clothing to displaced people in Maganja da Costa and Pebane, Zambesia

  300,000

  Light ferry for Naburi

  4,200

  367

  £

  Purchase and distribution of blankets, Maganja da Costa and Pebane

  70,000

  9 tonnes of seeds for Maganja and Naburi

  22,000

  390 tonnes of Red Beans

  163,293

  Emergency spares for Xai-Xai Bridge

  30,168

  CAFOD

  Assistance to emergency programme. Spare parts for Landrovers. Transit centre for displaced people

  100,000

  Food aid for Maputo

  22,785

  Rehabilitation of Pemba Hospital

  18,610

  CARE

  Provision of 15 trucks plus associated protection and spares

  510,000

  Christian Aid

  Local purchase of clothes for distribution to dislocados in Zambezia

  105,000

  Rehabilitation of Namorroi District, Zambezia

  100,000

  Seeds and tools for Zambezia

  117,230

  Concern

  Clothing programme for dislocados, Nampula

  29,072

  Improvement of living conditions in 2 reception centres, Nampula. Provision of clean water, Nampula

  51,601

  Seeds and tools, Memba

  110,000

  Co-operation for Development

  Support for small farmers and co-operatives, Zonas Verdas, Maputo

  100,000

  DPCCN

  Seeds and tools programme

  100,000

  Seeds and tools programme

  300,000

  Oxfam

  Provision of clothing in Zambezia

  500,000

  Seeds and tools in Niassa and Zambezia

  50,000

  Save the Children

  Zambezia bridges

  600,000

  VETAID

  Paravet training in Vilankula District (Rehab)

  70,000

  World Vision

  Agpak Project (agricultural rehabilitation)

  100,000

  Total

  3,916,747

  In addition we have contributed £3 million since January 1989 to the United Nations High Commissioner and £200,000 through NGOs for the relief of Mozambican refugees in neighbouring countries.

  Angola

  Since the beginning of 1989, the allocations from emergency funds for Angola have been as follows:

  £

  CAFOD

  Vehicles

  48,000

  ICRC

  Clothing and blankets

  100,000

  Seeds and distribution costs

  610,000

  Oxfam

  Clothing, blankets, tools

  70,000

  Tarpaulins/prefabricated warehousing

  34,000

  War on Want

  Cholera treatment materials

  10,000

  World Food Programme

  368

  £

  Prefabricated warehousing for food aid storage

  140,000

  Warehousing

  28,000

  Total

  1,040,000

  We continue to monitor the situation closely and are considering what further assistance we might provide in response to the United Nations Secretary-General's appeal of 10 May.

  Tobacco (Aid)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on aid to the tobacco sector in developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Tobacco consumption is a significant health risk in developing countries. Nevertheless tobacco is a legal substance, a major traded commodity and a principal source of export earnings and budgetary revenue for a number of LDCs. The aid programme is used to assist agricultural development in a number of ways, including tobacco where it is an important cash crop for which no suitable substitutes are readily available. Aid funds are not used to finance imports into developing countries of tobacco and cigarettes. The Government believe that, as in United Kingdom domestic policy, the most sensible approach to reducing the damage to health from tobacco is demand reduction. Through our regular contribution to WHO we support that organisation's programme to reduce tobacco consumption in developing countries. We shall consider further support for developing countries in this field, both bilateral and multilateral.

DEFENCE

  Reactors (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer of 15 May to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), if he will provide his latest estimate of the cost of decommissioning the reactors a t Calder Hall and Chapelcross; and what proportion he estimates would fall to his Department.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The responsibility for assessing the costs of decommissioning the reactors at Calder Hall and Chapelcross, and for meeting those costs, lies with BNFL. The Ministry of Defence share of the costs will depend on future usage of the reactors.

  A90 Project, Aldermaston
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement upon the condition of the ducting used to carry inert gases and the supporting struts in the A90 plant at Aldermaston; and what reports he has received of gas leaks or potential gas leaks.

  Mr. Neubert
  The replacement of the A90 zone 1 ductwork and its supports by a pipework system was completed in April 1990. Memorandum No. 5 in the House of Commons Defence Committee's fifth report on the progress of the Trident programme (HC 374) gives full
  369
  details of the reasons for the replacement of the zone 1 ventilation ductwork. Full leak testing of the replacement pipework system has been carried out successfully.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made in checking the health record of every sailor who has served in a British submarine since 1960; how many have been checked and when he anticipates the checks will be completed; whether from the initial checks any trend of cancer cases among nuclear submariners relative to the general population can be discerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Medical Research Council is currently conducting an epidemiological research programme into morbidity and mortality of submariners in the special environment in which they serve. Data are still being collected from the individual health records of submariners and I understand that this process will be completed by the end of this year. Analysis of the data will of course take some time after that and it would not be appropriate to speculate now on the study's possible conclusions.

  United States European Reserve
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the operational use of the United States European reserve headquarters at High Wycombe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to comment on operational plans.

  United States Hospitals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United States network of wartime-use-only hospitals in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  United States wartime contingency hospitals are currently prepositioned in the United Kingdom at the following locations:

  RAF Chessington, RAF Little Rissington, RAF Nocton

  Hall, RAF Bicester, RAF Feltwell, RAF Upwood.

  United States Submarines
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the current operational role of the United States submarines operating from the River Clyde.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of the current operational role of United States submarines are a matter for the United States Government. However, United States submarines which visit the facility at Holy Loch generally do so in the course of deployment which contributes to the Alliance's strategy of deterrence.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by year for the last four years, the number of United States operational submarines based on the River Clyde.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. All United States submarines visiting the Holy Loch facility operate from bases in the United States.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by year for the last five years, the number of breaches that have been made to the exclusion zones at(a) Sizewell and (b) Bradwell nuclear power stations by military jet aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  Over the period concerned, only one complaint about low-flying military jet aircraft near the Sizewell and Bradwell nuclear power stations has been substantiated. This related to a 1985 incident in the vicinity of Sizewell. One recent complaint from Sizewell is currently under investigation.

  United States Aircraft (Crashes)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by year for the last five years and by aircraft type and mark the number of United States aircraft that have crashed in the United Kingdom that were(a) based in the United Kingdom and (b) overflying the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neubert
  Our records show that there have been no crashes in the United Kingdom involving United States military aircraft not based here. Details of major accidents involving United States military aircraft based in the United Kingdom since 17 May 1985 to date are as follows:

  1985 None

  1986 24 July 1986 A USAF RF-4C crashed into the sea in St. Brides Bay, South Wales.

  1987 23 February 1987 A USAF F-111F crashed near Newmarket, Suffolk.

  28 July 1987 A USAF F-111F crashed near Lauder, Berwickshire.

  1988 22 December 1988 A USAF A10A crashed on approach to RAF Alconbury.

  1989 4 April 1989 A USAF A10A crashed through the perimeter fence at RAF Alconbury after landing.

  17 April 1989 A USAF A10A crashed near RAF Alconbury. 1990 5 February 1990 A USAF F-111E crashed into the sea near Wainfleet range.

  6 February 1990 A USAF A10A crashed near Capel-y-Ffyn in Wales.

  2 May 1990 An F-111 crashed near Wells-next-the-Sea in Norfolk.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to what forecasts he has made of the United Kingdom's armed strength for the late 1990s.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are examining options for change in the structure and deployment of our armed forces but it is too early to forecast the results of this work.

  RAF/USAF Bases
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the network of RAF/USAF co-located bases and their operational use.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following Royal Air Force and procurement executive airfields in the United Kingdom are allocated for use as wartime co-located operating bases by United States forces:

  Abingdon

  Benson

  Boscombe Down

  371

  Brawdy

  Coltishall

  Cottesmore

  Finningley

  Odi ham

  Scampton

  Waddington

  Wittering

  RAF Wildenrath in Germany also holds co-located operating base status.

  It is not our practice to comment on the operational plans for such bases.

  RAF Fairford
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the future use of RAF Fairford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 12 February at column 119.

  United States Military Maintenance Bases
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United States military maintenance bases in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The only United States facility entirely given over to maintenance tasks is the United States air force logistics command support group located at RAF Kemble.

  Numbers of Service Personnel for each Service as at 31 March in each year from 1981

  Year

  Royal Navy & Royal Marines

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  1981

  74,273

  70,202

  4,071

  165,990

  159,401

  6,589

  93,492

  87,219

  6,273

  1982

  72,994

  69,034

  3,960

  163,151

  157,178

  5,973

  91,502

  85,734

  5,768

  1983

  71,727

  67,826

  3,901

  159,069

  152,925

  6,144

  89,827

  84,453

  5,374

  1984

  71,281

  67,352

  3,929

  161,539

  154,966

  6,573

  93,089

  87,345

  5,744

  1985

  70,393

  66,687

  3,706

  162,399

  155,628

  6,771

  93,425

  87,475

  5,950

  1986

  67,873

  64,432

  3,442

  161,399

  154,838

  6,561

  93,237

  87,201

  6,036

  1987

  66,536

  63,167

  3,369

  159,686

  153,206

  6,480

  93,627

  87,278

  6,349

  1988

  65,499

  62,172

  3,327

  158,105

  151,817

  6,288

  93,291

  86,960

  6,331

  1989

  64,639

  61,189

  3,450

  155,567

  149,062

  6,505

  91,443

  85,144

  6,299

  1990

  63,214

  59,578

  3,636

  152,812

  145,913

  6,899

  89,685

  83,011

  6,674

  RAF Upper Heyford
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the future role of RAF Upper Heyford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The 20th tactical fighter wing of the United States air force based at RAF Upper Heyford forms an important part of NATO's longer-range strike capability. No decisions have been taken to change this role.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to what financial savings are planned during the 1990s, following the political changes in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We will continue to make available the resources necessary to sustain modern and

  United States Tactical Missiles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Department of Defense in respect of how many of the 450 tactical (SRAM-T) missiles due to be deployed in Europe from 1995 will be based in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  While we have always made clear our support for retaining an up-to-date and effective United States nuclear presence in Europe, the question of the detailed deployment of US SRAM-T missiles has not yet arisen.

  United States Intelligence Centre
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the operational use of the United States joint (intelligence) analysis centre being re-located from Stuttgart to Molesworth.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) on 11 January at columns 691–92.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by sex and by year for the last 10 years the number of service personnel in(a) the Army; (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  well-equipped forces adequate for our security needs. We are examining options for change, and while we anticipate opportunities for reductions in some areas it is too early to say what savings might result and how soon they will arise.

  Radiation
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which year neutron emission resulting in underassessment of the radiation dose exposure equivalent of Coulport personnel from the Chevaline warhead during transportation or storage was first recorded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The under-assessment of the neutron and over-assessment of gamma components of radiation dose from Chevaline warheads in Coulport started in 1979. No one working in the nuclear weapon areas during the last 10 years will have a corrected annual dose greater than 20 per cent. of the annual dose limit.
  373
  Since the building environmental review plan in 1989, separate dosimeters have been introduced to monitor gamma and neutron radiation respectively.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum total radiation dose registered in the Institute of Naval Medicine's records held at Alverstoke for any past or present Rosyth dockyard workers; for what period it was accrued; and what are the 20 highest doses recorded.

  Mr. Neubert
  The maximum lifetime total radiation dose for any past or present Rosyth dockyard worker registered in the defence radiological protection service's computerised record-keeping system is 597·75 mSv. This total dose accrued over the period 17 December 1964 to 30 November 1989.

  The 20 highest radiation doses recorded for workers so registered are as follows:

  Cumulative Radiation Exposures (mSv)

  597·75

  595·89

  571·35

  563·78

  534·67

  515·59

  482·52

  480·59

  479·20

  478·22

  474·52

  472·18

  463·02

  452·68

  439·11

  428·03

  427·14

  420·07

  414·16

  410·13

  Radiation dose records for personnel leaving employment before 1979 are not held on computer compatible media, and therefore any large-scale analysis, even where possible, could be conducted only at disproportionate cost.

  Military Pensions
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list British military pensions deriving from wartime service along with compatible information for other European countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Pensions are not awarded to members of Her Majesty's armed forces in respect of wartime service as such. Service personnel who suffer disability as a result of injuries attributable to their service, whether or not in time of war, may be awarded pensions under the provisions of the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security. These pensions are related to the degree of disability experienced. A range of supplements and additional allowances are also available under the scheme, subject to eligibility. Service personnel may also receive pensions under the provisions of the occupational schemes for the armed forces, provided that they meet the conditions of eligibility, including length of service given, which are appropriate to their service and the circumstances of its termination. No distinction is made between wartime service, and other periods of service, in determining eligibility and pension 374
  benefits. The Ministry of Defence is not in a position to list comparisons between the provisions made by the British Government and those of other European countries.

  Equipment
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he intends to continue with the development of(a) the battlefield artillery target engagement system, (b) the Trigat anti-tank missile system and (c) the airborne anti-armour weapon after 1990;

  (2) whether he intends to continue to procure (a) the Foxhunter AI 24 radar and (b) the MLRS system after 1990.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As I said to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 13 December 1989 at column 685, we keep our investment in all weapons systems under constant review.

  Manpower
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consideration has been given to reducing the number of infantry battalions; and to what figure;

  (2) what consideration has been given to reducing the number of surface fleet escorts; and to what figure;

  (3) what assessment has been made of possible increases in the size of (a) the Parachute Regiment and (b) the Royal Marines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government remain committed to the strong defence of the United Kingdom and to meeting our NATO and out-of-area obligations and our future plans will reflect this aim. We have made it clear that the future structure of our armed forces will need to take account of international developments, including arms control. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has stated, we are examining options for change.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent examination of future levels of civilian staff employed by his Department has taken place.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The levels of personnel employed by the Department, both service and civilian, are regularly monitored. Future staff levels are considered annually during the formulation of the long-term costing.

  Shatterproof Glass
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the restrictions placed on capital spending by his Department include the programme for the installation of shatterproof glass on buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has put in hand a £126 million programme of security enhancements specifically to counter terrorism. Some of this additional expenditure has been allocated to the provision of shatterproof window film. There has been no curtailment of this programme of enhancements.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any proposals to increase the number of helicopter flying hours per month for the Army in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
  375
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to comment on operational matters. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that such matters are kept under constant review.

