Sitting of 23 October 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Norman Findlay Buchan esquire, Member for Paisley, South and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    ZETLAND MASONIC SICK AND WIDOWS AND ORPHANS FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Teachers
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what new proposals he will be putting forward to improve the pay and general standing of teachers.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): The remit that I gave to the interim advisory committee on 14 September as regards teachers' pay and conditions in 1991–92 invites the committee to build on the far-reaching improvements introduced in teachers' pay following its excellent report of last year. I announced on 23 July my intention to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity with a view to restoring teachers' negotiating rights in time for the 1992–93 settlement.
    Mr. Townsend: Is not it a little shaming that local education authorities like Bexley have to recruit teachers from abroad due to the lack of the home-grown variety? Will my right hon. Friend make it crystal clear that teachers are a special case and that if we are to look after their recruitment, retention and general standing in the community, they must have a significant pay increase?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend knows that the position was greatly improved this year in areas where there were previously shortages. Only a handful of schools have vacancies this year. The number of teachers recruited from overseas was very small and in most cases was for
    174
    special purposes. There has been a big improvement and that is due both to the increases in teacher supply which we are bringing about and to the general increase and improvement in teachers' pay and conditions.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The Secretary of State will know that many of those teachers recruited from abroad are already leaving schools because they are disillusioned. Will not he admit, that despite his valiant efforts on pay last year, teachers' salaries over the past three years are still lagging behind inflation? Will he now commit himself to ensuring that in this year's pay settlement teachers will receive an award that, at the very least, will keep pace with this year's inflation, if not improve on it? Until that is achieved, teachers, who are facing many extra burdens as a result of the national curriculum, will not teach with any enthusiasm in our schools.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman made several points and I will deal with one or two of them quickly. I repeat that the number of teachers recruited from overseas is very small in relation to the total teacher supply. Indeed, there are advantages in such recruitment and that practice has always been followed. On average, teachers have had an increase of 50 per cent. in their pay since 1986 and it is well up in real terms over the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is much greater flexibility in the teaching salary structure now and many teachers in particular shortage areas are receiving well above the average. There has been a substantial improvement and I indicated in my remit to the interim advisory committee the general shape of what I hope the teachers' pay settlement will be next year.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the general standing of teachers would be helped greatly if teachers and leading teachers in our schools were consulted more often than are administrators, politicians and others? May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recent decision on single sciences, which was reached according to the very principle that I have just described? That is good for the recruitment of teachers. Let the advice of good teachers be taken more often.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that I talk to an awful lot of teachers, not just to my advisory bodies, as I go round the country, and that they come to see me. The single science decision—I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on it—in part reflected that. My hon. Friend will recognise also that, with the introduction of local management of schools and with decisions being taken much more at school level, it is much easier now for governing bodies and heads to consult teachers in their schools.
    Mr. Straw: Why does the Secretary of State continue to mislead teachers and the public by making wholly untrue claims about the increases that teachers have enjoyed over the past four years, when the only increase that they have had in real terms was between 1986 and 1987? As the Select Committee report and the Secretary of State's own teachers' pay committee make clear, teachers' pay in real terms has been cut in each of the past three years. What kind of improvement in teachers' morale does the right hon. Gentleman think can be achieved when he and his colleagues have cut teachers' pay for each of the past three years? If he wants to improve matters, will he here and now

    175
    give a categorical assurance that he will fully fund any increase in teachers' pay recommended by the interim advisory committee?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman must take into account the fact that there is now much greater flexibility in the teachers' salary structure system. Therefore, a considerable number of teachers will have had substantial increases in the past few years. In the period of this Government, teachers' pay on average has increased by 30 per cent. in real terms; that compares with an average increase of 6 per cent. under the previous Labour Government. I shall be making further comments about teachers' pay for next year. At present, of course, the interim advisory committee has hardly embarked on its work. I shall make comments at the appropriate time when the education part of local authority total standard spending is announced. I noticed that, in the Walden interview, the hon. Gentleman was all over the shop when asked about Labour's commitment to extra spending. It was not going to come from extra taxation; it was not going to come from extra borrowing; it was not going to come from anywhere.

    Teacher Shortages
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further initiatives are currently being considered by his Department to help relieve the problems of teacher shortages in particular subjects in the south-east.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): We already have in place a range of measures that are helping to relieve teacher supply difficulties in the south-east.
    Our September count of vacancies revealed that all local education authorities, including those in London and the south-east, had succeeded in filling the great majority of the posts that were vacant at the beginning of the summer.
    Mr. Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State, welcome him to his debut with chalk and blackboard in the House and wish him a long and successful stay in his position.
    In Surrey, the problem is becoming quite serious. The readvertisement of jobs for primary school teachers is running at about 27 per cent., and for secondary school teachers it is now 31 per cent. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the measures that have been announced will be brought in as soon as possible so that local pay bargaining can increase the potential for giving bursaries to teachers in special subjects, in particular maths, modern languages and science? Will he also make sure that local management of schools provides even greater flexibility so that Surrey and other counties in the south-east can fill their vacancies?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend will reflect upon the need for his own county council to consider whether local funding is appropriate at some time in the future. Surrey has taken advantage of a scheme run by my Department, that has enabled the setting up of courses specifically for women returners who have experience in teaching modern languages. As a result of one course alone, Surrey was able to recruit 22 modern language teachers.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister of State realise that the Select Committee would never have published its report on teacher supply, which took nearly two years to complete, unless the position was deadly serious? Does he realise also that talking about being able to put a body in front of every class, whether it be in the south-east or elsewhere, is nonsense? The number of applications for major teaching posts has fallen catastrophically. Whereas there used to be 20 or 30 applications, the number has now dropped to one, two or three, and the people who are employed are not necessarily the people who are wanted? As the problem is more serious than that, will the Minister please treat it as being more serious and settle it once and for all?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman appears not to be aware that the overwhelming majority of classes have permanent teachers who teach children on a well-established basis. The level of teacher vacancies in our schools is almost exactly the same as it was 10 years ago when the Labour party left government. Those are the facts. It is no good the hon. Gentleman exaggerating the position.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend accept that the only way to eliminate teacher shortages in the south-east is to abolish national pay scales and to move to a system of regional pay with school-centred pay bargaining? The second thing that could be done to improve teacher morale in the south-east would be to ask the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to keep his mouth shut for at least a year.
    Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will pay attention to the advice given by my hon. Friend. We should all benefit from that advice being followed.

    Pupils (Testing)
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his deliberations about standardised testing for seven-year-olds.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on the testing of children at the ages of seven and 11 years as a means of monitoring standards in schools.
    Mr. MacGregor: I made an oral statement to the House on 18 October and published the specification for the first standard assessment tasks to assess seven-year-olds in 1991. Copies of the specification have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.
    The formal assessment of seven and 11-year-olds is a key part of the national curriculum and will contribute enormously to the effective monitoring and raising of educational standards in schools.
    Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister think back to when he and his friends took the 11-plus and remember how some of his friends were labelled a success while others were labelled a failure? Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that the results of the testing for seven-year-olds will not be made public?
    Mr. MacGregor: The assessment, or testing, of seven-year-olds is designed to enable teachers and pupils in

    177
    all schools to be aware on a systematic basis of the level that has been reached by individual pupils so that their strengths can be built on and their weaknesses tackled. Reporting will be to the parent. We have not proposed statutory obligatory reporting of the overall school results for seven-year-olds, but I hope that schools will publish aggregate figures and I shall encourage them to do so.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what parents really want is to know what their children are being taught and that they will therefore warmly welcome the tests that he has introduced? Does he further agree that, far from tests creating failure,s, the absence of testing would create failure, because no one would have any idea of what is being taught in some of our schools, especially in Labour authorities?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points, but I would go further. I believe that through the standard external—tests—not just the assessments by teachers-parents want to know how their children are progressing with the basics, such as reading, arithmetic, writing and basic scientific skills. That is what the tests concentrate on, because that is what parents and most teachers want.
    Mr. Nellist: What standards are being set for, and what lessons are being learnt by the primary school children at St. Paul's school in Staffordshire, whose parents were told a couple of weeks ago to bring in not only their own pens, pencils, rubbers and hand towels, but—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Nellist:—but their own toilet rolls? Is not it a fact that not one education—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be given a chance to put his question.
    Mr. Nellist: Is not it a fact that not one Education Minister on that Front Bench would allow any of his children to learn a lesson like that about the inadequacies of the education provision in this country? Why should our children have to learn that lesson?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not see what that has to do with the testing of seven-year-olds. The matter that the hon. Gentleman raised is for the local education authority. I believe that there was some misunderstanding of what was said at that time. It has nothing to do with the testing of seven-year-olds or with raising standards.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: My right hon. Friend will have noted that the general public invariably dismiss what politicians say but like to listen to what royalty and religious figures say. Will he endorse the comments made today by Her Royal Highness Princess Anne, a leading mother in Britain, who said exactly what we say—that we should get back to basics with standardised testing?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is out of order to bring the royal family into our arguments.
    Mrs. Hicks: The standard test brings us back to the three Rs—reading, writing and arithmetic—so that children, parents and teachers know what children should learn. Is not it despicable that many educationists who talk about the decline in education are the very people who are against testing?
    Mr. MacGregor: The vast majority of parents welcome what we propose to do next summer on testing seven-year-olds. As my hon. Friend says, the external testing will concentrate on the basics, which are the fundamental parts of education for all children. I am sure that it is right to do so at the age of seven.
    Ms. Armstrong: The Secretary of State recognises that the real role of testing at that early age is to aid children's learning and identify their strengths and weaknesses. How can teachers work on those weaknesses and give parents the confidence that problems that have been identified will be worked on without the additional support and encouragement which Surrey county council has costed at about £400,000 a year?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Lady will know that we have increased the spending per pupil in all schools across the board, not just primary schools, by over 40 per cent. after inflation. It is absolutely typical and it does not surprise me, but it is tedious to hear Labour Members pretend that they would be willing to spend more on education. They know perfectly well that they always include the phrase, "as resources allow". It was perfectly obvious from the comments made by the hon. Member for Blackburn ( Mr. Straw) on television recently that the Labour party will not increase spending more than we are doing. It is a bit rich of the hon. Lady to put forward that argument. We are increasing spending per pupil.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the anxiety felt by many at a report published at the beginning of September that showed that in 10 local education authorities reading standards have declined during the past 10 years. Does he agree that it is important that an assessment at the age of seven takes into account not only the standards achieved by individual children but the methods used by teachers to ensure that children can read properly? Does he also agree that parents are interested as much in how their children are doing in relation to other children as in how they are doing in an absolute sense?
    Mr. MacGregor: The evidence from reports on some reading tests is not clear. That is why I have asked for testing to be done much more nationally. We shall have the results by Christmas. It is important to stress that that evidence is not clear. The educational psychologists who compiled a report said that it provided only prima facie evidence. However, one thing is clear. If, in any school, there is a decline in reading standards, it is to do not with resources, but, as those same educational psychologists said, with teaching methods. It is from that point of view that I shall consider the evidence. My hon. Friend is entirely right. The whole point of the national curriculum and of testing at seven is not only to make comparisons but to ensure that we have national information about reacting standards compiled on a comparable basis.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the operation of the student loans scheme and access funds.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): The loans scheme is up and running and the access funds are in place.

    179
    The Student Loans Company opened for business last month and I am delighted to tell the House that, as of yesterday, 14,500 students have already applied. The company is operating very efficiently, as I saw when I recently visited it.
    Mr. Darling: If the student loans scheme is so good, why have only 14,500 students applied for it? Why are the Government spending £1 million on advertising the scheme, especially when, yesterday, Edinburgh university announced a freeze on all staff recruitment because of its dire financial position? Do the Government accept that money should be spent on funding our university education, or are they happy for it to fall further and further behind as the rest of Europe races ahead?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that funding in real terms has increased by some 9 per cent. during the period of this Government and, last year, in cash terms, an additional 10 per cent. was made available. During the three years of the present survey about £1 billion will be added to higher education expenditure for all purposes. Universities, far from being deprived of funding by the Government, have had a significant increase in funding and, correspondingly, are increasing the opportunities available to students in higher education.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to give the House an idea of the impact of the introduction of student loans on applications for student places this year?
    Mr. Howarth: I am extremely encouraged, as is the House, I hope, that 14,500 applications have already been made to the scheme. In response to the first point of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), I believe that that is an encouraging start to the scheme, especially considering that universities and polytechnics returned for the new academic year only in the past fortnight.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: May I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities? I should point out, however, that the 14,500 applications that he has just mentioned represent less than 2·5 per cent. of the Government's target of take-up. Is not that an abject failure? Does he believe that the student loans scheme offers the means by which students can pay supplementary fees for courses?
    Mr. Howarth: Supplementary fees are not under discussion. The student loans scheme is designed to support student maintenance. The hon. Gentleman should not ignore the central fact that our new system of student support means more money for students. The uprated grant and the new loan represent an increase of 25 per cent. on last year's grant. There is no question but that it is welcome to students and all the indications are that this autumn enrolments have again risen substantially.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that although there has been an increase in university funding, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals believes that the money spent on advertising the loans scheme could have been better spent on better direct grants to students and on funding colleges?
    Mr. Howarth: It is absolutely right that the scheme should have been publicised to students—the higher
    180
    education institutions asked the Student Loans Company to undertake a publicity campaign. It must be right that students should be helped to be aware of the new entitlement to a loan, and students are finding it attractive. The higher education institutions have been thoroughly briefed on the procedures and students have been made aware of the opportunity available to them. We have already witnessed an encouraging number of applications for loans in the first fortnight of the new academic year and all the signs are that the scheme will be a great success.
    Mr. Burt: Is not it true that Opposition Members and representatives of the National Union of Students spent a lot of time during the passage of the student loans Bill trying to frighten students away from applying to higher education institutions in order to make out their case that student loans would deter such applications? Will my hon. Friend confirm that applications for university and other higher education institutions this year verify the continual upward trend of students going into higher education? Does he agree that the student loans Bill made no difference at all?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there has been a politically motivated campaign to discredit a scheme which is intended to work for the benefit of students. The only achievement of the NUS in its campaign against student loans was to cause a large traffic jam on one occasion in London. It has had to accept that students are welcoming this new opportunity and I was pleased to note that, recently, it advocated that its members should take advantage of the scheme.

    Rural Schools
    Mr. Pike: To ask the secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the effect local management of schools is having on small schools in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): We have said that we shall monitor the effect of local management of schools carefully. LMS was introduced for the benefit of all schools. We expect small rural schools to share in those benefits.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that small rural schools have particular problems arising from LMS? Will he see that local education authorities are able to continue to give the support necessary to ensure a balanced and fair education in those schools, or do the Government intend to put a nail in the coffin of small rural schools?
    Mr. Fallon: There is ample scope for protecting small schools through the formula. Local education authorities may take account of the higher unit costs of delivering the curriculum in small schools and the salary costs in schools with fewer than 10 teachers. Lancashire does both.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has just said about small rural schools and for the written answers that he has given me in the past two days about the way in which LMS will apply to such matters as school meals and the recruitment of rising-fives. Will he confirm that if parents at a school agree to support, and are prepared to pay the cost-effective price for, a proper school meals system, LMS will help that process?
    Mr. Fallon: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is much scope for further delegation of the current costs of supporting schools and of a number of services.
    Sir Cyril Smith: Does the Minister agree that local management of schools would be better performed if the management were thoroughly representative of all shades of opinion in the community? Is he aware, for example, that in my authority, every secondary school governor is a Labour councillor and that not one Conservative or Liberal Democrat councillor has been elected to the board of a secondary school in the whole constituency? Do the Government have any plans to ensure that in future, local management is more representative of the whole community?
    Mr. Fallon: We have no further plans, although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. We have already ensured that a larger number of governors are parent governors and that there is a representative on the governing body from the business community.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to his new post after two years' enforced silence in the Whips Office. Does he draw any conclusions from the fact that Labour authorities have kept back more of schools' budgets from the schools than have Conservative authorities? Does he agree that it is part of Labour's continuing negative and destructive attitude to education? Labour is against any form of reform, be it city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools, assisted places or the local management of schools.
    Mr. Fallon: Only about 60 per cent. of the education work force is teaching. There are innumerable advisers and bureaucrats—an army of suede shoes—and, for example, Iancashire holds back about 23 per cent. of its schools budget, about £78 million, or £110,000 per average Lancashire school.

    Scottish Education
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the number of Scottish students entering Scottish universities for 1990–91.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Reliable figures for admissions to universities this autumn are not yet available. The number of Scottish-domiciled first year students entering Scottish universities last year was more than 5 per cent. higher than in 1988.
    Mr. Douglas: May I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, before putting my supplementary question, to say how sad hon. Members in all parts of the House must have been to hear of the death of Norman Buchan, the hon. Member for Paisley, South? He had enormous interest in the topic of education hut, moreover, enormous interest in freedom of thought and expression. No matter how much one might disagree with Norman, one could always be absolutely sure that he would defend one's right to make one's point here, as much as he would want to have his point of view expressed. It is with great sadness that I rise to put this supplementary question, although he would be among the first to recognise that democracy in this form in the House must go on.
    182
    May I ask the Minister to say what stresses and strains are being put on Scottish students at university, in particular through the loss of certain benefits and through the harassment that they are experiencing as a result of the threat of arresting their tuition fees to pay the poll tax?
    Mr. Howarth: The House will have heard with great respect and sympathy the tribute of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) for his friend the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), and we all share those sentiments.
    With respect to the matter that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West raised in his supplementary question, he should recognise that more resources are now available to support students. We calculate that the average claim for benefit made by students would have been £327 in the current year. As the value of the loan outside London is £420 and there are, in addition, access funds, it is clear that most students are better off. The access funds are there to assist any students who may be found to be in genuine financial difficulty. As to what the hon. Gentleman referred to as harassment, I hope that he will accept that students have a responsibility to meet their community charge. Equally, local authorities have a responsibility to take any steps available to them to recover arrears. Arrestment of payment due to, or on behalf of, individuals is one such step. The exercise of the powers of local authorities and any challenge to them is a matter for the courts.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: May I associate myself with the tribute to the late Norman Buchan, who was a constituency neighbour?
    Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that a higher proportion of school leavers in Scotland enter higher education than in England? Is not it also the case in Scotland that all school leavers who are qualified and wish to do so receive places in higher education, either in Scottish universities or in the central institutions such as colleges of technology, which have expanded a great deal under the Government?
    Mr. Howarth: The quality of Scottish education has always been much respected south of the border, both at school and university level. It is noteworthy that rather more than a quarter of students in Scottish universities come from south of the border, which is a measure of the respect given to and attractiveness of Scottish university courses.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the Under-Secretary understand that he stands condemned by his own words for his inability to understand the particular problems facing students? Does he really say to the House that any steps to recoup the poll tax are acceptable? In Scotland, tuition fees are being pursued by regional councillors so that students will have their poll tax deducted. Is that acceptable at a time when students are being denied access to social security benefits, when the grant system has been undercut and when there have been rising costs in accommodation, whether in the private or public sector? What will the Minister do to ensure that our students have a fair deal?
    Mr. Howarth: As I said just now, the exercise of their powers by local education authorities in that regard is a matter for the courts. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the rights and wrongs of what they are

    183
    doing. The hon. Lady also ignores the increase in resources available to the vast majority of students and the fact that access funds worth £25 million have been made available to universities and colleges so that they can use them to ensure that students are not in need. Beyond that, I trust that the hon. Lady is not implying that it would be in any way right for students to refuse to pay their community charge.

    Schools-Industry Links
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent initiatives have been taken by his Department to develop closer links between schools and industry; and what resources have been committed for 1990–91 to help foster such links.
    Mr. Fallon: The Department collaborates closely with other Government Departments in a range of activities including, in particular, an initiative to stimulate and support local education-business partnerships. We are also co-funding the new Foundation for Education Business Partnerships. This year, we expect to spend some £250,000 in direct grants to school-industry links; that is in addition to the considerable resources devoted to that purpose by local education authorities.
    Mr. Knapman: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his consistent support for closer relationships between industrialists and educationists, because it is important that local education and training is directly tailored to the needs of the local community? What progress is being made by the education-business partnerships initiative recently announced by the Department of Education and Science?
    Mr. Fallon: The partnerships initiative is making good progress. Already, about 90 per cent. of secondary schools have links with industry, as have more than half of all primary schools, but there is still more to be done.
    Mr. Hardy: Such initiatives are clearly desirable, but would the Minister care to tell us how we can further pursue them in my constituency, since, if the level of present central support and rate capping persists next year, we seem bound to lose up to six teachers in every secondary school? Does he realise that teachers who would be involved in the initiative cannot be sure that they will retain their employment and thus take part in the initiative that the Government are eager to sponsor and applaud but quite unwilling to fund?
    Mr. Fallon: The Department provides a considerable amount of money to help fund the initiatives and many heads, governors and teachers are co-operating closely with their local industries.
    Sir John Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties is the apparent reluctance of some of our well-known industrial leaders to speak on this subject on radio, television or directly to schools and to point out the satisfaction, scope and challenge of a career in industry?
    Mr. Fallon: I agree with my hon. Friend. The object of school-industry links is to improve young people's readiness to cope with the opportunities, responsibilities and experience of working life, and to give them proper understanding of the enterprise culture and the importance of wealth creation.

    Graduates
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from Sir David Smith FRS, principal of Edinburgh university, on the subject of graduates using degrees for public service rather than making money for themselves.
    Mr. Eggar: None, Sir, although the hon. Gentleman has kindly sent me a copy of Sir David's speech.
    Mr. Dalyell: Whose fault is it that the world-ranking university of Edinburgh yesterday had to freeze staff appointments?
    Mr. Eggar: Responsibility for financial matters rests with the university. The Universities Funding Council is available to provide advice and help to the university, if it is asked to do so. In his speech, which the hon. Gentleman sent to me, Sir David pointed out that Scotland benefited from the system of GB-wide higher education funding to the tune of some £30 million to £40 million, according to Sir David's calculations.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time that academics became more businesslike in the use of the substantial amounts of public money that they receive?
    Mr. Eggar: There is always a need for all higher education and other education institutions to think carefully about how they deploy their resources. Much progress has been made in the higher and further education sectors, but more remains to be done.
    Dr. Bray: In universities such as Edinburgh, with a distinguished record of scientific research, the greatest discouragement falls upon those whose public service lies in such research. Is the Minister aware that the practical effect is that an increasing proportion of postgraduate students now come from abroad?
    Mr. Eggar: It is right that there is a great deal of interchange of postgraduates among universities throughout the world. That is an increasing trend in all developed countries, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes it. We need to continue to increase our scientific research. A great deal has been done and we have a fine record in scientific research in this country.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) that graduates who go into the private sector help to create the wealth to pay for those who go into the public sector?
    Mr. Eggar: Graduates make a major contribution to our country, whether they go into the private or the public sector. I readily accept my hon. Friend's point that if successful graduates did not go into the private sector, we should not create the wealth that enables us to fund universities.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Student Accommodation
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on student accommodation.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Higher education institutions are autonomous bodies, and it is for them to decide what accommodation to provide for their students. Approximately half of the students in higher education are accommodated by their institution or live at home with their parents.
    Mr. Griffiths: Why have the Government done nothing to tackle the serious problem of accommodation for students, and left students in Edinburgh and elsewhere sleeping on camp beds in common rooms and using staff accommodation in hospitals? Is not it time that they conducted an inquiry and took effective action to make adequate accommodation available?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman completely fails to understand that Britain provides far more accommodation for students than any other country. Some 37 per cent. of students in higher education in Britain are accommodated by their institutions. That is a much higher percentage than elsewhere. In France and Germany, it is about 10 per cent. and in other European Community countries it is as low as 3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that during the period of office of the previous Labour Government it was decided that accommodation matters were not part of the University Grants Committee remit and that student accommodation should not receive a public subsidy. We have provided £25 million in access funds to enable institutions to help students who are in need. I pay tribute to accommodation officers in all universities for their successful efforts to ensure that students are accommodated.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Emir of Kuwait. I also attended the arrival of the President of the Italian Republic, President Cossiga. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening, I shall be attending the state banquet given by Her Majesty the Queen in honour of President Cossiga.
    Mr. Barron: Will the Prime Minister make her next instruction to a Minister one to the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling him to end the tax dodgers charter that was created by her and is used by her super-rich friends at a cost to the country of some £1 billion a year?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends, successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. have reduced tax right across the income range, greatly to the benefit of all people. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remember that when we took over, the level of income tax was up to 83 per cent. on earnings. It is now down to 40 per cent. on both earnings and savings.
    Mr. Heseltine: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the reports in this morning's newspapers that the Saudi Defence Minister, Prince Sultan, is reported to have said that he sees no harm in an Arab country giving to its Arab sister a site, Iand or a position on the sea? Will my right hon. Friend confirm her understanding that that represents no change in the position of Saudi Arabia that Saddam Hussein must not gain from his aggression? Secondly, will she confirm her understanding that it is imperative that no signals are sent to Saddam Hussein that the world coalition against him is losing its nerve?
    The Prime Minister: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. We were in touch this morning and our ambassador in Saudi Arabia was given a formal assurance that Saudi policy had not changed, that Prince Sultan had been misquoted, that Saddam Hussein must totally withdraw from Kuwait, the legitimate Government must be restored and that compensation must be paid for the damage. Then we shall have to deal with problems such as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons so that this matter does not ever arise again.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister say today that she is completely against the freezing of child benefit?
    The Prime Minister: Our policy on child benefit was set out in the last manifesto. We have honoured it and shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Kinnock: Since the Prime Minister is now the Minister in charge of child benefit, will she say whether she agrees with one of her Ministers who said yesterday that she wanted an end to the freezing of child benefit and that her "personal view" was that
    "improving Child Benefit is preferable to bringing in a Tax Allowance as a Tax Allowance would not hit the right target."
    Is that the Prime Minister's personal view as well?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must await a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on his annual review of social security benefits. Our family policy has increased payments to the family. Indeed—[Interruption.] Whereas Labour cut—[Interruption.] They hate facts, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question; she must be given a chance to reply.
    The Prime Minister: Let me compare our family policy with that of our Labour predecessor. Labour cut family support by 7 per cent.; under the present Government it has increased by 27 per cent. more than inflation, and for families with young children our support is among the most generous in the EC. Has the right hon. Gentleman got it? His Government cut support for the family by 7 per cent.; we have increased it by 27 per cent. more than inflation.
    Mr. Kinnock: Surely, in her new role as the person in charge of child benefit, the Prime Minister does not expect us to wait for a statement from the Secretary of State. She could tell us herself exactly what is going on—or is it possible that she is starting to make a bit of a habit of dodging responsibility?
    The Prime Minister: I am very pleased that the Government whom I lead can boast that they have increased family support by 27 per cent. more than

    187
    inflation. Despite his meaningless words, the right hon. Gentleman's Government cut it by 7 per cent. Furthermore, by means of family credit we have helped poorer families in particular: they now receive three times as much over and above inflation as they used to receive under Labour.
    I do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman is forced to go for trivia: his record is so bad. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Riddick.rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Riddick—come on. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Riddick: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Come on, let us settle down.
    Mr. Riddick: Would my right hon. Friend care to join me in condemning the free riders—many of them Opposition Members—who are refusing to pay their community charge, and who expect everyone else to pay for the local services that they receive? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a case for turning the poll tax into exactly that—for taking the vote away from people who have not paid their community charge, and giving it back to them only when they have done so?
    The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If we continue at this rate, we shall make very slow progress.
    The Prime Minister: People who do not pay their community charge must be dealt with by the law. The House passes the law; the law courts uphold it. Those who pass the law in the House must be prepared to set an example by upholding it as well.
    Those who, by an act of will, do not pay their community charge are expecting to receive all the services themselves and to pass on the cost to their neighbours and constituents. That is most reprehensible.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister has said that she will not accept the imposition of a single European currency. Does that mean that she will never accept such a currency, whatever the conditions?
    The Prime Minister: A single European currency would mean a form of economic and monetary union under which the House gave up control of economic and monetary policy. Is the right hon. Gentleman's policy to come into the House only to denude it of its powers?
    Mr. Lord: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people believe that the A-level examinations are now the only true benchmark of academic achievement in our schools? Will she assure the House that there are no plans to alter or undermine those examinations?
    The Prime Minister: I know of no plans to undermine the most excellent A-level examinations. When our young people go to university, they provide the basis for one of the highest rates of achievement in degrees anywhere in the world.
    Mr. Pendry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pendry: When the Secretary of State for the Environment was in Tokyo last month, he promised to inject some £3 billion into the north-west economy should Manchester win the bid for the 1996 Olympic games. Is the Prime Minister aware that many organisations as diverse as chambers of trade, chambers of commerce, trade unions, investment agencies and local authorities insist that that sort of investment must be made in any case, if the infrastructure of the north-west is not to be in danger of collapse? Olympic games or not, will she back the north-west and give it the money that it deserves?
    The Prime Minister: The Manchester Olympics committee is an excellent organisation. The Duke of Westminster is in charge of it—[Laughter.]—and he has great faith in the infrastructure—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: One reason why Manchester's bid was so excellent is that the road and air services to Manchester are extremely good and there is excellent hotel accommodation within easy reach. The infrastructure is first class, and the committee has given me to understand that it is obtaining any necessary finance from the private sector. We firmly backed the bid, but we made it clear that no public sector money would be forthcoming.
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country is the first in the world to carry out commercial field trials for the new ozone-friendly refrigerant gas R134A? Will she ensure that the Government follow that private sector lead? Should not the Opposition realise that voluntary measures work best?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware that my hon. Friend has first-hand knowledge of that matter. I know that the new gases have been produced, and I understand that ICI is to set up the first commercial plant for the production of ozone-friendly refrigerant gases. That is excellent news for the country and for the environment.
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Orme: How can the Prime Minister reconcile the statement made by the Secretary of State for Employment on Sunday that the Government now have an incomes policy, especially in the public sector, of about 7 per cent., with the fact that chairmen, managing directors and chief executives are having pay rises of 30 per cent? Is not it outrageous that this country is being robbed of £5 billion a year through tax evasion? Are not the low-paid having to pay for the Government's disastrous policies?
    The Prime Minister: The Government do not have an incomes policy for the public sector of 7 per cent. or any other figure. Each settlement must be negotiated separately. My recollection is that a figure of 7 per cent.