  Service Pay, Northern Ireland
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the annual pay rates for(a) an Ulster Defence Regiment private, permanent cadre, after two years' service, (b) an Ulster Defence Regiment private, part-time after two years' service and (c) a Regular Army private with two years' service serving in Northern Ireland on (a) six-month tour and (b) two-year posting.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Direct comparisons between the Ulster Defence Regiment (permanent cadre) pay structure and that of the Regular Army are difficult although neither pay scale provides for extra pay after two years' service as a matter of course. All Service men in Northern Ireland receive Northern Ireland additional pay when serving in Northern Ireland at the rate of £3·16 per day with effect from 1 April 1990 and £3·20 per day from 1 January 1991.

  Illustrative annual rates of pay for private soldiers who are likely to have two years' service are as follows:

  With effect from:

  1 April 1990

  1 January 1991

  £

  £

  UDR (Permanent cadre)

  Private, A, Scale B

  9,241·80

  9,541·10

  Regular Army (Infantry)

  Private, Class 1, Band 1, Scale B

  8,705·25

  8,946·15

  Note: UDR private A and Regular Army private class I are both broadly equivalent in that they represent the most highly qualified in their rank and job.

  There is no difference in basic pay between soldiers serving in Northern Ireland for six months and those for two-year periods.

  A private soldier in the part-time element of the UDR will, after two years' service, receive pay at the rate of £22·30 per day. Service in the UDR (part-time) carries a minimum training/operational requirement and the amount of annual pay received will, therefore, depend on the actual number of days attended by each soldier.

  In addition to pay, a soldier who completes the minimum obligatory training/duty and fulfils a number of other criteria, may qualify for payment of an annual bounty. Current rates are £565 on satisfactory completion of the second year of service and £800 for the third and subsequent years.

  Disciplinary Proceedings
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been subject to disciplinary proceedings for participation in anti-poll tax activities; what charges were laid and what sentences imposed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As far as we are aware, no service personnel have been subject to disciplinary proceedings as a result of anti-community charge activities. Service personnel may express their views as private individuals on matters such as the community charge provided their actions are lawful and do not contravene service regulations.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline his policy in respect of the development and release of genetically modified organisms.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not the Department's policy to release to the atmosphere any genetically modified organisms which may be developed in relation to research which underpins chemical and biological defence.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any releases of genetically modified organisms have taken place from establishments under his Department's control.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Biological Warfare
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he has made an assessment of the offensive capability of genetically manipulated biological warfare and toxin warfare agents; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list those bacteria he is still considering as potential putative agents;

  (3) what is the purpose of his Department's work with Q fever; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to his question on 23 April 1990 at column 76.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the dangers to personnel from working with genetically manipulated biological warfare and toxin warfare agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to his question on 23 April 1990 at column 76.

  In the handling of any materials in these categories, the Department follows the strict assessment criteria and protocols advised by the independent advisory committee on genetic manipulation, as well as according with the regulations covering the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health and the Genetic Manipulation Regulations 1989.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the need of stales intending to develop a nuclear weapons capability to conduct nuclear test explosions.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Such matters are kept under review by the Ministry of Defence. However, different countries take different routes to the development of nuclear weapons and it is not possible to generalise regarding the technologies or methods which may be involved.

  Beaufort Dyke Sea Dump
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what materials have been dumped by his Department's personnel from any service in the Beaufort Dyke sea dump in each year since 1980; whether any materials from this dump have subsequently been recovered elsewhere; and if he will make a statement on future dumping in this area.
  377
  Mr. Neubert
  None. My Department has no knowledge of the migration of materials dumped at this site being recovered elsewhere. The MOD has no plans to use Beaufort Dyke for the disposal of any material.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the relevant papers referred to in the written reply of 30 January,Official Report, column 112, include any papers of the Security Service; and whether representatives of Colin Wallace will be given access to all papers considered by the inquiry.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Mr. Calcutt has access to all papers relevant to his inquiry, and will consider what papers he judges Mr. Wallace and his representatives should see. We shall be guided by his advice.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Calcutt inquiry announced on 30 January,Official Report, column 112, will be taking evidence from (a) Len Garrett, (b) Sir Peter Leng, (c) Denis Payne, (d) Jeremy Railton, (e) Penny Sadler, (f) Bernard Sheldon or (g) John Waterfield; and whether it will be open to representatives of Colin Wallace to cross-examine witnesses.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These matters are for Mr. Calcutt.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has made to the letter of Mr. Colin Wallace to him about his statement on the report into how papers were overlooked in the case of Colin Wallace; and if he will put copies of the correspondence in the Library.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received Mr. Wallace's letter of 18 May, which he is considering.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he can announce any changes to the defence cash limits for 1990–91.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Subject to parliamentary aproval of the necessary summer supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  Defence cash limits

  Class and Vote

  Current cash limit

  Increase/decrease

  Revised cash limit

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  I, 2

  8,482,308

  +48,900

  8,531,208

  I, 4

  1,875,960

  +55,000

  1,930,960

  These changes total an additional £103,900,000. Of this sum, £110,000,000 is an increase to the defence budget in respect of the special payments to pre-1973 war widows (announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 11 December 1989, Official Report, columns 677 and 678). Funding for these special payments was included in supply estimates 1990–91 in class I, vote 3 (as announced on 30 March 1990, Official Report, column 329), but total class I provision was not increased over that announced in the autumn statement and detailed in the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1001). These increases will be charged to the reserve and they will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  378
  The changes also take account of a transfer of £6,100,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (class II, vote 2) from class I, vote 2 to cover the provision of military assistance to the Government of Portugal.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research and inquiries his Department is undertaking in respect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy symptoms in(a) cats, (b) mink and (c) other animals.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following is the reply:

  (a) The clinical symptoms of spongiform encephalopathy in cats are being recorded by veterinary clinicians to whom possible cases are presented for examination. The Ministry can provide histopathological diagnosis if requested to do so.

  (b) Studies of the transmissibility of BSE to mink are being planned in collaboration with researchers in the USA. The clinical symptoms of the disease in mink will be recorded, should transmission occur.

  (c) The Ministry is undertaking research into the clinicopathology of BSE. Information describing the clinical symptoms of the disease has been published.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will take urgent steps to ban the removal of cattle brains from crania by means of a modified paint spray gun that mixes water and compressed air; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will take urgent steps to ban the removal of cattle brains from crania by means of a high-power water jet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Cattle which show signs of BSE, or are suspected of having the disease, are slaughtered and do not go for human consumption. The ban on brains and other specified offal is an ultra-precautionary measure applying to clinically healthy animals.

  Nevertheless, we are aware of concerns about particular methods of brain removal. Wherever possible, head meat should be removed before the skull is opened. We have conducted studies into the methods employed for removing brains where this is not feasible. These indicate that high-pressure water and/or air jets should not be used as other, more satisfactory, techniques are available. I have asked the Tyrrell committee to review our findings before guidance is issued. I shall consider whether any further action is desirable having regard to the committee's advice. In the meantime, the state veterinary service is ready to give advice if needed.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has instigated any research into the possible connection between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the chemical reaction between aluminium and organophosphates in the soil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Epidemiological studies conducted by the Ministry have found no connection beween BSE and the use of treatments or agricultural chemicals.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the manufacturers that his
  379
  Department have discovered have supplied contaminated food products to farmers that could cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy in their cattle.

  Mr. Maclean
  Epidemiological studies have shown that the most likely cause of BSE is the feeding of ruminant rations which included material derived from scrapieinfected sheep.

  All such feed used prior to the ruminant feed ban must be considered as a potential vehicle for the agent which caused the disease.

  Environmental Payments
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has given any consideration to supporting the inclusion of environmental payments within the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the Minister announced in the House on 30 January at column 160 that, following changes in the European Community regulation, we would see whether the significant contribution that hill livestock compensatory allowances already provide in terms of environmental benefits should be made more specific. This work is proceeding.

  Sheep Variable Premium
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what date he intends to announce the termination of the sheep variable premium.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are currently consulting interested organisations on the phasing-out of the sheep variable premium scheme which, under the terms of the reformed EC sheepmeat regime, must end by the beginning of the 1993 marketing year at the latest. I am well aware of the need to give good notice of any changes to the arrangements.

  Lambs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will launch an independent assessment scheme for lambs under the Meat and Livestock Commission to ensure orderly marketing and an effective price reporting system.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Meat and Livestock Commission currently undertakes extensive price reporting activities as part of its involvement in the administration of the sheep variable premium scheme. Under the reformed EC sheepmeat regime, this scheme will be phased out by the beginning of the 1993 marketing year at the latest. New price reporting arrangements will be introduced under the reformed regime, but the EC Commission is yet to come forward with specific proposals. It will be our objective to ensure that the new arrangements are effective.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a scheme to enable young farmers to lease milk quota allocation from the Government.

  Mr. Curry
  As the Minister said in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss 380
  Nicholson) on 2 April at column 447, we had hoped to introduce a scheme to loan milk quota to new entrants, but the Commission ruled that there is at present no basis in Community law for such a scheme. It was unwilling to propose the necessary changes at this time but may be prepared to consider the possibility of helping young farmers in this way in the context of the general review of the quota system due next year. We shall be pressing it to do so.

  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in respect of exemptions to the proposed general ban on straw and stubble burning; and if he has made an estimate of what percentage of material burnt in 1989 will be permitted to be burnt after the general ban comes into force.

  Mr. Maclean
  Exemptions to the proposed ban will be made by order and will be strictly limited. They may be either permanent, for example for linseed, a crop residue which is extremely difficult to incorporate in the soil, or temporary, applying only in particularly difficult seasons in particular areas and possibly restricted to particular crop residues, in circumstances when I am satisfied that there is no practical alternative to burning. It is impossible to forecast when the combinations of circumstances might arise that would justify the granting of such exemptions.

  Hunting Hounds
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many hunting hounds are known to have died from ataxia for each of the last 10 years;

  (2) what research he has undertaken to establish the reasons for the increase in deaths of hunting hounds from hound ataxia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since ataxia in hunting hounds is not a notifiable disease, no official statistics are available on deaths resulting from it.

  The Department is not currently undertaking any research into hound ataxia.

  Arctic Foxes
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food where he obtained the 1987 figures for the numbers of Arctic fox factory farms in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on fur farms was collected in 1987 from representatives of the industry for the reviews of the 1982 mink and coypu keeping orders.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will enact similar provisions to those in the Northern Ireland Arctic Fox Keeping Order for the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Ministry is considering whether controls on the keeping of destructive non-indigenous animals should be extended to Arctic fox and other species. A long and expensive campaign has saved the Broads from destruction by the coypu and we would not want another destructive pest species to escape and become established in Britain.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received the third report from the Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food has submitted its third report to the Agriculture Ministers and to the chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. We greatly appreciate the work which Dr. Brian Smith and the members of the board have put into their report.

  The report gives advice to the sponsors about future resource allocations and priorities for the publicly funded agricultural and food research and development effort as a whole. It also discusses a number of matters related to the research and development programme. The board supports the Government's aims to encourage industry to take a greater responsibility for funding near market research and development. This will produce changes to the balance and content of the sponsors' research programmes, which the board has taken into account in making its recommendations on future resource allocations. These changes have also persuaded the board to reclassify the Government's agricultural and food research programme into four categories: natural resources, plants, animals and food. The report recommends that the allocation of expenditure to each sector should he as follows:

  Per cent.

  Natural resources

  12

  Plants

  34·5

  Animals

  38·5

  Food

  15

  The sponsors are agreed that, subject to a full consideration of the resource implications, the recommendations should guide the allocation of resources to the future research and development programme. Discussions will be held between the sponsors to plan the implementation of the recommendations.

  The sponsors have also agreed that the report should be published. This is now being arranged and advance copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Brussels Agriculture Council held on 21 and 22 May.

  Mr. Curry
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.

  I drew attention to the need for the Community to prepare for the agricultural consequences of German monetary union on 2 July and of German unification thereafter. The Commission undertook to make proposals as appropriate and to put forward a report for the next meeting of the Council.

  At my suggestion, it was agreed that the potential consequences for agriculture of the draft proposal to
  382
  protect water from nitrate pollution currently before the Environment Council should be assessed and reported on by agricultural experts. This will help the Environment Council to reach informed decisions on this matter.

  On foot and mouth disease a large majority of member states indicated that they were now prepared to harmonise controls on the basis of a slaughter policy, as currently applied in the United Kingdom, rather than a vaccination policy, as currently applied in most continental member states. This represents a significant step towards resolving satisfactorily one potentially difficult problem posed by the single European market.

  Ewe Premium
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will announce the final rate of ewe premium for the 1989 scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  I am pleased to say that the European Commission has now set the final rate of ewe premium for the 1989 scheme. The rates per eligible ewe are £6·94 in Great Britain and £12·78 in Northern Ireland, and £5·55 for those animals (Herdwicks and specified breeds of untupped gimmers in parts of Scotland) for which there are special arrangements and which would not otherwise qualify for premium. Producers in less-favoured areas who have already received an advance payment will now be paid the balance, while producers in other areas will receive the full final rate. Payments will be made as soon as possible. The 1989 premium will be worth in total around £140 million to United Kingdom sheep producers, which represents a very significant input to the sheep industry.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it is intended to change the cash limit on any departmental vote for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Curry
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class III, vote 4 (other agricultural and food services and support for the fishing industry) will be increased by £2,411,000 from £154,960,000 to £157,371,000 to make provision for payments to the British Society for Horticultural Research. The increase will be fully offset by a corresponding reduction to the cash limit for class III, vote 5 from £287,507,000 to £285,096,000 and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The Department's running costs limit will be decreased by £795,000 from £292,837,000 to £292,042,000.

  As I announced to the House on 17 October 1989 at column 97, the British Society for Horticultural Research will carry out commissioned research and development on behalf of the Ministry. This work will be funded from class III, vote 4. The reduction in expenditure for class III, vote 5 reflects the savings accruing from the consequential reduction of in-house research and development, and increased receipts for this vote cover the attachment of Ministry staff and facilities to the BSHR.

  Furs (Factory Fanning)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made an assessment of the implications for animal welfare of the procedures carried out in factory farming for furs.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council has undertaken an assessment of fur farming and made a statement of its findings on 4 April 1989.

  In addition, officers of the state veterinary service make visits to fur farmes as they do to other livestock farms to undertake welfare inspections. At these visits, the accommodation and management practices are taken into account when assessing the welfare of the animals.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set up an independent food standards agency.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so.

  Crown Estates Commission
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to require the Crown Estates Commission to publish minutes of all meetings and publish all working papers which lead to major policy decisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. I am satisfied that the provisions of the Crown Estate Act 1961 provide the necessary level of accountability for the Crown Estate Commissioners.