    189
    was given in evidence as the then underlying inflationary pressure—I think that it related to nurses' pay—and it has no more relevance than that. We negotiate each pay claim in accordance with the need to retain and various other factors, including, of course, what the taxpayer can afford to pay.
    Mr. Gregory: Is my right hon. Friend happy with the slow progress on competitive tendering being made by socialist authorities such as York? Does she agree that either inefficiency or corruption is behind such slowness, and that the community charge in such authorities is unnecessarily high as a result?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Competitive tendering leads to more efficient services at lower cost and, therefore, to a lower community charge. It should be followed by all who are interested in keeping their community charge down and their efficiency up.
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does the Prime Minister recall that her last words at the world summit for children were:
    "We will go away from here knowing that it is what we do that will count"?
    190
    If she really believes that, will she today announce the restoration of the full value of child benefit, or does she regard that as trivia?
    The Prime Minister: The trivia was attempting to say that I was in charge of everything. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House wants to hear the answer.
    The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Lady refuse to turn their attention to the Government's excellent record on family support. The children's summit was more concerned with children overseas and the amount of help that they need and, as the hon. Lady knows, the Government's record on overseas aid to children in need is very good indeed. Let me give the hon. Lady some additional statistics. We have given extra help to poor families on income support or family credit, which is now worth £350 million a year, and the average family credit payment is now £30 a week—three times what it was under Labour, even taking inflation into account.

  NEW MEMBER
  3.32 pm
  The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
  David Frank Bellotti Esq., for Eastbourne.

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
3.33 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Foreign Secretary returned from a long visit to the middle east on Friday—I know that he was in Luxembourg yesterday. Does he intend to make a statement to the House? Some of us wonder whether the Government's position on occupations, be they in the west bank and Gaza or Kuwait, are an example of double standards.
Mr. Speaker: I have not been told that a statement is to be made today.

BILL PRESENTED
  MEDICAL Acr 1983 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Nigel Spearing, supported by Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Sam Galbraith, presented a Bill to amend section 36 of the Medical Act 1983 to enable the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council to exercise greater discretion in respect of conduct which they judge cannot be regarded as acceptable professional conduct; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 December and to be printed. [Bill 203.]

  Animals (Welfare in Transit)
  3.34 pm
  Mr. Terry Lewis: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the welfare of animals being exported alive from the United Kingdom; to require adequate periods of rest, sufficient food and water, and regular veterinary inspection during transit; and for connected purposes.
  The House will be aware that until now United Kingdom law has been sufficient to provide significantly for the welfare of farm animals transported alive. Right hon. and hon. Members will know also that EEC regulations will shortly take the place of our own legislation, which will have enormous consequences for exported animals—unless the Commission and Council of Ministers can be persuaded to adopt a more humane approach.
  That approach should be based on practices recommended by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. By 1 January 1993, frontier controls between member states of the Community will be lifted and it will become a free trade area. The directive on international transport will be replaced by new legislation covering the transportation in Europe of all animals, whether within national boundaries or between one member state and another.
  The new regulations impose requirements relating to the transport of all animals. Instead of customs checks, inspections of animals and of vehicles will take place at markets, staging, transfer and assembly points and slaughterhouses rather than at the point of departure. Random checks will also be made by the competent authorities on vehicles in transit.
  Under the previous European regulations, veterinary inspection of all animals was required prior to their transportation from one member state to another. Such inspections will in future be required only if the animals are to travel for a longer time than is specified before they must be rested, fed and watered. In the case of cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, that will be 24 hours.
  There is growing concern about the impact that 1992 and the abolition of tariff barriers between EEC member states will have on the live food animals export trade. There are fears that the creation of a free market will result in diminishing standards of welfare for all the animals caught up in that trade. The worry is that new European transport regulations will not only take the place of existing directives but supersede national legislation so that trade between member states will no longer be known as exporting or importing.
  The transportation of live sheep over long distances to slaughterhouses in France, Italy, Germany and other member states is of particular concern. As I said, many journeys can take more than 24 hours, and one can have little confidence that other member states will enforce transport legislation as strictly as does the United Kingdom.
  Under present United Kingdom law, animals that are being transported must be fed and watered every 12 hours unless the journey can completed within 15 hours. That legislation will disappear, so theoretically it will be possible for sheep to be bought at market in Scotland and transported to Dover and then over the channel into France—but one must doubt whether feeding and watering will take place when it should, because of the

  193
  French Government's known inability properly to enforce transport regulations. Who will ever forget the disgraceful images on our television screens this summer of French farmers abusing innocent animals in such a scandalous and uncivilised way? Despite the regulations, was that not a uniquely French form of protection, and will not it arise again in other forms after 1992?
  Foremost in the campaign to secure post-1992 standards compatible with those of the United Kingdom is the RSPCA. Through its European organisation, Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, it is attempting to ensure that the new regulation, which has yet to be finally agreed by the Council of Ministers, is as detailed and as strict as possible. It has also been trying to ensure that the provision is properly implemented and enforced throughout the Community.
  The campaign has been based on the policy that food animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the point of production. The recent problems caused by French farmers—to which I have already referred—and their willingness to perpetrate outrages on lorry loads of live sheep coming from the United Kingdom and other countries have shown, yet again, that it is impossible properly to protect the welfare of live animals being transported through the Community.
  Moreover, I would argue that there is absolutely no need to transport animals long distances to slaughterhouses. British farmers get the same price for their lamb whether the sheep are taken to a slaughterhouse in the United Kingdom and the carcases transported to France or to other markets or are transported live to a French slaughterhouse. One consequence of an increasing trade in live animals being transported to slaughterhouses on the continent would be the loss of business in abattoirs in the United Kingdom.
  It seems logical, therefore. that the distances that animals travel to slaughterhouses should be limited in the new European legislation and that we should follow the principle that United Kingdom animals should be slaughtered in United Kingdom slaughterhouses, French animals in French slaughterhouses, and so on. To that end, we should insist on the introduction of a provision in the new transport regulations that would limit to a maximum of eight hours the journey times of animals destined for slaughter. That is a practical and logical proposal, as it would allow farmers the choice of several suitable abattoirs as well as reducing the possibility that animals will suffer unnecessarily. The regulations will also apply to animals originating in France, Germany, Holland and so on, which will all have to limit the journey time to eight hours.
  The fact that the amendments have been passed by the European Parliament does not guarantee that they will be
  194
  accepted by the Commission or the Council of Ministers. The Commission has stated that it is prepared to accept the principle of limiting the journey time of animals destined for slaughter, but so far it has not suggested that the journey time should be anything other than the period after which feeding and watering are due, which is 24 hours.
  We in the House and our colleagues in Europe must therefore bring pressure to bear on Ministers of Agriculture to accept the eight-hour limit on the journey time of animals going to slaughter. Such a rule would go a long way towards dissuading people from re-establishing the trade to the continent in live horses for meat. Many people have been worried about that, because the United Kingdom is having to drop its existing legislation prohibiting trade in live horses and ponies.
  An eight-hour limit on the journey time of animals going to slaughter will not harm British farmers in any way. It will assist the United Kingdom slaughtering industry and, more important, it will be of great benefit to the animals. It seems illogical that we can export sheep to a slaughterhouse in the south of France, which will then make a profit on that transportation, only to export the majority of the carcases to Italy. Why cannot British sheep be slaughtered close to the point at which they were reared and why cannot the carcases then undertake the long journey from the United Kingdom to Italy? There is already a substantial trade in meat—in lamb, beef and pig carcases—from this country to other member states. At present, for every live sheep that is exported, seven lamb carcases travel the same route. It does not seem such a big step to make that eight carcases and no live sheep.
  I fully recognise the unfortunate balance of power problem in this matter between the United Kingdom Government and the European Community, but I believe that the passage of my Bill—I hope, with Ministers' blessing—will serve to demonstrate our determination to prevent the dilution of our more humane procedures.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Terry Lewis, M r. Don Dixon, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Peter Hardy, Sir David Steel, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Doug Hoyle.

  ANIMALS (WELFARE IN TRANSIT)
  Mr. Terry Lewis accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the welfare of animals being exported alive from the United Kingdom; to require adequate periods of rest, sufficient food and water, and regular veterinary inspection during transit; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October and to be printed. [Bill 204.]

Exchange Rate Mechanism
[Relevant document: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on 25th July 1990 on Economic and Monetary Union (House of Commons Paper No. 620)]
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Furthermore, as 39 right hon. and hon. Members have already submitted an application to speak, I propose to place a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm. I am afraid that that may mean that some Privy Councillors will be called within that 10-minute period. In fairness to all, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who are called will bear that limit broadly in mind.
3.45 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the Government on joining the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European Monetary System; notes the clear evidence that the Government's tight monetary and fiscal policies are reducing inflationary pressures in the economy; and believes Exchange Rate Mechanism membership will reinforce the Government's counter-inflationary strategy and help to strengthen the framework for a sustained improvement in economic performance.
Sterling's entry into the exchange rate mechanism is undoubtedly an important economic event and, moreover, an event which has long had the general support of the House, industry, commerce, the City and most, although inevitably not all, economic commentators.
This debate is a welcome opportunity to set out the rationale for entry; the potential advantages and constraints that it brings with it; and to consider also the effects of standing aloof from membership. I wish also to address the details of entry: the rate; the timing; the bands; and the necessary discipline of membership. And, of course, I shall touch also upon how entry affects the wider question of economic and monetary union, which is, I know, of great concern to the House.
It is now 12 years since the European monetary system and the exchange rate mechanism were established. At the outset, in 1978, the last Labour Government decided not to join the exchange rate mechanism. Since then the question whether and, if so, when we should join has been an important and contentious issue at the very centre of political and economic debate.
Two years ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out our commitment to join the mechanism and the conditions in which we would do so. On the free movement of capital, the single market, competition policy, and the liberalisation of financial services those important conditions have effectively been met for some time. It is possible to quibble about them only if excuses are being sought not to enter the ERM.
For some months the key remaining condition has been that domestic conditions—and our inflation performance in particular—should enable us to accept the exchange rate discipline. In economic terms, what mattered for that was not what happened in the months leading up to membership, nor was it the distortions in comparative inflation performance caused by different methods of measuring inflation. The important factor was that our inflation performance would enable us to converge and thus enable us to compete at the chosen exchange rate. It
196
was for that reason that we did not join the mechanism until we were absolutely sure that our tight monetary policies were having their intended effect and inflationary pressures were easing.
That is now the position. The evidence that this has now happened comes first from the monetary aggregates. The growth of narrow money, M0, has fallen in each of the last five months and is now back well within the target range I set for this year. M4 growth—broad money—has fallen steadily throughout 1990 and currently stands at its lowest point for nearly three and a half years. Bank lending has also decelerated sharply.
In the real economy the picture is the same. The indicators show that the economy is slowing, as indeed it must if inflation is to fall. That is clear in the high street, it is clear in the housing market, it is clear in the figures for car sales, and it is clear in activity generally. It is clear also in the gradual and welcome recovery in the savings ratio, which hit its low point of 4·9 per cent. in the third quarter of 1988 and has now risen again to 7·7 per cent.
It was those conditions—that amalgam of conditions which are now clear—which prompted me to cut interest rates by I per cent. at the same time as entry. Some external commentators claim that it was too early; others claim that it was too late. I am confident that events will justify the timing of that reduction in interest rates.
If I had cut interest rates before joining the exchange rate mechanism, I believe that it would have been viewed by the markets and by commentators as driving the exchange rate down before entry or, alternatively, as a signal that entry was to be delayed. Both of those were wrong and both would have weakened the exchange rate and thus our anti-inflationary position. It was for those reasons that I announced both those steps at the same time to ensure that the markets were fully aware of our position as we entered the mechanism and were fully aware of what the immediate prospect was for monetary policy.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On timing, in so far as it is quite clear from a series of parliamentary questions given to me by Ministers that people in the Bank of England, senior civil servants and some Ministers knew of the Chancellor's intention to make his statement at 4 o'clock on that Friday, and in so far as it is also known that Ministers and civil servants may well have met people in City institutions in the five days prior to that Friday, why cannot we now have a leak inquiry into how three separate markets in the City rose substantially in the 90 minutes before 4 o'clock, in conditions in which some people made millions of pounds in capital gains in a few minutes? Why cannot we have a leak inquiry into that? Let us have the truth.
Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman has any information whatsoever to suggest that there was advance knowledge of entry into the exchange rate mechanism—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do me the courtesy of listening. If he will give that evidence to me, I shall ensure that it is placed before the proper authorities and that the appropriate action is taken. Unsubstantiated allegations do not help. If the hon. Gentleman really believes that there was a leak, he should provide the information so that it can be properly examined and not make widespread scatter-gun allegations for which at the moment he has provided no evidence.

197
As we have seen repeatedly throughout the past 30 years or so, inflation is always one of the last measures in the economy to register that the growth of demand is falling away; and the rise in oil prices in the past few months has complicated the picture this time and, conceivably, may yet push up the headline total further. But I now have no doubt that we shall see inflation falling substantially throughout next year. It will do so particularly quickly from next April, and for two reasons: the underlying rate will improve and some of the unusual adverse factors that have artificially boosted the headline rate will drop out next year. Our inflation performance will improve therefore both in absolute terms, and, just as importantly for entry into the mechanism, relative to those of our European competitors. I shall make a detailed forecast in the autumn statement in due course.
There was, therefore, no reason for further delay in meeting our long-standing commitment to join the ERM. There is a further point of some importance. The persistent market rumours of entry and non-entry were damaging to stability and created uncertainty for industry. Week after week some chance remark, some speculation, some unsubstantiated rumour changed the value of sterling. I wished therefore to end the damaging uncertainty at the earliest possible moment, and I believe it was right to do so.
Mr. Harry Ewing rose——
Mr. Major: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way for a moment.
The House will remember that I answered questions on this matter for an hour a week ago. I shall be here at the Dispatch Box on Thursday and a vast number of hon. Members—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members would listen for a moment. A vast number of hon. Members wish to speak today. I shall give way to a small number, but perhaps not as generously as I sometimes do.
Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way. If the right hon. Gentleman is pleading that the reason that he took this country into the exchange rate mechanism was to get rid of all the rumours about whether we would or would not join, is not that the fault on the one hand of the Prime Minister, who constantly said that we would not join, and of the Chancellor himself on the other hand, who constantly said that we would join? Which of the two of them was the City and the country to believe?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman will do well tomorrow to read my speech in Hansard. He will then see that I made it perfectly clear that we entered because I thought that the conditions were right for our entry. I set that out plainly. I also set out a subsidiary matter that weighed on my mind—that the essential reason for entry was that the market conditions were met and the preconditions that we had set out were now right for sterling to enter the mechanism.
The belief that we should end the uncertainty and that we should enter early was also held by others. We got a great deal of advice. In June we were told:
"We do not urge the Government to wait until some unspecified rate of inflation or fulfilment of the Madrid conditions is attained. We urge them to commence discussions now."—[Official Report, 15 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 636.]
That was not an overenthusiastic Member of the European Parliament speaking—it was the Opposition Front Bench in the persona of the hon. Member for
198
Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). Nor was that an isolated comment. In August the hon. Gentleman was strongly supported in that view by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who said:
"I don't think there is ever going to be a perfect time for Britain to enter the ERM, and I think therefore that we should take the opportunity to do so at the earliest time."
That is what I have done and the reason why Opposition Members attack us is that they know that we have taken the right decision and they do not want to acknowledge it. They want to hide the fact that their party is split asunder on the issue. [Interruption.] Oh yes. Of course, Opposition Members want it both ways. If we had delayed they would have questioned our intention of going in. They would have said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was preventing us. Now that we have gone in they question our motives and claim that my right hon. Friend has been pushed. The simple truth is that my right hon. Friend first stated our commitment to entry during stage 1—over two years ago. She and I have been discussing possible dates for months. Four months after the start of stage 1 we found an appropriate date and honoured our promise. That is what Opposition Members cannot stomach. Their attitude is the typical triumph of expediency over conviction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Your attitude."] That is their attitude.
Now that we are in the ERM we need to be entirely clear about what it means. First, maintaining the exchange rate will be an important discipline. Tight monetary conditions will have to be sustained to put continued downward pressure on inflation. Joining the ERM in no way replaces the need for a tight monetary policy; it reinforces it. Indeed, making a success of the ERM means making a success of our own domestic monetary policy, not abandoning it. That is why joining the ERM is in no sense a soft option or a short-term one.
The euphoria with which some people greeted the news of our entry seemed to me mistaken; and the argument that entry has short-term advantages and a long-term cost is wholly misleading. In fact, it is a complete misunderstanding of the ERM. In the short term, membership will require tough action to ensure that we achieve low inflation thereafter. The rewards are long term with that very low rate of inflation. That does mean making no further reductions in interest rates until it is prudent to do so.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: My right hon. Friend has referred to the prospect of reductions in interest rates. Is not it probable that, if we were within the narrower band of fluctuations within the ERM, as certain other European countries are, we would enjoy lower rates of interest, as they currently do? As it is a matter of enormous interest to millions of mortgage payers and others in Britain, can my right hon. Friend say a little about the conditions that must be precedent upon our becoming part of the narrower bands of the ERM?
Mr. Major: I shall turn shortly to the question of the narrow band.
In case there was any misunderstanding a moment or so ago, I was saying clearly that membership means that we shall be in a position to make no further reductions in interest rates until it is prudent to do so. I hope that that point is fully taken on board. I shall turn to my hon. Friend's specific point in a second or so.

199
What we have undertaken is an express obligation to keep sterling within the bands around our central rate of DM2·95. We take that obligation seriously and we intend to meet it. We decided to enter the mechanism with wide 6 per cent. margins to give sterling an opportunity to settle down. It is a widely traded currency and it is necessary to give the markets some time to assess the implications for entry and the domestic response to it. But when conditions permit, and only then, we will move into the narrow 21 per cent. band to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) referred.
I want to add a word about fiscal policy. Throughout the 1980s my two predecessors have successfully used fiscal policy to buttress monetary policy. That is precisely what we shall continue to do in future. But what we shall not do is to resort to fiscal fine tuning, the effects of which tend to be unpredictable and, in many cases, unworkable. I have no intention of returning to the era of mini-Budgets, but we will keep to our policy of a balanced budget over the medium term.
Dr. Lewis Moonie rose——
Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a little more progress in the interests of several other hon. Members who wish to speak.
It is clear that membership of the ERM will impose an extra discipline on the Government's conduct of economic policy. But, equally, membership of the mechanism requires businesses and industry to take tough decisions of their own. Companies must understand the need to contain their costs—principally, but not, of course, exclusively, their wage costs. For them, joining the ERM means that devaluing our currency to bail out uncompetitive firms is no longer an option. It was never an attractive one and now it has gone. It is ruled out by our commitment to maintain a broadly stable exchange rate. If the costs of British companies rise, inevitably orders will be lost, profits will be squeezed, jobs will be shed, and companies will put their futures at risk. That has always been true, but ERM membership will make it even more apparent, for the devaluation option is no longer there.
For business, staying competitive means relating wage rises to what is realistic and justifiable. That means what can be afforded by the individual company facing tight competition in the international market with no help from a falling exchange rate.
Sir Anthony Grant: On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the necessary exhortations to pay restraint would be very much helped if senior leading industrialists who are on performance-related pay related their pay to not only the profits but the losses that they sometimes sustain?
Mr. Major: I share that view strongly. Leadership in this matter must come from the top, and I hope that it will do so.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that the exchange rate mechanism is another name for a Common Market incomes policy? Why should people who work for a living, the real wealth creators, have a wages or incomes policy stuffed down their throats by the Government when the bosses got increases of 28 per cent. the year before last and 33 per cent. last year? In the
200
past 10 years the wealthiest 1 per cent. in Britain have received cumulatively £26·2 billion in tax cuts; now they are calling upon the workers to bail out this Government, but they have no intention of doing so. Everyone who is fighting to get a living wage needs the support of Opposition Members to sustain that living wage.
Mr. Major: Well, so much for unity on the Opposition Benches about joining the ERM.
On the substantive point that the hon. Gentleman makes, he will be aware that I have said before—I reiterated my remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant)—that I share his view that the sacrifices that may need to be made on wages must apply to those at the top of industry as well as those elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should be aware, however, of the consequences of taking his theory a stage further. The consequences for people not obeying that necessary discipline will be lost jobs. I cannot compel people to negotiate sensibly, but I have an obligation to make it absolutely clear to people what the effect of not negotiating sensibly will be. That I am seeking to do, and that I am prepared to do; and I share the hon. Gentleman's view that that applies to all people in industry and commerce and not just to those on the shop floor. What does that mean? It means negotiating what can be afforded by the individual company facing the international competition in the market. In essence, it is that which will determine our performance.
There can be no more negotiating around the benchmark of the retail prices index as though that represented the minimum increase it was reasonable to expect. I know that that kind of inflationary psychology is deeply embedded in the consciousness of British industry. I believe that, over the years, it has damaged us greatly, and, if it continues, it will cost us jobs in the future. I do not for a second underestimate the cultural change that that will mean for many wage negotiators, but the sooner they make the change the better. That psychology needs to be shaken out of the system, for the Government cannot keep companies competitive—they can only warn them of the dangers that they face. Their fate is in their hands—the hands of those on each side of the negotiating table who will determine the future of their companies and their work forces in the next few years.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am grateful to the Chancellor for telling the House that the Government cannot bail out companies that persist in using the RPI as a benchmark for wage increases. If the Opposition accept that, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he should not allow his Ministers to use the RPI as a benchmark for price increases in former nationalised industries now in private ownership? The electricity industry has not yet been privatised, but its prices are set to rise every year by an RPI-related formula. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to instruct the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Trade and Industry to give up that practice, which is applied to British Telecom, water and gas charges?
Mr. Major: Some of those increases are less than the retail prices index and many of the others are far more specifically related to investment performance than to anything else.
Those are the constraints and restraints which management and work forces will need to accept if we are

201
to make a success of membership of the exchange rate mechanism. I know that they are not easy, but I believe that they are worth while because they will help us to achieve lower inflation by reinforcing existing policies. I am delighted that, fully understanding those points, the CBI has given such a warm welcome to our decision to enter the ERM.
In recent years, the average inflation performance of the countries participating in the ERM has been significantly better than that of all those outside the mechanism. Between 1979 and July 1990, inflation in countries within the mechanism fell by nearly two thirds; in European countries outside the ERM, by one sixth; and in OECD countries outside the mechanism, by two fifths.
As inflation in member countries has come down, the prospects for steady, sustainable economic growth have improved, and that is the prize to be achieved. The growth rates in Germany, France, Italy and a number of smaller mechanism countries have increased in the last few years and the prospects for growth continuing at favourable rates in the future appear good. I believe strongly that that is a goal worth pursuing by us as well.
Mr. Jeff Rooker rose——
Mr. Major: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have given way on a number of occasions, and I am conscious of the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate.
Moreover, maintaining a broadly stable exchange rate will assist British companies to plan ahead and to invest with greater certainty about the future. Since the mechanism has been in operation, there have been a few changes of parities, but there has been no substantive realignment since the beginning of 1987.
That stability will enable firms to develop their business strategies in Europe and be well placed for the opportunities of the single market. They will no longer face the problems of exchange rate movements disrupting their plans by imposing on them unexpected cost increases or pricing their goods out of the European market. It will mean, in my judgment, that Britain will prove still more attractive to inward investors. We already attract more direct investment from abroad than any other Community country. Membership of the ERM can only add to that.
During my statement last week, a number of hon. Members expressed concern at the exchange rate at which we had entered. For some of them the argument was a surrogate for outright opposition to entry at any exchange rate. But others are concerned lest the rate we have chosen is too high. That reflects a longstanding argument over whether devaluation is required for economic success. It is a legitimate argument which has a long political pedigree, but I believe that it is wholly wrong.
I believe that our central rate can be sustained, and I will explain why. Some hon. Members fear that the exchange rate will damage exports and encourage imports. But experience in recent years suggests that other factors are more important. The volume of our exports, excluding oil and erratic items, is up 8 per cent. on last year, and our share of world trade in manufactures increased in 1989 and is likely to rise again this year. Japan and Germany, with the firmest exchange rates over the last decade, also have the best current account performance.
The rate that we have chosen is also sterling's recent market rate and the average real exchange rate over recent
202
years after making adjustment for differential inflation performance. Other subsidiary information suggests that we have not put sterling at a competitive disadvantage. Independent analyses suggests that DM2·95 is sustainable. Indeed, a report by CBI economists only recently advocated entry into the mechanism at around the bands that we have chosen. Some comments that I have read have focused on the dollar. I would only make the point that our membership of the ERM does not in any way determine the sterling dollar exchange rate.
Mr. Peter Shore: The inflation-adjusted real exchange rate of DM2·95, or the right hon. Gentleman's choice of that rate, is 20 per cent. higher—that is, an appreciation of sterling against the mark—than it was in the first half of 1987, which was the last time we were in current account balance with the rest of the world. We are now disastrously in deficit. We are going in at an exchange rate 20 per cent. higher against the mark than it was when we were last in balance. What does the right hon. Gentleman say about that?
Mr. Major: We are in deficit because of the growth of demand, which is self-evident from the change in our position during the past year as sterling has appreciated and the trade gap has begun closing. Therefore, there is no reason why British companies should not compete successfully in Europe at present exchange rates, and, in the medium term, with lower inflation, they will compete even more successfully.
Although entry to the mechanism is part of our commitment to stage I of economic monetary union and the single market, it in no sense commits us to the Delors approach for stages 2 or 3. I assure the House that there has been no shift, no weakening in our opposition to the imposition of a single currency and a single monetary authority. We remain opposed to that, and I believe that our opposition has the overwhelming support of the House. That does not mean that we shall play a wrecking role at the intergovernmental conference—the IGC. We have no intention of doing that. We shall continue to advocate our plans for the development of the hard ecu.
We believe that our proposals are practical, evolutionary and based on markets and choice. They offer a realistic solution that would enable the 12 to move forward together without risking damaging rifts in the Community. They leave open the possibility of the hard ecu evolving towards a parallel currency and then a single currency, but only if that were the wish of Governments and peoples. That is subject for ever to the check of the House of Commons.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The House will have made particular note of the right hon. Gentleman's use of the word "evolutionary". The matter that isolates Britain in Europe, divides the Conservative party and splits the Cabinet is whether his hard ecu is to be regarded as the ultimate, final position or is a transition to a future European single currency. If in due course, his hard ecu proposals were to be used as a transition mechanism to a single European currency, would the Chancellor oppose that?
Mr. Major: If the right hon. Gentleman reads what I have just said, he will have his answer.