  Beef
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will agree to meet representatives from Mid Glamorgan county council to discuss the consumption of beef.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has sent detailed information on this matter to the council. That information is both comprehensive and clear, and there is no need for such a meeting.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Airport Capacity: CAA Report
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have now been advised by the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority of the date he expects to present his report on the adequacy of United Kingdom airport capacity in the period to 2005 and, if not, when they anticipate receiving such advice.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am unable to add to the reply that I gave to the noble Baroness on this matter on 19th April. The Government expect to receive the authority's advice in July.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I hope that the Minister feels some regret at having to read that Answer today which reflects credit on neither the CAA nor the Government. Does he understand, in view of the complacency of the Answer that he has given today, that I find it difficult to accept the government statement that they fully recognise the importance of the subject? Yet he made that statement in the House on 19th April? What redress has a Member when an organisation takes that attitude which I regard as being one either of contempt or of arrogance?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not accept anything that the noble Baroness has said. She will be aware of the complexities involved in producing a report of this nature. It has taken two years and at this stage the CAA is unable to give a firm date for publication. As well as placing a copy in the Library I can assure the noble Baroness that the department will forward to her a personal copy, which she deserves, as soon as it arrives.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that few of us would associate ourselves with the quite unnecessarily offensive observations about himself which the noble Baroness applied? Is he also aware that many of us would like to see the report in time for it to be debated before the House adjourns For the Summer Recess? Can he do his best to help to bring that about in view of the enormous importance of the matter?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. The authority's advice will be important as regards the way in which the Government take forward their airports strategy. In view of that, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would be a mistake to pressure the authority to publish its report before it is ready to do so. If it
1018
is ready to do so before the end of July I doubt whether I shall be able to comment substantively on what it says. We must first consider the report's contents.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when the matter was raised on 19th April I referred to the report of the two-year review of air congestion carried out by IATA? Can he now say whether it is intended to respond to the document separately or whether a decision has been taken to consider it together with the CAA's report?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on 19th April I told the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I would pass on his suggestion to my right honourable friend. I can now tell him that the proposals included in the IATA report will certainly be considered in the light of the CAA's recommendations.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that considerable action is being taken to improve airport capacity on the continent of Europe? Is he also aware of the deleterious effects that that could have, unless action of the most urgent kind is taken, on our ability within the United Kingdom to function as an effective centre for air traffic?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the management of air space, not runways, is the main cause of congestion in the United Kingdom at present. Additional runways will not help to relieve that congestion. We must wait until we see the CAA's advice.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as regards the matter of urgency, does the Minister's brief contain the information that on 24th July last year I asked his noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, who was then the Minister concerned, whether he realised that there appeared to be no feeling of urgency about the matter and that until there was such a feeling we should simply go on waiting? Can the Minister do anything to impress that upon the Government.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have said on a number of occasions that there is urgency, about which we are aware. The department is already considering ways to take forward the CAA's advice when it is received. There is no question of the issue lying dormant.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is not one of the problems facing the British Airways Authority the incredible length of time that planning decisions over where to site airports and whether to increase their capacity take?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord has a point. I still believe that we must wait and read the report before we discuss the matter further.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the length of time any possible solution would take to implement, does not the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, underline the urgency of taking decisions quickly?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I have already said, the department has cleared its decks and its desks to work on the report the moment that it is received.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am glad that we can agree on the matter or urgency. However, do I understand that in a reply given today the Minister said that if we receive the report before the end of July such and such an action might be taken? Does one assume that it is possible that we may not receive the report before the end of July?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I said in my original Answer that we shall receive the report in July.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, did I hear the Minister say that the problem was lack of air space rather than airport space? There will never be any more air space but we can build more airports.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I said that the management of air space is the main cause of congestion and not a lack of runways.

Medicines: Safeguards
11.13 a.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following Baroness Hooper's reply to the debate [Official Report, 9th May, col. 1433] whether they can estimate how many patients have died, been maimed or been born deformed as a result of treatment with products of the pharmaceutical industry through the medium of the National Health Service since 1948.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, it is difficult to make a reliable estimate on the information available, but stringent safeguards are built into the licensing provisions of the Medicines Act.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat inconclusive Answer. In the light of the punitive damages which have been awarded to those who have suffered such calamities in the past, is there any record of similar calamities occuring to those receiving treatment from herbal or other complementary and natural therapies?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it was as a direct result of the thalidomide situation that the controls to which I have referred were built in in terms of licensing procedures. Sometimes it is argued that some herbal and homoeopathic medicines are inherently safe because they are natural. But that is not always the case. For example, as regards herbal medicines, which are currently the only natural medicinal products to be reviewed, from time to time it has been necessary for the licensing authority to withdraw or restrict the use of particular herbs in medicinal products. Again, although homoeopathic
1020
products are considered safe by virtue of their high dilution, some of the starting materials are toxic and the dilution itself is no protection against, for example, poor hygiene in manufacturing processes or microbial contamination.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, no doubt such things are happening as are indicated in the Question. However, is the noble Baroness also aware that the remarkable contribution of the British Pharmaceutical Society via the NHS has literally saved millions of lives and prevented a great deal of suffering? While when something goes wrong, quite rightly, there are reports in the press and Questions asked in both Houses of Parliament, we should not forget the remarkable contribution made by the British Pharmaceutical Society in saving lives and easing pain. It has made a valuable contribution to our National Health Service.
Baroness Hooper: Indeed, yes, my Lords. I fully agree with the noble Lord on this occasion that it should not be forgotten that modern pharmaceutical advances have produced incalculable benefits to sick people, who would die or suffer needlessly without effective treatment; for example, organ transplants made possible by anti-rejection drugs, anti-cancer drugs enabling the cure of certain childhood leukaemias, the successful treatment of peptic ulcers with less recourse to surgery, and anti-infective drugs, without which many infections were previously fatal. One could go on and on. We look to new and further developments in modern pharmaceutical science for more lifesaving treatments in the future.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on this occasion I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy? Is she further aware that the Question of my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam, although in order procedurally, is in the worst possible taste implying that numbers of people have lost their lives as a result of treatment by the health service or pharmaceutical drugs? Is she also aware that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is absolutely right that the record of our health and pharmaceutical services in saving lives has a reputation which is second to none in the world and we should be proud of that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for underlining that point. I should also like to take the opportunity to re-emphasise the stringent safeguards built in to the licensing system and, indeed, the excellent system for voluntary notifications to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have visited a number of pharmaceutical installations and, quite apart from its safety record, the pharmaceutical industry does a great deal for this country's exports?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.
Lord Renton: My Lords, having voted against the Third Reading in another place of the National Health Service Act 1946, may I endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and my noble friend Lord Nugent?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to say to my noble friend that I welcome him to the consensus which prevails.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I never like to introduce a note of controversy and of course I entirely accept what has been said about the pharmaceutical industry. However, perhaps the noble Baroness will address the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam. Does she agree that it is the case that any drug, because of the great amount of good it does, is always potentially dangerous? Because it can do some good, it can also do some harm. The nonsensical drugs put forward under the name of homoeopathy and so on may well have little effect in terms of doing harm but the reason is that they also have little effect in doing good?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is why those forms of treatment are available in this country.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that they are available because their effect is negligible and therefore the Government do not feel that there is need to intervene?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, they are available because we believe in freedom of choice.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, it is suggested that my question is in bad taste. I would remind my noble friend that my supplementary Question asks whether there is any record of such calamities occurring for those receiving treatment from natural therapies. With respect, that question has not been answered.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in referring to the original Question tabled by my noble friend which relates back to the debate we had some little time ago in your Lordships' House, I confirm that we see this as a risk situation and that I did not point to any specific evidence.

US Radar Station Proposal
11.20 a.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the United Kingdom contribution to the cost of the proposed US radar station at St. David's in Pembrokeshire, and whether the money will be redeemable from the US Government if they decide to move the radar equipment, which is designed to be moveable, somewhere else.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the cost of the United Kingdom's contribution to the proposed two-year joint trial of a US Navy over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom will be around £15.5 million.
1022
Once the trial begins both the United Kingdom and the United States fully intend to take it to its conclusion. However, should either participant seek to withdraw from the programme before the end of the trial, the detailed financial implications would be discussed at the time.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helfpul answer. Perhaps I may ask a supplementary question about health. What independent advice have the Government obtained of the possible effect on health of this new type of radar station, which emits an unfamiliar pattern of electromagnetic radiation? When I say "independent advice", I mean advice apart from that given by the United States Navy.
Lord Reay: My Lords, our belief is that the transmitter will not give off radioactivity or microwaves. We have closely followed the guidelines of the National Radiological Protection Board on health and safety regarding the hazards of this type of transmitter. We believe that the precautions taken are satisfactory. However, the independent environmental impact assessment which is to be undertaken will also include an assessment of the effects of the proposed installation on health.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister is surely aware of local concern and anxiety regarding health hazards. He said that he and his colleagues are satisfied, but what steps have they taken to reassure the public? The Minister mentioned an environmental impact study. Can he say when that is likely to be available and whether it will be widely published and consulted upon? Bearing in mind the enormous change in the strategic need for installations of this kind in the light of swiftly changing defence commitments, are the Government prepared to consider the strategic necessity for this blot upon the landscape?
Lord Reay: My Lords, one of the steps taken to reassure the public was a visit to St. David's by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 10th May at the invitation of Mr. Nicholas Bennett MP. My honourable friend explained the essential background to the proposals and how it is intended to handle the consultation process. He also heard the concerns of constituents at first hand and undertook that they would be fully taken into account in the environmental impact assessment. The environmental impact assessment is to be carried out by a fully independent firm of planning consultants, W. S. Atkins, of Epsom, Surrey. We expect that to be completed later this summer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that a very large number of people from the St. David's area came to meet Mr. Alan Clark and left him in no doubt about the deep concern of the inhabitants of the locality and their opposition to this project? Could the Minister confirm that Crown immunity will not be used to push the project through if the planning decisions show that the locality and the local authorities are against it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I confirm that there have been a fair number of representations from the public expressing concern about these proposals. However, the Ministry of Defence will be commissioning a full environmental impact assessment for each site, which will support formal notices of the proposed development submitted to the relevant planning authorities in late summer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, was not the Minister able to conclude after meeting the 700 or 800 people in St. David's that the locality is against the project?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the procedure that is to be followed is that a notice of proposed development will be submitted to the local planning authorities, together with an environmental impact assessment. It will then be necessary for the Government to consider what action to take.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that this project is a major element in the Anglo-American defence co-operation on which the peace of the world has depended for many years and will continue to depend for many years to come?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The over-the-horizon radar could complement the coverage obtained by conventional radar and substantially improve our early-warning cover and therefore our air defences.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, could the Minister confirm that the Welsh viewpoint will be taken into account in this Anglo-American conclusion?
Lord Reay: My Lords, most certainly the Welsh viewpoint is taken account of.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Thank you, my Lords.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, could my noble friend tell us on what frequency the radar will transmit?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not have that information readily available. If I may I shall write to my noble friend.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that to bring a large number of men and women to live in the beautiful area of St. David's can only be good for their health?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I appreciate the beauty of the area and look forward to an opportunity to visit it and its famous cathedral.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton on whether the environmental impact assessment will be published?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I answered several questions put by the noble Lord. The environmental impact
1024
assessment, which will be produced at the same time as the planning applications, will, as far as I know, be published.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether this project is similar to the Fylingdales radar station? If it is, first, the Fylingdales station has done no harm to people; secondly, it has become quite an attractive feature of the landscape.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I certainly think that the visual impact of the transmitter has been exaggerated in some reports. It may well be smaller and less obtrusive than many people fear.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to assist? Is it not the case that Fylingdales is a phased array radar system and that the radar proposed at St. David's is not one of those? There is no technical precedent for what is being sited there, and that is the point of the health question.
Can the noble Lord be more specific in response to two questions which were put to him? The first one was whether the environmental impact statement would be published. He answered that it would be, he supposed. The second was whether the Government intended to use what my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition described as Crown privilege in ramming the proposal home, despite any objections which may appear at the planning inquiries. The last question surely requires a yes or no answer. Will that be considered or will it not?
Lord Reay: My Lords, formally speaking, the Crown is not bound by planning legislation. However, in common with other government departments, it is government practice to adhere strictly to planning processes in accordance with appropriate departmental guidelines.

Dogs: Control and Welfare
11.28 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they are considering for the control and welfare of dogs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, we remain committed to the package of measures outlined in the consultation paper Action on Dogs which we issued last year. These include duties on local authorities to deal with stray dogs and to enforce the existing requirement that dogs should wear a collar and identification tag.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and the degree of encouragement, indicating that he recognises that there is a need to ensure that existing legislation is made effective. Is he aware that there are roughly 500,000 stray dogs in this country, that we put down 1,000 a day humanely and that tens of thousands suffer appallingly? Evidence as to that can be given by the British Veterinary Association, the People's

1025
Dispensary for Sick Animals and the National Farmers Union. Could not the Government therefore consider the whole issue to ensure that the legislation which exists is put into effect and, where necessary, improved upon?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords or all sides of the House are well aware of the problems arising from irresponsible dog ownership, which the noble Lord elucidated with the figures that he gave. The Government are discussing with the RSPCA and others the consultation document which we produced last year. We may even be considering strengthening some of the recommendations or suggestions therein. Before the House rises for the summer Recess there may well be further opportunities to discuss these matters in greater detail.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, what is the Government's view about the danger of rabies in this country? Should rabies unfortunately arrive on these shores, what effect would that have on their views of dog registration?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government, and all governments I believe, are constantly vigilant in regard to rabies. As to the effect that rabies would have on a dog registration scheme, I take the example of Northern Ireland, where a licensing scheme has been operating for six years. Less than one-third of the dogs in Northern Ireland are part of that scheme. The Government have reservations about the effect of a registration scheme.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in legislation already on the statute book provision is made for a registration scheme? Will he assure the House that if in the legislation he expects to be before this House later this year an amendment is carried against the Government, they will treat that amendment differently to the defeat they suffered in previous legislation and will carry out the will of Parliament? Will the Government also acknowledge that, despite the defects in the effectiveness of Northern Ireland legislation, the people of Northern Ireland almost unanimously are satisfied and delighted with the impact on the problem of stray dogs and violent dogs in Northern Ireland? I ask the Government to learn from the experience of Northern Ireland.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I refer back to the previous question I answered. If we are speaking about an effective control for rabies and we adopt a system which effectively registers only one-third of all dogs, apart from one's views of such a scheme, I would consider the success of using it as a tool against rabies to be doubtful. In regard to future activities, I am sure that the noble Lord would be extremely surprised to find a Minister speculating from this Dispatch Box.
Lord Somers: My Lords, the Minister referred to irresponsible dog owners, but does he not agree that the irresponsibility is not only on the side of dog owners? There are plenty of local authorities that do not want to bother with the organisation involved in starting such a scheme. Does he not agree that we should have a national system which all local authorities would accept and which would be absolutely infallible?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully appreciate the feelings of the noble Lord in regard to a dog registration scheme, but I refer him back to the figures I produced from Northern Ireland, where a licensing scheme has been in operation for six years but only one-third or less of the dogs are licensed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that during the debate on the now famous amendment which failed in the other place both its opposers and supporters were united in one respect? They all agreed on the need to implement properly the existing legislation and to review it so that it can be improved and acted on in an efficient manner.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord's first remarks. He also made the very good point, oft forgotten, that within my little file I have in front of me there is a weighty amount of paper filled with existing legislation and opportunities for local authorities which have not been taken up.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how he knows that only one-third of the dogs in Northern Ireland are licensed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is on the basis of the figures given by those operating the scheme and what they believe. The figures are one-third for the whole of the Province and one-half in Belfast, which has more dog wardens.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that one of the advantages of a dog registration scheme is that, even if only a small amount of money is raised—he agrees that that has happened in Northern Ireland—more money would nevertheless be available for local authorities throughout the country generally to provide a dog warden service? That would be a most valuable check on irresponsible ownership of dogs.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is entirely true. I believe I am correct in saying that the proponents of a registration scheme are in favour of it being self-financing but the worrying fact is that that assumes a fairly high level of take-up. The figures I have seen convince me that the take-up will be low, in which case the proportionate cost of such a scheme will become extremely onerous.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
11.35 a.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2,
Schedule 1,
Clause 26,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 27 and 28,
Clauses 3, 4 and 29,
Clause 5,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 6 to 11,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 30 to 32,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 12, 13 and 36,
Clauses 14 to 17 and 33,
Clauses 18 and 34,
Clauses 19 and 20,
Schedule 4,
Clause 35,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 21 and 37,
Clauses 22 and 38,
Clauses 23 and 39,
Clauses 24 and 25,
Clauses 40 to 43,
Clause 57,
Clauses 44 and 58,
Clauses 45 to 47 and 53,
Clauses 48 and 56,
Clauses 49, 54, 50, 51, 52, 55, 59 to 61,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 62 to 66,
Schedule 9,
Schedule 10,
Clause 67.
— (Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environmental Protection Bill
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Environmental Protection Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 6,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 7 to 31,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 32 to 75,
Clauses 130 to 132,
Schedule 11,
Clauses 76 to 78,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 79 to 93,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 94 to 99,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 100 to 118,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 119 and 120,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 121 to 123,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 124 to 127,
Schedule 9,
Clauses 128 and 129,
Schedule 10,
Clauses 133 and 134,
Schedule 12,
Clauses 135 to 145,
Schedules 13 and 14,
Clauses 145 and 146.
— (Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning Bill [H.L.]
11.36 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMON AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 128 as first printed for the Commons]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Page 115. line 46, leave out 'I' and insert 'II'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
I should point out to your Lordships that there has been an unfortunate mistake in the printing. The amendments relating to the Town and Country Planning Bill have been printed under the heading of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill, and conversely. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to be kind enough to refer to the amendments under the heading, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill.
In moving Amendment No. 1, I speak to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4. These amendments, apart from Amendment No. 3, are minor drafting corrections. Amendment No. 3 removes the privilege amendment which we insert in appropriate circumstances in sending a Bill to the other place. With your Lordships' leave I shall move Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 en bloc later.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1 .— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Page 215, line 34, leave out '102(5)' and insert '102(8)'.
3 Page 230, leave out lines 36 to 39.
4 Page 310, line 24, leave out '(5)' and insert '(8)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 for the reasons I have explained.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [H.L.]
11.38a.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 127 ax first primed for the Commons]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Page 9, line 1, at beginning insert "If'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I refer now to the other list of amendments and speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4. These amendments are all minor drafting corrections apart from, in this case, Amendment No. 4 which removes the privilege amendment. Again, with your Lordships' leave, I shall later move Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Page 9, line 2, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
3 Page 9, line 4, leave out 'shall' and insert 'intend to grant listed building consent they shall first'.
4 Page 57. leave out lines 41 to 44.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
11.39 a.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.
1030
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.]
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
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 subsection (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: We debated Amendments Nos. 176 to 189 when I moved Amendment No. 20, to which the Committee agreed on Monday. They provide that arrears of benefit payable on review of a claim, or of a new claim following a reinterpretation of the law by a higher appellate authority, are restricted back to the date of that reinterpretation. However, for new claims the maximum amount of arrears payable is limited to the current absolute time limit for the claiming of the benefit at issue or, where there is not one, 12 months.
The present arrangements provide a 12-month limitation on arrears where adjudication officers

1031
review decisions in consequence of a reinterpretation of the law by a higher appellate authority. Members of the Committee may recall from what I said on Monday that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration criticised that provision as inequitable in that where, on reinterpretation of the law, an affected case does not come to light immediately the claimant will effectively lose one week's arrears from every week's delay before a review decision is given.
Accordingly, we have decided to introduce the arrangements provided by Amendments Nos. 176 to 189 to give equity of treatment to all gainers from a reinterpretation of the law by providing a common start date for payment of arrears which the current back-dating arrangements lack. We believe these proposals to be fair, sensible and highly desirable. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I shall not detain the Committee for long. As my noble kinsman said, we debated these amendments on Monday evening. They were moved on Tuesday evening and put to a Division, and the Question was declared not decided. The words to which I and my noble friends took exception appear in Amendments Nos. 176 and 180, in proposed subsection (2)(b), which states that cases,
"shall be determined as if the decision referred to in subsection (I)(a) above had been found by the Commissioner or court in question not to have been erroneous in point of law".
In effect, in the context covered by Clause 5, these amendments allow the Government to treat a court judgment as if it applied solely to the individual claimant and to ignore the effect on the entitlement of anyone else covered by the principle of the judgment. We believe that is driving a coach and horses through the rule of law.
Before I sit down, I shall quote what my noble friend Lady Seear said about this matter when we debated it on Monday:
"The moral of this whole sad story is that the Government should get their legislation right in the first place. They should not cheat when they get it wrong, which is what they propose. Because they have lost on this, they must ensure that the legislation is properly drafted, bring it back to the House and alter the law. They should not say that they will not do what the court says. Anyone can say that they do not wish to do what the court says. What a precedent to set".—[Official Report, 21/5/90; col. 688.]
Lord Henley: We debated these amendments on Monday. As my noble kinsman said, we debated and agreed to Amendment No. 20 to which these amendments are attached. On Tuesday my noble kinsman pressed the matter to a Division.
11.43 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 176) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 59.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Annan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E,

Ashbourne, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Birdwood, L.

Morris, L.

Blatch, B.

Mottistone, L.

Borthwick, L,

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L,

Munster, E,

Brabazon of Tara, L,

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brightman, L,

Newall, L,

Brookes, L,

Norfolk, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L,

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L,

Caithness, E,

Porritt, L,

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Reay, L,

Carnock, L.

Renton, L,

Carr of Hadley, L,

Renwick, L.

Chilston, V.

Rodney, L,

Clanwilliam, E,

St, Davids, V,

Cottesloe, L,

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Craigavon, V,

Selkirk, E,

Cullen of Ashbourne, L,

Sempill, Ly,

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Shannon, E,

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Somerset, D.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Eraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gainford, L,

Gisborough, L,

Swinfen, L.

Gray of Contin, L,

Terrington, L.

Halsbury, E,

Teviot, L,

Hayter, L,

Tombs, L.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V,

Hesketh, L,

Vaux of Harrowden, L,

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L,

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L,

Hughes, L,

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blackstone, B.

John-Mackie, L,

Boston of Faversham, L,

Kirkhill, L,

Bottomley, L,

Leatherland, L.

Bruce of Donington, L,

Listowel, E,

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L,

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L,

Mackie of Benshie, L,

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B,

Mulley, L,

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oram, L,

Falkland, V, [Teller.]

Perry of Walton, L.

Feversham, L,

Peston, L.

Fitt, L,

Prys-Davies, L,

Gallacher, L,

Russell, E, [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L,

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L,

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L,

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L,

Hampton, L,

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Whaddon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L,

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L,

Willis, L.

Hooson, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L,

Houghton of Sowerby, L,

Winterbottom, L,

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.50 a.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 177 to 189:
Page 59, line 19, after ("determination") insert (", whenever made,").
Page 59, line 21, after ("is") insert ("or was").
Page 59, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
("(b) after both the coming into force of this section and the date of the relevant determination, a claim which falls, or which would apart from this section fall, to be decided in accordance with the relevant determination is made or treated as made by any person or any benefit.").
Page 59, line 32, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Where this section applies, any question which arises on, or on the review of a decision which is referable to, the claim mentioned in subsection (l)(b) above and which relates to the entitlement of the claimant or any other person to any benefit—
(a) in respect of a period before the relevant date, or
(b) in the case of a widow's payment, in respect of a death occurring before that date,
shall be determined as if the decision referred to in subsection (l)(a) above had been found by the Commissioner or court in question not to have been erroneous in point of law.
(2A) In determining whether a person is entitled to benefit in a case where—
(a) his entitlement depends on his having been entitled to the same or some other benefit before attaining a particular age, and
(b) he attained that age—
(i) before both the date of the relevant determination and the date of the claim referred to in subsection (l)(b) above, but
(ii) not before the earliest day in respect of which benefit could, apart from this section, have been awarded on that claim,
subsection (2) above shall be disregarded for the purpose only of determining the question whether he was entitled as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.").
Page 59, line 41, after ("means") insert ("(a)").
Page 59, line 41, after ("officer") insert ("the Attendance Allowance Board").
Page 59, line 43, at end insert:
("(b) any of the following former bodies or officers, that is to say, the National Assistance Board, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, a benefit officer, an insurance officer or a supplementary officer; or
(c) any of the officers who, or tribunals or other bodies which, in Northern Ireland correspond to those mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above;").
Page 59, line 45, after ("Session") insert ("the High Court or Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland").
Page 59, line 47, leave out ("later") and insert ("latest").
Page 59, line 49, leave out ("and (b) the day falling") and insert:
("(b) the date which falls").
Page 59 line 51, after ("claim") insert ("referred to in subsection (l)(b) above").
Page 59, line 51, at end insert ("and
(c) the earliest date in respect of which the claimant would, apart from this section, be entitled on that claim to the benefit in question.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) any reference in this section to entitlement to benefit includes a reference to entitlement—
(i) to any increase in the rate of a benefit, or
(ii) to a benefit, or increase of benefit, at a particular rate; and
(b) any reference to a decision which is "referable to" a claim is a reference to—
(i) a decision on the claim,
1034
(ii) a decision on a review of the decision on the claim, or
(iii) a decision on a subsequent review of the decision on the review,
and so on.
(5) The date of the relevant determination shall, in prescribed cases, be determined for the purposes of this section in accordance with any regulations made for that purpose.").
Page 59, line 51, at end insert:
("(3) In paragraph 48 of Schedule 10 to the 1986 Act (which applies sections 87 and 165A(1) of the principal Act to income-related benefits) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words "and
(c) section 165D (restrictions on entitlement in certain cases of error".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 63, line 15, at end insert:
("Maternity allowance: contribution conditions for women paid otherwise than weekly
9A.—(1) In Schedule 3 to the principal Act, at the beginning of paragraph 3 (contribution conditions for maternity allowance) there shall be inserted the words—
"(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,".
(2) At the end of that paragraph there shall be added—
"(2) In the case of a claimant who is or has been paid otherwise than weekly, any week—
(a) in respect of which she did not pay contributions of a relevant Class, but
(b) for which earnings were such that, had she been paid weekly, she would have been required to pay primary Class 1 contributions in respect of that week, and
(c) for which no such election as is mentioned in section 3(2)(a) of the Pensions Act (contributions at a reduced rate) was in force in her case.
shall be treated for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above as a week in respect of which she actually paid such contributions otherwise than at a reduced rate.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, the amount of the claimant's earnings for any week shall be determined in accordance with regulations.".").
The noble Lord said: The qualifying contribution condition for maternity allowance is that the claimant must have paid contributions of a relevant class in respect of 26 weeks in the 52 weeks immediately preceding the 14th week before the expected week of confinement. Difficulties in satisfying this test can arise when a claimant is paid other than weekly and the period of employment is exactly or very close to 26 weeks. For example, where employment begins and/or ends in the middle of a month, a monthly-paid claimant might not pay contributions in the first and last months because her earnings were below the monthly lower earnings limit. However, she might have earned sufficient in the weeks that she did work in those months to have paid contributions had she been paid on a weekly basis.
This wholly beneficial amendment provides that such weeks may be treated in accordance with regulations as weeks in which contributions were actually paid. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: As the Minister said, this is a wholly welcome amendment. Can he say whether any ex gratia payments of maternity allowance have been made to women who were unfairly excluded by this