203
Our proposals are those that I have set out on a number of occasions and are subject to the check of the House of Commons at future stages.
Mr. Julian Amery: While I fully understand the Chancellor's reluctance to have anything to do with the date of 1994 proposed by the German Chancellor, cannot he say that if everyone were prepared to go ahead with the hard ecu in 1994 we should be happy to go along with them?
Mr. Major: We must wait and see how the IGC develops. But the only way in which this country could proceed would be on the basis of the hard ecu, for in my judgment there is no will in the House or country to surrender the use of sterling as our currency.
During the past half an hour or so, I have set out in some detail what I believe will be the effect of membership of the exchange rate mechanism and our policies. I hope that in the next few minutes the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) will set out his views with equal clarity. Judged by what he has said, there is more agreement between us than he may imagine. He shares my view that entry is not an alternative to the economic realities—he has said so—can work to the advantage of the British people—he has said so—and can help in securing stability—he has said so, and I agree with him about that.
I hope, therefore, that as I have done, the right hon. Gentleman will set out his party's policy precisely—on rates, bands, timing, and fiscal policy. He committed himself to entry some years ago, so he has had ample time to consider the implications. If he does not do so, the suspicion will arise that Labour's commitment to enter the mechanism has been nothing more than a device—a clever device but a device none the less—which was intended to hide the fact that there is no real determination to tackle inflation at the heart of the Labour party's policies.
The conditions that they devised for entry into the mechanism are frankly incredible. They involve fundamentally subverting the whole purpose and structure of the EMS. The main reason why many people on all sides of the political spectrum have come to appreciate the benefits of the mechanism is that it provides a buttress and an anchor against inflation. That is precisely the feature of the mechanism which the Labour party planned to ditch.
That could not have been clearer from the remarks made by the Opposition in the House last week. Time and again they made it plain that their inclination would always be to take the easy option and to go for devaluation. When the right hon. Gentleman replies, will he tell the House: would he devalue or would he fight inflation? He cannot do both, and if he is to be credible he must tell us which he would do.
I noted with interest that the Opposition's amendment commends credit controls similar to those in other exchange rate mechanism countries. I wonder which countries he has in mind, for France had credit controls, but abandoned them at the end of 1987, Italy had bank loan ceilings, which were last used in 1988, the Netherlands had an informal corset—it lapsed some months ago. Germany has never used credit controls proper, although it uses a reserve asset ratio, as we use Treasury bills. In Europe, only Spain, Greece and Portugal have credit
204
controls. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether he equates our economy to theirs, and what sort of credit controls he plans to introduce. Under a Labour Government no doubt that is the sort of economy that we might move to.
The truth is that membership of the exchange rate mechanism involves maintaining an agreed range for the exchange rate and it requires tight monetary discipline to counter inflation. In short, it involves all the things that the Labour party has set its mind against.
For us, the ERM stands for stability—for effective, reliable management; it stands for low inflation—for an end to ruining money. For the Opposition it means credit controls—and excessive restrictions on mortgages. It stands for all its old policies of expropriation, renationalisation and meddling. I commend our policy to the House.
4.23 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"while recognising the potential opportunities for economic stability afforded by the inclusion of sterling in the Exchange Rate Mechanism, notes the failure of the Government to achieve the reduction in inflation repeatedly stipulated by the Prime Minister to be the essential condition to be satisfied before entry; considers that political expediency rather than economic considerations prompted the Government's decision to participate in the Mechanism from 8th October; regards the Government's continuing refusal to use credit controls similar to those employed in other Exchange Rate Mechanism countries as imprudent; deplores the fact that the task of achieving economic success within the Single Market and the Exchange Rate Mechanism has been made immensely more difficult by Government policies which have resulted in the United Kingdom experiencing a large and persistent current account deficit, 10·9 per cent. inflation, rising unemployment and losses in domestic and world manufacturing market share; again urges Her Majesty's Government to adopt policies that are essential to the achievement of a productive and competitive economy, particularly those required for improvements in the quality of and opportunities for education and training, for the development of a modern economic infrastructure, including an adequate transport system, for the promotion of sustained investment in civilian research and development and for the instituting of a vigorous regional policy; and concludes that if such policies, long advocated by Her Majesty's Opposition and long resisted by Her Majesty's Government, are not adopted, producers in Britain will continue to work at considerable disadvantage by comparison with those in other Exchange Rate Mechanism member countries and the nation will continue to lag behind the standards of economic success and social progress achieved in other European Community countries.'.
May I begin by saying how grateful we are to the Government for providing the time for this debate on their decision to take sterling into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system on 8 October.
As the Chancellor said, that was a decision of immense importance; it will have effects on every person, family and business in Britain; it will have significant influence on shaping all future economic policy and very obviously, it can have major implications for the constitutional future of our country and of the European Community. There can be no one in the House or outside who does not regard the decision to enter the exchange rate mechanism as being truly worthy of the adjective "momentous", and since that is self-evidently true, it is all the more difficult for us and the British people to understand the refusal by the Head of the Government who made that decision to participate in

205
the debate. [Interruption.] Let the Prime Minister speak for herself. It appears that the Prime Minister has chosen this significant occasion, of all occasions, to become untypically reticent, to embrace a previously undisclosed shyness, to become—how shall I put it—a sort of crypto-Trappist.
Today and on previous occasions since entry to the ERM, the Chancellor has made a characteristically suave presentation of the circumstances in which the decision to put the pound into the ERM took place. We heard a repetition today of the way in which he put it at the Mansion house last Thursday. There is nothing wrong with that at all. It is one way of demonstrating total consistency, but it is causing some problems on the Government Front Bench.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman should take a look at his lot.
Mr. Kinnock: I look at my lot with great pleasure.
In the Mansion house on Thursday the Chancellor said that inflation was definitely coming down. He said:
"There was therefore no further reason for delay in entering the mechanism. And it was, of course, those very same conditions that indicated that a reduction in interest rates was now appropriate. I decided, therefore, to announce the two moves at once."
It was a smooth and soothing explanation—and absolutely unconvincing to everybody concerned. Hardly anyone believed the Chancellor. In the markets and in the newspapers the general and justifiable feeling has been that his action was far more political than economic. Mr. Robin Marshall, chief economist at Chase Manhattan, said:
"Major comes out of this looking like Mrs Thatcher's poodle."
Mr. Peter Spencer, chief economist at Shearson Lehman, said:
"The base rate cut was clearly dictated by No. 10".
I can see from the friends that they have in the City that Conservative Members are hearing exactly the same thing. Those economists were only two of many people in similar positions who put the view that agreement to ERM entry was nothing more or less than the price paid by the Prime Minister for the 1 per cent. cut in interest rates that she needed to take to the Tory party conference. Never has so much been done that affects so many to please so few. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Kinnock: Of course, those accusations of political rather than economic motivations are serious and they could have serious consequences. They call into question the credibility of the Government's commitment to the ERM. In spite of that seriousness, the witness whose testimony is essential simply refuses to be called. At the Dispatch Box where, on this momentous issue, the Prime Minister should speak we have merely a question mark. The reason for the Prime Minister's unwillingness to speak is quite obvious. The right hon. Lady has been saying since 1985 that we will go into the ERM only "when the time is ripe" and she could hardly say in this debate, "Inflation is 10·9 per cent., we have a huge balance of payments deficit, the economic consequences of the Gulf crisis are unknown, output and investment are down, so the time is not ripe. In fact, it's pretty rotten—but we have entered the ERM in any case, regardless of everything that I have ever said before."
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman himself think that the time was pretty rotten? Or have his conditions been satisfied? Can he conceive that his condition that the ERM should be accompanied by a Europewide reflation will ever be satisfied?
Mr. Kinnock: Our case was never made in the way in which the hon. Gentleman professes that it was made. Our argument has been, and remains, that when, from time to time, Europe is faced with the threat of Eurosclerosis—the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the term—the case for joint growth strategies exists and is widely accepted. [Interruption.] I realise that Conservative Members are very reluctant to allow any answer to be given to a Liberal Democrat on this particular day: there is a certain Eastbourne sensitivity about. None the less, I shall reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall make very slow progress at this rate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was heard in relative silence; I ask for the same treatment for the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Kinnock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A different order of decency and discipline applies on this side of the House.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim rose——
Mr. Kinnock: I will respond to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) if he will first permit me to reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
It is true that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been making the case for entry into the exchange rate mechanism, because of its basic attractiveness, to which the Chancellor referred. It gives the British economy the necessary stability, allowing us—together with other policies—to secure an advance in productivity and competitiveness. That is still our case for entry: for that reason we welcomed Britain's entry on the date on which it took place, and will continue to argue that ERM membership is right.
That stability, however, is put in jeopardy if the Government's commitment and the sincerity of the Prime Minister are not even evidenced by the right hon. Lady's willingness to come to the Dispatch Box. I am sure that the Government will have noted the reactions to the circumstances in which Britain entered the ERM, and the excuses that they presented for their timing. The fact remains that our ERM membership is legitimate, valid and to be worked on to the advantage of our country.
Mr. Oppenheim rose——
Sir Peter Hordern rose——
Mr. Major rose——
Mr. Kinnock: I will give way to the Chancellor, by all means.
Mr. Major: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.
A moment ago, the right hon. Gentleman had something to say about the interest rate cut and the timing. May I remind him of what he said three days before we entered the ERM? First—at the Labour party conference—he said that the Government should cut the very high

207
interest rate and should be negotiating entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. That is precisely what we did. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not give us unalloyed credit for doing it at the right time and in the right way?
Mr. Kinnock: The Chancellor negotiated nothing, other than a little deal with the Prime Minister to swap a 1 per cent. interest rate reduction for ERM entry. That was the only bit of negotiation.
Mr. Major: If the right hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will correct the misconception in his mind. Uniquely—somewhat to the irritation of our European partners—I told them the terms of entry that we sought before I went to them. We obtained those terms of entry, absolutely and entirely. I think that that is quite a success.
Mr. Kinnock: I really do not think that obtaining DM2·95 to the pound in a 6 per cent. band required all that much negotiating skill.
The Chancellor asked me about a speech that I made. Let me tell him precisely what I said. I said not only that we wanted entry to the ERM, and would certainly have brought it about had we been in office, and not only that we wanted a reduction in interest rates, which we would also have introduced, but that we would have accompanied those moves with two other policies essential to the proper working of our economy in an intensely competitive European Community and trading world.
First, we should institute exactly the same form of credit controls as those still operated in comparable countries with great success, and which result in much lower interest rates. The Banque de France operated such a policy only last Wednesday, to ensure that France could retain its position within the ERM while lessening the burden of interest rates on the productive sector of its economy. Conservative Members know that that is precisely what happened. Secondly, and most important, we still want a commitment—and I shall again make the case for it this afternoon—to a proper, comprehensive, modern, supply-side policy, something which the Government have never introduced and will never introduce.
Mr. Oppenheim rose——
Mr. Kinnock: I must continue. I gave way to the Chancellor, who asked an interesting question which required a prolonged answer.
The Prime Minister's absence from the Dispatch Box is further explained by the fact that she came to the House in June 1989, from the European Community summit, and told us that she had made it clear that before ERM entry,
"We must first get our inflation down."
She told me that
"One condition"
of entry
"depends on us".
It was that
"we get inflation well down".
She was saying that repeatedly during all the following 15 months, right up to and including her visit to Switzerland where, on 20 September, she said:
"The Madrid conditions won't be changed and they include getting inflation near to the European average."
208
Nothing could be clearer, nothing could be more absolute, nothing could be more implacable than those words from the right hon. Lady—the prima donna of the Madrid conditions.
Against that background, the Prime Minister plainly felt that it was beneath her dignity to come to the House today to justify her abandonment of that paramount condition on inflation, while simultaneously standing on her head. That is why she will not speak.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose——
Mr. Kinnock: I must continue. If Conservative Members have any questions, please address them to the Prime Minister—although she never provides any answers.
The Prime Minister felt that she could not say that she knew that the whole Government—[Interruption.] Perhaps I could have some order, Mr. Speaker. She knew—[Interruption.] The people watching this exhibition will pay due regard to the continual interruptions by Conservative Members. They are not making genuine inquiries; they are trying to disrupt the business of the House. Everybody will understand that. The more that I pursue the question of the Prime Minister's motivation, the noisier they are likely to become.
The Prime Minister knew that the whole Government had been chanting that cardinal Madrid condition, but, because their policy of high interest rates was throttling the economy, interest rates had to be cut, even though the only way to do that, without sending the pound plummeting, was simultaneously to join the ERM and desert the Madrid conditions. It was not so much a case that the lady was for turning, as a case of the lady twisting in the wind—a wind of looming recession and greatly increasing political unpopularity.
Of course, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor tried to make the best of the mess. The Chancellor said that the prospects were good and that the market conditions and the market rate were right. He said that there was an ideal conjunction of events—precisely the right conjunction of events. I note that he has not repeated those phrases in the House today, but I am sure that he will not disown them.
The Prime Minister was similarly fulsome. She took out the portable pulpit that she has taken to using in Downing street and announced that it was suddenly possible after all to put sterling into the ERM because
"of the uncontestable signs that the economy is working in the way that we intended it to."
Unemployment is rising, bankruptcies this year are up by 35 per cent., industrial output is falling, inflation is still rising, the business community is warning that there is recession in several industries and recession threatens the whole economy, but the Prime Minister describes all that as
"uncontestable signs that the economy is working in the way that"
the Government
"intended it to".
Could there be any greater self-condemnation of the Government? Could there be any clearer admission of incompetence and failure over 11 years? The Government could not even clip 1 per cent. off the highest interest rates of all major industrialised countries without joining the ERM—10·9 per cent. inflation and all. What a mess.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On behalf of the Labour party and a future Labour Government, the right

209
hon. Gentleman has said that the ERM will help to bring stability. On behalf of the Labour party and future Labour Government, will he give us some idea about what he thinks the ERM will help to stabilise and roughly how he thinks that will be achieved?
Mr. Kinnock: The exchange rate. That is the whole purpose of the mechanism. If the hon. Gentleman does not have that basic piece of knowledge, I am not suprised that he takes the view that he does. I am sure that he has. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be impossible to call all those who wish to participate if the Leader of the Opposition is continually interrupted. I notice that the three hon. Members who have recently been rising all wish to speak later.
Mr. Kinnock: Inflation is vexatious when it is as high as it is and so largely the result of the Government's policies, but the Chancellor tells us that it is not the actual rate of inflation but the prospective rate of inflation that matters. When he went to the IMF meetings in Washington at the end of September he said
"What matters … is less the difference between headline figures which measure what has happened over the last 12 months than the prospective movements in price levels from now on."
Forecasts have always been important. Obviously they are essential to economic navigation. But now it seems that they have gained unprecedented significance. Not only do they matter more than the actual rate of inflation with which people have to live, but they are important enough to justify the most momentous of economic decisions, such as entry into the ERM.
But if the Government have such boundless confidence in forecast inflation rates, I am bound to wonder why sterling was not put into the ERM a year ago. After all, at that time in his Autumn Statement last November the Chancellor told us that the prospective rate of inflation for this quarter of 1990—the period that we are in now—was 5·75 per cent. He was just about 100 per cent. out in his forecast. He tried to correct that in the Budget in March, seven months ago, when he said that his 5·75 per cent. forecast for this quarter of 1990 had been revised upwards to 7·25 per cent. That was only 50 per cent. out on the actual rate of inflation that we are experiencing now.
That record hardly fills us with confidence about the Government's judgment, especially when the Treasury had to admit yesterday:
"Since forecasts of the RPI were first published in 1976 only one year has seen a larger error than the forecasts for 1988 and 1989."
That is not much of a crystal ball, especially as an important indicator on which to base a judgment such as the Government's abandonment of the Madrid conditions.
But at least one Government forecast will be right. The rate of inflation will come down. If any economy is squeezed hard enough for long enough, and this one certainly has been squeezed hard and for a long time, eventually prices will almost certainly follow demand in a downward direction. But the damage already done to the economy by the high interest rate squeeze, and the damage that will be done to the economy, has pushed Britain back, pushed costs and inflation up and weakened our
210
productive industries in the approach to the single market. What a fine preparation for the coming of the single market at the end of 1992.
Even if the crude recessionary slump contrived by the Government brings inflation down, it certainly will not keep inflation down. It cannot, as the Government have already proved. The Conservative party chairman's absence today is notable—it may be because he can count his supporters in the Cabinet on the fingers of one finger—so unfortunately I speak in his absence. A few weeks ago in September he said that the Government's interest rate strategy for bringing down inflation would work because they had done it "twice before".
But clearly, if the Government have used the strategy twice before and now have to use it a third time, it is not because it has worked; it is because it has failed. That must be the case. It will go on failing because, in the very act of being applied as an instrument against inflation, recession causes extra living costs, pushes up wage demands and imposes extra borrowing costs that bring bankruptcies, cancelled investment plans, instability and underperformance causing inflation to come back again, as it has.
We have had 11 years of repeated use of those policies alternating with pre-election credit sprees, but the Government have not yet learned the error of their ways. The only response that the Government have ever made to a mistake is to repeat it and then call that being resolute. Despite his many charms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is no exception to that rule.
The Chancellor told us last week, and again this afternoon—it was an important point in his speech—that the only real problem afflicting Britain is excess demand. That, he said, is the single evil that causes inflation and the massive trade deficit. He says it with such charming bravura that he would convince anyone who did not know better that he had never been in a Government who had repeatedly generated excess demand for electoral purposes. Unfortunately, about the supply side the Chancellor says next to nothing.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kinnock: No, I am sorry. I have given way several times.
I suppose that the Chancellor knows that if he did give real attention to the supply side he might have to do something more than undertake some City deregulation, some trade union legislation and give some tax handouts. If he really was interested in wanting Britain to succeed, he would do much more. If he really wanted to encourage enterprise and combat inflation, he would be doing what other ERM countries do and use more moderate interest rates in combination with credit controls instead of relying so heavily on high interest rates.
If the Chancellor and the Government really wanted to attack the rigidities, the bottlenecks, the restraints on the productive economy, they would have followed the example of Governments of other countries in the ERM. Those Governments have ensured proper investment in modern transport. This Government have not. Those Governments have invested more in civil research and development. This Government have not. Those Governments have wisely invested more in education and training. This Government have not.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: That is not true. Look at the OECD figures.
Mr. Kinnock: I am not so interested in the OECD comparisons. Why does not the hon. Gentleman go to a school or college in Britain and see the results of under-investment?
The whole country knows that the Government have failed to make the necessary investment. To see the results of the difference between both kinds of performance, it is only necessary to compare this country's oil-rich economy after 11 years of Tory Government and those of other ERM countries, whatever the political colour of their national or regional government, and none of which has any oil. The difference is that the Governments of those other countries have enabled a productive economy, whereas the Government of our country have disabled a productive economy.
Whatever our future may be in the European Community, that situation must change, so that our industries may have a fair chance under the exchange rate mechanism. Many tough, determined and enterprising people are saying still that they are not enjoying a fair chance by comparison with their competitors in other ERM countries. There is a great deal in what they say.
It is not just a matter of the ERM, because attitudes towards the supply side must change as pressures build up within the Community to go beyond the ERM and stage 1 of the goal to which the Chancellor says that he is committed, of economic and monetary union. The Chancellor said also that movement towards a single currency is "not inexorable", and he is absolutely right. That movement is the result of a deliberate decision by free countries. It is not a consequence of faith or of dictatorial imposition.
If the Chancellor had said that, with the economy in its present state, monetary union was not in any case acceptable, he would also be right. Given Britain's deficit, inflation rate, inadequate training and substandard transport systems, there is no possibility, without great change, that monetary union could be tolerated.
The question that is increasingly posing itself is not whether monetary union is desirable to us but whether it is the ambition of others, including the strongest economies of the Community—with or without the United Kingdom.
The plain fact is that monetary union is something to which those other member states aspire, and they are intent on achieving it—if not within the next five years, then not very long after that. That is a certain prospect. The consequence of all that is that our future will be more strongly influenced than ever not only by what we would prefer to do for ourselves but by what others prefer to do for themselves, and which they will do for themselves.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose——
Mr. Kinnock: Just a moment.
The European Community has not yet decided on the path to a common currency. There is much that we should and can do in this House and through government to shape the course of events. However, we are not helped much in that by the isolationism of the British Government—or at least that part of it that is controlled by the Prime Minister. Those parts of the Government that owe fealty to the deputy Prime Minister and to the
212
Foreign Secretary are different, but I say to both Governments that, however we might try to influence events, it is imperative to ensure that the British economy is more productive and competitive, less prone to trade deficits and more resistant to inflation than it is now.
The Government should be the ally of modern industry in a way that the present Government have never been, nor ever will be. The pre-conditions that I describe have merit at any time, but they are of extra importance now. Only by gaining those strengths can we achieve convergence with the higher performance standards of our neighbours and fellow members of the exchange rate mechanism. That effort of upward convergence represents a sensible strategy, and it is among the aims of the Labour party.
Only by improvements in productivity will we be able really to choose between co-existing with monetary union if we choose not to join and thriving economically within currency union if we do decide to join.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Would Labour take Britain into monetary union or would it not? Will the right hon. Gentleman show some leadership?
Mr. Kinnock: When it comes to leadership, I am rather less susceptible to challenge than the Prime Minister at this precise time, so the hon. Gentleman would do well to keep his own counsel.
Those are the facts of life that we must face. There is no refuge from them, in the blithe hope that our economy can make such a bound forward in competitive performance that Britain will suddenly be able to recapture great swathes of world markets and will thus push the European Community to the periphery of our interests as an important trading nation.
Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. Kinnock: No, I will not give way, because of time constraints.
Mr. Budgen rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) also has indicated that he wants to participate in the debate later. Perhaps he will get a chance to do so.
Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will acknowledge that there were a number of disorderly interruptions earlier, which took up time. I regret that, but I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman on a future occasion.
There is no serious third way out of the stark choices that face us in the form of the Chancellor's proposals for the so-called hard ecu. That is a clever illusionist's trick from the right hon. Gentleman, but it is a trick nevertheless. The Chancellor claims to be against what he calls the imposition of a single currency, so he advocates a multiple currency system. He says that such an arrangement will consist of a hard ecu as a common currency, with all existing currencies used alongside it. However, he knows that the hard ecu, being almost incapable of devaluation, would render just about every other existing currency as redundant as the farthing and about as attractive as bent washers.
The Chancellor might have bamboozled the Prime Minister with his hard ecu. He might even enjoy being patronised by others in the European Community.

213
Nevertheless, if the hard ecu is ever adopted, the single currency that the Prime Minister so abhors would arrive not in the long term, as the Chancellor promises, but very quickly.
Some members of the Government know that. Right hon. and hon. Members may have read in the Financial Times this morning a report quoting the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who remarked in relation to the hard ecu:
"I would argue personally that the next stage of having a single currency could actually happen more quickly going down this path."
I wonder whether the Prime Minister would say the same, or whether that is again a tale of two Governments.
As there is a strong and developing consensus in several other Community countries in favour of currency union, I repeat now what I have told many colleagues in the Community and in the Commission for some years. That community of democracies should never support the creation of a so-called independent central bank. It is no more appropriate for a democratic country or a group of democratic countries to allow monetary policy to be handed over to an independent, unaccountable bank than it would be for fiscal, public expenditure and taxation policies to be given over to such a bank.
If the Community seeks to achieve currency union between member states, then, whatever the implications for Britain, it will have to make arrangements for joint growth strategies, fiscal co-ordination and regional policies on an unprecedented scale. The regional policies would, by the very nature of currency union, require transfers between regions of the Community, just as transfers are made now between the German Lander, French departments and Italian regione, within their own national currency units. That is the dimension of the change that would need to occur if monetary union is to work to the advantage of the peoples of the Community. Even the most enthusiastic monetary unionist would recognise the truth of that.
Our country has been taken into the exchange rate mechanism by a Government who have been in power 11 years, and who found themselves cornered by the approach of two crucial European summits and boxed in by the expectation that the Government themselves have created that entry into the ERN would occur this autumn. They were a Government trapped by the approach of the Tory party conference, which needed pleasing, and by a looming recession, resulting largely from their own policies. They are a Government who were besieged, and who are besieged, by their own political and economic errors and failures. They are a Government who sought to use a 1 per cent. interest rate cut and ERM entry as a political escape.
They have failed in all of that. The interest rate cut is regarded with cynicism even by those people who yearn for relief from the crushing burdens of mortgage payments and business loans. The gush of City euphoria that greeted ERM entry went flat as quickly as the bubbles in the champagne that celebrated it. The Government's decision and the Government's timing are accurately seen as being determined by political expediency and concern for their own status and not by economic judgment made for the sake of the economy or the national welfare.
They are a Government who have been found out and, as soon as the British people get the chance, they will be a Government who have been put out.
5 pm
Mr. Nigel Lawson: At the beginning of his speech and on a number of other occasions, the Leader of the Opposition said that we were debating a momentous decision. I entirely agree with him. It is sad, therefore, that his speech could not live up to that momentous decision. When the House is asked to debate what, in the right hon. Gentleman's own words, is a momentous decision, all we get from him is second-rate political knockabout.
This is only the third occasion in the past year on which I have sought to intervene in a debate. The first occasion was when I made my resignation speech. As many hon. Members will recall, I devoted a considerable part of that speech—although not all of it—to arguing the case for British membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. Incidentally, I warned on that occasion that, although I was strongly in favour of entry, and although I believed it to be strongly in the interests of this country, it was certainly no soft option and no panacea. I mention that because others have subsequently seemed to be seeking to take a copyright on the phrase.
The second occasion during the past year on which you have been kind enough to call me, Mr. Speaker, was during the Budget debate. Perhaps with a certain monotony, I again devoted a significant part of my speech to arguing that we should join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system sooner rather than later. It is with particular pleasure, therefore, that on this, the third occasion, I can wholeheartedly and most warmly endorse the decision that the Government took to enter the exchange rate mechanism.
On the reasons for doing so and the advantages of doing so, I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his speech. He set out the advantages and reasons very clearly. I have to say, however, that those reasons and those advantages have been valid for years. They are not reasons and advantages that have suddenly appeared relatively recently. The great thing is, however, that the pound is now in the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS or, as some might put it, we are committed to shadowing the deutschmark at a rate not very far from DM3 to the pound—[Interruption.] In response to hon. Members' sedentary reaction, perhaps I may say a little about that previous occasion, when we were living in sin, as it were, with the ERM, within the overall framework of the Louvre agreement. That period lasted from March 1987 to March 1988—a period, incidentally, during which inflation fell from 4½ to 3½ per cent. The claim that that was the cause of our current inflation is very difficult to sustain. If that were so, it would be difficult to see why we are repeating the arrangement now, albeit in more formal and thus improved circumstances. I know that some people felt that interest rates were reduced too much during that period. That is one of the myths that has been put about. In fact, at the end of that period, interest rates were precisely 1 per cent. below their level at the beginning of that period. That reduction of 1 per cent. was a result of the response to the stock market crash of October 1987—a time, I may say, when, as Chancellor, I was being urged by Opposition Members to cut interest rates far more and to increase public expenditure as well.
While on the subject of public expenditure, let me say this. I hope and trust that there will be no slackening whatever in the policy of firm control of public

215
expenditure that the Government have been pursuing year in, year out. The abolition of the public sector borrowing requirement was a most important achievement and it is not something lightly to be thrown away. We have only to look at the United States to see what can happen when public borrowing gets out of hand. By-elections or no by-elections, the firm control of public expenditure remains as vital now as it has ever been.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred to the timing of the interest rate cut. In my judgment, he made a completely conclusive argument about why it would have been wholly wrong to have reduced interest rates in advance of the decision to join the ERM. For reasons best known to himself—one could guess at them—my right hon. Friend did not address the other possibility, of joining the ERM before reducing interest rates. I was interested to see the Governor of the Bank of England reported in the Financial Times as saying that he would have been happier had the interest rate cut followed entry into the ERM. I agree with him. This is not a small point because, sadly, the conjunction of the two has led to a degree of cynicism in the financial markets for which we shall have to pay a price. That price will be that the next reduction in interest rates will have to be deferred for longer than would otherwise have been the case.
Mr. Quentin Davies: My right hon. Friend will recall that the immediate impact on the markets of our entry into the mechanism pushed the parity of sterling up towards the top of the permissible band under the new system. Had we not reduced interest rates, might it have been impossible to hold sterling within the new bands?
Mr. Lawson: No. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well what happened to sterling shortly after that. There was an initial upward surge which never reached the top of the band. Had it been closer to the top of the band and interest rates had been brought down as a response to that, that would have created conviction in the market place; while what has happened, sadly, has not done that. That conviction will have to be earned. I am sure that it will be earned, but it will have to be earned.
I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was right initially to join with the wider margins. However, I hope that it will not be very long before we get to the narrower margins to which we are in any case committed under stage 1 of the so-called EMU. I hope that that will be a matter of months, and that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduces his next Budget he will be able to announce that we are moving to the narrower margins.
Perhaps more importantly, I believe that it was right to choose a rate of DM2·95. Many people, including Opposition Members, have said that that rate is far too high. However, that is the voice of the perpetual devaluationlists who always find any rate too high, who espouse policies which would lead to rising inflation, and who cannot accept the discipline which membership of the exchange rate mechanism must produce.
There is, of course, no such thing as "the right rate". However, there is a range of plausible rates. The economy must adjust to the rate that is chosen. If the chosen rate is
216
somewhat on the high side, although not too high, the economy will adjust to the discipline which is absolutely essential for getting inflation down.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the right hon. Gentleman's view of the rising monetary aggregates at a time when it might have been sensible to join?
Mr. Lawson: I do not know what particular time the hon. Gentleman is referring to. However, I will return to that point shortly.
A tough discipline is essential. Sadly, the inflexibility of the labour market in this country means that it is all too likely that the reduction in the rate of growth of unit labour costs, which is essential, will be achieved not, certainly initially, by a reduction in wage increases, but by more and more men being laid off. We will see unemployment rising. That is a fault of the rigidity of the labour market in this country and, in particular, because the trade union leaders are far more concerned about those who are in work than about those who are out of work.
Mr. Skinner: As the right hon. Gentleman is talking about wage cuts, when is he expected to take a wage cut in his various jobs? As it seems to be a good idea for the workers, and as he has three or four jobs, when is he going to take a wage cut which he believes everyone else should take?
Mr. Lawson: That is the kind of intervention I might have expected from the hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that I do just as much to earn my pay as he does to earn his.
The real tragedy is that we did not join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS at least five years ago. That was not for want of trying, as a number of my then Cabinet colleagues can testify.
In reply to the intervention from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), let me say that at that time the monetary aggregates were moving in the right direction, inflation was coming down and it was very close to the Community average. If we had joined then, we would not have seen the sharp fall in sterling that occurred in 1986 which then led to the subsequent rise in inflation.
Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. John Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way to me?
Mr. Lawson: I believe that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will be replying for the Opposition, so he will have his opportunity to speak then.
Mr. John Smith rose——
Mr. Lawson: There is another reason why it is a tragedy that we did not join five years ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why didn't we join then?"] Not only would it have been economically beneficial, but had we joined five years ago there would have been no danger of confusing the ERM and the EMS with EMU because at that time EMU did not exist; it had died with the Werner plan and the Delors proposals had not even been put on the table.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that there is a world of difference between EMS, which is an aspect of economic management, and EMU, which is essentially political.
Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I put to you the constitutional point that people outside this place, when listening to an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer who was the longest serving Chancellor, will wonder why he tells us what did not happen but will not tell us why it did not happen. People will be utterly bewildered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): That is neither a constitutional point nor a point of order.
Mr. Lawson: The ultimate objective of EMU is, as has been mentioned in the debate, a single currency managed by a single central bank. A single currency is inseparable from the idea of a single nation. A single currency means a federal Europe. The House should be aware that that is the case. Some hon. Members are aware of that and they welcome it, although many other hon. Members do not. I do not welcome it. It is important that that connection is recognised by everyone in this place and elsewhere in the country.
Some hon. Members may have been in Washington recently to hear Mr. Paul Volcker, who is a distinguished figure in the monetary field and who has no particular axe to grind in the European context. When he gave the Per Jacobsson lecture in September he was asked whether he could conceive of a number of countries having a single currency without there being a single Government. He said that perhaps that could exist for a very short time, but it would be totally unsustainable and within a fairly short time there would have to be a single Government. I believe that that is right.
But there is a danger of some of my hon. Friends getting a little too worked up about the issue, important though it is. Even if a date is agreed for stage 2, I foresee no possibility of a date being agreed for stage 3, which is the single currency. Indeed, it is possible that what is agreed by the other 11 on stage 2 will involve conditions, but there will be no date agreed, I am quite sure, for stage 3. As for stage 2, which is not a single currency, what stage 2 involves is not entirely clear. That is the vaguest part of the whole of the Delors report.
But one thing I believe is the essence of stage 2, or certainly could be interpreted as the essence of stage 2. It is something which I would thoroughly endorse and welcome, but it is quite clear that it would be anathema to the Leader of the Opposition and Members on the Opposition Benches who agree with his approach. Stage 2 would involve the national central banks becoming independent—independent national central banks cooperating closely together. That would be the essence of stage 2. That is something. which I would welcome. The House knows that I mentioned in my resignation speech how I had made this proposal at an earlier stage so far as the Bank of England was concerned.
Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lawson: To suggest that independent central banks are not compatible with democracy, as the Leader of the Opposition did, is absolute nonsense. It is to suggest that Germany is not a democracy, that the United States is not a democracy and that Switzerland is not a democracy. All those three countries have independent central banks. That is stage 2. That is something that should be acceptable to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
218
But stage 3, which is the single currency and for which no date will be set at all, is something that is so far down the road that, if it ever happens at all, we do not need to be concerned about it now. There is no need for divisions on this side of the House about that—no need whatever. The whole idea of a two-speed Europe cannot possibly arise unless there is this stage 3 development, which is many years further along the road.
It is dangerous when my party, the party of which I have the honour to be a member, begins to get so hung up on something which is really as remote as the idea of a single currency for the whole of Europe. Of course we will be asked whether we agree in principle. We say no. It is as simple as that. But that is not the immediate issue on the agenda. If that is to come about at all—and everyone in the Community knows that—it is a long, long way ahead, and we have to complete stage 1 first and then we have to have stage 2 of indeterminate length.
Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend is carrying on about his idea of independent central banks. Whereas those banks would be independent of the political process within their member states, surely they would have to be acting together, and they would be not independent of each other but operating as a co-ordinated European bank.
Mr. Lawson: No. My hon. Friend is mistaken. They would be acting together rather in the way in which the independent central banks acted together at the time of the classical gold standard, and they co-operated very closely in that context—independent national central banks working closely together. The European central bank would also have to be independent. There is no argument about that, except on the Opposition side of the House. The European central bank, if it came about, would indeed be part of the common currency, the single currency, and that is stage 3, but it is not the stage 2 situation about which I was talking a moment ago.
Finally, let me refer again to the position in the United Kingdom where, as a result of the tight monetary policy which I put in place and which my right hon. Friend has maintained, we are undoubtedly on track for lowering inflation, and very markedly lowering inflation. We are seeing now, of course, the downturn of the economic cycle. That should be of no surprise, particularly after such a long upturn. Very few propositions in economics can be advanced with total confidence, but one that can is that there always have been economic cycles and there always will be economic cycles.
What we are seeing now is the downturn of the economic cycle after a very long upturn. But I have no doubt whatever that the upturn will resume in due course, that the downturn this time will be very much less severe than it was last time, and that, when we resume the upturn, it will be on the basis of an underlying economy which, during the 1980s, has been transformed.
We have heard claptrap from the Leader of the Opposition about the supply side. Real supply side improvements do not occur under socialist strangulation and trade union domination. They occur as a result of the policies of freedom and deregulation which have been put in place by this Government. That is why there was a transformation of the underlying economy in this country during the 1980s, and every single leader of every single

219
important business knows that to be true and will readily admit it. That is the reality on which our confidence for the future is based, and it is soundly based.
5.25 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: When I heard the former Chancellor announce last night that he would retire from politics at the next general election, I had to admire his timing. However, the timing over which he had no control was when Britain joined the exchange rate mechanism. He made it clear today—when he lifted the covers—that five years ago he would have advocated, and presumably was advocating inside the Government, British membership, and in the whole of those five years he was unable to induce the Prime Minister to take that step.
The stage 2 which the right hon. Gentleman has described accurately today, a stage that naturally involves independent central banks in the member countries, is even more unwelcome to the Prime Minister than was entry to the exchange mechanism about which he talked earlier. The various views that the right hon. Gentleman correctly attributed to the Leader of the Opposition are shared in full measure by the Prime Minister, who, at the Dispatch Box, has said that an independent central bank contravenes the democratic and parliamentary traditions of this country. Yet the independent central bank is a mechanism which is proven to work in controlling inflation and which, as the right hon. Gentleman says, operates in democracies such as Germany and the United States of America. That is a view with which I agree. But it will take as many years, and probably more, to persuade this Prime Minister of the merits of that view as it has taken to persuade her of the merits of joining the exchange rate mechanism. Persuading her, of course, involved the great watering down of conditions.
It had to be entertaining to watch the change of condition, from a condition that we would get our inflation down to the level of that of our European partners to a condition that we would get it proximate to that of our European partners. When that was not attainable, it became a condition that inflation had to be falling towards the level of that of our European partners; then it became apparent that inflation was not even falling towards the level of that of our European partners, so it had to be forecast to fall to the level of that of our European partners.
I must tell the Chancellor that, year after year, the Treasury has been publishing Red Books that faithfully forecast that our inflation would fall to the level of that of our European partners. On that basis we could indeed have joined the exchange rate mechanism five, four or three years ago and would have greatly benefited in terms of our interest rates and the health of our economy. Of course, as the Labour party has proved, conditions are generally devised to get round the situation——
Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the conditions to which we were referring after Madrid had many other aspects which were realised only subsequently to the periods to which he referred as possible for entry? Any Government, if they have accepted, as this Government have accepted, that entry to the ERM can help inflation to come down—it is an anti-inflationary weapon—would be sensible to look at
220
factors such as tightening monetary aggregates. The Chancellor took this country in the first time he was convinced that those monetary aggregates were on a declining trend.
Mr. Beith: But there were earlier stages before the right hon. Gentleman became Chancellor when some of the conditions could have been satisfied. We might even have accelerated the process of liberalisation of capital movements in the rest of Europe had we made it a condition four or five years ago.
I was saying that conditions are generally devised to get round the situation in which a political party has one set of people in favour of something and others who are totally against it. It therefore sets conditions which appear to appease all the various factions but which will, of course, be overlooked when a decision has to be taken.
The same is true of the Labour party's conditions for entry into the exchange rate mechanism, which included the idea of general reflation as part of the process. Similarly, the Labour party is beginning to suggest that there are conditions under which it would accept a single currency, monetary union and a European central bank, but the bank would have to be democratically controlled and have a commitment to growth as well as to price stability. That is rather like asking a referee to take a few shots at goal from time to time. The Labour party has misunderstood the whole nature of the bank's operations. It is another case of a series of conditions being set so that, for example, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) can say—as he did—that he is satisfied that Labour's conditions would never be met. He was content with the policy then being pursued because he did not want to join the exchange rate mechanism. He cannot be quite so happy now.
Many Conservative and Labour Members take entry to the EMS to mean different things. There is a range of opinions spattered over the Order Paper. Some hon. Members believe that it should be "thus far and no further"; others believe that we should review whether to remain in the exchange rate mechanism; and still others express total opposition. The "thus far and no further" group clearly see the exchange rate mechanism as a stage beyond which the country must not go. That group is significant within the Government. Indeed, the Chancellor's Parliamentary Private Secretary resigned so that he could express that "thus far and no further" view. How on earth can the Government go on with a Prime Minister and probably other members of the Government who clearly hold that view when the Chancellor appears to be making apparently genuine and sincere efforts to proceed along the road to a single currency?
The result of the division of opinion is that it is not clear to the rest of Europe whether the Chancellor's single currency plan is a device to bring us to a single currency or a means of thwarting a single currency at any time in the future. Conservative Members must take one or other of those positions. They cannot both be true. The pretence cannot be kept up for long, and I suspect that, as the debate proceeds, the fact that that is so will become even more apparent.
There is another view of the exchange rate mechanism. There are those who believe that it is a renewal of our country membership of the club and that we can keep our options open as long as we appear to talk with some willingness about the future and have taken at least one

221
step in the European process. However, that will not do either, because these decisions cannot be put off for long. They must be discussed in December at the intergovernmental conference and will be back on the agenda time and again. The other member countries involved are keen to proceed—and they will proceed. The question is whether we are with them in that enterprise, whether we take a leading part in it or whether we stay aloof and try to retain some kind of country membership or second division status when they achieve a degree of union in which we do not share.
There are those who argue that there is a "soft" EMS membership in which we do not have to take the tough decisions but can continue to look for a reflationary approach. That is not on. It is not an option. We are in for a period in which it will not be made easier—as would be the case by devaluation—for British industry to absorb its costs and to ignore the inflationary consequences. We are in for a period of considerable difficulty, which is likely to lead to increased unemployment and which, if that sacrifice is to be justified in any way, must lead to the effective control of inflation. Unless we set in place more measures to accompany the exchange rate mechanism and to bring about that control of inflation, that sacrifice of others—it is always a sacrifice of others—will be wasted. People will be out of work, yet the country will not be in a better position as a result and the prospects for those people will not have improved either.
The Government need to tell us what they will do now that we are in the exchange rate mechanism. The benefit of having a debate on this subject is that we should be enabled to know what we shall do now. I submit that we should have a clear commitment to enter the narrow hand as early as possible. If we are to have an exchange rate mechanism and to go along the road to exchange rate parity, let us show that we are serious about it and that there is no let out. We shall not suddenly have a significant devaluation, taking advantage of the broad band status.
We must also make it clear what will be done about fiscal policy. The Chancellor mentioned that, but did not talk about the whole of it. Public expenditure is one part of fiscal policy; the other part is taxation. The Chancellor has a Prime Minister who is anxious to say, "Don't worry, tax cuts are still around the corner," but tax cuts cannot be around the corner if we have not solved our inflation problem. The Chancellor may have to contemplate personal tax increases if he has no other weapon at his disposal with which to take demand out of the economy. However, the right hon. Gentleman still refuses to admit that, which suggests that he is not taking seriously the fiscal policy implications of fighting inflation.
If the Chancellor is not prepared to put aside the tax cuts strategy for the time being, he is effectively saying that he will have to be much tougher about public expenditure than the Chief Secretary has been in the current round. The Chief Secretary will be lucky if he gets away with the Government's forecast levels of public expenditure. If the Chancellor has no access to inflation as a means of controlling demand, in the early part of next year he will be inviting the Chief Secretary to contemplate much bigger public expenditure cuts. That will mean that the investment that industry needs if it is to become more competitive in the exchange rate mechanism cannot be made.
The ERM will not make industry more competitive. Industry must do that job itself to some extent, but it needs
222
some help with, for example, getting better access to markets, better transport, and having a skilled work force, through investment in education and training. But those things will be impossible if public expenditure has to take the brunt of a tighter fiscal policy that is designed to deal with inflation.
The Government must come clean and tell us the end goal of all this. Are we genuinely heading for a single currency, monetary union and an independent central bank, or are we not? The present signs suggest that most of those objectives are not the Government's objectives. Indeed, the Government have set aside the obvious advantages to fighting inflation of having a rnore independent central bank because of the now wholly bogus argument about the control that Parliament is supposed to be able to exercise over monetary policy. Anybody who believes that the House of Commons is in control of monetary policy seriously misunderstands the way in which the British system of government works.
Therefore, for the health of the economy, we need to know where we go from here. We should be seeking to enter the narrow band and to end the talk of tax cuts We should recognise that fiscal policy will be more important now that exchange rate policy is taking up interest rates to such a large extent. We should know what our end goal is and whether it includes measures that are designed to defeat inflation. In addition, we should be taking the lead. Britain should be the leading country. The City should be the financial heart of any monetary union of Europe. However, we shall forgo that place if we continue to hang back.
To ask anyone who believes that Europe offers tremendous opportunities to Britain and that we should be taking the lead to contemplate the two parties, the disunity of which is so widely scattered across today's Order Paper, is like asking someone who is fond of the classic serial and costume drama to choose between "Neighbours" and "Home and Away" for their television viewing. We showed at Eastbourne that there is another choice.
5.37 pm
Sir Peter Hordern: For a long time I have felt it right that we should join the exchange rate mechanism. I am, therefore, glad to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in speaking from the Conservative Benches, because he played such a signal part in putting the supply side of the economy to rights by establishing the conditions under which the supply side could be improved.
I should like to be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his distinguished career as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish that he had been successful in joining the exchange rate mechanism much earlier than has now proved to be the case. I have thought for some time that monetary instruments alone are not sufficient to exert the necessary discipline.
Controlling inflation is the ultimate economic responsibility of a Conservative Government. That responsibility has not been carried out successfully for a long time. I do not necessarily mean from one year to another, but for long cycles our rate of inflation has been consistently higher than that in other comparable countries. Indeed, it has been much too high for several decades, which has had unfortunate consequences. It has

223
now become accepted that it is almost always right to borrow, because the value of assets will always grow with inflation faster than the nominal value of the loan.
For many years saving has been a mug's game. But since borrowing must always match savings, the rate of interest demanded to achieve that equilibrium has steadily risen. Unlike under all previous post-war Governments, that has not come about during the past year or two because of excessive Government borrowing. Indeed, it is very much the reverse. The extraordinary increase in personal borrowing and spending which took place two years ago happened because interest rates were reduced to 7·5 per cent. in May 1988. If that reduction had been coupled with the announcement that we were joining the ERM, it would have been perfectly justified, but, in isolation, that reduction in interest rates gave the wrong signal.
Not only the personal sector increased borrowing. The company sector vastly increased its borrowing, too. However, the difference was that companies borrowed to invest. The Labour party is wrong not to pay attention to the level of investment of the past few years. It was £32 billion in 1987 and rose to £46 billion in 1989. More important still is the high level of investment overseas. It rose from £108 billion in 1987 to £177 billion in 1989. Clearly, that level of investment, financed by bank borrowing, will slow down, but the existing investment will prove very worth while.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said earlier, the savings ratio is now rising fast. So there has been substantial investment and substantial growth. But there has also been substantial inflation. Some say that it is not possible to control inflation through interest rates alone. We have tried credit controls, or rationing credit, and prices and incomes policies. None of them worked or could work without causing far more damage than they were worth. But it is not only long experience and expectation of inflation that has led to higher interest rates. It is also the long expectation and experience that, no matter how much a manufacturer may increase his pay and his prices, he will always be bailed out in the end by a falling exchange rate.
We now do most of our trade with the European Community. The pound has fallen against the ecu. There were 1·69 ecu to the pound in 1985. In 1990 there are 1·39 ecu to the pound. The pound has also fallen against the deutschmark. There were DM3·7 to the pound in 1985. In 1990 there are DM2·9. The same is true if one measures the pound against the French franc, the Belgian franc, the guilder or even the peseta. For far too long it has been the normal expectation that sterling will slide against all European currencies. That is why wages are rising so fast and why directors' salaries are rising absurdly high, too.
I see no reason why the Government should allow business and industries to feel that they may always pay themselves more because the Government will always bail them out through a depreciating pound. I see no reason why our people should not benefit from cheaper prices brought about by competition. So I warmly welcome the decision to join the ERM.
There are some who criticise our entry because they say that we are making ourselves subject to the deutschmark and losing our sovereignty. I suppose that the time of our
224
greatest economic prosperity was when we were on the gold standard during the last century and at the beginning of this century. Gold was a recognised store of value, and it still is for that matter. The pound was freely convertible into it. The pound represents no store of value on its own. Indeed, it has become increasingly exposed and isolated, requiring an ever-higher rate of interest to attract foreign support. There is nothing to be said for sovereignty if it means economic isolation and a gentle slide against all other currencies. Nor is there any point in being rude about the Germans. They will not become less powerful through our remaining alone and isolated, sniffing contemptuously at them. All that we do by standing alone is to hurt ourselves by having to maintain much higher interest rates than we otherwise would.
What has sovereignty meant all these years? It has meant the inalienable right to depreciate our currency and to pay ourselves more than we earn either at home or abroad. Not only is joining the ERM no short cut to easier times, but it imposes a discipline which has long been missing and has long been necessary. There is something else. Controlling inflation, or, even better, eradicating it, is the highest economic priority. It is often said that inflation is the thief of all savings, and so it is. Pensioners' savings are eroded, if not destroyed. But there is more to it than that. There are those whose earnings can generally be relied upon to rise faster than inflation, but there are many, especially among the lower paid, who can look for no such protection.
The huge increase in social security payments which inflation brings about is compensation. How much better would it have been to spend that money on health, education or other public expenditure programmes? If we can bring inflation under control, we can afford a much higher-quality public expenditure programme.
With regard to the next stage of ERM membership, I see that some time has been won. It is just as well. What are we to make of the German attitude to the common agricultural policy? The general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations are now under threat. New Zealand farmers are impoverished. It is at once the most selfish and self-defeating action possible, for it makes the European Community a combination in restraint of trade. That is just what we have always warned against.
It is in our interests and the interests of Europe to extend our frontiers to include all the countries of eastern Europe. If a single currency makes that more difficult, or impossible, to achieve, there is something wrong with the idea of a single currency. It seems that M. Delors has become so fascinated with the idea and the mechanics of a single currency that he ignores the practical effect of creating a powerful, exclusive trading block in western Europe, increasingly oblivious to the rest of the world and our own interests. There is much to be said, therefore, for the hard ecu, particularly if it is to be gained through an evolutionary approach. There is nothing to be said for a politically controlled European central bank, which is what the Labour party appears to want. I wish my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer every possible success.
5.46 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I agree with hon. Members who have said that we are debating a momentous decision today, but beyond that I do not find

225
myself in agreement with the five hon. Members who have spoken so far about the basic proposition of membership of the ERM. I am not in favour of joining the ERM. Even if the ERM were simply a European version of the old International Monetary Fund, I would counsel against joining it now. Like some other hon. Members, I have had experience of restraints on economic policy, the stop-go, erratic growth of the 1960s and early 1970s and the exhausted reserves of currency, created by the effort to keep up the rate of exchange, and the inevitable requirement for prices and incomes policies.
Another reason why I am against joining the ERM is the actual experience of member countries who joined the mechanism in 1979. Over the 10 years or more which have passed since then, their experience has been anything but happy. With the exception of Germany, which does well under all the indices, those countries have experienced low growth—even lower than we have achieved in the United Kingdom—and higher unemployment than we have in Britain today.
The latest figures that I have for countries across the Community are for June 1990. In Britain our rate of unemployment was 6·1 per cent. France, which has a broadly similar working population, had an unemployment rate of 9·4 per cent. Italy had 11·3 per cent., the Netherlands had 8·7 per cent., Belgium had 8·7 per cent. and Spain—which joined the ERM only a year before—had a rate of over 15 per cent.
I belong to that group of Members of Parliament who attach importance to multiple objectives of economic policy. Of course, I am worried about inflation. But to me it is not the be-all and end-all of economic policy. We should seek to achieve certain other major objectives. One is growth of the production, output and wealth of our society. A second important one is to maintain a high level of employment for all our citizens, because their dignity and the welfare of our society depend on their having employment.
Today, before our very eyes, the Chancellor tore up the post-war White Paper agreement by which we should seek, jointly, to try to maintain full employment. I am not prepared to abandon that great agreement. The right hon. Gentleman said that in future no action taken by a British Government or as a result of the exercise of choice by the British electorate will determine employment in this country. It will depend entirely upon the market and the exchange rate. I reject that. It is the counsel of despair and I believe that we can do far better than that.
I have another objection to joining the ERM as it is far more stringent than the IMF, to which I referred earlier. If the nation needs to change its exchange rate it can do so only with the agreement of its partners——
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Its competitors.
Mr. Shore: Yes, competitors and partners. It is true that there were many changes in the exchange rate system in the early years of the mechanism after 1979, but since then there has been a decline in the number of such changes—only two since 1985 and none at all since 1 January 1987.
Furthermore, we now know that under the Delors plan the ERM is only the first stage of a plan that is destined to end in economic and monetary union. When that is achieved there will be permanently locked exchange rates, probably a common currency and a European central bank.
226
There are three major questions that we should ask ourselves today. First, have we gone in at the right rate? That is a crucial question. Is DM2·95 to the pound the rate that the Chancellor should have chosen? It is my strong view that the Government have entered the ERM at an unsustainable rate.
The Chancellor based his decision on three different analyses provided for him by respected merchant bankers and on figures released by the IMF. I have already commented on those figures and pointed out that the rate of DM2·95 stands 20 per cent. above the same rates published just three years ago—the last time that we were competitive in terms of our balance of payment current account position. In the past three years, the value of sterling has appreciated by 20 per cent. against the deutschmark, yet it is at that higher rate that the Chancellor has chosen to peg the pound.
I do not accept that the so-called purchasing power parity—the rate suggested by the other analysts who advised the Chancellor—is a helpful guide to what the present rate should be. It takes no account of such vital matters as the current trade deficit and the rate of inflation.
The Chancellor will know that there is grave concern in industry about the rate he has chosen. Independent studies, in particular one conducted by Professor Simon Wren Lewis when he was with the National Institute of Economic and Social Research a few months ago, suggested a rate of just over DM2·40 to the pound. That is based not on simple purchasing power parity, but on calculations of the rate required for Britain to maintain its balance on current account in the medium term. Many other independent forecasters have reached similar conclusions.
If the DM2·95 rate turns out to be the right one, how long can it be sustained? That depends on two crucial issues—average earnings and the growth of productivity, influenced most heavily by industrial investment. There is no argument about the figures so far. In the past decade, increased earnings in the German manufacturing industry have averaged just over 4 per cent. a year, but in Britian thay have averaged more than 10 per cent. a year. There is no convergence. The latest figure for Britain stood at 10·25 per cent. and in Germany at just on 4 per cent. I should like to know what the House thinks about the convergence of those two different rates. How will it be done? Has the Chancellor any proposals to spell this out to NEDC—the National Economic and Development Council—and to discuss it with trade union leaders? Have the trade union leaders any proposals to discuss this with their members? Are we to have any kind of consultation on the question of voluntary restraint or on the more difficult question of some form of genuine incomes and prices policy?
It came as no surprise to me when the Chancellor used the occasion of his first post-entry speech at Mansion house to seek cuts in pay rises and to warn that unless that is achieved it will
"lead to only one result: lost markets, redundancies, plant closures and ultimately company failures."
That is an accurate description. Then the Chancellor had the gall to ask the chairmen and leaders of British industry to set a good example. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was right to say on radio the following morning that the Chancellor had left it rather late in the day to make such an appeal.

227
I regret to say, however, that on that occasion my right hon. and learned Friend did not address the central issue of pay restraint.
Pay restraint is implicit in a fixed rate system—British wage and salary rates will have to be cut. If our exchange rate is linked to the deutschmark, so are our wage rates. What prospects do any of us see of British wage rates being reduced from their present level of 10·5 per cent. to the German level of 4 per cent.? Are we to take the view that only the harsh discipline of rising unemployment will do the job? I know that that is the Chancellor's opinion, as that was behind the threat that he issued a short time ago. I should also like to know the view of my right hon. and learned Friend and our Front-Bench colleagues.
In an interview that my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the Independent on Sunday on 6 May, he was asked:
"Are you prepared to see unemployment rise?"
He answered:
"I don't want to see unemployment rise. I would like to take steps to deal with unemployment at the regional level … but if companies make mistakes and they are beaten in the competition of the Single Market, I can't do very much about it."
The interviewer went on:
"What you are telling the trades unions in the private sector is that if they push their pay bargaining too hard, they will cause unemployment."
My right hon. and learned Friend answered:
"They can cause unemployment. They might. They must judge that. They constantly do. If we can help to make the wage bargaining more sophisticated, fine, but I think they have to stand by the results of their own decisions."
Even when we had 3 million unemployed at the peak of the 1982 recession, brought about, above all, by an over-high exchange rate when the rest of the world thought we were a petro-currency, earnings in the United Kingdom were still rising at a level of 11 per cent. The discipline did not work then when we had that level of unemployment. What level of unemployment must we contemplate in the future to get down to German levels of inflation? Three million people, 4 million, or 5 million? Do we then wash our hands and say that it is between the companies and the workers—it is their affair? Will we say that we play no part in it all? Will we wash our hands of all responsibility? That is not the approach to politics that I expect from my party, and I am sure that it will not agree to accept such an approach in the end.
It is not just earnings which decide competitiveness, but productivity, which is greatly influenced by investment. We know how much the Germans have invested in recent decades compared with our level of investment—a great pity. Looking to the immediate future, what are the prospects and trends? The figures are available in the IMF. It is estimated that manufacturing investment in British industry in 1989 increased by just 2·9 per cent. over the figure achieved in 1988. It is estimated that that level of investment for 1990 will be minus 6·2 per cent. and back again to just 4 per cent. in 1991. The German figures for the same period are plus 13·1 per cent. in 1989 plus 5 per cent. in 1990 and plus 4·2 per cent. in 1991. The trend is clear.
The knowledge that we shall face the great pressures of a far more efficient, as I regret it is, German economy gives me difficulty with the Opposition amendment. During the Thatcher years we have lagged behind and my hon.
228
Friends are right to maintain that the Conservatives have neglected education and the need to put money into research.
It is for those reasons that we are not able today to enter a fixed exchange rate figure with the deutschmark. If our criticism is correct, and it is, then all the stronger is the reason why we should not join and imprison ourselves with the German economy and the German exchange rate.
Presumably those very fears—of the consequences of unconditional membership of the ERM at the wrong rate—led my right hon. and hon. Friends to state firmly in the party policy document "Meet the Challenge—Make the Change" in October 1989:
"substantial changes would therefore be required before the next Labour Government could enter into the exchange rate mechanism."
They went on to specify the many conditions and changes that would be required. The document referred to
"entry at a competitive exchange rate."
Is it a competitive exchange rate? It specified
"the ability to make further changes in the rate so that we remain competitive."
Can that condition be secured? It referred to
"adequate central bank swap arrangements to control speculative movements."
There has been no change in the arrangements. It went on to speak of
"symmetrical obligations on creditors and debtors."
It all remains as asymmetrical as the IMF, and it always has been.
In addition to those conditions, the European Community countries, according to the Labour party's own policy statement, had to agree on eliminating the largest inter-Community deficits and surpluses and co-ordinate European Communitywide growth rate and trade policies. Finally, there had to be effective regional and industrial policies. None of those conditions has been broached or even thought of by the Government, who have joined without conditions. As the Chancellor said in a written reply to me yesterday:
"No conditions of entry were sought or agreed to".—[Official Report, 23 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 9.]
other than the central rate and the 6 per cent. margins. To adapt a well-known phrase, I do not want Britain to go naked into the ERM.
Loss of control over our exchange rate and interest rates must be seen against the background of the other measures to which the Government have agreed in the Single European Act. Under the treaty, we shall have no control over the location of industry, over capital movements or over major mergers affecting British firms, and we shall have no ability to use public purchasing power to foster specifically United Kingdom industry. We also face the growing harmonisation of indirect taxes, including VAT, excise duties and corporation taxes.
The loss of those powers, which have been available to all post-war Labour Governments, will make economic management difficult enough. To abandon exchange rate policy and interest rate policy as well will render us impotent in the management of our economic affairs.
Can we change the exchange rate under the ERM now that we have entered it? I said that there had been no changes in exchange rates since 1 January 1987. I also pointed out that we should need the agreement of our fellow members and competitors in the ERM. If the ERM remains as it is, it will be difficult, though not impossible, to change the exchange rate. But if we move to economic and monetary union, it will become impossible.