1035
condition? If he does not have the answer, perhaps he will write to me about it.
Lord Henley: I do not have the answer to that question, but I shall certainly let the noble Lord know.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 64, line 28, at end insert:
("Statutory sick pay for NHS staff with divided contracts
14A. In section 26 of the 1982 Act (interpretation) after subsection (5) (which confers power to treat two or more contracts of employment as one) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) Where, in consequence of the establishment of one or more National Health Service trusts under Part I of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, a person's contract of employment is treated by a scheme under that Part or Act as divided so as to constitute two or more contracts, regulations may make provision enabling him to elect for all of those contracts to be treated as one contract for the purposes of this Part of this Act or of such provisions of this Part of this Act as may be prescribed; and any such regulations may prescribe—
(a) the conditions that must be satisfied if a person is to be entitled to make such an election;
(b) the manner in which, and the time within which, such an election is to be made;
(c) the persons to whom, and the manner in which, notice of such an election is to be given;
(d) the information which a person who makes such an election is to provide, and the persons to whom, and the time within which, he is to provide it;
(e) the time for which such an election is to have effect;
(0 which one of the person's employers under the two or more contracts is to be regarded for the purposes of statutory sick pay as his employer under the one contract;
and the powers conferred by this subsection are without prejudice to any other power to make regulations under this Part of this Act."").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 191 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 198. These amendments relate to statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay and fulfil a commitment given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health during the passage in another place of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
Under that Bill some NHS employees will have separate contracts of employment with a local health authority and an NHS trust when previously they had a single contract with the local health authority. In certain circumstances such employees could suffer a loss of statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay where their earnings fall below the lower earnings limit for such payments in both employments. To prevent this and to honour the guarantee given by the Secretary of State for Health, we consider it essential that the legislation be amended.
These wholly beneficial amendments safeguard their position. They enable regulations to be made which will provide transitional protection for employees with separate contracts of employment with both a health authority and an NHS trust to have those contracts treated as one where this would be to their advantage in determining their
1036
entitlement to statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I am advised that the amendments are not wholly beneficial. At present the pay and conditions of many staff in the health service, including nurses, are determined within the Whitley Council framework by an independent pay review body. The National Health Service and Community Care Bill currently allows the NHS trusts to set aside the recommendations of that body. It seems that it would be perfectly possible for one of the NHS trusts to terminate all contracts and replace them with new ones and negotiate either individually or collectively with their staff. With new contracts, trusts would be entirely free to set aside previous arrangements, such as clinical grading for nursing staff Is that correct?
A whole range of employment conditions is involved—clinical grading, pay rates, sick pay and maternity pay, premature retirement benefits, and so on. I am sure the Committee would be interested to know whether the amendment, which the noble Lord described as wholly beneficial, allows the trusts to behave in that way.
Lord Henley: I think that the noble Lord is talking about occupational maternity pay rather than statutory maternity pay. It would be a mistake to become bogged down in a discussion on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill as further stages of that Bill remain. My understanding is that people would transfer to the new NHS trusts on existing terms. Thereafter it would be a matter for employees and the NHS trusts to arrange employment conditions as they wished. All this Bill lays down is that the two sets of pay will be aggregated so as to avoid a condition whereby there might be two sets of pay, both of which were below the limit. The noble Lord may wish to come back to the point at the next stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, but on this Bill I do not think it is a valid point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 64, line 42, at end insert;
("15A. In Regulation 71 (1) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 the words "90% of" wherever they occur, shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 193 deals with the entitlement of refugees to income support. At present they receive income support at the reduced rate of 90 per cent., which is already low enough. We do not yet have a clear explanation of why that is so. We would like to understand. We get a different explanation every time the matter arises. I shall not deal with government explanations until 1 find out what they say today.
Life for a refugee costs no less than it does for anybody else. One cannot go into a supermarket and apply for a 10 per cent, refugee discount. We ought also to bear in mind that refugees are not allowed to work for their first six months in this country. There is no question here of their being addicted to a

1037
dependency culture. If a dependency culture is being created, it is by the existing law because they are simply not allowed to work. A great many of them would be extremely willing to do so if they could. Access to the social fund for the first six months on income support is also restricted. So they are facing hardship from a good many directions.
Over the years this country has owed a great deal to its refugees. If we were to succeed in diminishing the flow, it would be to our own loss in a great many ways, including economically. We ought also to bear in mind that income support is a passport to the social fund. There is evidence to suggest that the lower rate of 90 per cent, is acting as a hint to social fund officers when their budget is tight to treat refugees like young single people—with rather less favour than other applicants.
I know of a Somali couple with two children and the woman is six months pregnant. They were refused a community care grant for which they had asked because they had no clothes. I know of a Ugandan family just out of hospital who were refused a community care grant because they were more than six weeks out of hospital. They were refused a budgeting loan because they had been less than six months on income support. That is a Catch 22 situation and it illustrates how the effects of this 90 per cent, restriction stretch beyond the mere simple loss of income support. I cannot see why that is done. Before doing any more with it, I should like to find out. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: From these Benches we are pleased to support this important amendment. As the noble Earl said, the reason for the rule is not clear. In fact, the reasons continually change. We have been advised by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux which lists a number of harrowing cases of refugee families who have been left without support It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could explain the rationale behind the rule.
12 noon.
Lord Henley: Rather than explain the rational—
Lord Carter: There is not one!
Lord Henley: Of course there is a rationale. But, as I said, rather than explain it, I should like to say to my noble kinsman and to the noble Lord that we have considerable sympathy for the spirit of the amendment and would like to consider it further. However, obviously I must point out that it goes wider than asylum seekers, although I appreciate that asylum seekers were the subject of my noble kinsman's remarks.
Any change in the system would cost money, and that is a factor we must always take into account. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Government could come to any decision on the matter during the passage of the Bill. But I can assure the noble Earl that primary legislation is unnecessary in order for a change to be made. Such a change could be made by means of regulation at a convenient time. I hope, therefore, that my noble kinsman will feel able to
1038
withdraw the amendment. I can give him an assurance that we shall give the matter very careful and sympathetic consideration.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful for that reply. It is the most encouraging reply I have received during the passage of the Bill. My noble kinsman has encouraged me to hope, and I am delighted by that fact. However, I hope that he will forgive me for reminding him that hope deferred maketh the heart go sick. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 64, line 42, at end insert:
("Prisoners. In column (2) of Schedule 7 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, for paragraph 8 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"8.—(a) Only the amount of any non-dependent deduction made in respect of him under paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 or under regulation 61 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987;
(b) Only that amount and such amount, if any, as may be applicable under regulation 17(l)(e)." ").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would mean that if a member of a claimant's household who was a non-dependant was a prisoner, no non-dependent deduction would be made from the claimant's income support or housing benefit while that member of the household remained in prison. Non-dependent deductions are made from income support and housing benefit where claimants have other people living in the household who are not financially dependent upon them and who are expected to contribute towards the housing costs, such as rent and mortgage interest.
Difficulties can arise where the non-dependant is in prison. It is fair to say that the prisoner will usually have no income, or an income that is drastically reduced, and will be exempt from paying the poll tax. However, it is not entirely clear why this rule exists and why an exception is made for prisoners. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the Committee why what is proposed in the amendment cannot be accepted. It would put right what seems an obvious injustice. I beg to move.
Ear! Russell: I rise simply to say that we on these Benches warmly support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment will provide a prisoner with the wherewithal from income support to pay the person with whom he formerly resided an amount equivalent to any non-dependent deduction made from that person's housing benefit. The amendment is flawed in two respects. First, and most obviously, there is no guarantee that such an amount would be paid over to the person remaining in the prisoner's former dwelling. Secondly, there would be administrative complexities involved in identifying where a deduction continues to be made. I shall return to that point in a moment.

1039
I should first outline to the Committee what is meant by non-dependent deductions. These are amounts, prescribed in regulations, which are deducted from housing benefit if the claimant has someone living in the household who can reasonably be expected to make a contribution towards housing costs. The same policy is applied in income support where housing costs—such as mortgage interest—are met by that benefit. It is clearly right, in both benefits, that the cost of the accommodation should be shared by those whose home it is. Deductions are at a flat rate, with a lower level for non-dependants who are low paid or unable to work. The deductions only apply in respect of rent. Non-dependants are personally liable to pay their own community charge and can get community charge benefit if they qualify. Prisoners are of course exempted from liability to pay the community charge.
These deductions are made only in respect of people who normally reside with the claimant in circumstances other than by a commercial board and lodging arrangement for which different rules apply. Such people are often grown up sons or daughters, or other relatives and friends. It is a matter for judgment by the local authority, or, in the case of income support, the local DSS adjudication officer, to determine whether the condition of normally residing with a claimant is fulfilled in any particular case. Temporary absences from home can, of course, arise for a variety of reasons. Examples are, holidays and short stays in hospital as well as short prison sentences or remand pending trial. Each type of absence and its expected duration is considered on its merits. Most short absences will not prevent someone from being treated as normally resident in his or her customary home. But a local authority or Department of Social Security adjudication officer may decide at the outset of a particular absence that the deductions should cease immediately. It is precisely because the present system allows for such wide flexibility that I am opposed to making it more prescriptive. Under current arrangements dissatisfied claimants can appeal in the case of income support, or request a review in the case of housing benefit.
I cannot accept the proposal in the amendment that any deduction should be compensated for by awarding an equivalent amount of benefit to the prisoner. Prisoners have no normal day-to-day living expenses. Their needs are met by, and in, the prison. This is and has always been reflected in income support and its predecessors. The only exception at present is for housing costs—particularly mortgage interest—for people remanded in custody who are awaiting trial or sentence. They can obtain help with such costs for up to 52 weeks to enable them to keep their home intact against possible release. I think that these existing arrangements are sufficient to protect the interests of those likely to be returned in the short term to society who are responsible for meeting their own housing costs.
However, non-dependants by definition do not have such responsibilities. The amendment before the Committee extends the modest help available to
1040
prisoners who are not liable for paying their housing costs; it is not the best way to help claimants remaining at home. Paying income support to such prisoners is not, to my mind, a prudent use of public funds.
There would, in any event, be very real difficulties in administering the measure proposed by the amendment. It would require close liaison between local authorities and DSS local offices to establish whether a non-dependent deduction was in fact being made. It would be necessary to establish new arrangements for claiming and paying income support in prisons. There would, finally, be no way of ensuring that any income support paid to prisoners was actually being handed over to the person responsible for meeting the housing costs. It is also possible that the availability of income support to prisoners would encourage local authorities to make non-dependent deductions in situations where they might previously have refrained from doing so. For all these reasons I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I shall have to read with care what the noble Baroness said. However, in passing, I should like to say that as regards some of the difficulty to which she referred in deciding whether someone was normally resident in a household and the period of their temporary absence, I should have thought that people in prison would be the one group in respect of which those questions could be easily answered. As I said, I shall read with care what was said. I reserve the right to return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 64, line 42, at end insert:
("Income support. In section 20(3) of the 1986 Act, at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be added the words 'or, by reason of pregnancy, she is incapable of work or unable to secure or retain a place on a training scheme approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section"").
The noble Earl said: I am afraid that I cannot promise to be as expeditious on this amendment as I have been on some others. The issue here is a major problem in the current social security system. In my view, significant damage is being done and probably a good deal of money wasted.
On Second Reading I said that I thought it was a basic principle of civilisation that fathers should support their children where possible. I do not believe there is any conflict between that principle and the provision contained in the amendment. It is also a basic principle that a civilisation ought to maintain its pregnant women by one means or another. It is fails to do so, it has lost some of its will to survive.
The amendment was moved last year. But it had the misfortune to fall due for consideration past midnight both in Committee and on Report. Consequently, many of the issues behind it were not adequately ventilated. The Government's present theory—which is perfectly all right as a theory—is

1041
that 16 year-old or 17 year-old pregnant women should be on YTS until the 28th week of their pregnancy. At that time, they receive income support at the lower rate.
The amendment does not address the question of the lower rate. That is a matter to which we shall have to return on another occasion. The effect of the amendment is to entitle those women to income support if they are either unable to work—as happens to pregnant women from time to time, because of toxaemia or for other reasons—or, having registered for YTS, they are unable to obtain a place.
The act of registering is enough to indicate the good faith of those young women and to discharge their responsibility, because once they have registered they have no control over whether they are given a place. As was discussed on Tuesday, YTS is to a large extent an employer-run service. Employers cannot be forced to accept someone on YTS. Many of them are dubious about taking on pregnant teenagers who they know are unlikely to be able to complete a training course.
A case was brought to my attention from Staffordshire where the prospective YTS employer said that it was not worth taking on the young woman. Another case was brought to my attention where the teenager involved said that she did not intend to apply to the YTS because she could not complete the course. I should like to know, and I should be grateful to receive a reply from the Minister on this point, whether the Government believe that her attitude was responsible when she said that she would not register because she could not complete the course. If the answer is no, that has alarming implications. It amounts to cocking a snook at the YTS. It is saying that the principle of training is not of that great importance; that being able to complete the training is not a necessary condition of being able to do the job properly.
It is not wise to encourage in young people the idea that they should not do a job properly. I should have thought that inability to complete a course was a respectable reason for not registering for it.
The Government are here making a familiar mistake. It is the type of mistake that governments have been making for centuries: assuming that because they do not want some people for a few weeks, an employer will take them on for those few weeks and then let them go. That is treating employers as a social service to a greater extent than is reasonable. I am reminded of a case in 1640 when the Government made that mistake. They pressed soldiers and then postponed the campaign. The Government did not want them for six weeks, and expected employers to take them on. Of course employers did not, and the result was mayhem. The result will not be mayhem in this case, but it represents severe hardship.
The YTS bridging allowance of £15 a week—not much on which to maintain a pregnant woman and nourish a child—lasts for eight weeks only. After that, there is nothing. Being a pregnant 16 or 17 year-old is a considerable enough shock in the first place. It does not make it any easier to have beyond the bridging allowance literally nothing upon which to live.
We shall of course have to consider the costs of this proposal, but it is a little difficult to cost it. In the first place, one cannot predict the rate of future pregnancies. The cheapest way of keeping down the cost of teenage pregnancy is family planning, something which might receive some attention. We also cannot predict the costs accurately until we know more about the future health of YTS. Over the past couple of days there have been reports in the press of cuts in that area causing hardship to the system. That would of course tend to push up the cost of the amendment. I hope that those matters can be rectified.
The Government should take into account, in this as in other places, the costs of not accepting the amendment. If we leave people with nothing upon which to live, and if they have the prospect of a child to maintain, they have to make a living somehow. I shall not go in to how they might do it. I beg to move.
12.15 p.m.
Baroness David: I support the amendment which was so ably and fully moved by the noble Earl. It seems extremely unfair that pregnant 16 and 17 year-olds should be treated differently from 18 year-olds. Their problems are just as great if not greater. The noble Earl mentioned the cost of the amendment and said that it could not be costed. One hopes that there will be few cases. As he said, family planning could help with that. The allowance would be paid only if 16 or 17 year-olds were removed from YTS or were unable to obtain a YTS place or a job.
Entitlement to income support would ensure that all young pregnant women had an adequate diet and could pay for essential items such as gas, electricity, water and adequate clothing. Clothing is of course a problem; but those problems can occur well before they are six months pregnant. I hope the idea that the confirmation of the pregnancy should be the date from which support would be given could be looked on sympathetically by the Government.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment seeks to change the provisions for 16 and 17 year-olds by providing unlimited entitlement to income support for young women at any stage of pregnancy unable to secure a YTS place.
There are a number of reasons why I am unable to support this amendment. First, while most 16 and 17 year-olds are not entitled to income support, we have ensured that the most vulnerable groups are, and it is the most vulnerable groups that have been discussed. One of these groups is those who are pregnant and within 11 weeks of the expected date of confinement or who at a time before that date are incapable of work because of illness. Those are not rules which were made up specially for pregnant 16 and 17 year-olds. The same rules apply to all pregnant women who claim income support. They too are normally required to be available for and to be actively seeking work up to the 11th week before the expected date of confinement.
Secondly, we have guaranteed the offer of a YTS place to all young people who want one. The