229
I wish to hear not just qualifications about EMU. I want a categorical assertion tonight from both Front Benches that we will not accept permanently locked exchange rates. That is the heart of the matter. Joining the EMU under such conditions would be the worst decision we have ever made, dwarfing even the readmission of Britain's pound sterling to the gold standard in 1925.
Apart from being economically disastrous, the effect of joining the EMU would be to transfer effective powers of self-government from this Parliament to the European authorities and to put our future prosperity in the hands of a committee of central bankers dominated by the Bundesbank.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has determined that speeches between 6 and 8 o'clock shall be limited to 10 minutes.
6.5 pm
Mr. John Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), whose impending departure from the House I much regret, commented on how significant an occasion this was. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) must have reflected on that time in December 1945 when he attended the great debate here on the American loan, Bretton Woods. He was one of the handful of Labour Members enticed into a Lobby that was manned by Christopher Hollis and Robert Boothby. He has rarely kept such excellent company thereafter.
That incident reminds us that on these great occasions the House does not divide neatly along party lines, and I doubt that it will this evening. Some of my hon. Friends and I have tabled a modest amendment·it is less than one tenth the length of the amendment tabled by the official Opposition, and a good deal more clear·which has as its central proposition the need to maintain a flexible approach to the European Community so that it can become a wider partnership of nation states. I was encouraged in that view by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who on 15 October, speaking about monetary union, asked:
"Is not such flexibility over monetary union essential if we are to enlarge, as I think we must, to include Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland?"—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 936.]
The point that he made about monetary union is also valid in respect of our exchange rate system, for the great beauty of flexible, free-moving exchange rates is that they are able to relate and communicate in a variety of national economies in different stages of development with different social backgrounds.
As we are having—it is the most laudable objective—a wider Europe, including the countries of the east, that system is all the more valid because the alternative would be to bring about some uniformity by the movement of resources. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) observed, almost certainly that would mean German resources. To begin with, that might be flattering to the German role in the Community, but in the long run I believe that it would be undesirable. Those who are pleased to pin on our lapels faith in a wider Europe, this evening, are required to vote against the Government motion and therefore against the Government.
230
In considering domestic policy, I have sat in the House for sufficient years to become agnostic about the virtues of economic philosophy. In many ways I regard it as the incomprehensible in pursuit of the unattainable. If I had to identify the area where I place my affection, it would be the period in the early 1980s when the Government sought, on their own account, to control public spending, revenue and borrowing in such a way that they balanced to provide a monetary discipline that could then reduce inflation. A flexible exchange rate was inherent in that situation. The great virtue was that the Government took responsibility for the control of those three components and, whether subcontracted to banks, experts or foreigners, at the end of the day the matter was argued in the Chamber.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, I am sure in good faith, that the control of inflation is at the heart of the new economic strategy that he has elaborated around the system of fixed exchange rates. Of course, I accept that, but in contrast to the policy pursued in the early years of this Government, the reintroduction of fixed exchange rates brings about an element of inflexibility in the economy. Everything else has to be so arranged that it can accommodate and make a reality of that inflexibility. Ever the Peter Pan in this world, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is already anxious to narrow even further the modest flexibility contained in the proposed arrangements. I am sure that he will be followed by politicians from all parties.
Whatever exchanges there may be between Front-Bench spokesmen, the truth is that we are providing a signpost to a planned economy in which first Government exhortation and ultimately and increasingly Government intervention will be used to bring about economic behaviour that accommodates the politically chosen exchange rate. I say to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, for whom I have a genuine affection, that I have already seen the first signs of the storm cloud. They were contained in his sentence about industry having to pay more attention to its cost increases. What the devil does my right hon. Friend imagine most industrialists do for most of the time? It is ridiculous for us to sit here in Westminster or Whitehall constantly berating the inability of business men to attend to their cost increases or the selfishness of trade unionists wanting to secure pay claims to match what they read about in the newspapers. We have trodden that path before. It is no surprise that some hon. Members have already begun to talk about reintroducing an incomes policy.
I have a great affection for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who sits like the Duke of Devonshire's gamekeeper uttering the odd earthy comments about the likely future. I thought that he got it absolutely right when he talked about the inherent challenges of an incomes policy. The person who is most delighted about that development is the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). He may have broken the news to the Leader of the Opposition—I know not. I have watched the right hon. and learned Member, who is a man of great sophistication. He treads the City with a skill that is the envy of practically every Conservative. He is increasingly in the mould of those elitist Labour politicians who formed the Government in 1964 and 1966, cheerfully fashioned the prices and incomes legislation of 1964, 1965 and 1966, and who never wasted a moment without they were always planning or exhorting. Now, we are moving towards a Euro incomes policy. On

231
that basis, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to sell it to the Leader of the Opposition, who may have uneasy twinges about the days when he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. If it can be said that Jacques has approved and it is new-style socialism, it will be something to which the Labour party will respond.
As this debate proceeds, not just tonight but in the weeks, months and years ahead, the devotees of the planned economy and the incomes policy will resurface and be reinforced by the workings of the fixed exchange rate. I shall look back and be proud to have argued and voted as I intend to tonight.
6.15 pm
Mr. William Ross: I am following two hon. Members, the right hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), with whom I find myself in general agreement whenever we talk about Europe and all its works.
On 15 October my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said in a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
"As Parliament—both sides of the House of Commons—have rendered themselves impotent on these matters, is it not imperative that there should be no further erosion of Britain's position until the electorate have been consulted at a general election?"—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 932.]
In that brief question he set out the belief of the Ulster Unionist party that we must constantly be against any dilution of the powers of the House with regard to Europe or anywhere else.
I learned long ago, when I first entered this place, that whenever the occupants of both Front Benches are in agreement, it is time for honest men to take stock of where they stand. I am prepared to stand with my party against the Government this evening. When the spokesmen of both Front Benches agree, they usually agree to mislead the nation in one form or another. I am glad to see from the Order Paper that there are individuals in both parties who share my view and that of my party, that membership of the ERM has costs far beyond those that appear on the surface. It is clear from what appears on the Order Paper, what we read in the newspapers and have listened to this afternoon that divisions within the two major parties are both deep and wide. The real division in this country seems to be moving from that between the left and right to pro and anti the EC to an extent that has not been the case for many years.
The proponents of the decision to join the ERM seem to believe that they can peg the currency and buck the market, which at one time was almost anathema to Conservative Ministers. The proponents allege that they can create a stable exchange rate against other ERM currencies. Be that as it may, there are currencies in the world other than those of Europe. What about the rest of the world? What about the dollar-pound exchange rate and the pound-yen exchange rate? Do those not matter? Do not we also export to those countries and are not the pound sterling and the basket of EC currencies to be floating in some form or another against them?
In 1983, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
232
"I am well aware that many in industry call not for devaluation but for exchange rate stability. And I fully understand why. But it's easier said than done. There is no magic way to influence the exchange rate."
There is more to his speech, but I am limited by the 10-minute rule and cannot read it all to the House. No doubt these who are interested will go to the Library and look it up. The truth is that the idea of a shelter from the economic storm is not new, but the trouble is that all such shelters develop leaky roofs and somebody pays a high price.
Discipline is the "in" word in this debate, not only in the House but outside. We have heard a lot about it recently and we have heard references to France and the benefits that the discipline of the ERM has had there. France and Ireland both got into trouble because they lived beyond their means, which is a far more accurate cause of our problems than anything else. Those countries used the discipline of the ERM to get back on the rails. I presume that the Government, and the Opposition if they were in office, would also hide behind the ERM, just as in days past they had IMF demands behind which to hide.
If France had taken the necessary steps to correct its problems, it would not have needed ERM. But it is nice to be able to blame someone else on occasions. Whenever one makes a mistake, it is terribly nice to be able to blame someone else. I have some sympathy with the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who referred to that problem when speaking to us about 1987 and was urged to expand the economy because of the position on that dark day in October of that year. He expanded to the acclaim of everyone, except the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North. Not only he, but everyone else got it wrong and as a result of his actions—perhaps not wholly, but to a large degree—we find ourselves once more faced with continuing and increasing inflation. I noted the right hon. Member for Blaby's comment that inflation was 5 per cent. and falling in 1985. Of course it was lower than that in subsequent years. But that is a tribute to the prudence of the Government in the earlier years of their rule. Frankly, if the Chancellor's job in 1985 was to get inflation down—that was then the first pillar of Government policy—it was up to him and to his colleagues in Cabinet to take the policy decisions, unpopular though they might have been, to achieve that, and not hide behind decisions imposed by outsiders.
According to press reports—quite frankly, own impressions confirm them—the Prime Minister believed that entry was an "admission of failure", and that it meant that Britain was incapable of conquering inflation alone. The Government believed that they could not carry out the policies necessary to reduce inflation at this stage.
The deutschmark is the pivotal point in the mechanism simply because it is the strongest currency. Human nature being what it is, one must expect the Germans to defend their currency and its pivotal position with all their strength, and they have the financial and economic strength to do so.
Of course, we are a petro-currency—albeit a minor one—and that is a factor that tends to be overlooked too often and is not given weight to the extent that it should be. In future, we shall have to abide by the disciplines of German bankers, despite the difficulties that the petro-currency effect may have on our economy. What a reflection it is on the ability of the Government and their Treasury team to admit by their actions that they are incapable of

233
controlling inflation within our economy. That is what it is—an admission of incapacity to do the job that they were elected to do. For that matter, it is an admission by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, when they are setting themselves up for an election, because by supporting entry to the ERM they are saying that they do not have the ability to control inflation either. A plague on both their houses.
Joining the ERM is not the end of the matter, but simply a further disastrous step down the slippery road to the narrow band, stage 2, a full common currency and a united states of Europe. The former Chancellor said today that the common currency is a long way away, but that is not what troubles me or those hon. Members who oppose the motion; it is the fact that it is the end objective. Whether the House likes it or not, we shall be pummelled and shoved down that path to that conclusion.
In addition, the costs of German reunification could well make a dent in German prudence. Then, instead of the deutschmark supporting sterling, we may find that sterling is called upon to support the deutschmark. If that is so, we shall pay for German reunification, and we shall not derive any industrial benefit from it because those benefits will go to the German nation and to others closer to the centre of reunification than ourselves.
The developing situation in eastern Europe will also have consequences, which are as yet unknown, but vast. I believe that it was the wrong time for us to join—besides the fact that I do not think we should ever have joined anyway. We should accept responsibility for our own nation and currency. Any Government must number among their primary duties the defence of the nation and the provision of sound currency. No matter what we may think of the Government's success in regard to the first, we can only say that they have funked their responsibility and run for shelter in regard to the second. I believe that this decision will end in bitter tears for many years.
6.23 pm
Mr. William Cash: I think that it was Ernest Bevin who once asked, "Why read the crystal ball, when you can read the book?" Listening to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), we might imagine that the final stages of economic and monetary union are a good deal further away than they are in reality. I say that for this reason: the conclusions of the presidency in June 1990 clearly stipulate that
"In these circumstances the European Council decided that the Intergovernmental Conference will open on 13th December 1990 with a view to establishing the final stages of Economic and Monetary union in the perspective of the completion of the Internal Market".
Add that to the Christophersen papers discussed at Ashford Castle in April, the speeches of those who are most in the know on the subject and the remarks that are made about the single currency and the date set for it; all the indicators are that we should be anything but relaxed about the speed with which the whole process is being driven forward. It is for that reason that for years I have continuously warned about the dangers of creeping federalism, because I believe that the evidence shows that those matters are being driven hard and fast into the heart of Parliament. What does that involve? It can be summed up simply in two words, or one question, "Who governs?" The question is who governs Britain. The reality is that this whole movement, devised for perfectly understandable
234
reasons in the 1950s to deal with wholly different circumstances, is now being applied as an ideology to get us to do something in the 1990s that is no longer appropriate.
I voted for the Single European Act. During its passage I tabled an amendment saying that nothing in the Act should derogate from the sovereignty of this Parliament, and I said that for a good reason. We have to maintain ultimate control over the economic and social priorities of people in this country by virtue of the democratic process by which we are elected as Members of Parliament. We simply cannot turn our backs on that.
If the time scale to which I am referring is as speedy as I suggest, and as I believe the Prime Minister knows it is, it would not be right for us to make any assumptions about where we shall be in the next two or three years, give or take an election.
Conservative Members believe in co-operating within Europe, but at present co-operation is not very good. It is not very communautaire of the French and Germans to get together as they did in April before the Dublin summit and again this week and to start issuing ultimatums on the date by which everything has to be done, according to a prescribed timetable. The reality is that if the Community is to work effectively, in the interest of all its members, it has to operate on a level playing field and on a basis whereby all those who are members work together.
What about the people of eastern Europe? Do we not face the prospect of a hard core federal Europe, devised by the 12 member states, which could create the very rivalries and tensions that we were supposed to have escaped from in the cold war? Is not it likely that if eastern Europe is regarded as a cheap labour market for a German investment programme, and is excluded from the benefits available to the other people of Europe, it will become resentful? Jealousies have already built up. About 60 per cent. of foreign investment in Hungary is either German of Austrian.
I do not say this with any disrespect to the German people, but we are faced with a dominant central economy, with a cluster of alliances around it, operating through the Single European Act and majority voting, and creating what could well turn out to be a black hole into which we are being sucked by our decisions. When I hear people say, "We shall not have this imposed upon us," I ask myself whether we are being asked to agree to it. I then ask upon what basis we should agree to this proposal. Is it to deny that this, the mother of Parliaments, should continue to make the major decisions about the economic and social priorities of our people? We are talking not about some romantic fantasy but about the reality of people's daily lives. This is about people in Stafford, Monklands, and north Shropshire. It is our responsibility to answer those questions.
I urge hon. Members to look at the papers such as the Christophersen papers, because those are the clues to the truth about what is happening. I give 100 per cent. support to the Prime Minister and to those members of the Cabinet who have sent strong signals to our people. Some Opposition Members are equally aware of that truth, and I mention in particular the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who has constantly told our people the truth. Let us look at the proposed constitution for the central bank. We are told that it will be independent. Why on earth should we hand over what Herr Otto Pal has called the golden monopoly of money

235
creation to a panel of central bankers? It would confer no material, defence, education or other benefit. Downing street would have nothing to say.
Mr. Budgen: Where does that lead my hon. Friend?
Mr. Cash: It leads me to say that we must not allow ourselves to move into the next phase of treaty amendments because they will take us into the black hole to which I referred.
This is not a matter of historical necessity because the historical necessity that faces the House is the necessity to maintain the reason for our being here. The European Parliament cannot fulfil the democratic requirements of our people. Those are fulfilled by virtue of our membership of the House and our election on a manifesto with a prescribed timetable and programme. We must maintain those at all costs.
I said the other day, "Thus far and no further." We must draw a thick blue line—or perhaps a thick red one—under the ERM. We ought not to rely upon the so-called German motor as an anchor. Only yesterday the five institutions in Germany predicted a sharp fall in the growth of the German GNP. Those institutions are worried. What is the point of hitching ourselves to a devil's bandwagon that could draw us into an economy that could be under severe strain in a short time? We do not know the outcome and it is not in the interests of the House to move to the next stages.
6.33 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) ranged rather widely and I shall not follow him. Instead, I shall concentrate on the Government's decision, which was political and nothing else, fully to join the European monetary system by joining the ERM. It has little to do with controlling inflation or the money supply or with eliminating our horrendous balance of payments deficit, certainly on manufactured goods, with our partners in the Community.
The Chancellor boasts that he is a political Chancellor, and when I say that I do not imply any criticism. When he was Chief Whip he operated from No. 12 Downing street but he has now moved to No. 11. However, the ethos and spirit are still those of No. 12. We are told that his eye is on No. 10 Downing street, but, in view of his blatant and cynical actions over the past few weeks, I fear that he will never fulful that ambition.
Things were all meant to be so different. Membership of the ERM was to produce what has been described as a golden scenario—for the Tory party, but not for the country. With the aid of continental and Japanese forces the pound was to be marched to the top of the hill and interest rates were to be gradually marched down the other side. The reduction in interest rates would benefit what the Tory party sees as its natural constituents—the owner-occupiers in the south of England who have borrowed up to the hilt against their houses in order to purchase consumer goods, most of which are imported. They are the people in the property sector and the financial sector, which has doubled over the past 10 years, and generally people in the whole of the service sector. That
236
means that most consumers will benefit from this golden scenario of keeping the pound high and bringing down interest rates.
Over the past 10 years, the Tory party has become the party of the consumer and not the party of the producer. The producers, mainly in manufacturing, were to be thrown to the wolves. They would suffer from the pound being marched up the hill. Of course, they would benefit from the reduction in interest rates, but the higher level of the pound would negate that benefit. Nobody cared about them, because producers have very few votes. The votes are with the consumers who are not worried about the high value of the pound and who benefit from a reduction in interest rates.
Crime has not paid and will not pay. After initial hysteria the market spotted the confidence trick. The Prime Minister's conversion to the ERM on the tarmac outside No. 10 Downing street and the simultaneous reduction in interest rates two days before the Tory party conference enabled the gnomes of Frankfurt, Paris and Tokyo to spot the confidence trick and they did not put into the pound the money that the Chancellor had hoped they would. As a result, the pound is ignominiously bumping along at the bottom of the ERM currency league. It went up a little today, but tomorrow it will be down again. The Spaniards are at the top of the league. They have high inflation and high interest rates. We have the highest interest rates in Europe, but the pound is at the bottom of the league. The question is not whether the interest rate will come down but whether the next stage should be to put it up to lift the pound and stop it being relegated to the Vauxhall Conference league, or whatever it is called.
There is a case for the ERM. It can be argued that fixed exchange rates, provided that they are ultimately adjustable—as they are—are more beneficial than floating exchange rates. That argument has been going on for years. It can also be argued that a country which is a member of a regional economic bloc such as the EC and which has 60 per cent. of its trade with that bloc should have some kind of fixed exchange rate with that bloc. The Euro-fanatics, of whom I am not one, argue that the EMS is part of the long march towards European monetary and economic union. They are right. Chancellor Schmidt, President Giscard d'Estaing and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead invented the exchange rate mechanism in 1978–79 because it was part of the fight to secure a common western European currency and a common, federal, western European state. If we believe in that, we must believe in the exchange rate mechanism and the European monetary system.
Let us not make the ridiculous claim that the EMS is some kind of substitute for a monetary policy that the Government have not got and a fiscal policy that they have never had—and now, apparently, part of an incomes policy that they said for 10 years they did not like or want. It will be remembered that in 1979 they brought down the Labour Government by voting against the 17 per cent. pay rise for Ford workers.
I do not believe that French inflation and German inflation are running at 3 per cent. because of the EMS. The French and the Germans have kept their inflation rates low for all kinds of reasons, but the main reason is institutional: their institutions do not create their credit base, as British institutions tend to do.

237
We are now told absurdly—that our inflation can be brought down because the ERM will produce an incomes policy for the manufacturing sector. The argument goes something like this: those involved in manufacturing trade with Europe will settle for wage increases on the basis of German rather than British inflation—they will settle for 3 per cent. rather than 10 per cent.—and, apparently, the same approach will permeate the rest of the economy.
I find that argument extraordinary. The fallacy lies not only in the fact that the workers will not settle for 3 per cent., but in the fact that only 22 per cent. of them are employed in the trading sector: all the others work in finance, property and shops and stores. They are involved in consumption rather than manufacturing, and are affected neither by the ERM nor by the exchange rate in general. Even if we accept the proposition that manufacturing industry will settle for 3 per cent.—and I dispute it—why on earth should anyone else do so? What has happened to the market? The market has failed, and now the Government are trying to adduce the ERM as some kind of incomes policy.
With our inflation rate almost three times as high as the rates in France and Germany, our balance of payments deficit in manufacturing goods far the worst in Europe and our service and manufacturing industries economically so out of kilter, ERM entry has been merely a financial wheeze. I think that the former Chancellor used that phrase, and we all know what it means: Governments who are in a desperate economic and political state always resort to such wheezes. Most of them do not work, as this one will not.
I suspect that the irony of ironies for the Prime Minister, following her conversion, will be the fact that this latest financial wheeze will constitute the final nail in the coffin of her fourth term.
6.43 pm
Sir William Clark: We have heard some very good speeches. I am sure that everyone enjoyed that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). Like other Conservative Members, and, probably, Opposition Members, I am sorry that he is to leave politics at the end of the current Session.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) castigated his Front Benchers with great aplomb. His argument was very persuasive, but, as he has always made clear his opposition to the Common Market, the ERM was for him a purely incidental element. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) entertained the House with an excellent fighting speech, although I am bound to say that I did not agree with any of it.
Some time ago the Government made a commitment to enter the ERM when the conditions were right. Three conditions were cited: exchange control, the value of sterling, and, of course, inflation. The other Common Market countries have effectively abolished exchange control; the value of sterling has been fixed at DM2·95. As for inflation, we must remember that, while our current inflation rate is 10·9 per cent., the underlying rate—according to the formula used by our Common Market partners—is 8·3 per cent. The latest average Common Market rate is between 5 per cent. and 5·5 per cent. Surely it is wrong for us to compare our 10·9 per cent. only with the German inflation rate.
238
Presumably all hon. Members accept that, as a result of the Government's economic strategy under both the present Chancellor and his predecessor—the imposition of tight monetary control—inflation has shown a downward trend. If we refer to the money aggregates, whether we take sterling M0 or sterling M4, we must recognise the fall that has taken place over the past seven months. I am convinced that the Governnment's policy is working. Although the inflation rate may rise next month because of the rise in oil prices caused by the Gulf crisis, I am certain that it will start to fall rapidly next year, and will soon reach the Common Market average. It should not be forgotten that the other Common Market countries are also suffering from the oil price rise, and that their retail price indices are also affected.
Having accepted the premise that our inflation policy is working, we should consider what our position will be now that we are members of the ERM. There is still a good deal of work to be done. There is a certain amount of flexibility in the 6 per cent. band, which I hope will come down to 2·5 per cent. in due course; but we shall continue to suffer from the lack of competitiveness from which we have been suffering for some time.
I did not entirely understand the attitude of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney towards full employment. No one owes each and every other person a job; we must live in the real world. It was, I feel, rather churlish of the right hon. Gentleman not to mention that, although we still do not have full employment, more people are in work today than were in work 10 or 11 years ago.
Another thing that I find disconcerting is the tendency—particularly noticeable among Opposition Members and in some sections of the press—to talk down the British economy, as though it were bankrupt. Credit is not given for increased production, employment and investment both in this country and overseas. Of the 50 top-performing companies in Europe, 28 are British. That is not a bad record.
What we should worry about is the unit labour cost. Of course, everyone wants the largest possible wage increase, but for some time it has erroneously been thought that the retail prices index—which is, as we know, a false inflation rate when compared with other European rates—is the automatic starting point in wage negotiations. Workers are therefore asking for 10·9 per cent. pay increases.
Clearly the only way in which companies in manufacturing industry—and, indeed, service industry—can stay in business is by being competitive. We have been down that road before, and in many cases we have priced ourselves out of the market and, therefore, out of jobs.
There is much talk about Britain being isolated. I do not object to that; indeed, we have been isolated before. Hon. Members will remember that we were isolated in the war, but we soldiered on. We were isolated in our attitude to the common agricultural policy, but it came right in the end. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor should ignore the criticism about isolation and concentrate on the hard ecu. Graham Bishop, the financial adviser to Salornon Brothers, wrote a good article on 12 October, and I commend it to the House. He says about the hard ecu that, whether one is investing or selling abroad, in order to have stability the component parts of the ecu should be frozen for three, four or five years so that there is some sort of horizon or limit on which business men can depend.

239
I do not agree with stages 2 and 3; we must see how stage 1 turns out. We cannot blindly run into stages 2 and 3—that must depend on the evolution of the market over the years. I do not doubt that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will refer to credit controls in his speech. We have already been down that road. I cannot understand how we could possibly impose credit controls on, for example, Chase Manhattan bank. How do we persuade a Swiss bank to make a deposit ratio change? If we impose that sort of exchange control, businesses will go to foreign banks. We will be cutting off our nose.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, ERM is not a soft option; it is another weapon in the Treasury's armoury. The prime objective of that economic strategy is to squeeze inflation out of the economy. Inflation is the bugbear of any society, whether third world, western world or any other. It erodes savings and hits hard on the saver. It is especially hard on those with small incomes. Joining the ERM is not a soft option for the Chancellor and we must soldier on. I am sure that I speak for most of my hon. Friends in wishing our right hon. Friend every good fortune in his December meetings.
6.53 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It would be churlish of Opposition Members not to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on having taken the historic step that we are debating today, even though it was taken not from a position of strength, but in a spirit of retreat and solemn ignominy.
Economic issues are, inevitably, boring, which is perhaps why economics is called the dismal science. However, there was one moment of exquisite parody on the day that Britain entered the ERM. The Prime Minister rushed out of her house into the street that she has purloined and there, behind huge electronic gates, she set up a little dais. Speaking as though, for all the world, she were the leader of a country called Ruritania, she said—and I am not kidding—"Today, we have achieved economic Nirvana. That blessed state"—for that is what Nirvana means—"has been attained on the crest of a rising tide of bankruptcies and the fact that inflation in Britain is no less than 327 per cent. higher than inflation in Germany. Miracles like this are not easy to achieve, but we have done it, and so today I can announce to the world that we are going to join our dear, dear friends in Europe in the ERM." Almost overcome with emotion, she was about to add, "Nun sind wir alles Deutsch freundlich", which roughly translated means, "We all love the Germans now." Her words were drowned in her tears of joy.
Of course, it is easy to be snide. If I were honest, I would have to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition were uncharacteristically cruel in criticising the Prime Minister on her volte face on the Madrid conditions. I am not a cruel person, so I shall simply content myself with the observation that, in turning herself inside out and upside down, the right hon. Lady has shown that she is a political figure, not firm and strong, but rather one that was perfectly characterised in Churchill's description of Baldwin as
"decided to be undecided, resolved, to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful for impotence."
240
That devastating line of attack was taken up yesterday in a full-page article in the Evening Standard by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who is in the Chamber. In a sentence, the one-page article said that the Prime Minister had betrayed her country and could no longer be trusted. I think that that is unfair. Then, plunging the dagger into the right hon. Lady's heart, her hon. Friend asked the rhetorical question,
"if she is prepared to give in over the ERM, what else is she prepared to give in over?"
I do not intend to attack the Chancellor, but if I had any criticism of him, it would be that he had joined the ERM at the wrong rate. He did that because he took the concept of purchasing power parity rather than the concept of the fundamental equilibrium exchange rate. He should have used the concept of the fundamental equilibrium exchange rate, because of the fall in the warranted rate of growth in Britain during the past 10 years.
When I asked the right hon. Gentleman about that in this House some months ago, he did not appear to know what it was. If he was carefully to study trends in the warranted rate of growth and do the proper regression analyses, he would quickly understand that I am right and he is wrong. Indeed, he has it so wrong that it is only a matter of time before every currency speculator in the world makes him and us pay the price in devaluation.
Of course, it may be that the Chancellor is a closet Keynesian and that he is going for the record—double digit devaluation inside the ERM. Since the ERM was formed in 1979, there have been 38 changes in the central rates of currencies, 16 of which have been devaluations. Hitherto, the largest devaluation was 8·5 per cent. in the Belgian and Luxembourg franc in 1982, and then the 8 per cent. devaluation in the Irish pound in 1986. For the Chancellor, it may be starters for 10 or even 15 per cent. There will be a painful price to pay.
In that regard—and this shows that I am an even-handed person—I think that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was right to say
"In the ERM the market dominates; with a single currency the market is overridden."
Every hon. Member knows that, although there is strength in the pooling of central reserves, the market can force Governments to devalue, even inside the ERM. I am not a devaluationist, and I believe that the way to avoid devaluation is to move from the ERM to the creation of a single European currency. The market cannot dominate inside a single European currency because the market is wiped out.
Instead of a pricing mechanism for adjusting differences in economic performance in different countries, we would have to correct the imbalances that occur under a single currency regime through new European regional policies backed by enhanced new European regional funds. In effect, as the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has realised, we would replace a market mechanism with a planning mechanism. When the Prime Minister describes that as socialism through the back door she exaggerates, but there is a germ of truth in what she says.
What I cannot understand is why Opposition Members want the market mechanism and despise the new planning mechanism. Perhaps some of them will address their minds to that. The critics of the creation of a single European