1043
guarantee is being honoured. It includes pregnant young women. Those who are on YTS courses receive more each week (£29-50, or £35 in the second year) than they would receive on income support (£21-90, or £28-80 if away from home with good reason). Nevertheless, the Government have acknowledged that 16 and 17 year-olds in the early stages of pregnancy may in some cases experience practical difficulties in obtaining a YTS place. That is why the Secretary of State for Employment announced in March 1990 measures to ease access to training which is relevant to their needs; for example, through care-related courses which can develop into more dedicated occupational training as time goes on.
I believe that those important new measures will help to ensure that no pregnant 16 or 17 year-old need be without a training place. That must be good for the young women concerned, who will receive a training allowance which exceeds income support levels while undertaking training which is relevant to their needs; and it must also be good for the nation in the decade of demographic change to invest in the training of young women so that they are equipped to make an early return to employment if they wish to do so. That is far better all round than encouraging a reliance on the benefits system when the people concerned are still physically capable of undertaking training.
The noble Earl referred to pregnant girls who have to remain on YTS until the 29th week of their pregnancy. The rules are no different for women over 18 who are expected to be available or actively seeking work until 11 weeks before their confinement. If a young woman cannot go on a YTS course because of an incapacity, she can receive income support. Where a YTS place is unsuitable for a pregnant woman, she can ask her supervisor for a change to a more appropriate course. He also referred to an employer who would not accept a young pregnant woman on YTS. The Department of Employment's training agency has no firm evidence of cases where pregnant women have suffered the loss of a YTS place. If he has examples of such cases, we should like to hear them.
Pregnant young women must not be removed from the training programme without reference to the training agency's area office. The training agency is willing to investigate any cases of individual difficulty which are brought to its attention. Nevertheless, we recognise the practical difficulties that some women may face in holding down a mainstream place on YTS. It is for that reason that the changes were introduced in March this year.
I must keep repeating that there is a guarantee for all young people of a place on YTS. I repeat my invitation to the noble Earl to bring forward specific examples of cases if he has them. The noble Earl asked about the cost of the amendment. It is difficult to cost it because we do not know the number of young people pregnant or who may become pregnant in that age group, but the cost is certainly likely to exceed £1 million.
The noble Earl raised a point about bridging allowance paid for eight weeks only, and then
1044
nothing. Bridging allowance of £15 a week is paid to young people who lose a job or a YTS place after the extended child benefit period while looking for a new job or a new YTS placing. There is no need for bridging allowance to be extended beyond the current limits as there are more than enough YTS places available.
In a previous debate I stated that the present vacancy rate for YTS places was 160,000 at the end of March 1990. It is also worth repeating, as I have mentioned on a previous amendment, that severe hardship allowance can be claimed as well as bridging allowance, and when bridging allowance ceases. There is therefore no justification for giving automatic entitlement to income support to all pregnant girls before the point at which they are no longer required to be available for work. A claim for income support may be considered earlier in the pregnancy under the severe hardship provisions. The majority of pregnant young women who are considered under the severe hardship conditions are awarded income support. I ask the noble Earl whether he feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she will answer the very specific question I asked her. Was the teenager who refused a YTS place because she could not complete the course behaving responsibly or not?
Baroness Blatch: It is not possible to reply specifically because I do not know the reasons why the young lady refused the place. The training agency would be very concerned to see that the guarantee was made. At the end of the day it is incumbent upon the girl herself to take the place or to refuse it. But if she refuses it she clearly accepts the consequences.
Lord Carter: The noble Baroness, Lady David, has expressed the view of these Benches extremely well. However, during discussion of the Bill there have been examples of the Government's hard-heartedness. On this amendment they are displaying that to a degree. On a practical point, I understand that morning sickness occurs in the first three months of pregnancy, with all the problems associated with it. From the Government's replies on these matters, they seem at times to be detached from reality. The Minister asked for evidence. We have much evidence from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux of individual and harrowing cases of problems which this amendment seeks to solve. Has the Minister read of the cases that have been reported by the NACAB?
Baroness Blatch: We are certainly aware of the briefing note and the evidence that has been presented by the citizens advice bureaux. First, there is the guarantee of a training place. If the young person refuses, the reasons are considered and appropriate placements are found if possible. There is also the scheme that allows a stepping stone on to YTS where there is considerable counselling of young people and modification of the YTS training, to prepare them for training, to take advantage of a

1045
YTS placement. There is the severe hardship allowance and the health of the young person is also taken into account. All those efforts are made for young people.
However, I repeat my assurance again. If there are individual cases that are slipping through the net and not receiving all the attention that we believe they should receive, we shall be pleased to consider those cases.
Earl Russell: I am beginning to think that Richmond House is something of an ivory tower. That reply does not come from the real world. I can see no point of connection between that and the experiences of ordinary people. The noble Baroness said that she must not keep repeating that the guarantee of YTS places is being honoured. I agree with her. She said that the rules are the same as those for availability for work. I accept that. But the cases are not parallel. When one is already established in work one can continue to work for a few weeks if one's health permits. If one is undertaking a course of training one cannot responsibly take that on unless one can complete the course. By producing that argument the noble Baroness creates a great deal of doubt in my mind about whether the YTS is genuinely a training scheme.
I have heard that doubt expressed from the Opposition Benches. This is the first time that I have heard it expressed from the Government Front Bench. I used the phrase "cocking a snook" at the YTS. I feel no need to withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Earl be more explicit and state what I said that gave him the impression that I was in any way denigrating the YT scheme?
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness produced as a justification that for those over 18 the rules for the YTS were exactly the same as the rules for availability for work. The noble Baroness said that. I think that I am right. That seems to show complete indifference to the distinction between work and training. One can work for a limited period of time and then leave at the end of that period. One can work for a week and if one does one's job properly one has not wasted the time. But if one is on a six-month training course for only three months one has wasted one's time. I believe that the Government are cocking a snook at the YTS. I commend the amendment.
12.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 196) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 87.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Aircdale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Annan, L.

Birk, B.

1046

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff. L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L,

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Northfield, L.

Feversham, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd. L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth. V.

Thurso, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L,

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hooper, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Bethell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Birdwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Middleton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L,

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brightman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brookes, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Newall, L.

Caithness, E.

Norrie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Porritt, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reay, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Renwick, L.

Crathorne, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Ellenborough, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Somers, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Eraser of Carmyllie, L.

E.

Eraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swansea, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Teviot, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thurlow, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Tombs, L.

Grantchester, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hayter, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.34 p.m.
[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 65, line 15, at end insert:
("Statutory maternity pay for NHS staff with divided contracts

1047
17B. In section 50 of the 1986 Act (interpretation) after subsection (2) (which confers power to treat two or more contracts of employment as one) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Where, in consequence of the establishment of one or more National Health Service trusts under Part 1 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, a woman's contract of employment is treated by a scheme under that Part or Act as divided so as to constitute two or more contracts, regulations may make provision enabling her to elect for all of those contracts to be treated as one contract for the purposes of this Part of this Act or of such provisions of this Part of this Act as may be prescribed; and any such regulations may prescribe—

(a) the conditions that must be satisfied if a woman is to be entitled to make such an election;

(b) the manner in which, and the time within which, such an election is to be made;

(c) the persons to whom, and the manner in which, notice of such an election is to be given;

(d) the information which a woman who makes such an election is to provide, and the persons to whom, and the time within which, she is to provide it;

(e) the time for which such an election is to have effect;

which one of the woman's employers under the two or more contracts is to be regarded for the purposes of statutory maternity pay as her employer under the one contract; and the powers conferred by this subsection are without prejudice to any other power to make regulations under this Part of this Act." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 65, line 20, at end insert:
("Income support: implementation of increases due to attainment of particular ages
18A. After section 64A of the 1986 Act (effect of alteration in component rates of income support) there shall be inserted the following section—
"Implement-ation of increases in income support due to attainment of particular ages.
64B.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) an award of income support is in force in favour of a person ("the recipient"); and

(b) there is a component which becomes applicable, or applicable at a particular rate, in his case if he or some other person attains a particular age.

(2) If, in a case where this section applies, the recipient or other person attains the particular age referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above and, in consequence,—

(a) the component in question becomes applicable, or applicable at a particular rate, in the recipient's case (whether or not some other component ceases, for the same reason, to be applicable, or applicable at a particular rate, in his case), and

(b) after taking account of any such cessation, the recipient becomes entitled to an increased amount of income support,

then, except as provided by subsection (3) below, as from the day on which he becomes so entitled, the amount of income support payable to or for him under the award shall be that increased amount, without any further decision of an adjudication of officer, and the award shall have effect accordingly.
(3) Subsection (2) above does not apply in any case where, in consequence of the recipient or other person attaining the age in question, some question arises in relation to the recipient's entitlement to any benefit under the benefit Acts, other than—

(a) the question whether the component concerned, or any other component, becomes or ceases to be applicable, or applicable at a particular rate, in his case; and

(b) the question whether, in consequnce, the amount of his income support falls to be varied.

1048
(4) In this section "component", in relation to a person and his income support, means any of the sums specified in regulations under section 22(1) above." ").
The noble Lord said: The intention of this amendment is to allow that, where there is an award of income support in force and either the claimant or a member of the assessment unit reaches a certain age and is entitled to an increase in income support, there is no requirement for the adjudication officer to issue a further decision. Dates of birth are adjudicated upon at the outset of a claim for income support and there is no real need to adjudicate again.
This amendment also ensures that where, as a result of the claimant or a member of the assessment unit reaching a certain age, some other question arises in relation to entitlement to benefit, that question will be for an adjudication officer to decide. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 67, line 49, at end insert:
("Incapacity for work: councillor's allowances and expenses 23A.—(1) In Schedule 8 to that Act, paragraph 2 (which makes provision with respect to local authority councillors and incapacity for work) shall be amended in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) below.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2) (certain benefits to be reduced by the excess of the councillor's allowance over the earnings limit specified in regulation 3(3) of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983, which was £35 at the passing of this Act) for the words "the amount of councillor's allowance" there shall be substituted the words "the net amount of councillor's allowance".
(3) In the definition of "councillor's allowance" in sub-paragraph (6), the following shall be omitted—
(a) in the paragraph (a) substituted by paragraph 113 of Schedule 11 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the words "or in section 18(2) of that Act of 1989"; and
(b) in the paragraph (b) so substituted, the words "other than such an allowance as is mentioned in section 18(2) of that Act of 1989".
(4) In that sub-paragraph, after the definition of "incapacity benefit" there shall be inserted—
" "net amount", in relation to any councillor's allowance to which a person is entitled, means the aggregate amount of the councillor's allowance or allowances to which he is entitled for the week in question, reduced by the amount of any expenses incurred by him in that week in connection with his membership of the council or councils in question:".
(5) In section 36(7) of the principal Act (regulations relating to severe disablement allowance), in paragraph (cc) (which was inserted by paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 8 to the 1989 Act and authorises the reduction of benefit by the excess of the amount of councillor's allowance over a prescribed sum) for the words "the amount of councillor's allowance" there shall be substituted the words "the net amount of councillor's allowance".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 200 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 208. These amendments are wholly beneficial to local authority councillors. In Schedule 8, paragraph 2, of the 1989 Social Security Act the Government introduced an easement to the rules for local authority councillors in relation to entitlement to sickness and invalidity benefits and severe disablement allowance. Until then a councillor who was entitled to local government attendance allowance in excess of the therapeutic earnings limit

1049
(currently £35 a week) could lose entitlement to the whole of his sickness or invalidity benefits or severe disablement allowance.
The Government acknowledged the detrimental effect that this could have on the working of democracy and introduced the measure to ensure that benefit was only reduced by the amount by which local government attendance allowances exceeded the therapeutic earnings limit. It was intended that the amount of local government allowances to be taken into account should be net of any reasonable expenses incurred in council duties, but Schedule 8(2) of the 1989 Act provided for the total councillor's attendance allowance to be taken into account.
This amendment redefines a councillor's allowances to achieve the Government's original intention that only net allowances in excess of the therapeutic earnings limit affect entitlement to these benefits. In the light of this proposed redefinition the existing definition in paragraph 2(6) would need to be repealed and this would be achieved by the amendment to Schedule 7 at page 70, line 37, column 3. I commend both of these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 200A not moved.]
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 27, line 2, leave out ("(8)") and insert ("(9)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 201 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 203, 204, 205, 206 and 207. They are all minor and consequential amendments to the clause governing commencement following other changes to the Bill that the Government have been making. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 201 A:
Page 27, line 13, leave out ("7").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Amendment No. 201A pre-empts Amendment No. 202. Therefore I cannot call Amendment No. 202.
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 27 line 13, leave out ("15(1), (2), (4), (5), (8) and (9)") and insert ("15, other than subsection (11),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 21, leave out line 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 204 to 207:
Page 27, line 16, leave out ("5").
Page 27, line 18, leave out ("11, 12, 14, 16") and insert ("1 I to 16").
Page 27, line 18, leave out ("and 21") and insert ("21 and 23A").
Page 27, line 34, leave out ("(8)") and insert ("(9)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 204 to 207 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 207A:
Page 27, leave out line 36.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 207B:
Page 27, leave out line 40.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 70. line 37, column 3, after ("8") insert—

("in paragraph 2(6), in the definition of "councillor's allowance", in the paragraph (a) substituted by paragraph 113 of Schedule 11 to the Local Government and Housing act 1989 the words "or in section 18(2) of that Act of 1989" and, in the paragraph (b) so substituted, the words "other than such an allowance as is mentioned in section 18(2) of that Act of 1989".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to the amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
12.40 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass. This has been a demanding Bill dealing with matters of considerable substance.
I have been grateful for the general support that your Lordships have given to Part I of the Bill which introduces for the first time in Scotland provisions for the supervision of charities. Undoubtedly the area which has caused most concern to your Lordships' House is the question of how best to disclose the principal purposes of a charity to members of the public. Many noble Lords have

1051
spoken on the desirability of this and I have made clear that the Government fully recognise the need for members of the public to be able to discover the charitable purposes of any recognised body. It is for that reason that Clause 1 requires bodies to make available copies of their founding deed or explanatory document. Clause 4 similarly requires them to make available their accounts, including a report of their charitable activities over the financial year. As I have emphasised on several occasions, the power of the Revenue to disclose the names and addresses of the bodies recognised by them provides the key for the public, and for myself, to discover what are the charitable objects of any recognised body.
At Report stage I recognised the potential market for a directory of purposes of Scottish charities, particularly for the benefit of grant-seeking individuals and organisations. As I explained, the Scottish Office and Inland Revenue will assist the SCVO in obtaining information from recognised bodies so that a first directory can be prepared within the voluntary sector. Your Lordships welcomed that as a positive step.
A further matter of concern was the question of exemptions. Certain exemptions have been made for charitable companies which must meet the higher requirements of the companies legislation, and for educational endowments which are already governed by the provisions of the education Acts. In general, the legislation requires all bodies established in Scotland which claim to be charitable to register with the Inland Revenue and to comply with the full requirements of the Bill.
The Government have indicated that we wish to adhere to that arrangement which was strongly advocated on behalf of Scottish charities by the SCVO. However, there is one exception. Deep concern was expressed by many noble Lords about the apparent scope or conflict between Church and state which might arise through requiring all charities, including those formed for the advancement of religion, to comply with the provisions of the Bill and making them subject to my supervision and control in the event of mismanagement. I have emphasised to your Lordships that the Government have no desire to become involved in the control of established religious denominations, but we are concerned that unscrupulous people might seek to avoid control by setting up organisations ostensibly for the advancement of a religious objective. I have given an assurance to the House that this question is being urgently addressed and that an amendment will be brought forward in another place.
Since introduction, substantial amendments have been made to Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill which now provide an alternative to the cy pres procedures for trusts wishing to reorganise. The provisions of Clause 9, which enable small chartiable trusts to amalgamate or reorganise without recourse to a court of law, will be particularly welcomed by the many small trusts which are unable to put funds to effective use because of the procedural and financial obstacles placed in their way.
1052
Part I of the Bill will thus provide access to information as to which bodies are recognised as charitable, and access to their accounts. I am empowered to investigate abuse and to go to court to prevent it or remedy it. Trustees are given new rights to reorganise and amalgamate. This should lead to better use being made of funds locked up in small and obsolescent trusts. These are positive measures which should enhance respect for the very worthwhile work undertaken by charities. I commend Part I of the Bill to your Lordships.
It is Part II of the Bill which has given rise to most debate and which has changed most since Second Reading. In saying that, I do not in any sense wish to understate the importance of other parts of the Bill. I am pleased that the proposals have engendered some extremely productive discussions.
I am grateful to noble and learned Lords who contributed to our discussion in Committee on the provisions relating to executry services. I believe that Clause 17 of the Bill now fulfils the Government's aim of encouraging greater choice for the use of executry services while at the same time affording a proper degree of protection. On the conveyancing provisions, too, significant improvements have been made. Clearer signals have been given that conveyancing practitioners will be regulated by a code of conduct and I have assured your Lordships' House that the code will be made only after wide consultation with appropriate persons and bodies.
The clauses in the Bill relating to rights of audience have benefited from the accumulated expertise and wisdom of your Lordships' House in such matters. In Clause 22 in particular the helpful amendments and interventions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, have resulted in significant improvements. His unrivalled knowledge of the practice and procedure of the Scottish courts has been brought to bear in a most productive fashion and I am grateful to him for his constructive approach. The level playing field featured again in that clause. I am now satisfied that a workable structure is in place which will allow solicitors the opportunity to develop their pleading powers to the full while at the same time ensuring that their rules derive from common principles—in relation to matters such as ensuring representation for all clients—as do those of advocates.
There remain one or two matters which the House discussed at Report stage with which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland proposes to deal in another place. These include the question of whether there should be a power for the Lord President and the Secretary of State to revoke any practising rights acquired under Clause 23. The Secretary of State will also consider whether it would be appropriate for the Lord President and the Secretary of State to have a power, acting jointly, to require a review of a particular conduct rule. He will also be giving consideration to the question of what publicity should be given to applications for practising rights under that clause.
Part II of the Bill now provides in a refined way for the extension of the right to provide legal services and therefore increases the range of choice

1053
potentially available to the customer. Appropriate safeguards arc maintained. Indeed, the bulk of Part II comprises the safeguards rather than the simple extension of the right to provide services. None of this will diminish the standing of the legal profession. Indeed, I believe that that standing will be enhanced.
In Part III of the Bill, dealing with liquor licensing, we have considered the various provisions fully. In the light of the consideration which the House has given to the details of some of them, a number of very useful amendments have again been made. The Government have considered carefully the many contributions to the debate from all quarters. Where we have concluded that we are not able to agree to changes in the Bill we have generally done so on the basis of the outcome of the comprehensive consultation exercise which we undertook in the preparation of the Bill.
For example, in the case of the Sunday opening of public houses the Bill does not propose any change to the present hours, namely from 12.30 to 2.30 and from 6.30 to 11 o'clock. We recognise that these are more limited opening times than those for hotels and. in the light of the amending provisions in the Bill, for off-licences, but we have concluded that the balance of the argument nevertheless remains on the side of no change. In this respect we have had regard to the outcome of the consultation exercise which showed that an overwhelming majority of those who expressed a view were in favour of no change. The Government believe that that clear expression of opinion should be respected, not least because of the traditional view that Sunday afternoon is a time of peace and quiet which ought not to be at risk of disruption from the opening of public houses, many of which are in residential areas.
A second issue where we have considered the arguments very carefully is on appeals to the sheriff against refusals of extensions of permitted hours on days other than Sundays.
The Bill contains new and more precise criteria for the grant and refusal of extensions to permitted hours and we shall draw those to the attention of all licensing boards. Again, having regard to the results of our consultation exercise, which showed that a clear majority were opposed to the introduction of a right of appeal on that point and that decisions need to be based on detailed local knowledge, we have concluded that the provisions in the Bill strike the right balance as they stand.
We have also had an important debate, stretching over both Committee and Report stages, on the question of supervision of alcohol sales by young persons, in off-licence premises. There is, I think it is fair to say, a consensus in the House that the problem of under-age drinking in Scotland is serious and that all practical steps need to be taken to deal with it In the light of the debate in Committee, however, we were persuaded that there was not a strong case for different regimes for supermarkets from other shops and we introduced appropriate amendments at Report stage. If the provisions in the Bill in due course become law, we have however made it clear that we shall consider amending legislation urgently if it appears that there is in practice a significant problem of sales to under-age persons through supermarkets.
1054
On 17th May, noble Lords concluded that the Bill should not be amended. To those who remain concerned about the provisions, I should say that I have every confidence that chief constables will ensure that, if enacted, the new powers of arrest, about which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was concerned, are exercised with great care and with due regard to the understandable sensitivities of members and of club management.
The package of reforms in Part III of the Bill and the associated schedule build on the licensing structure set up in the 1976 Act. It makes a number of significant improvements based on practical experience of the operation of the existing provisions over the last 14 years; and your Lordships' House has made a significant contribution to the further improvement of the licensing regime during the passage of the Bill.
The final package in the Bill consists of miscellaneous provisions. The provisions in the Bill setting in place 100 per cent, government funding of probation supervision, social inquiry report provisions and aspects of parole supervision are a significant step forward in enabling offenders to be dealt with within the community. Improving and expanding those services in accordance with agreed national standards will improve the level of service available to the courts and will encourage them to have confidence in disposals which are intended to provide offenders with practical help and supervision.
Part IV also contains provisions which will allow the courts greater flexibility when dealing with offenders who have defaulted in payment of fines imposed by the court; and there are enabling provisions to set up a unit fine experiment to allow courts to relate fines more closely to an offender's ability to pay. All those proposals have the common objective of reducing the prison population to those for whom imprisonment is clearly appropriate.
The inclusion in the Bill of provisions to allow Scotland to take a full part in the fight against the evils of drug trafficking has been welcomed. The Government continue to attach priority to taking all possible steps to deter those who deal in drugs and the provisions in the Bill will ensure that those people will find no haven in Scotland.
I am also pleased that it has been possible to take advantage of the Bill to amend homelessness legislation. The changes that we have made will be of benefit particularly to people at risk of violence from someone formerly residing with them.
The UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration is given the force of law in Scotland. Schedule 5 to the Bill sets out the procedures which will apply to international commercial arbitrations which take place in Scotland. I am glad that Scotland will be joining those other countries which, by adopting the model law, are making the helpful model law procedures generally available. At Second Reading the traditional criticisms of miscellaneous provisions Bills were made, but I observed that that did not prevent a number of new clauses being tabled on a wide range of issues by those who originally voiced the criticisms. I was glad to accept a number of them,

1055
recognising that they will be valuable in various areas; for example, mental health and judicial factors.
Our deliberations have been wide ranging and have covered important areas of Scottish legislation. Your Lordships have given their customary careful and deliberate scrutiny to our proposals. On such Bills, it is sometimes thought that only Scottish Peers are entitled to contribute to the debates. I should like to disabuse anyone who suffers under that misapprehension. Anyone who chooses to contribute to our debates and improve the law of Scotland is more than welcome to do so. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, those of us who have been involved in the consideration of this extensive and, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, exhausing piece of legislation are probably glad to have reached this stage in the Bill, which covers many aspects of legal and social reform for Scotland. As was anticipated at the outset and as the noble and learned Lord indicated, being a miscellaneous provisions Bill its Long Title became longer by the day. For that reason alone, we are glad to have reached this stage. The Title must be one of the longest currently on the statute book.
We on this side of the House welcome the changes in the charities law to catch, if possible, unscrupulous people who deal in charities. Among the other social aspects of the Bill outlined by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, we also welcome the control of young people gaining access to alcohol and so on, and the efforts to reduce the prison population.
In so far as it deals with legal matters, the Bill is to some extent a mirror image of the Courts and Legal Services Bill applicable to England and Wales and, like that Bill, it was met at the start with a barrage of judicial and legal hostility. One problem of any radical reform is that the parties who see themselves or their institutions threatened or affected by the legislation sometimes stay too close to the event itself and do not take time to stand back and ponder and think about what is going on rather than launch into an all-out assault. Given some of the contributions which have been made in this House on both Bills, I wonder whether, when people read what they have said, they will consider that they might have made a more proper approach to the Bill; but that is a matter for each individual.
Only time will tell whether the Bill, in relation to the law, was necessary and whether it will improve the legal system, but it recognises, as I do from this side of the House, that there is now within society a large body of persons who, with their education and training, are or will be capable of representing themselves and others in the court process. It is correct that they should be allowed at least the opportunity to do so, subject to the safeguards of adequate training and the application of an appropriate code of conduct to all parties appearing
1056
in court. Those provisions are strongly built into the Bill as it now stands.
It is always useful to remind ourselves and others that the courts and the legal processes are not the sole property of the judges and lawyers. The legal system is for the benefit and protection of the citizen and the safeguarding of his or her rights. We have a better educated and more articulate population now than in former days when perhaps only the lawyer could have articulated the problem for the individual. The opening up of the courts to people other than lawyers reflects that advance in society.
It is unfortunate that the Bill did not deal with access to courts in the shape of legal aid. Although the Bill is a miscellaneous provisions Bill, legal aid is probably one of the few things not included, apart from being in one clause. However, as I understand the position, eligibility is being reviewed at the moment and we shall no doubt come to that matter in due course as it causes great concern in the legal profession.
We on this side of the House welcome many of the positive reforms and recognise the consideration given by the Government in the shape—if that is the correct phrase—of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, to the many amendments moved to the Bill. However, although I hold no brief for the publicans of Scotland, I am bound to say that they still harbour a severe sense of grievance about being excluded from Sunday afternoon opening when every other place which sells alcohol is apparently to be allowed to sell it.
All amendments tabled from this side of the House were tabled with the aim of improving the Bill, as we set out to do, in the earlier stages. We hope that that has been achieved and that the Bill is the better for the consideration that it has received in your Lordships' House.
I must express disappointment that the Government did not accept the amendments to abolish the iniquitous domestic warrant sales which we discussed during the Committee stage and to limit police entry to the clubs (the amendment was put forward at Report stage). However, those are issues which will be raised in another place and no doubt will be discussed again in this Chamber.
I noted that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was discussing this part of the Bill he inadvertently referred to a power of arrest rather than to a power of entry. I hope that that is not a portent of things to come. The chief constables will no doubt note his words with interest.
The law is a never-ending tale of change and advance as time goes by. It is encouraged by the excellent and positive work of the Scottish Law Commission. No doubt another miscellaneous provisions Bill will make its way into the House in a few years' time.
I should like to put on record our thanks to the various bodies and institutions which have taken an interest in the Bill and brought forward positive amendments for consideration. On most occasions those amendments were rejected but in other cases they found acceptance or at least were considered.