241
currency, from whom we have heard a lot today, say that they are worried that Britain may be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century by foreigners. Of course, they are too polite; they do not put it quite like that. They say that they are worried about problems of identity, sovereignty and political accountability.
We can dismiss immediately what they say about identity and sovereignty. Identity is what the Scots have retained inside an economic arid political union with the English. Sovereignty is a 17th century concept, shrouded in romantic historicism, on the part of those who look to the past because they cannot see the future.
Political accountability is a relevant concept. That is important. But the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) got it right. Many of the arguments about the political accountability of a central European bank running a single European currency are misplaced. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that all central banks, including the Bundesbank and the Federal Reserve bank in America, are ultimately politically accountable.
I have three reasons for saying that about the Bundesbank. First, a bank that is set up by a Government can be removed by a Government. Secondly, although the Bundesbank is committed to creating stable prices, it is also pledged under its charter to act in a fashion that is consistent with Government policy. In practical terms, that simply means that it must create a monetary policy that will allow for economic growth, and what is wrong with that?
Thirdly, there is one example of the triumph of political accountability in Germany and that is the ferocious row that broke out over German monetary union between the politician Chancellor Kohl and the banker Karl Otto Pöhl. The politician won and the banker lost, because, as the banker told us when we questioned him in Frankfurt, in such rows the politicians always win because they control the democratic process.
I end with one comment on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said. I do not want to criticise him; we do not do that in public, although he did rather attack the Opposition Front Bench. His Churchillian rhetoric seemed to rest on two serious economic mistakes and one lapse of memory. First, he seemed to be arguing that exchange rates are driven by current account balance of payment surpluses and deficits, as they used to be in the old days. That simply is not true. Secondly, he argued that countries which devalue avoid unemployment. That is nonsense. Thirdly, he seems to have forgotten that the last statutory prices and incomes policy in Britain was introduced by a Government not inside the ERM but one of which he was a member outside the ERM.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have a new, invigorating and fresh approach to those ideas. We cannot live in a time warp.
7.3 pm
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I had intended to be in my place at the opening of the debate and I apologise to the House for the fact that a massive blockage on the motorway prevented me from being so.
This is a debate in which passions run high, but I should stress that I in no way blame that event on the exchange rate mechanism. No one's passions run higher on this issue
242
than those of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who has all the zeal of the newly converted.
The Chancellor was right to join the ERM. He was right to join it when he did, and I even go so far as to say that the rate at which he joined was not at all inappropriate, because the economic situation as it was developing, where we had undoubtedly had an increase in inflationary pressures as a result of the reaction to the 1987 stock exchange crash and so on, had clearly reached a point where the interest rate that my right hon. Friends had rightly applied would have had an impact and made the economy turn.
As the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee pointed out, official Government forecasts invariably underestimate the size of a turning point, and in every successive cycle they have done so even more. There was a real danger—there may still be one—of recession. The Chancellor was therefore faced with a clear dilemma. If he had reacted to that possibility by cutting interest rates, the exchange rate would have collapsed and the effect on inflation would have been disastrous. The combination that he developed—of reducing the interest rate while at the same time taking us into the ERM—has got us out of the dilemma that he was facing. That is an important point which needs to be stressed.
The decision was the right one and it has not only a tactical advantage but a considerable strategic advantage. I believe profoundly that it is right to join the ERM but that it would be a massive mistake to go along the Delors road towards a single currency, and I shall say why in a moment.
We have joined the ERM and that increases our credibility in Europe. Mr. Delors sought to say that we were joining in order to prevent the making of any further progress, but I do not believe that that is so. However, it increases our credibility, and that is important in the negotiations that are about to take place in the context of the further development of monetary union.
As I have said at Question Time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer described Mr. Delors' idea that we were joining to stop things as rather rum. That was an apposite description—or perhaps "mot juste" would be the expression to apply to Mr. Delors. None the less, it is not right. We are clearly far better Europeans in many respects than the other members of the EC. However, there are some considerable dangers in joining the ERM.
I believe that the downward trend in inflation will be perpetuated, as the Chancellor has said, but once we are using interest rates to keep within the ERM we must give up any idea that we will establish a clear downward trend on interest rates. All kinds of random events may affect the exchange rate and require us to alter interest rates. That is a necessary consequence of the fact that we have joined the ERM. From a political point of view, that is a real problem.
A further problem is that it is possible that those in international markets will not view the Opposition's rather uncosted programmes in as favourable a light as those of the Government. Therefore, if there seems to be any real possibility of a Labour Government—there was not at the time of the last election—that in itself will exert a downward pressure on the exchange rate and an upward pressure on interest rates, unless the threat of a Labour

243
Government is such that we are forced to change the parity within the ERM. That is a danger which should be brought out.
In addition, we have the problem of inflationary pressures from wage settlements. There are already substantial downward pressures of that kind. But we must remember, I am almost inclined to say, dear old Harold Wilson's remark about one man's wage increase being another man's job. Like many of his cliches, it was a relevant and important statement of fact which, without using those exact words, we need to get over.
My other main point arises from the Chancellor's Mansion house speech. In the context of the ERM, my right hon. Friend remarked:
"Some commentators have suggested that interest rates are, in some sense, allocated to maintaining the exchange rate and are therefore not available to help achieve other objectives. They argue therefore that in consequence membership will require more active fiscal policy."
That is profoundly true. If one uses interest rates to control the exchange rate, it is necessary to have an alternative means of operating domestic policy. On many occasions, the two operate in the same direction. One may need both high interest rates and a tight fiscal policy. But sometimes one might need to use the interest rate to affect the exchange rate when the domestic economy requires something rather different.
The Treasury and Civil Service Committee's report on last year's Budget remarked:
"The Chancellor pointed out that, if inflationary pressures were reflected by the position of sterling in the mechanism, interest rates will be used to sustain an attack on inflation. But this would only be possible at a time when the inflationary pressures had become sufficiently clear to be reflected in the exchange rate. There may be times, as happened in 1987, when interest rates were lowered to keep the level of sterling down when they might have been raised to prevent the development of inflationary pressure."
It is not always the case that the needs of the exchange rate are the same as those of the domestic economy.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said also in his Mansion house speech:
"I have no doubt that it would be a huge mistake to return to frequent mini-budgets and fiscal fine-tuning. It is not necessary, its effects are not wholly predictable, and, in my limited experience, one Autumn Statement and one Budget a year are quite sufficient!"
I am sure that we would all say, "Hear, hear" to that. Nevertheless, if the interest rate is allocated to fixing the exchange rate, fiscal policy may be needed to manage the domestic economy.
It is not only a question of fine tuning. One cannot avoid fine tuning by having an annual Budget. If there were a need for fiscal measures in October of any year, for example, it would be foolish to wait until the next Budget before introducing them.
Some years ago the Procedure Committee suggested an annual tax management Bill and a separate Bill concerned with managing the economy. In that context, I have almost come to the reverse conclusion. Perhaps there should be an annual tax management Bill at the time of the Budget, and another Budget as may be necessary for economic management at whatever time of the year may be appropriate. However, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that there should not necessarily be more than one a year.
244
My final point arises from the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch in relation to a single currency. We simply have not got over the fundamental argument against a single currency. Many members of the public think that it is an attractive idea, and would avoid having to switch from one currency to another as one travelled around Europe. However, if we go for a single currency ahead of a high degree of economic integration in Europe, we shall be giving up the most important means of adjusting for differential changes over its geographical area—whether they relate to labour, capital, fuel, or other costs. The effect on unemployment in various regions of the European economy could be very serious.
I do not believe, as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch suggested, that a massive European fund would be the answer. Our own experience in this country, over a much smaller geographical area, does not suggest that such funds are effective. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the money would be transferred. We might enter into a single currency system and then find that, as a result of increased costs in Spain, there was a consequential effect on unemployment. There is no guarantee that everyone else in Europe would cough up to bail out the Spanish. Such a situation would give rise to enormous political pressures. For proof of that, we have only to remember what happened on a small but disastrous scale in relation to the CAP negotiations.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right to take Britain into the exchange rate mechanism, and I shall support him in the Lobby this evening.
7.13 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is right in saying that, under the exchange rate mechanism, fiscal policy will once again come into its own. The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) called Britain's entry to the ERM a momentous decision, and of course it is. I am in favour of exchange rate stability where it can be obtained, and the attempts made by the right hon. Member for Blaby to shadow the deutschmark were not unworthy. What I had against him was that the rate that he chose was wrong. It should have been much lower.
My awareness of all such matters draws on my background knowledge that many of our problems were caused by an overvalued exchange rate, and that fundamental mistakes were made in trying to deal with them.
In the post-war years, there were two important decisions to devalue, in 1949 and 1967. In both cases, the rate was maintained largely in response to American pressure—in 1949 because of the American loan, and in 1967 because of a personal commitment by Harold Wilson to Lyndon Johnson.
The first devaluation, from $4 to $2·40, was very successful, and led to the benefits that we obtained through the 1950s—so that when the Community was born, we considered ourselves too successful to take part even in the Messina talks.
Our success ended with the level of spending that was reached in the "never had it so good" years of Harold Macmillan. By 1964, we again faced an acute balance of payments crisis. I entered Parliament that year convinced

245
of the need to devalue. I was impressed by de Gaulle's devaluation, which was accompanied by deflation—a combination that I always thought made a great deal of sense. Devaluation opened opportunities abroad and restricted imports, while deflation released goods for export. I looked for a similar course of action to be followed in Britain, but our parliamentary majority was small, and I realised that devaluation might have to be postponed until we had a working majority.
It was with something approaching horror that I realised in the spring of 1966 that there was to be no devaluation. In the following months, I and Joel Barnett, now Lord Barnett, with whom I shared the chairmanship of the parliamentary Labour party's economic and finance group, called on Cabinet Ministers, urging on them the case for devaluation. Unfortunately, the response was slow. By 1967, devaluation from $2·80 to $2·40 was forced on the Government. It was not enough in my view, but it did give industry some help, and by 1969 we achieved a balance of payments surplus.
It will be seen that fundamental adjustments were required before both devaluations. In the first instance, we had to adjust from dealing with the problems of the war years. In the second, it was a case of adjusting to the aftermath of the boom created by Harold Macmillian. As we all know, devaluation helps exports and reduces imports. It helps all industry, and manufacturing industry in particular. It can have inflationary consequences, but there is a time lag before they manifest themselves, and one can use it to limit their effects.
The City does not like devaluation. It wants a strong pound not for the reasons one might think, but because of the better investment opportunities that it offers. In deciding between manufacturing industry and the City, Governments are sometimes neutral. Occasionally they favour the City, as did the present Government initially, before realising that our balance of payments depends mainly on manufacturing industry providing tradeable goods—the largest part of our exports.
Other Governments favoured industry. Like all post-war Governments, they worried about inflation, and in the end always chose the easy way of reducing it, by operating a high exchange rate. But the price for that has to be paid in the form of lost exports and yet another decline in Britain's manufacturing processes. We are again left with exhortations to reduce pay demands and so maintain an overvalued exchange rate.
We have seen time and again a high level of optimism about our prospects, but we are entering the ERM against a background of economic failure. We have suffered nothing less than an economic failure despite the enormous advantages of North sea oil. We squandered our oil revenues, time has run out, so we have returned to the exchange rate mechanism.
In The Sunday Times of 25 February this year, the Prime Minister said that
"As the right policies"—
she was still very optimistic at that stage—
"were kept going"—
that is, throughout the whole period of this Government—
"economic growth and productivity would start to rise again."
The article continued:
246
"Then, watch out, France and West Germany. 'My ambition is that we catch up with France … And then we catch up with Germany.' That is the kind of nonsense that we hear from time to time, but rarely to quite such an extent."
The Government have gone through three phases. The first was the phase during which they said, "Pay demands don't matter; the money supply will be the master." When that nonsense subsided, after ruining 20 per cent. of our industry—in my constituency, I am sorry to say that it ruined 30 per cent. of well-run small businesses between 1979 and 1981—and when that policy failed, the Government resorted to the second standby, which was exhortation. I have nothing against exhortation, but it is not a policy in itself. Eventually, it is seen to be inadequate and other policies are looked for.
The third phase involved the ERM. There are two ways of looking at the ERM. One can look at it as a way of obtaining some stability in currency markets. I am not against that—I am in favour of it—but the Government want more than stability. They want to use the mechanism to discipline industry and to punish workers with threats of unemployment and factory closures. The right hon. Member for Blaby dealt with that. If ERM will not do that, European monetary union will be even less forgiving.
Some hope that enthusiasm for EMU will lead to a continuing strong role for the City of London. I fear that Frankfurt is likely to follow Tokyo in the fulfilment of the principle that markets follow money—and I believe that, eventually, markets do, indeed, follow money. The City was born on the back of the greatest industrial centre in the world. New York followed suit. If there is a case for EMU, it is not that it will help us to retain London as the European financial centre. We need to bear in mind Winston Churchill's comment that we should make finance less proud and industry more content. That is more needed than ever before. Of course, we must help the City of London as a revenue earner but not at the expense of our industry.
What are the prospects for a European central bank? I read with interest the article by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). He suggested that Britain would have a representative and that the bank might have to report to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Controlling a central bank in one country is difficult enough. I saw the day-to-day tussles here, where the central bank is nationalised. As we know, it is even more difficult in Germany. Our problems with regional policy and our problems in obtaining agreement because of language difficulties are underrated. To think in terms of other countries paying for our regional policy when we cannot even pay for a proper regional policy ourselves is to live in a dreamland.
Why did we nationalise the Bank of England? We nationalised it because it had too much economic power. We have forgotten all of that. Why did the move have the support of prominent Conservatives such as Bob Boothby? An international bank will have immense powers, although it will supposedly be controlled by different people from different countries with different views and different languages. How can one achieve such control? Since when have politicians—let alone the Labour party—been such friends of the bankers that they have wanted to hand over to them authority in the day-to-day running of monetary policy for the whole of

247
Europe? We cannot be sure that our Prime Minister will be as powerful as the chairman of such a central bank. What an abrogation of power.
It is arguable that Montague Norman, formerly Governor of the Bank of England, did more to create a picture of Britain between the wars than Ramsay MacDonald or Baldwin. Can we really suggest that such a powerful figure could be controlled by the European Parliament? Such a figure will run rings around it and around the divisions in it. In day-to-day operations, even the Council of Ministers will find itself outranked.
When we look at the limited powers of the Bank of England and the Fed in Washington, we find powers far less extensive than those that some of us are prepared to accept. I used to consider that I had an obligation to explain the motives of bankers to my hon. Friends and say that they were not the cruel people so many thought them to be. I now find myself having to question my hon. Friends' admiration. Why have we come to love the bankers whom we used to criticise so harshly? The reason seems to be that we are looking for a panacea—a way out of difficulties of our own making. There is no panacea: we shall rise by our own efforts or not at all.
7.24 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has taken us on an intriguing historical tour. I am sure that he was as amazed as I was to hear an hon. Member on the left wing of the Labour party advocating a single European currency. I wonder why the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) did that. Is it because he knows that the reforms introduced by the Government—the entrenchment of the free market and the complete reform of the trade unions—cannot be overturned by an incoming Labour Government but could be overturned by centralisation through Europe? That is why the hon. Gentleman has done a complete about-turn. His speech provided us with a fascinating insight into the thinking of some on the left wing of the Labour party.
I support the Chancellor's policy of entry into the ERM. I feel that we should have entered the mechanism somewhat earlier, and we heard a fascinating speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in that regard. I have a feeling that much of my right hon. Friend's policy depended critically on earlier entry into the ERM. Perhaps if we had entered earlier inflation would not have taken off as it did and perhaps we should not have the very high interest rates that we have at the moment. That is all speculation. I welcome entry, with certain reservations.
The firms in my constituency also appear to welcome entry into the ERM. Many of them are light industrial businesses, some of them small—and many of them now export their products to Europe. They are very pleased that they can now have much more firm ideas about the position of our currency. In the past, far too much management time was taken up in playing the currency markets and in hedging the currency. Firms now know where they stand, and that will enable them to compete better with their European counterparts. They are feeling the pressure of high interest rates, and they certainly welcome the recent 1 per cent. cut in interest rates.
248
Some firms in haulage, construction and retailing are feeling the pinch especially badly. Haulage firms are extremely worried about rising fuel costs, although the position was ameliorated somewhat by the fall of a few days ago. The Treasury must be rubbing its hands with glee in view of the increase in revenues from taxation on fuel oil. Could not some of that extra money be forgone? Could not the Treasury ensure that the Government continued to take what they were taking before while reducing taxation on fuel oils? That would help many firms in Norfolk. I know that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General is listening carefully because he has similar firms in his constituency, and they are also concerned about the rise in fuel costs.
We are at an important crossroads and this debate brings into sharp focus the question of where we go from here. We could follow the Jacques Delors route towards an integrated federal states of Europe, but I believe that it is riddled with pitfalls and has serious disadvantages. For a start, there would undoubtedly be a major derogation of sovereignty. I am in favour of derogating sovereignty over certain matters. The environment is a case in point because pollution knows no frontiers or boundaries. But the derogation of political control and contol in foreign policy matters that would undoubtedly flow from economic integration would be a grave disadvantage. Moreover, it would emasculate the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. That matter has not been touched on today except by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
If we follow the Delors route, we shall have a centralised bureaucratic power. We shall have a form of market socialist control. Of course Jacques Delors wants that; he is a market socialist. Of course he wants power at the centre. If we follow his route, we shall have a close-knit, inward-looking club that will not want new members coming in from outside. It will be far more difficult for countries such as Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia—the newly emerging democracies—to come into Europe.
Advocates of a federal European solution have already said that they do not want Europe to expand too quickly. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) spoke in those terms the other day. Furthermore, if we follow the Delors route, our relations with America and the advanced Commonwealth countries would also be jeopardised and any idea that we could form closer trade links with those countries would be imperilled.
Many people have no idea what all this means and there is a danger that we will sleepwalk into a federal states of Europe. Jacques Delors has already said that he wants a federal Europe by stealth, and that worries me. People should know what is happening and that this Government advocate an alternative route to the Delors route. They advocate entering ERM and drawing lines under it stating that there should be not one single step beyond it.
I could certainly go along with a hard ecu. I do not want to go any further than that because a loose grouping of sovereign states have control over their own destinies. Their traditions and characters can be seen at their best. That is the way forward. Today we have heard nothing about the single market. It is crazy to begin to talk about going further forward until we get the single market to work. The United Kingdom is at the forefront in implementing the 230-odd measures for the single market.

249
In fact, we are well ahead of many of our European counterparts in that regard. However, until we get that process moving, even to consider stage 2 is ludicrous.
We should advocate the alternative course. We would have control over our foreign policy and over so many other aspects of domestic policy which would disappear out the window if we were to opt for the federal solution. Consider the current mess in the CAP and the discussions intended to sort out farm prices. It is clear that there is a complete shambles there.
If we are considering seriously derogating our foreign policy to a group of countries whose response to the Gulf crisis was supine and pathetic, we should think again and consider the consequences of the policies advocated by the so-called federalists.
We are at a very important crossroads. There should be far more opportunities for the people of this country to decide their future. The House must decide where we go from here and there should perhaps be a referendum. In today's debate some political hatchets have been buried, and that is very comforting. ERM membership is a momentous step forward, but the steps that are likely to be taken after entry will be far more momentous. This is indeed a time to bury political and party-political hatchets. Anyone who, like me, believes passionately that we should not go a single step further should vote for the future generations of this country.
7.32 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: There has been some criticism tonight of the Government about the timing of ERM entry. The real issue is not whether the timing was a week before or a week after the Conservative party conference. The Government are vulnerable on the question of timing because the decision was taken without any policy preparation for the consequences of entry. It was a bit rich for the Chancellor to go to the Mansion house and explain to the City and to prominent industrialists afterwards the implications of his policy. That should surely have been done beforehand and preparation made.
The Scottish National party supports the decision to enter ERM. We are extremely aware of the difficulties that entry will produce for the exchange rate mechanism, for our European partners, for sterling and for the United Kingdom. The euphoria generated by the initial decision to enter was unjustified. Indeed, many of today's speeches sounded very much like the morning after the night before.
There are two basic problems with sterling's entry into the ERM. The first is the problem that it creates for our European partners; it is significant that no one in this debate so far has considered entry from the point of view of the rest of the Community.
Basically, the ERM has worked because the deutschmark has been the dominant currency and the other currencies have revolved around it like planets revolving around the sun in the solar system. Taking sterling into the ERM introduces a major international investment currency, 90 per cent. of the value of which is dominated and determined not by trade flows, but by capital movements. It is not like introducing another planet into the solar system. Rather, it is like introducing an alternative sun. A great tension will develop in the polarity between the two major currencies within the ERM. There is at least as much chance of sterling's entry
250
destabilising the ERM as there is of ERM stabilising sterling. The Chancellor actually claimed a virtue of the fact that he had not consulted our European partners before taking his decision on entry and thus did riot display the kind of attitude that will be necessary if we are to make a success of entry into the ERM.
The second problem about ERM entry is traditional for the United Kingdom; it is the problem of having an overvalued currency and a weak economy, a strong pound and weak industry.
The "economic consequences of Mr. Churchill" have already been referred to. We should remember that on reflection in later years Churchill wrote:
"I was called the worst Chancellor in British history and looking back I am inclined to agree".
He wrote that about the 1925 decision on the gold standard. I do not believe that such a consequence will befall the present Chancellor, if only because he faces strong competition for the title of the worst Chancellor in British history from his two immediate predecessors.
On consideration, I believe that the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is somewhat protected from that title because he simply generated an unsustainable boom. However, the present Leader of the House stands accused of having generated an unnecessary slump in the early 1980s.
I can understand the chagrin with which the right hon. Member for Blaby described the present policies on the exchange rate mechanism. After all, it is only a year since he was forced to resign for pursuing exactly the same policy that is now pursued by the entire Cabinet. However, he can at least take some satisfaction from the fact that the consequences of the present policy will have to be faced up to by the present Chancellor and not everything that goes wrong with Government economic policy can be blamed for ever on the mistakes of the right hon. Member for Blaby.
When the consequences are confronted, it will be obvious that pious exhortations to the bosses in the City and elsewhere to pay their workers less to make the policy a success will simply not do. When sterling starts to bump along the bottom of its banding, some very hard choices will have to be faced. It will not be good enough to commit reserves, because sterling is such a major currency that even the reserves of the whole of Europe would be used up quickly in trying to defend an unsustainable position. The hard choice will be between interest rate rises and deep cuts in the Government's fiscal policy.
To borrow a phrase, the cost of "bucking the market" will be very high indeed. When the pressure is felt, the Government and the Opposition Front Bench will have to answer a question that they have dodged throughout this debate: when the pressure is on, will they move forward to further monetary integration or backwards and break the system of which they wanted to be a member?
To claim that the hard ecu is the solution to the dilemma is not good enough. If it is treated as anything more than a diversion by the other European countries, we must realise that a hard ecu, if not monetary union or a single currency by transition, is a single currency by stealth in much the same way as shadowing the deutschmark was entry into the exchange rate mechanism by stealth. For the political health of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, I only hope that the Prime Minister does not

251
rumble this device in the way that she eventually rumbled the right hon. Member for Blaby. If that happens, the present Chancellor will also become "unassailable".
Our difficulty, from a Scottish point of view, is the realisation that these hard choices are not really relevant to Scotland's economic position. Over the past year, we in Scotland have faced penal interest rates in an economy which is nowhere near overheated. I do not think that even the Chancellor would claim that the Scottish economy is in a state of overheating, so great are the underused resources in the economy. Yet we have had to suffer the interest rate regime designed to tackle economic overheating in the south-east of England.
The Secretary of State for Scotland says that we should be grateful because that measure is doing less damage to the Scottish economy than it is doing to the economy of the south-east of England. He is apparently oblivious to the fact that Scottish industry is probably more dependent on interest rates and the interest rate regime than industry elsewhere in the country. It is bad enough having to suffer high interest rates when one is suffering from the overheating disease, but it adds insult to injury to have to swallow the medicine without having the condition in the first place.
The exchange rate mechanism offers a sensible option for smaller currencies. Certainly, an independent Scottish currency would fit comfortably into the exchange rate mechanism in the same way in which other small currencies of Europe currently fit. We would not have the same hard choices which confront sterling and from which the two Front Benches are currently running away.
My last point is about attitudes, and it is a plea for a change of attitudes as we face monetary union. When I looked at the unfortunate and unpleasant article in The Spectator recently, it struck me that the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was not really talking about the Germans, the French, the Irish or other nations whom he disparaged; he was actually talking about England. The Spectator was absolutely right to head the article "Speaking for England". The underlying message was that, having lost an empire, England is now frightened of losing a currency and yet more self-determination over her own affairs. Albeit more elegantly, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) touched the same chord when he said that he was frightened of "foreigners"—I think that I have quoted him exactly—controlling the economic destiny of England.
There are real issues to be faced in monetary union—for example, productivity throughout the Community to stop high productivity regions sucking in capital and labour from lower productivity regions. There is also the question whether it is compatible with the expansion of the Community to include eastern European nations. That is another real question which must be faced. If there is valid tension between broadening the Community and deepening the Community, it will have to be addressed. However, unless these questions are addressed in a genuinely positive fashion by people who are anxious to make a success of the EC our partners in the rest of Europe will understandably say, "These are not real arguments or real issues presented by the United Kingdom; it is merely more blocking and tackling from a country that is refusing to grow up and to drive forward.
"7.42 pm
Mr. Julian AmeryI should like at once to congratulate the Government on their decision to join the exchange rate mechanism. I do not think that it will do much to help our inflation, but it is of great importance in a broader sense. Unless we had joined, we could not really have had a seat at the table and discussed the future of the monetary evolution of the European Community. That matter is immensely important to us and will be before us next month. We could not really have gone to the December talks and made any sense unless we had been in the ERM, nor could we really talk seriously about the reconstruction of Germany and eastern Europe. That will require more than German effort; it will require European and, I dare say, American effort as well, bearing in mind all the difficulties that our American friends have and the extent to which they can afford to help.
We must not underrate the impact on the existing ERM of the burden that will have to be taken up in the reconstruction of Germany and eastern Europe. I do not think that even in Bonn people yet have the foggiest idea of how much it will cost them and, in turn, how much it will cost us.
We now belong to a deutschmark zone, as foreseen by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) in a pregnant article in The Spectator quite a long time ago. That brings us to what we might call the German peril. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), in his famous interview in The Spectator, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) have drawn attention to their views on that matter. All hon. Members have been aware of the problem. The question is how we are to meet it. Do we meet it best from being inside the Community, where we may find allies if need be, or do we meet it better from being outside and alone, or almost alone? If the Americans have a penchant for any other special relationship, it is indeed with Germany. We must ask ourselves a simple question: would we prefer to have our financial affairs dictated by the Bundesbank or by some agency over which we have some influence, limited though it may be?
The German Chancellor, for whom I have the greatest regard, has been setting the pace, both in respect of the common agricultural policy and now the timetable for the agenda of the forthcoming meeting in Rome. He has said that the second stage of the approach to European monetary union should be in 1994. I ventured to interrupt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask whether, instead of just saying that we did not like the idea or that we had good grounds for not liking it, we could say, "Okay, 1994, if you accept the hard ecu proposal." It is perhaps an opportunity.
May I now say a word about the problem of sovereignty? There is a widespread feeling in the House that, if we are not careful, we shall go down a road that will turn the House into something that is not much more than a glorified county council. What is sovereignty? It is total freedom to do whatever we wish. It existed, I suppose, in Britain in the days of Palmerston. General de Gaulle tried to achieve it for France, with his policy of defence against all horizons. But what does sovereignty mean today?
One or two distinguished speeches—for example, by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr.

253
Shore)—were about seeking the right to inflate or devalue. There is here a very respectable case—I am not joking about it. William Jennings Bryan said:
"you should not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
Keynes said that, in certain circumstances, it might be desirable to reflect the economy. That could happen again, but it does not seem likely at the moment.
I wish to relate all that to something. For several generations we were on the gold standard. The gold standard worked extremely well for a long time, but it produced industrial and social disadvantages that were so serious that, in 1931, we opted out. The moral that I am trying to draw is that the House of Commons does not surrender sovereignty. Nothing that we decide today can bind another Parliament, and nothing that we do can bind another Parliament. Another Parliament can make other decisions, just as happened in 1931 when Parliament decided to abandon the gold standard and we moved to the sterling area. That committed us to certain obligations, as well as conferring certain advantages. When in the 1970s the obligations became heavier than the advantages, we and some of our partners decided that we had had enough.
Nothing that we decide here is irrevocable. If we do not like what is put before us at the next stage of European monetary union, we need not sign it. If we do sign it and it does not work, we can pull out. We did that with the gold standard, with sterling and with the empire preferences. The French did it with NATO. No Parliament can bind another unless the latter is occupied by enemy troops. If anybody thinks that our present Secretary of State for Defence or our Home Secretary are shock troops for Delors, he or she had better think again.
When considering the next stage of European monetary union, the test that we must apply is whether there is a better road or an alternative policy that would suit us better. Is there a "better 'ole?" That is what we must examine in some detail. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) that we are a long way from any sort of federal arrangement in Europe. We need only look at the response of the different members of the Community to the crisis in the Gulf where there was no sign of federal co-operation.
Much has happened since the Paris-Bonn axis was first created in the days of de Gaulle and Adenauer when the French were convinced that they would be the jockey riding the German horse. There have been enormous changes: German union, the liberation of eastern Europe, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the recession in the United States, to say nothing of the middle eastern crisis. Today, everything is in flux and no blueprint that has been produced by Delors or anybody else is acceptable. I do not know whether there will be a single currency unit. Whose image or whose superscription will it bear? As to a single bank, we shall be lucky if we get a single reserve bank. However, with our experience of the sterling area and the world economy, we would do better if we were in on the act and able to contribute as much wisdom as we can and as we have both to our advantage and to the general advantage.
7.52 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: I wish to make several points about a decision with which I disagree. I do not disagree with it in principle because I am not anti-European and I look forward to a united Europe.
254
I reject completely the arguments that have been made by many hon. Members—I know that they were made with complete conviction—concerning the sovereignty of Parliament. On any comparison of this Parliament with those of the other European nations, we can be seen to be lacking in virtually every measure, whether it be control of the Executive, the way in which we carry out our business, or the lack of a proper committee system—although we have the rudiments of that now. We cannot therefore hold up the sovereignty of Parliament as something that may be lost because nothing in our parliamentary structure is superior to anything in the structures of our major European partners in the Common Market.
My objection to entry is that the rate at which we have entered the ERM is profoundly wrong. It will add 750,000 people to the ranks of the unemployed as a permanent structural feature of our economy. It will lock us into years of massive industrial struggles over wages. It will be a disaster. Irrespective of which party sits on which Bench in the next Parliament, I predict that the next Government will devalue the pound within the exchange rate mechanism and the ERM will most probably lock us into a series of further devaluations in the years to come.
Many hon. Members of all parties have formed the impression that the strength of the more dynamic European economies in the past 20 or 30 years was created by the exchange rate mechanism. That is nonsense. The ERM came about because the major European countries within the Common Market had achieved roughly similar rates of growth and roughly similar increases in productivity and were thus much more able to link their currencies. To tie the British economy, with its much lower rate of productivity increases, into the economies of our major European competitors will be to lock us into something that can best be characterised by the relationship between the Scottish and English economies following the Union.
As I have said, I am not opposed to ERM entry in principle. If the Government had entered the ERM at DM2·40 and had created a series of other measures to shift our economy into major export-led growth, I believe that it would have worked, but this is a gimmick to get the Government through the next election. Irrespective of the outcome of that election, there will be massive pain for the British people at virtually every level of society as a result. Again, I must emphasise that I am not anti-European or anti-entry into the exchange rate mechanism in principle.
Many of my hon. Friends have been unduly influenced by the Prime Minister's reluctance. They have assumed that the Prime Minister's reluctance means that there was something to be said in favour of ERM entry now. However, it will be our constituents who will bear the burden of unemployment that will flow from this. Hon. Members who have a rabid enthusiasm for entry into the exchange rate mechanism at this level will have to explain it to their constituents as unemployment mounts relentlessly in the weeks and months to come.
After 11 years in office, the Government have created a major economic crisis. There is a lot of crowing about the most recent trade figures, but the underlying pattern is devastatingly bad for Britain. It is easy to construct any argument by picking out a particular year or the shift in exports from manufactures to services. However, when one looks at the proportion of our GDP given to imports as opposed to exports, and compares the beginning of the Government's period in office with now, one sees that the

255
picture is stark. Compared with when the Government came into office 11 years ago, there has been only a slight increase in imports as a proportion of GDP. The figure is 0·1 per cent. However, we have lost exports amounting to 3·5 per cent. Anyone who thinks that those figures do not matter should remember that each percentage point of GDP represents £5 billion. That is devastatingly bad news. Whichever party governs Britain in the 1990s must turn that problem around if it is to make any sense of the economy.
This is the same old problem that we have seen before. That is why I was somewhat less than enthused when I heard the reaction of my own Front Bench to the decision to enter the exchange rate mechanism. In response to the questions, "Would you reduce the exchange rate under the system?" and "Are you happy at the rate at which we have gone in?", I heard my very good friend the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) say, "That is the rate that we shall have to defend as a point of honour." If my right hon. and learned Friend really believes that, he is setting himself up to be the Harold Wilson of the 1990s, defending a completely unrealistic exchange rate.
As my hon. Friends—on both the left and the right of my party—have said in this debate, our exchange rate is about 20 per cent. over-valued if we are serious about being a manufacturing and exporting nation. However, the Government are not interested in that. Their primary concern has been the defence of City interests. The Government faced a simple choice when deciding the level at which to set our entry into the exchange rate mechanism. They could set a level to benefit the City, which they did, or a level that could benefit British manufacturing. Once again, the City won and British manufacturing lost and it will be locked into further decline in the years to come.
It is not just a question of entering the exchange rate mechanism. The reality is that we have been locked into a relative economic decline for over a century. Government after Government—of all colours—have presided over a decline, each year being prepared to accept an increase in the rate of inflation of 1, 2 or even more percentage points worse than those of our major competitors. Each year, the Government were prepared to see 1, 2, 3 or 4 per cent. less investment in our economy than was made by our major competitors. The consequence has been a loss of productivity compared to our major competitors who have achieved greater increases in their productivity year by year. All that it has taken to turn the most powerful industrial economy in the world into the 29th or 30th-ranking economy was the attitude that we should decline gracefully. Nothing about the decision to enter the ERM will break us out of that continuing graceful decline.
We are locking ourselves into a position of weakness. We could have entered in a position of strength, prepared to defend our manufacturing sector by entering at a more realistic rate or even a rate that was under-valued. Let us remember that in their reconstruction after the war Japan and West Germany made damned certain that they started a pattern of growth by having an under-valued exchange rate. They set out to create a solid manufacturing base.
256
Therefore, I should have been happy to support entry into the ERM at DM2·40 or DM2·50, but I am not happy with the level at which we have entered.
The Government ignore the other issues which arise out of our entry, irrespective of the level set. If we are to reverse the crippling decline in manufacturing in Britain, which has led to a crippling decline in exports as a proportion of our national wealth, various other measures must be taken. If we had entered at a more realistic rate, we should have seen a much more rapid and dramatic cut in interest rates. We could have seen a rapid reduction of perhaps 2 or 3 per cent. in the rate of interest if we had entered the ERM at a rate which was more realistic for manufacturing.
The Government would also have had to find ways to protect the poorest elements in society. A reduction in the exchange rate and a devaluation along the lines that I and many of my colleagues would want—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) argued for it—would need to be balanced by measures to protect the poorest members of society from the impact of the inflation that would feed into the system. Devaluation would have to be tied into a reduction in the basic rate of value added tax. I recognise that it would be unrealistic, given the state of the economy, to allow a major increase in consumer spending, so I should have been happy to balance it by restoring the top rate of tax. To create a growing and dynamic export-led expansion, we should have been prepared to defend the weakest sections in the community, who have done so badly in the past decade at the expense of those who have done so well.
Every economist tells us that the more the Government pump money into the poorest sections of the community, the more those people are likely to spend it on domestically produced goods. A redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor helps the basic structure of our balance of payments and the construction of a solid manufacturing base.
I do not accept the arguments of my hon. Friends who say that we have declined because we entered the Common Market or that we are about to decline because we have entered the ERM. We are declining because we failed to take the firm measures required to shift the whole balance of the British economy. Entry into the ERM has not resolved that problem, and it will not resolve it for the next Labour Government. We must take other measures to solve our problems.
8.2 pm
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) may be surprised to know that I agreed with some of his points about devaluation. As I listened to the debate I realised that I could not contribute much that was distinctive to it other than by considering the subject from a practical point of view. Many people from outside observing the debate might remark that an employer in manufacturing industry, for example, was under-represented in the debate. They might remark on how much theoretical talk there was and how little the practical implications as they might affect someone with a manufacturing concern in Wolverhampton were discussed.
If I had had the privilege of catching your eye earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should have attempted to speak with the passion and eloquence of my right hon. Friend the

257
Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He is an earlier and more distinguished pupil of the Powell academy. He and I share most of the Powell prejudices. We are in favour of floating exchange rates. We are against foreign domination and on the whole we are in favour of some hypocrisy, but not too much.
A manufacturing employer from Wolverhampton might think as he listened to the debate that the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of stability were attractive. "Stability," he would say "how much I want that." He would have been like the hypochondriac lady who would be much attracted to the doctor who could suggest to her the mystery of eternal life and no illness. He would have said, "Ah, stability, that is what the Chancellor is promising us." He would also have been much attracted by the argument that inflation is mainly caused by the working class. After all, that is what he would have preached to his foreman day in and day out. When he heard that disagreeable exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and the Duke of Devonshire's gamekeeper, he would have hoped that there was no such impertinent person in his work force when he was lecturing his employees on the need to keep down inflationary wage claims.
The manufacturer would have been attracted by the argument about stability. He would have thought about the inconvenience of needing to insure and hedge against exchange rate changes. He would have thought with gratifying pleasure that that great man the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told him that there could in no circumstances be devaluation. How dangerous that illusion would be. How wickedly dangerous.
We were fortunate that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) reminded us that there have already been many important devaluations within the ERM. For instance, let us look forward even to the next general election. For the sake of argument, let us assume that there is downward pressure on the exchange rate and that it drops towards DM2·88 or whatever the bottom figure is.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: DM2·95.
Mr. Budgen: DM2·95 is the centre figure. DM2·88 is the lower figure. Whatever the lower figure, it is a market figure and market figures are affected by wholly irrational factors. For the sake of argument, the market may want a Labour Government after the next election. It may want a left-wing Conservative Government or a right-wing Conservative Government. People may be punting on the pound because of their view about who will win the next football match. None of us knows about the work of the unknown hand of the market.
If it is necessary just before the next election to increase interest rates by 3 per cent. or, for the sake of argument, to raise the rate of taxation by 10p, are the Government likely to do so? Is it not likely that, however humiliating a conversation the Chancellor is forced to have with Herr Pohl or whoever is our dominator in Europe, he would prefer to suffer that than risk being absolutely certain to lose the next general election? Yet this very day my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in effect said to the business man in Wolverhampton, "Do not worry about the possibility of a fluctuating exchange rate. Do not hedge against the risk that the pound may alter against the
258
deutschmark. I tell you that there will be no devaluation." As I said, those of us who were brought up in the Powell school like a little hypocrisy. We do not believe in telling people too much of the unvarnished truth, but that is taking it a bit far. Is it not a little dangerous to start by saying in a macho way that there will certainly be no devaluation?
Let us consider the medium term. Can we be satisfied that we can keep going on the basis of some form of co-ordination between European banks, some intervention from time to time from European banks and perhaps from time to time the occasional devaluation? Can we have anything approaching stability without going towards irrevocably locked exchange rates? If that happens, it will, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has already suggested, be a short step to a single currency.
Surely Sir Alan Walters was right when he said that there was a case for a floating exchange rate. If one was not worried about the sovereignty arguments there might be a case for a single currency of Europe. There is nothing to be said, however, for this half-baked system of the ERM.
Whatever else we do tonight we should reject the cruel illusion that ERM is a great magic system that can give people the stability they desire—in real life we can promise that to no one. If we pretend that that system will bring stability, and if people make commercial judgments in that belief, we will condemn them to bankruptcy, illusion and disappointment.
8.10 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: The Government, having pushed the country into a dangerous recession, were under pressure to reduce interest rates. Once they did that, however, they were frightened of the effect on the pound and inflation and thus collapsed into the ERM. We may well have further interest rate cuts and things may look good for the country for about nine months or perhaps a year—presumably by that time the Government hope that there will have been an election. Whichever party is in power after that election, however, it will face pressure on the pound and a major economic crisis.
I believe that entry into the ERM is a grave error and is a major blunder that will cause great damage to our national interest. In preparation for this debate I refreshed my memory of the policy of the Labour party. I studied the policy review document "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change", which says:
"We believe that the European monetary system., as present constituted, suffers from too great an emphasis on deflationary measures … we oppose moves towards European monetary union which would further impede progress in this area. Substantial changes would therefore be required before the next Labour Government could take sterling into the exchange rate mechanism."
The document spells out that four conditions would have to be met for such entry. It states that we would need a European Community-wide trade policy to contribute to balance of trade stability for individual members. Given that we have a deficit of £16 billion with the European Community, we certainly do not have that. The document also states that we need a co-ordinated Community-wide growth policy, but we certainly do not have that. It also states that the pound would have to enter at a rate and on conditions which would ensure that British goods became and remained competitive. Given that the exchange rate is

259
nearly DM3 to the pound, we are certainly far from achieving the necessary conditions. The House will note therefore that my remarks follow the main thrust of Labour party policy as decided by our conferences.
The ERM means that we shall peg the parity of the pound not to the dollar—the dollar is going down and it would be helpful if the pound came down with the dollar as many things are priced in dollars—or to the yen, but to the deutschmark because the ERM is a deutschmark zone. We are therefore going to peg the pound to the currency of the country with which we have an enormous deficit. That is crazy economics. If we are to prosper, we must reverse that deficit, and to imagine that we can do so by linking the pound to the deutschmark is stretching credulity too far. We are being locked to an exchange rate which will ensure that that trade deficit will continue in perpetuity.
Pegging the pound to the deutschmark is the new, fashionable, fanciful theory. It is the latest nostrum and magic to solve our problems, but in effect it subordinates reality to theory. It subordinates the real economy to abstract notions. It subordinates people—flesh and blood—to the so-called iron laws of mistaken economics. We are doing things the wrong way round. Money should fit the real economy rather than the economy fit the money. Money should be our servant, not our master.
The concept of pegging the pound to the deutschmark is an arid dogma similar to putting the pound on the gold standard, and we know what that led to. The last strange dogma we encountered was the monetarism of the 1980s. That dogma led to an overvalued pound, we lost a quarter of British industry and the unemployment rate was pushed up to more than 2 million people. I did not become a Labour Member to support a huge increase in unemployment, but entry to the ERM will cause just that.
The new fanciful theory says that we should aim at convergence, which means that we should have the same productivity level as West Germany. I cite West Germany as it is the key country and I make no criticism of it as I have great admiration for that country. That convergence means that we should have the same productivity, growth, rate of investment, inflation rate and interest rates as Germany. It is a lovely theory, but can it work? Can anyone guarantee that, as a result of entry to ERM, such convergence will be achieved this year? I should happily give way to anyone who could guarantee that.
What comes first—convergence or pegging the parity of the pound? Has anyone noticed what is happening in the real world? The level of German growth has been recorded at 4 per cent. for the past two years while ours has been less than 1 per cent. Compare the massive investment in the German economy with our negative investment. Compare their investment in training and education with that of our own. German interest rates stand at 8 per cent. while our own, even after the latest cut, stand at 14 per cent. The German inflation rate is recorded at less than 3 per cent., but our own is three times higher at more than 10 per cent.
Can anyone guarantee that our inflation rate will soon be the same as that of Germany? Experience suggests otherwise. One of the simple facts of economic life is that if the economic performance and inflation rates of
260
countries vary, the value or price of the respective currencies—in other words, the exchange rates—will vary. That is an economic fact, not an opinion.
If British inflation is higher than that of Germany and we have fixed parities, we shall witness a continuous overvaluation of the pound and an undervaluation of the deutschmark. British exports will become dearer, foreign imports will become cheaper, the trade deficit will be huge and unemployment will increase. If we buy goods from foreign factories as opposed to British factories, it means unemployment. It will become too expensive to manufacture in this country and unemployment will rise. If we have fixed parities, all it means is that we shall pretend that the pound is worth DM3.
German monetary union is a good example of what happens when one pretends that one's currency is worth more than its true rate. The West Germans pretended that the ostmark was worth the same as the deutschmark—that was good politics. Chancellor Kohl went to East Germany and said, "Vote for me and I'll change your money one for one". They all voted for that, but as a result East Germany's industry has collapsed completely and it is facing massive unemployment. The same will happen here if we continue with such pretence.
Fixed exchange rates help the strong and reinforce their dominance. They make the rich richer and the poor poorer. If we maintain the pound at an artificially high level, it is another way of saying that we shall keep the value of the mark down—we shall keep it super competitive.
If we cannot adjust our economies by changing the exchange rate, how are we expected to make the desired adjustments? The Delors committee is quite clear on that: it advocates wage flexibility and labour mobility. That means that the wages of all workers must come down, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). The Secretary of State for Employment does not pause for breath as he talks ceaselessly about the need for workers to have wage increases less than the rate of inflation. We are told that if that does not happen quick enough there will be mass unemployment. It is obvious that we shall end up with lower wages as well as mass unemployment.
Not only wages but profit, investment, research and development and training will be squeezed. The entire economy will be put through the wringer. That will mean lower wages, more unemployment, slower growth and less wealth. In other words, the real economy will be sacrificed to a theory. Employment, growth, wealth and everything else will be subordinated to the idea of pegging the exchange rate.
If we take that step, we shall be making the mistake that we made in 1964. The Harold Wilson Government, having come to power, wasted three years shackling the Government to maintaining the rate of the pound. I recently replayed a video of Harold Wilson being interviewed by a professor of politics. He was asked why he had made the terrible mistake, which ruined that Government, of trying to peg the pound. He replied, regarding the parity of the pound:
"There was an air of sanctity about it."
He went on:
"It was considered a sin against the Holy Ghost."
He now says that it is no longer a problem, but my fear is that we shall make it a problem again. We are not learning

261
from what happened over the gold standard or from what happened on that occasion to the Government of Harold Wilson. We shall be repeating the mistake all over again.
Some of my hon. Friends say that we shall have an industrial policy, and that is important. Indeed, the main difference between the two sides of the House is that my hon. Friends and I want an industrial policy whereas most Conservative Members simply want market forces to operate.
Exchange rate policy is an important part of industrial policy. We used to have what was known as the alternative economic strategy, and that was our industrial policy. We do not hear much about the alternative economic strategy these days, simply because it is unlawful under the treaty of Rome. The European Commission would not allow us to have the alternative economic strategy. So if we give up exchange rate policy, what will be left for the next Labour Government when we take office?
It is argued that we shall have the strength of the central banks wrapped around us. I have never heard anything so naive. The amount of money under that type of arrangement is limited and, in any event, the money one gets is by way of loans and must be repaid. That money will not be in any way different from money from the IMF. It will not accrue without conditions. Those concerned will be able to tell us to change our policy from whatever got us into the position of having to ask for a loan. President Mitterrand found that in 1983.
Alternatively, it is suggested that we might have a regional policy. It would take a regional policy on an heroic scale to make up for the damage that would have been caused. Indeed, we have at present a reverse regional policy because, as a poorer member country of the Community, we are paying in £2·3 billion to subsidise the richer countries. Each family of four in Britain is paying £16 a week more for its food than it need to pay. The regional policy is Britain subsidising the rest, so what nonsense it all is.
The exchange rate should not be elevated into a sort of sacred totem to he worshipped at the cost of production, trade and employment. We need a vigorous industrial policy which will combine full employment, a sustainable rate of growth and balance of payments equilibrium, and to achieve that we need a Government who can determine their own policy. We want democratic self government in this House. If our policies are to be determined not here but by people at some continental central bank, it will not matter for whom the British people vote because they will have the same policies whoever they elect. In other words, their votes will be devalued, and that cannot be advantageous.
It is always dangerous to prophesy, but I guarantee that the policy will fail. It will not be possible to sustain the exchange rate of the pound at DM2·95.
8.24 pm
Mr. Ian Stewart:: Not surprisingly, much of the debate has focused on potential future steps towards monetary convergence and monetary union, rather than on the decision that the Chancellor took a fortnight ago. That is understandable because the debate takes place against the background of proposals from the European Commission to the effect that stage 1
262
of the so-called Delors plan is only a staging post on a road that leads to monetary union, a subject to which I shall return.
The Chancellor has been much maligned from a number of quarters, not only from Labour Members, who have a political axe to grind, but from others who are perhaps less to be excused in suggesting that to reduce interest rates by 1 per cent. two weeks ago was somehow irresponsible. I should have thought that there was at least sufficient evidence that the economy was slowing down, that the monetary aggregates were coming down, that there were conditions in the motor and building industries and in other areas of industry to suggest that the economic pace was slowing, and that it would be wrong to maintain exceptionally high interest rates under those circumstances.
Not only was the Chancellor justified in taking the decision that that was the time for interest rates to start coming down, but, having taken it, it was natural for him to link it with the decision to enter the exchange rate mechanism. I feel sure that the cause and effect was that way round rather than the way round that some have tried to suggest.
I have never been a tremendous enthusiast for European institutions. Equally, I have never been a great opponent of them. Anyone who has had the responsibility of attending the Budget Council of the European Community on behalf of this country and its Government would inevitably be aware not only of the advantages of Britain being a member of the EC, but of the difficulties that are encountered by the activities of European institutions.
It is against that background that I have gradually come to the conclusion—more by a process of elimination than by enthusiasm for the EMS—that it is a sensible framework in which to conduct our economic and monetary policy. The Chancellor's handling of our entry was skilful. But the real question that will next face him and the nation will be about the further steps towards economic and monetary convergence, and the first of those will be the move from a 6 per cent. to a 2 per cent. band. That step will be more significant in its effect on economic and monetary management than entry itself in the wider 6 per cent. band, which allows considerable flexibility around the central rate that has been chosen.
When the Chancellor comes to consider that next step, I hope that he will ponder long and carefully on the potential difficulties of having an exchange rate mechanism that includes two major international currencies, the deutschmark and sterling. So far, the history of the EMS has involved a group of countries revolving around the deutschmark. As soon as sterling comes into the narrow band, we shall have something that goes by the technical name of bipolarity, which means having two separate potential focuses of attention in the exchange market, not necessarily pulling in the same direction at the same time.
I shall not speak at length about that because time is short, but for those interested in the debates on the subject, I made a remarkably boring speech four or five years ago, particularly boring even by my standards, because I was specifically asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) to make it as dull as possible. At that time, as now, the exchange rate mechanism was an extraordinarily sensitive economic and political subject and it was thought inadvisable that I should try to arouse

263
any expectations in one direction or another. The speech that I made from the Dispatch Box in that debate was so exceptionally boring that no one was able to pick up any significant comment that I had made in all of it. I was proud of that achievement because it is not easy to talk about the subject without rapidly getting into contentious areas.
The first contentious subject that I want to mention is that of the narrower band. It does not go without question that it would be right for sterling to get into the narrower band in the near future, because we have not yet resolved a problem that has been with us in this country for many years, that over the years we have needed, relatively speaking, higher interest rates in sterling to achieve the same tightness of monetary conditions to counter inflation than other European countries. That is partly because our financial institutions and markets are much more highly developed. They are not quite as developed as those of the United States but we generally have more flexible financial markets. For one reason or another, that has tended to mean that we need a higher interest rate in this country to deliver the same counter inflationary pressure.
Before entering the narrower bracket we should have to be satisfied that we could, over a considerable period, retain the same counter inflationary pressure, with interest rates that were, if not exactly the same as those of Germany and other ERM countries, at least much closer than they have been historically. If we did not do that, all we should have would be a switch of borrowing and lending; people would lend in sterling and borrow in other currencies at a cheaper rate of interest. That would frustrate the whole of our monetary policy and we should be unable to maintain the ERM for any length of time once those currency movements had been generated on any substantial scale.
The second stage of the exercise—joining the narrower band—will be challenging, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Government to think carefully before they take that step. It is only a lesser version of the major step that would be taken if we were eventually to move towards monetary union.
It has been explained in the House this afternoon many times by hon. Members on both sides that monetary union inevitably carries with it either economic or political union, or both. The dangers of that are self-evident. Such union has been achieved in Europe twice in the past 2,000 years—first by Diocletian and Constantine, who had the might of the Roman army to enforce their policies, and latterly by Charlemagne, who did not manage to extend the policy to the United Kingdom, but managed to do so quite effectively through most of western Europe, again with a vigorous army at his back. The only more recent experiment was one in the post-Napoleonic period in the 19th century, which did not last long.
I hope that I shall be excused for claiming that I have been thinking about this subject for longer than other hon. Members. Nearly 40 years ago I was writing a book about Scottish coinage and towards the end of it I came across a remarkable fact, which was that after the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603, King James of Scotland became the first King James of England and the United Kingdom, and immediately implemented monetary union between the two. The rest of the 17th century was spent grappling with
264
the problems that that created. There were endless changes of valuation of Scottish coins at that time because a parity with the English currency could not be sustained in those circumstances. The problem was resolved only in 1707 by political union. Economic convergence had not been achieved by that time, but political union had, which enabled monetary union and, in due course, a degree of convergence of economic affairs to be carried through.
Although that is an arcane historical parallel, it contains important lessons for us. If we were to try to move to monetary union in Europe, where different countries and parts of different countries diverge so greatly in their economic performance, we should not, by means of monetary union, achieve greater cohesion in the European Community, but probably blow it apart.
During the recess I read a most interesting book by Professor Hawking, called "A Brief History of Time". As far as I could work it out—my physics is not very good—he was trying to say that if one starts with a big bang, one ends up in a black hole. If we tried to implement monetary union by a sort of monetary big bang and forcing that on many divergent economies and markets in a sudden move, we would be likely to blow the whole thing asunder and would have nothing left at the end.
I should have thought that the accession, in recent years, of Portugal, Spain and Greece, not to mention the addition by a side wind of East Germany, has put off the day when the countries of the European Community are likely to reach the degree of convergence where monetary union is even conceivable.
The arguments generally raised about monetary union—certainly many of those deployed in the House today—have tended to concentrate on the issue of sovereignty, which quite naturally appeals to politicians and is our stock in trade. But it is not the only part of the argument. There is an important part of the argument that should be deployed more thoroughly, and I hope that the Government, through my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor at their international gatherings, will not hesitate to make plain to our fellow member states in Europe the potential implications of trying to achieve monetary convergence without economic convergence or centralised political control. That argument will demonstrate to other countries' Parliaments the dangers inherent in such a step.
The evidence that we already have of European institutions is not entirely encouraging. When I was at the Treasury I spent much time trying to negotiate our way out of the financial consequences of the original structure of the common agricultural policy, and it was a painful process. A great European system had been put in place and its problems were allowed to work themselves out with painful consequences for this and other countries at various times throughout the following years. We ran straight into the financial problems because of our substantial contribution. Latterly, there have been production problems. The French liked the CAP while they were getting a decent subsidy from other countries for their farmers, but did not like it at all once they found that it was producing severe competition for their domestic output.
I fear that the European enthusiasm for notions such as monetary union will run far ahead of the practical considerations that must be taken into account before such measures can be seriously contemplated. It is unlikely that conditions suitable for monetary union will come about

265
within the next 10 or 20 years. If they did, I should reconsider the issue from the standpoint of that time, but until we are much closer to economic convergence, it would be playing with fire to put monetary union firmly on the agenda, particularly if that meant that other steps would be taken in the interim designed to achieve monetary union when that was still a distant and impractical dream.
While I welcome the step of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in taking sterling into the ERM, I believe that we must be aware not only of the long-term problems, but that the second stage of going to the narrower band is a significant step that requires a great deal of thought before being undertaken.
8.38 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: Today's debate has been widely drawn, although the motion and amendments clearly focus on the exchange rate mechanism. We see that the Government are expecting the House to congratulate them on going into the exchange rate mechanism when they did and at the rate they did. It seems that the Government are using what might now be described as the Baker gambit—when they have to say something that is ludicrous, they make their claim as preposterous as possible in the hope that everybody will be diverted from what is really happening.
Entry into the exchange rate mechanism had nothing whatsoever to do with the long-term economic future of this country, with the prosperity of most of the population and with the ability of most of the adult population who want work to get that work. Entry had everything to do with the Government's desire to create economic conditions for between six and nine months which would enable them to go to the country with a faint prospect of winning an election.
There is no doubt that the Madrid conditions were well and truly ditched by the Cabinet. I do not know about the Prime Minister herself. From her inability to speak today, it seems that she was probably dragged, kicking and screaming, into this agreement, and only acceded to it with the promise of a 1 per cent. cut in interest rates to dangle before the Conservative party conference. Perhaps the Government were and are hoping that, as a result of entry into the exchange rate mechanism, they will be able to cut interest rates further and that inflation will take a dramatic downward turn.
The whole basis of entry into the mechanism at this time was Treasury forecasts. I do not know how many forecasts the Treasury have made, but the one chosen by the Chancellor predicts a significant decline in interest rates, to a point where they will be roughly in line with the Community average of 4 or 5 per cent., at some time next year I assume, although that is not entirely clear.
If we study the Chancellor's forecasting record in the past few years at Budget time and compare his forecasts with the rate of inflation at the end of the year, we find that it overran the estimate by 65 per cent. in 1988, by 36 per cent. in 1989 and this year it will probably be about 40 per cent. above the forecast rate. What confidence can we have about such a momentous decision as entry into the exchange rate mechanism if it is based on a predicted rate of inflation which, judging by the record of the past few years, will still leave us about 45 or 50 per cent. above the Community average, which is considered desirable?
266
The truth is that the teasing had to stop in October. Throughout 1990 the Government relied on dangling the possibility of entry into the exchange rate mechanism before the financial markets to keep the pound high without having further to increase interest rates which were already at a record high. This decision was the last desperate throw of the gambler's dice by the Government to try to win the next election—not to try to strengthen the economy.
What is the state of the economy? It is such that a balance of trade deficit of £845 million can be heralded as a triumph by the Government.
Today the British chambers of commerce quarterly survey reveals that, apart from a minor but welcome exception in the north-east, manufacturing industry throughout the country is forecasting a decline in orders. More companies are forecasting a decline than an increase, and the decline averages 11 per cent. in the country as a whole.
Even more important is the fact that companies employing more than 500 people are forecasting that employment prospects next year are likely to go down by 20 per cent. The service sector is forecasting an increase of only 3 per cent. whereas last winter it was forecasting a 14 per cent. increase.
The economy is undoubtedly in deep difficulties. Our high interest rates are a commentary on the weakness of the British economy when compared with that of most other countries. Now we have been reduced to saying that the main purpose behind joining the exchange rate mechanism was to try to bear down on wage costs in the economy to make our industry more competitive. Those fair words from the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Employment must be seen against the background of company directors getting salary increases 3 and 4 per cent. above the average that most workers are receiving. Almost without exception, salary increases for the highest paid directors are in the stratosphere compared with what their workers are getting. For example, the top directors of Barclays bank got more than a 47 per cent. increase in their pay, but the lowest paid staff got a 10 per cent. increase—these figures are from the September 1990 bargaining report.
Blue Circle's directors got a 17·3 per cent. increase, whereas their lowest paid workers got 8·5 per cent. There are one or two honourable exceptions, including two companies that operate successfully in my constituency. The directors of Sony, the television manufacturer, took a 6·8 per cent. increase in pay—if only the rest of British industry had followed that lead—and their lowest paid workers got a 9 per cent. increase. The same can be said about Ford, where the top directors got 8·2 per cent., and the lowest-paid workers got 10·2 per cent. However, the general picture is that highly paid directors get large increases, but the rest of the work force generally gets an increase below the rate of inflation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) rightly expressed his anxiety about employment prospects in Britain as a result of entry into the ERM at such an exchange rate. In a perfect world we would not like to start from this position. Given Government policies, there can be no comfort for unemployed people now, because they are not likely to get jobs, and, under these conditions for entry, many people who are employed are likely to become unemployed.