1057
It is interesting that the Law Society of Scotland responded positively and helpfully, as did the Faculty of Advocates, and, so far as it is possible to find a satisfied lawyer, there appears to be silence on those two fronts at the moment. The Bill has set the framework for the future and we await its implementation with interest.
To conclude I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on his consideration and courtesy in steering this particular ship through what were at times stormy and tempestuous waters. He accepted criticism. I must say that at times some of it was almost on a personal level, which went very close to contravening what I understand to be the traditions of your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Lord guided the Bill through its very difficult stages with dignity. He concentrated on the issues rather than be side-tracked by any such perceived attacks upon himself. I do not for one moment suggest that they were meant to be personal attacks. I merely observe how they were perceived on this side of the Chamber. I may be wrong and, if so, no doubt I shall be corrected.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, conducted the passage of the Bill in a responsive manner which made life for us all that little bit more pleasant than it might have been.
1 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to say that it has been a great privilege for a layman such as myself to watch the legal luminaries of Scotland at work. I have a very high opinion of them, though obviously not as high as they have of themselves.
The Bill concerns itself with the improvement of the law in Scotland. Personally I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having done something about the two amendments which I brought forward at other people's behest. Throughout the passage of the Bill he has shown great willingness to accept that Members of the House have a contribution to make to this miscellaneous collection of legal matters.
There are two matters with which I am a little disappointed, or perhaps I should say I am a little fearful of their effect. One is the effect on the rural lawyers of Scotland who for a long time have provided a form of legal aid because of the money that they collect from conveyancing. I know that we have been promised that that matter will be carefully monitored, but monitoring often comes too late. I hope and trust that the scheme for producing non-legal conveyancers will fall flat on its face, which is the hope of many other people. In this case I believe that competition has come into the legal profession, to a very large extent owing to previous Bills, and it appears to me to be unnecessary and a little dangerous.
I must say that the incursion of the English lawyers into a Scottish debate in order to make a purely political point about war crimes trials seem to me to be wholly regrettable. The matter should have been debated under the War Crimes Bill and not
1058
have arisen under a Scottish miscellaneous provisions Bill. We look forward to next Monday when that matter is debated once more.
This has been an interesting Bill and I am sure that it will be useful. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, in congratulating the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on his performance. I am sure that he has come out of the experience a better and wiser man.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall say a few very brief words about two particular aspects of the Bill in which I have taken a special interest. I believe that it will be a considerable improvement to Scots law when ordinary people are able to obtain more information about what charities exist and who runs them. By definition charities are excused from income and corporation tax so in a sense they are contributed to by all taxpayers as well as by those who give money to them and raise money for them direct. It seems to me helpful and right that information will become more accessible. I hope that very soon a truly informative list of charities will be made available from whatever organisation is nominated to perform that service.
I believe also that the reforms about how lawyers will operate are very much in the interests of all Scots who find themselves needing to use the law. This House has considerably improved the Bill in that respect. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for the way in which he has responded to amendments which I moved on behalf of organisations representing consumers, especially in relation to what happens when a person buys or sells a house.
As time goes on ordinary people, I am sure, will find that conveyancing services become more keenly priced and more user friendly. To that extent I disagree a little with my noble friend and neighbour Lord Mackie of Benshie. At the same time I am extremely glad that the Government have given an undertaking to watch the effect of the new competition on solicitors. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, I believe that that is a very important aspect of the changes in conveyancing. We need local lawyers and if some aspects of the Bill threaten their presence in our country towns, something has to be done about it.
The passage of the Bill through this House has been somewhat unusual in that by far the majority of amendments, and indeed the main political opposition to the Bill, seemed to come not from the Opposition Benches but from the Cross-Benches. At times one wondered whether in fact the main Opposition party was not a lot more in favour of the Bill than it always made plain. I am sure that that will become clear when the Bill reaches another place, when the Cross-Benches are not there.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive my intervention. I am assuming for the sake of accuracy—and perhaps she will confirm it—that she means political with a small 'p' and not a large 'P'.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, at times I was not absolutely sure how large the "p" was on the Cross-Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, rightly reminded us that the law and courts are not the property of lawyers but the property of all the people of Scotland. I am sure that as the Bill proceeds that will become clearer in another place than at times it was here.
That having been said, many useful changes have been made as a result of proposals from all sides of the House. Those changes have been accepted by the Government. My noble and learned friend has proved himself to be a listening Lord Advocate and, by implication, we have a Secretary of State who is a listening Secretary of State for Scotland. I thank both my noble and learned friend and my noble friend on the Front Bench for all their hard work. I must express appreciation also of the hard work of the Benches opposite. I believe that we have improved this Bill and when it emerges from another place it will be of very great benefit to the people of Scotland.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
1.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 22 [Power to require harbour authorities to promote searches in harbour areas]:
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 25, line 15, leave out from ("then") to ("any") in line 16 and insert ("subject to subsections (4) and (4A) below, if a constable or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Noble Lords will recall that on Report I gave an undertaking to enhance the contents of Clause 22(4) to strengthen the rights of private householders in harbour areas in circumstances where a search of their homes was necessary. I believe that there was total agreement on that fundamental point and that the previous wording was accepted only on the understanding that it would be amended along the lines that I now propose.
The amendments present two safeguards for householders who, often by accident of geography and history, find themselves living within harbour areas. First, only constables with a warrant will be able to carry out searches of private residences under the Bill's powers. That brings the Bill's provisions in line with general practice. As a consequence of requiring constables to have a warrant it is necessary to enable them to obtain warrants. The amendment provides for that.
Secondly, only certain constables will be able to carry out such searches. The amendment that we agreed on Report limited the right to search private
1060
dwellings to constables, thereby excluding security guards. The proposal now before the House limits that right still further.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked exactly how "constable" would be defined for the purposes of this subsection. It is a very important point as under Clause 46 "constable" has a very wide definition which includes all types of constables such as British Transport Police and ports police. The amendment includes constables in a body maintained by a police authority and constables in certain other police forces. A police authority, I should explain, means an authority for a police force maintained under the Police Act 1964 or, in Scotland, the Police (Scotland) Act 1976.
The amendment also makes it specifically clear that in respect of private police forces it is only those constables from constabularies which have entered into agreements with the Police Complaints Authority who are able to carry out searches of private residences. These agreements are entered under Section 96 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act l984 and in effect draw the participating forces into the codes of practice employed under PACE. As far as I am aware only two of the relevant private police forces have entered into Section 96 agreements: these are the British Transport Police and the Port of London Police. However, two more port police forces are considering doing so.This does not, however, imply that private residences exist in the harbour areas for which they are responsible.
1 should like to take this opportunity to elaborate on an answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, about applying this change to searches of private residences outside harbour areas. Although it is true that such searches, if required, would be by constables with a warrant I should explain that searches of private dwellings outside harbour areas would be under other provisions as they are not possible under the terms of this Bill. Under Clause 23 there is a power to require persons who have access to a restricted zone of a harbour for the purposes of a business carried on by him to arrange searches of any land he occupies outside the harbour area. However, under subsection (2)(b)(i), those searches can only be of land occupied for the purposes of his business and not of private residences.
Finally, despite the profound changes that we have made to Clause 22, I stress that it was never the Government's intention to use the powers in the Bill to require private residences to be searched by security guards. Indeed, careful consideration would have been given to the need for any private residences to be searched at all and where that proved necessary the Secretary of State would have required it to be carried out by constables. However, as that proviso would always have been implemented, it seems to me both sensible and prudent to formalise this particular matter with these amendments to the Bill. I beg to move.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that noble Lords who took part in discussions on the Bill will

1061
be grateful to the Minister for carrying out his promise to look into the matter and for bringing forward amendments which will achieve unanimous agreement.
I recall that during our discussions on the port developments at Harwich reference was made to security guards becoming special constables under certain circumstances. In such cases would they be covered by the amendment and included in the definition of a constable? That may be an important question in view of some of the points raised in another place about defence.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, Harwich does not have a ports police force and, therefore, those constables would not be allowed to search private residences. In any event, they would not be allowed to do so unless they put themselves under the relevant section of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If they formed themselves into a police force such as the British Transport Police or the Port of London Police they could be covered by the provision but at present that is extremely unlikely.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I join with noble Lords in welcoming the amendment. It is thoroughly to be applauded from two points of view. The first is from that of civil liberties. It is wrong that someone who inhabits a private dwelling should be subject to search without a warrant. That is particularly so because Clause 22 makes it clear that force may be used in carrying out a search. Secondly, it is right that the normal rules which bind the police in such matters should be applicable to any search made of a private dwelling wherever that may be.
In declaring my interest as a parliamentary representative of the Police Federation, I welcome the gesture which the amendment makes towards the proper work of police constables in England and Wales. I approve of the provision contained in the amendment whereby only constables should be authorised to carry out certain duties.
I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I press him a little on an answer that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Perhaps I did not hear him correctly but he appeared to be leaving the door open to the idea that ports police sworn in as special constables by a magistrate, as is possible in certain ports under outdated legislation (dating from 1850 in the case of Harwich), could be entitled to carry out searches under the provisions of the amendment. I believe that my noble friend said that it is unlikely, but can he go a little further and say that it will be impossible for special constables to carry out such searches under the amendment?
My understanding of the amendment is that only regular police constables will be able to carry out these searches, armed with a warrant and subject to normal police procedure. No other police officers, special constables or others will be entitled to do so. I am sorry to press my noble friend on the issue but it is important. As a result of events at Harwich it has exercised the Police Federation over the past few years. I should be grateful if he would clarify that small but important point. I welcome the amendment and see it as a significant improvement.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Bethell. I had not realised that he wished to make a point on this amendment.
Nothing in the Bill will give to police forces any additional powers. The Harwich special constables will not be able to carry out those searches. I was trying to imply to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that if the Harwich authority formed a special police force in the same way as the Port of London is doing and followed the procedures of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, perhaps it would be allowed to carry out those searches. However, those would be the only circumstances in which that would be permitted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 25, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("premises") in line 31 and insert ("In the case of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 25, line 32, at end insert ("any power to search or enter conferred by subsection (3) above may not be exercised except—
(a) under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace; and
(b) by a constable who is a member of a body of constables maintained—
(i) in England, Scotland or Wales by a police authority or an authority which has entered into an agreement with the Police Complaints Authority under section 96(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; or
(ii) in Northern Ireland, by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland or an authority which has entered into an agreement with the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland under Article 16 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
(4A) If, on an application made by a constable, a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an article to which subsection (3) above applies is in any premises used only as a private dwelling, he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search the premises").
Lord Bethell: My Lords, perhaps I may detain your Lordships because, through absence elsewhere, I was unable to take part in the previous stages of the Bill. Again I declare my interest as a representative of the Police Federation. I welcome this Bill. However, I invite my noble friend to say a few more words about the wide powers which this Bill confers upon Ministers to appoint private security employees to various jobs in ports and airports.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am advised that my noble friend should speak on the Motion that the Bill do now pass rather than on this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I hope your Lordships will agree that we can look back with some satisfaction at the time we have spent on this Bill over the past couple of months. We have had four sessions during which we have had some useful debates and have been able to fine-tune some of the provisions of the Bill.

1063
I was heartened to know from the start of your Lordships' consideration that this piece of legislation was welcomed and broadly supported. Amendments were put forward in a spirit of helpfulness to try to improve the existing provisions or to add to the new ones. Even though only government amendments were passed—some at the suggestion of other noble Lords—the debates on all the amendments provided us with an opportunity to explain in greater detail the purpose of the various provisions in the Bill.
I should like to make particular mention of the major part which the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, who is not able to be here today, played in our debates. Their contributions were always most constructive and offered in a courteous manner. I shall not mention by name all the other noble Lords who have spoken. Without exception, their contributions were most valuable and helped to ensure that our work was in the best traditions of this House. We may have had our disagreements but they have not spoilt the positive approach your Lordships have given to the consideration of this Bill. I thank all those who have contributed.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this is one occasion when I am delighted to give full approval to the Motion that the Bill do now pass because, as I said on Second Reading, on these Benches we are completely in support of the principles of the Bill, settling as it does the questions of aviation and maritime security.
The amendments which we tabled were, we thought, in the interests of security, to clarify certain matters and to have certain assurances written into the Bill. As I expected, the Minister repeated the assurances and when he gave them, we accepted them. We should have liked to have seen those assurances written into the Bill for obvious reasons. As I said time and time again, the Minister may not be here and the courts will determine only what is in the Bill and not the words that the noble Lord has spoken, which we fully accept. However, I assure the House and the Minister that those who have advised me, particularly the officers' union, the National Union of Seamen and also the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities, have noted with great care the assurances that have been given and will be filing them away in case they need to be raised at any time.
As always, the Minister has given courteous attention to the points which we raised. When he has promised to look into a matter, he has done so. We always appreciate that from the Minister. I repeat that this is one of those occasions when I can give full support to the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I should like to beg the House's pardon for intervening earlier. I add my support to this Bill. I believe that it is important from the point of view of the Police Federation that as much attention as possible is paid to the guidelines mentioned by my noble friend at earlier stages. I
1064
should have preferred those guidelines to be enshrined in the Bill or a statute but if that cannot be, I trust that they will be followed by my noble friend's successors.
My noble friend made the valid point that some jobs in ports and airports should not be carried out by police constables; for example, searching a bag or a small case. That is most appropriately done by a private security employee. However, I am sure that he will appreciate the anxiety of the Police Federation that there should not be a slow but sure shifting of various tasks from the police to employees of private firms. If the federation sees that that is happening, it will have justifiable cause for concern.
I ask my noble friend to clarify one point. I am sorry to revert to the question of private police forces in ports, but can he clarify the question of a review which I believe the Government are undertaking on private employees being appointed as constables in ports? I believe that the Government are reviewing that matter. Can he also say at this stage whether the review has already commenced, what its tasks are and when he expects to be able to report the results to the House?
With those observations, I join with other noble Lords in supporting the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Bethell who have spoken on this Motion. I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord and my noble friend that they support fully the principles enshrined in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had asked that certain assurances should be written into the Bill. I gave my reasons for believing that that was not a good idea. Everything is written down and I hope that that will be satisfactory for him.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bethell was not able to be present during consideration of the Bill at its earlier stages. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me slightly to bend the rules of the House on consideration of this Motion in order to answer my noble friend's questions. In answer to his last point, perhaps I may say that the Government intend shortly to undertake a review of the port police forces. I am unable to provide any more details of the timing of that review. I referred to that at an earlier stage of the Bill.
My noble friend also suggested that wider power had been given to Ministers to appoint private security guards. This Bill gives no wider powers on the shipping side than have existed for a long time on the aviation side. The Bill only enables the Secretary of State to give directions to harbour authorities, shipowners and others. He cannot himself employ or direct private security guards. However, harbour authorities or others may employ private security guards. They are often the most appropriate people to carry out searches and guard harbours, as my noble friend acknowledged. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State can and will lay down the qualifications for those people as he has done in the aviation field.

1065
I am grateful to noble Lords who took part in the debate on the Bill. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to wish noble Lords a happy recess. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,
Town and Country Planning Act,
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act,
Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act,
Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and the Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with an amendment.
House adjourned for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess at twenty-eight minutes before two o'clock.

  FEMALE CANCER SCREENING
  FEMALE CANCER SCREENING
  WORLD MILITARY EXPENDITURE
  WORLD MILITARY EXPENDITURE
  NEXT STEPS AGENCY STAFF: SELECTION CRITERIA
  NEXT STEPS AGENCY STAFF: SELECTION CRITERIA
  FOOTBALL POOL BETTING DUTY: REDUCTION
  FOOTBALL POOL BETTING DUTY: REDUCTION
  PRIORITIES BOARD FOR R&D IN AGRICULTURE AND FOOD: REPORT
  PRIORITIES BOARD FOR R&D IN AGRICULTURE AND FOOD: REPORT
  EWE PREMIUM
  EWE PREMIUM
  PRISONS AND BAIL HOSTELS: CONSTRUCTION AND REFURBISHMENT
  PRISONS AND BAIL HOSTELS: CONSTRUCTION AND REFURBISHMENT