267
It was most unkind and unfair of my right hon. Friend to undermine the argument put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), which formed the basis of our amendment to the motion. Yes, we want to be in the exchange rate mechanism, but it is essential that other policies are tied in to help Britain become more competitive. We need more investment in research and in skill training. We need a better educated work force and an improved infrastructure because, without improved infrastructure and better regional policy, peripheral regions will suffer. That is why it is desirable to follow our policies now that we are in the ERM.
Some hon. Members spoke about dangers of the sovereignty of Parliament. For the last decade and at any time when there is a large Government majority, the concept of the sovereignty of Parliament is meaningless. We can talk about the sovereignty of the Government but certainly not about the sovereignty of Parliament. Hon. Members were also worried about getting tied into a single currency, independent central banks and economic and monetary union. Sovereignty is not totally independent and free standing. It is indivisible across the European Community and even there it cannot stand on its own because world events, such as the Gulf crisis, can undermine the sovereignty of nations to do as they will. They must respond to new situations.
The problem can also be solved by making the institutions of the Community more democratic. That can be done by giving up the practice of the only law-making institution in the democratic world being allowed to hold its meetings in secret. I am talking about the Council of Ministers becoming open to the public. We can take steps to ensure that the European Parliament has more of a role in the Community's legislative process. We can also ensure that the House has more of a role. In this case, as in many others, the House was not consulted and not allowed to vote. Britain joined the ERM during the recess and immediately before the Conservative party conference, and the Government joined it in order to allow embarrassed Cabinet Ministers off the hook.
Doubts were expressed about the concept of an independent central bank for Europe. Those are misplaced doubts because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said, in the last resort the bank is not independent. He cited the example of the one-for-one rate between the deutschmark and the ostmark on the unification of Germany. Herr Pal did not want that to happen, but Herr Kohl told him about the urgent political necessity for it. The Bundesbank may now have to reshape some of its policies, but it will still attempt to make sure that inflation in Germany does not run away.
Some hon. Members have looked into a future of economic and monetary union but that is not the purpose of the debate. There is no point in wringing our hands and saying that we do not want to be a part of this process when we are members of the club in which the process is evolving. We have to play a positive role by setting out what we believe are the necessary conditions as the process gets under way and is undoubtedly achieved.
We enter the ERM when the exchange rate was DM2·95. I shall not speculate about what might have been
268
a better rate, but I shall deal with the relationship between the exchange rate and inflation and our export performance. At this time last year I asked the House of Commons research department to look into the relationship between the exchange rate and inflation. It looked at the period from 1975 to 1989. In a letter I was told:
"I found no significant evidence of the expected relationship between a change in the exchange rate and the retail price index in any of the following five months."
That is, the five months during which there was a change in the value of the pound on the foreign exchange markets. The letter goes on:
"Within this five month period less than 6 per cent. of the variation in the inflation rate was attributable to the change in the exchange rate index."
The evidence seems to show that, on the whole, manufacturers and the economy absorb much of the impact of a change in the exchange rate. I also asked about competitiveness and changes in the exchange rate and was told:
"However, for the small exchange rate falls that have taken place there is evidence of a gain to competitives for a year or two. Certainly there is overwhelming evidence of a considerable loss to competitiveness after the pound rose so high for 1979–82."
The message is that we should have gone in at a slightly lower rate. That would not have had a great impact on inflation and would have helped our competitiveness. If the Government were to follow the policies in our amendment, we would have a much healthier and a more prosperous economy rather than the disaster for which we are heading.
8.56 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful for four minutes in which to save the world.
One of the interesting by-products of the debate has been the fissures revealed in the Opposition between those who still crave for the fully centrally controlled economy and those who do not. Industrial policies were warmly welcomed and many of the policies that were seen to fail in the 1960s and 1970s were eagerly sought after. However, Opposition Front-Bench speakers clearly would wish to introduce the discipline of the ERM if they were ever to get into power. However, they do not like the current central rate because they feel that they could not resist the sort of inflationary wage pressures that have always bedevilled Labour Governments. Therefore, they would not find the ERM providing the anti-inflationary pressure which those of us who have been advocating it for some time have always thought to be the case.
There is no doubt that the Treasury has consistently urged that there should be three golf clubs in the bag, even if that is an over-used analogy. That has been the case under the present Chancellor and the former Chancellor. Those clubs are fiscal and monetary policy, both of which are reinforced by exchange rate policy. The three reinforce each other. That is why it is so essential, if we are determined to squeeze inflation out of the economy, to use all three methods. They will work together to bear down on inflation.
The Chancellor was absolutely right to enter the ERM at this time. Regardless of the arguments for entry that I and others have been urging on the Government since 1985, the conjunction of events on this occasion not only meant that the Madrid conditions on the wider basis of

269
what was going on in the Community in competition policy and liberalisation of capital movements had been met, but that the United Kingdom monetary aggregates were giving the right signals about a declining trend in inflation. Both sterling M0 and sterling M4 were giving those signals, which induced a feeling of confidence that we would be moving in at the right time and that the discipline imposed by the exchange rate would reinforce the downward inflationary curve. That strikes me as right and proper, and, in my view, disposes of the Opposition's attempt to launch a bogus dispute about whether the Madrid conditions had been fulfilled.
For those who do not support ERM entry, the real question is, what would have happened if we had not joined? In fact, most of the horrors with which they have taxed us now that we are in the system would have existed in considerably greater magnitude had we stayed outside. Strangely enough, the loss of sovereignty that is generally considered to be a consequence of ERM membership is far greater if rates are allowed to float freely: in those circumstances, the Government's domestic fiscal and monetary policies would be constantly undermined. We should do better to accept that a firm discipline provides better guidelines.
What are the next steps? Without question, we must continue to urge on our European partners the Government's plan for a hard ecu. There is far too much divergence within the Community for any single currency system to be imposed. The hard ecu, reinforced by the European monetary fund, will provide member Governments with a benchmark discipline; economies may then converge and we shall have a chance to establish whether the ultimate use of the ecu will provide a common currency—one day, perhaps, a single currency.
We must not allow the Delors option to be imposed on us; we must allow the market to impose its own solution, with the widest possible use of a new, hard ecu. I urge the Government to continue to press that argument in all quarters within the Community.
9 pm
Mr. John Smith: We have had a most interesting debate. At times, I reflected that we had heard some of the arguments on other occasions over the past 20 years when we have debated European Community matters: some Conservative Members saw the Community as a model of newfangled socialism come to torment them in the future, while some of my right hon. and hon. Friends detected the brutalities of the market place at their worst, to be reinforced by our own participation.
We have heard a series of interesting speeches about the effect on our industrial economy of ERM membership, and about what is likely to happen in the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves after 11 years of Conservative Government. Perhaps the most notable feature of the debate, however, was not to be observed in any of the speeches—some of them excellent—that we heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House. What was most notable, surely, was the absence of a speech from one right hon. Member who has signally declined every suggestion, invitation and exhortation to address the House; it was the absence of a speech from a head of Government who was unwilling to account to
270
Parliament, in this important debate, for policies in which she had been involved more intimately and more directly than any other member of her Administration.
The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is more obviously aware of that than anyone else. The right hon. Gentleman chose not to accept an intervention from me—I do not think that he has ever done that before—but that, perhaps, was just as well, because he must have known what I was going to ask him: I was going to ask who stood in the way of the policies that he advocated for so many years, thinking that they would be advantageous to the country. He knows the answer; the answer is the missing Prime Minister, who will not come to the House to give us her explanation.
My point is not merely that we are discussing what many hon. Members have agreed is a momentous decision, and that it would be appropriate for the head of Government to come and tell us about it. The Prime Minister was so closely involved that she lost not only a Chancellor but a Foreign Secretary, as well as a family friend, as a result of the issue. No doubt the right hon. Member for Blaby is scribbling his account of five years of her Government in his memoirs day by day. I understand that he will not publish them before the next general election, and I expect that that will come as a great relief. It is not my task to act as an advertising agent for the right hon. Gentleman—who seems to be quite good at acquiring jobs for himself without any assistance from my good self—but he mast be able to hear the sounds of enthusiasm emanating from the Benches behind me. My hon. Friends are keen for him to advance the date of publication. Indeed, may I suggest—using a word with which the Chancellor is very familiar—that he publish them in "prospective" serial form, to titillate the nation and, perhaps, inform us a little before the time comes for the next election?
I was very sad when the right hon. Gentleman announced that soon he would no longer be with us. Having been locked in combat with him for so many years, I have almost a feeling of affection for him. Now and again, one must allow one's better instincts to come to the surface. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that I do not intend to make that a habit, but I was genuinely sad when I heard that the right hon. Gentleman had decided to leave us. We shall miss him in our deliberations.
Having listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said today—and he has made explosive speeches undermining the Government, from whom he has departed, on more than one occasion—perhaps some of his right hon. and hon. Friends wished that he had applied for the Chiltern Hundreds rather than taken the City thousands—[Interruption.] One hon. Member suggests the right hon. Gentleman should call his new house "Unassailable".
The right hon. Gentleman's main purpose in this debate was to tell the Government something that the markets already knew—that there is cynicism about the reasons behind the Government's actions. In view of the importance of that, would not it have been all the more appropriate for the Prime Minister to come to the debate and settle the question of credibility and, by a stout and resolute performance, settle the worries and the fears about the motives behind Britain's entry into the ERM?
It is felt—and this is not unique to the Opposition as it is felt in all quarters—that the final decision to join the ERM was taken for blatantly political reasons. That was in character with the history of previous Government

271
actions. The Prime Minister wanted to reduce the burden on industry before the Conservative party conference. She discovered that that could not be done without joining the ERM because otherwise there would be pressure on Britain's currency, so the deed was done. That is wholly in keeping with the right hon. Lady's confused, irresolute, highly partisan and politically opportunist technique of dealing with affairs of state. Few people have found her explanations convincing. The right hon. Member for Blaby gave it away, and if he is convinced that the operation was cynical, it must have been so. I think that he knows quite a bit about that sort of operation.
At the beginning of his speech the Chancellor sought to throw away the Madrid conditions as though they had never been uttered. Indeed, one Conservative Member suggested that it was almost in bad taste to reiterate them. Let me remind the House of them. They were not forced on the Prime Minister by the other members of the European Community in some late-night haggle in Luxembourg, Strasbourg or somewhere else in Europe. They were not even the subject of negotiation between the Prime Minister and other member states. They were negotiated between the Prime Minister and the members of her Cabinet. The Madrid conditions were, first, that Britain would not enter the ERM until inflation had come down. It was not whether it might come down, whether it would come down or whether it was likely to come down; it was whether it had come down. Right hon. and hon. Members have reminded us of the detail of that and other conditions.
The Prime Minister prescribed other conditions that required action by others. I seem to remember that during the famous Walden interview she invented a new condition as each minute passed, until the programme was littered with new conditions. However, as she said rather disarmingly during Prime Minster's Question Time recently, "We had all these conditions, and they have all been fulfilled except one." The interesting point is that all those other conditions had to be fulfilled by other people, and they were. Only one had to be fulfilled by the right hon. Lady, but it was not. The right hon. Lady thought it to be some sort of victory—a triumph over the conditions that had been set, as a result of which she could boldly go forward into the ERM.
Underlying all that, and at the heart of the credibility question, is the right hon. Lady's well-known aversion to joining the ERM. Why else, during the revealing Walden interview, would she have described it as the
"higgledy-piggledy set of rules."?
I do not profess to know quite what she meant by that, but generally such an expression is not meant to be favourable. It has what might be called a marginally pejorative tone about it. We certainly did not feel that she was straining at the leash to join the ERM. But there we are, strange things happen. Opportunities and pressures are such that the Prime Minister will do almost anything to keep power and to oblige the narrow party political interests of her party. Inflation was to be the major condition.
The Chancellor was not quite as brass-necked as that. He tried to find a way out. I shall be drawing the attention of the House to the way in which the Chancellor uses words. Before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in April, he said that the Government were looking for a proximate rate of inflation between ourselves
272
and the Community. I think that he went on to define what he meant by a proximate, saying that Dr. Johnson had described it as meaning "near to".
I do not know whether the members of the Committee needed such education. They seemed pretty educated to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who made an extremely skilful speech, did not need such education.
By September the same year, in his speech to the IMF, the Chancellor had further refined his choice of words. He realised that not only would the Government not get anywhere near the rate of inflation; they would not even get proximately near it, so they had to change the time scale. Therefore, he said that what mattered was the prospective movement. The Chancellor, not quite so brazen as the Prime Minister, gradually sought to wriggle out from his commitments; she just threw them aside.
Whatever the Prime Minister did, this was a humiliating u-turn for a Prime Minister who had set her face in another direction. She abandoned commitments and, in the process, displayed an underlying lack of conviction, which has worked its way through into the market place.
The decision having been taken, we are now in the difficulty that the Prime Minister's economic policies have left Britain in a weaker position than other member countries, less well able to face the opportunities and challenges that the single market offers, especially now that it is to be operated within the confines of membership of the ERM.
In this debate, and in debates that we shall have in the months to come, we must consider what has to be done now; what policies should be adopted. The Opposition never believed for one moment that it would be enough to enter the ERM. That has to be accompanied by a strong supply side policy directed to building a strong economy.
Before I consider the matters at the heart of the debate, we need, as the Chancellor did, to look at what is proposed for the next steps in the consideration of European economic and monetary affairs.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been dealing with the conditions set out by the Prime Minister at Madrid some time ago, but he will recollect that this afternoon the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked how many of the conditions set out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his Labour party policy document 12 months ago had been satisfied. Does not he think that he should reply to his right hon. Friend?
Mr. Smith: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make my speech in my own way. But he must understand one thing. We advocated entry into the ERM and we said that it should be accompanied by Government negotiation on certain conditions. I did not conduct the negotiations; they were conducted by the Government. That point must be evident. It is evident to me, to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and, I am sure, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—I made the point last Monday in the House, but I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Chingford was present; he has been here only intermittently today—that the regional policy conditions have not been fulfilled. The Government made no attempt

273
to strengthen our European regional policy. I shall go on because what I have to say might interest the right hon. Gentleman and he should pay particular attention to it.
We have not heard much from the Chancellor about the central banking system. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition argued clearly the need for political accountability. Nor did the Chancellor say much about the single currency and the arguments that there will be about that. No doubt the Chief Secretary will deal with that in his reply. All those matters are brought together conveniently by the Government under the so-called hard ecu proposal. That is the Government's new response. It may help the House to know what the Government have been saying about the hard ecu, how they have moved in respect of the ERM, and the techniques that they have used in the manipulation of language.
Before I do so, I am bound to be asked what the Opposition's view is on a central bank and a single currency. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear our belief that a system of central banks must be politically accountable. At this time, when the gap between Britain's performance and that of other members of the Community is so wide, it would not be prudent to commit ourselves to an irrevocable exchange rate or to a single currency. We want to play an active, participative role in the European Community. We are already in the single market and have advocated membership of the ERM. We shall now work for a stronger regional policy.
Conservative Members are as foolish about regional policy at home as they are about it within the Community, but such a policy is vital in building a strong Community that operates fairly in respect of all its member states. We shall work to support the social action programme, which is vital to the balance between economic success and social cohesion. The need for that is understood by many countries in the Community, but not by Conservative Members—[Interruption.] Government Members keep asking about. Labour party policy, but they will not listen when I explain what it is.
We shall all the while seek to close the gap between our economic performance and that of the rest of the Community, and between our social standards and those of the rest of the Community.
Mr. Cash: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not said a thing.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) should listen to what I have to say.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the hard ecu is based on market choice and will evolve into a parallel currency. He said that it was the choice of Governments and of people. However, the "Treasury Bulletin" published yesterday set out the argument in more detail. I remind the House that it is proposed that a European monetary fund be established to act as the monetary authority for a new currency—the hard ecu. The distinguishing characteristic of that new currency is that it will never be allowed to devalue against any other Community currency. The "Treasury Bulletin" explains that
"the hard ecu would always be at least as strong as the strongest currency"—
and we can guess which one that will be, although the bulletin adds disarmingly,
"whatever that happened to be."
274
It adds:
"It would be the responsibility of the EMF—a fundamental one enshrined in Community law"—
members of the Bruges group please note—
"to ensure that hard ecu devaluation never occurred."
The hard ecu was first presented by the Chancellor as a form of common or parallel currency that would he useful to exporters and people engaged in foreign trade, but nothing terribly exciting for the rest of us. It was just viewed as a useful device. I understand—and the Chief Secretary can tell me whether this is true—that the concept was sold to the Prime Minister by Sir Michael Butler, a former ambassador and a permanent United Kingdom representative to the Community. He is also chairman of the British Invisible Exports Council. Sir Michael's technique was to argue that the hard ecu was a market-led resolution of the problem. If one says the magic words to the Prime Minister, she just rolls over. The process of ratiocination may have stopped, but the magic words were said, and the right hon. Lady thought that since it was a market solution, it must be all right. The Prime Minister should take a little more care.
The difficulty of judging the hard ecu proposal is knowing whether it is designed to fail or to succeed. A t a cynical level, one could understand the proposal if it were designed to fail. That would take time, which would allow the Government to say something at meetings of the intergovernmental council. However, if we take the proposal at face value and accept that it is meant to succeed, the House should examine it carefully. It was surprising that the Chancellor did not tell us more than he did. The first impression gained was that the hard ecu is an alternative vehicle for exporters, but the way that it has been described by different Ministers puts me on my guard.
There is the belief in the House, and probably in the country, that the Prime Minister is against all this stuff—that she is a resolute defender of sovereignty and an even more resolute defender of parliamentary accountability.[Laughter.] That is her stock in trade. One might think it odd that, at this stage in this debate, one should be reflecting on her habit of constantly mentioning parliamentary accountability. The fact remains that she has said it.
The question that I want to ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is this: is the hard ecu an alternative to a single currency which would avoid our having to face questions of sovereignty and accountability? Or is it another route to a single currency—perhaps even a convenient transitionary mechanism through stage 2 of Delors, which unavoidably raises questions of sovereignty and accountability but seeks to keep them suppressed and to move them away from our consideration?
Listeners must have been alerted by the Chancellor's use of words at the Conservative party conference—in the euphoria of those heady days. What a long time ago it seems since the Chancellor was in Bournemouth. He must be reflecting on how one should enjoy the plaudits of the Conservative party while one may. Certainly, the financial markets seem to be a corrective to some of the political feelings that were expressed there. The Chancellor said to the conference:
"Joining the exchange rate mechanism does not mean that we are now on a road leading inexorably to a single currency."
That word "inexorably" flashed up in lights for the benefit of anyone who was paying attention. Why use that word?

275
Was it accidental? Did the right hon. Gentleman simply think, "This is the day for being inexorable"? I think that he chose it with some care.
I used to think that the Foreign Office was the Department of weasel words, but the Treasury is getting pretty smart at them too. It has certainly never before had such a willing user of them as the present Chancellor. The right hon. Member for Blaby would scorn that kind of thing. We got it pretty straight from him. It was not very nice when we got it, but we got it fairly straight. One can either do what the right hon. Gentleman did or one can wriggle one's way round the issues with weasel words.
Only a few days ago, in his Mansion house speech, the Chancellor said:
"Joining the exchange rate mechanism did not commit us to adopting, and cannot oblige us to accept, the imposition of a single currency in Europe."
I do not know how one adopts an imposition. The Treasury might care to have a look at that infelicity before it sets out to equip the Chancellor with his next set of words for avoiding answering questions on these matters. But perhaps I fuss too much. That apart, what on earth does it mean that we are not to have a common single currency forced upon us? In what conceivable circumstances would we have it imposed upon us? If we were going to have a single currency, we should have to agree to it. We should have to go along with it. I have no doubt that, if it came to making a decision in the House, there would be fierce arguments about it. No one would be imposing it on anyone, so I do not know quite what the Chancellor meant in that speech.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"the hard ecu could ultimately evolve towards a single currency if it were the wish of Governments and peoples that it should be used in preference to their own currencies."
That leaves the door open, but the use of the word "ultimately" suggests that there is still some time to go, so the Bruges group should not get too worried just yet.
One is led to wonder what the Prime Minister was thinking about the question when she came back from the Dublin summit, at which the question was aired, and reported to the House on 28 June this year. When asked about the hard ecu, she said:
"I do not believe that that formula could develop into a single currency."—[Official Report, 28 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 493.]
The Prime Minister tells us that she does not think that the hard ecu could develop into a single currency while the Chancellor tells us that it will, or would, if people decided to follow that route.
What is the latest position? Alerted to the question, I have been examining matters with some care over the past few days. The new addition to the Treasury team, the Financial Secretary, who, I am sorry to say, is not with us tonight, was speaking at the EMU seminar of the British Invisible Exports Council on the 10th of this month. Describing the hard ecu, he said:
"It would be a genuine common currency and one which could easily develop into a single currency as Governments and peoples decided."
Even more interesting is the report in today's Financial Times to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has already referred. I shall quote from the
276
Financial Times report of the evidence that the Minister gave to the House of Lords Committee on economic and monetary union:
"Mr. Frances Maude, the minister responsible for European Affairs, put the Treasury's case succinctly in evidence earlier this month to a House of Lords committee. The hard Ecu, he said, offered a direct route to a single European currency."
He added:
"I would argue personally that the next stage of having a single currency could actually happen more quickly going down this path."
We have moved from that potential, useful device for exporters and other curious people to another route by which we could achieve a single currency not only feasibly, but easily and quickly. Things have moved quite a bit.
The Chancellor said that we should consider the next steps and he wanted a careful definition of the Opposition's position. However, in the light of all the contradictory advice to which I have just referred, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury should explain what is happening.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: No. The hon. Gentleman is doing well enough listening to me. I am sure that he will find my comments illuminating.
The "Treasury Bulletin" states that if the hard ecu catches on, the circulation of weaker currencies will fall and national monetary authorities will have to take action by pursuing tighter monetary policies. They will be forced to keep up. There is also a requirement to reimburse the EMF against exchange losses on devaluation. That is a strong disincentive to depreciate, as the "Treasury Bulletin" makes clear.
We need to be more clear about the constitution of the European monetary fund. Who is accountable for it? How does it work? To whom does it report? All those issues raise sovereignty and accountability questions. If the Government believe that I am making too much of a fuss about that, I shall quote Mr. Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs who examined the hard ecu and concluded:
"All of the problems associated with accountability and independence of the Eurofed, which have so exercised Mr Major, would apply in equal measure to his alternative European Monetary Fund."
I was put even more on the alert by a statement made by Sir Michael Butler, to whom I referred at an earlier stage in this saga. He has been thinking about the issue and how to incorporate the proposal into the treaty. He realises that there must be treaty amendments if the EMF and hard ecu are to be adopted. I know that this is not Government policy yet, but it is an interesting proposal. At a seminar at Hambros bank on 11 October, Sir Michael Butler proposed a treaty amendment that would
"create a European System of Central Banks consisting of the twelve national Central Banks and a European Monetary Fund owned and run by the Central Banks, to be operational from day one of Stage 2".
Clearly the EMF is linked with a system of central banking.
Sir Michael then states that a treaty amendment should
"lay down the aim of price stability for the whole EMU process and of permanently fixed parities leading to a single currency in Stage 3".
Is that Government policy? If the Prime Minister was here, she could clear all this up. If I could get the Prime Minister

277
to answer my questions, I should not be quoting Ministers. She could speak on behalf of the whole Government—at least one would hope that she might.
These are important sovereignty and accountability issues and I hope that the Chief Secretary will consider them. The House will not let the matter drop. We have seen how the Government twist and turn, how they say one thing and do another and how they profess principles and then so easily abandon them.
The crucial point about the debate, to which all hon. Members have referred, is what we do from here. After having entered the exchange rate mechanism, we have been left with the weakest economy of the member states. The right hon. Member for Blaby may disagree, but we hear no more from him about the so-called economic miracle under which we were to have overtaken Germany and be pressing hard on Japan. Germany is now well ahead; France is significantly ahead; Italy is overtaking us; and Spain is coming up fast behind—and all of that after this Government have been in power for 11 years with large majorities and huge oil resources.
We have an ailing economy that has been damaged by the Government's policies over the past 11 years. As our amendment states, what we need now is what we have argued for in debate after debate, day after day—we shall do so in the House and in the country. To build a strong economy and a fair society, we need a vigorous regional policy, a new drive to provide British industry with the best of modern technology, a proper infrastructure, good social services, a good transport system, and, above all, an education and training system that gives our people the chance to compete. In the new Europe we have the opportunity to compete. We shall have to compete.
An hon. Member asked whether the other member states were partners or competitors. They are both—they are partners and competitors. We have opportunities and great challenges. We shall be able to realise them only if one thing above all is comprehended—that is that the crucial determinant of success in a modern economy is the way in which we utilise the skills of our people. That is what the next Labour Government will be committed to do. We shall make a success of our economy and our society, even with the difficult inheritance that will be our unfortunate and unhappy lot.
9.30 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) at least on one thing, and that is that this has been a remarkable debate. We have heard some strong and powerful speeches, many of which have certainly cut across party lines.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made a remarkable and passionate speech in which he declared his strong opposition to fixed exchange rates. He said that, when he was a Minister, he had experienced the constraints of fixed exchange rates, which—I hope that I do not sound impertinent by saying this—is one reason why some of us have come round to being in favour of them.
Hon. Members also heard a powerful speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). I express my sadness that my right hon. Friend announced his decision yesterday to retire at the next election. His departure will represent a great loss both to the House and
278
to my party. The debate is a bitter-sweet moment for my right hon. Friend as a long-standing advocate of the ER. M. He made his views very clear today. Also, the House was interested to hear his comments about EMU. Although he is a strong opponent of EMU, my right hon. Friend urged the Conservative party not to fear too much stage 3 of EMU on which he had doubts, for example, whether it was a real threat and would happen.
Hon. Members also heard an eloquent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He joined the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney in opposition to fixed exchange rates. There was one point on which I sharply disagreed with my right hon. Friend. He referred to entry into the ERM as a sort of European incomes policy. I do not think that that is the effect of the ERM. If it were, I certainly would not be in favour of it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby explained, it is a monetary framework. Just as the control of monetary aggregates is a framework of which wage bargainers must take account, so will wage bargainers have to take account of the new regime of fixed exchange rates.
My right hon. Friend referred to what the Chancellor said about wage claims. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was not urging an incomes policy; he was just drawing the attention of wage bargainers to the consequences for employment and for themselves if wage claims were excessive. That is certainly very different from an incomes policy which in the past has been designed to control inflation, but, of course, never has controlled inflation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North made most of his remarks, however, about his clear preference for floating exchange rates. I remember, as he will remember, the occasion when a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Barber, came to the House and announced that the pound was to float free. I take a different view from my right hon. Friend. The consequences of that decision have not been as beneficial and as benign as they then appeared to be. The period of floating exchange rates worldwide has been one of higher inflation. Looking back, the period under Bretton Woods and the fixed exchange rate was a period of greater stability and lower inflation.
The temptation to let exchange rates depreciate has always been powerful for Governments. However, that temptation has not brought any benefits because the effects of depreciating the currency have been short lived in terms of promoting output and competitiveness, but have been lasting in terms of inflation. That is one of the reasons why the Government concluded that it would be right to join the ERM.
Another part of the debate has dealt with whether joining the ERM should lead automatically to European monetary union. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby referred to that. It is very much the Government's view that joining the exchange rate mechanism does not mean that we have to go down the road of the Delors plan towards European monetary union. The House was interested to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby who has always been strongly in favour of the ERM, but who, as everybody knows, has always been passionately opposed to EMU. It was interesting that my right hon. Friend quoted Mr. Volcker, saying that he did not think that we could have a single currency without

279
also having the full institution of a common Government. That is why we unequivocally and unambiguously are not in favour of the Delors plan.
The Leader of the Opposition made an interesting and important speech in which he seemed to carry forward his party's policies. However, neither after his speech nor after that of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East is it clear that the Labour party is opposed to the Delors plan. That was not clear from the speeches that we heard today.
Mr. Tebbit: My right hon. Friend knows that, like a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am rather an agnostic about the ERM itself. On balance, I believe that, at the moment, our entry is probably more likely to be helpful than unhelpful——
Mr. Teddy Taylor: In the short term.
Mr. Tebbit: Yes, in the short term. However, what worries me, like many other hon. Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), is whether it will lead to a single currency and, therefore, to a single Government. Will my right hon. Friend be a little more robust in what he says? He has said that the Government are unequivocally opposed to the Delors plan, but will he say that the Government will refuse absolutely, clearly and flatly to go along with any pretence of a single currency?
Mr. Lamont: I have made it clear that the Government are wholly opposed to the Delors plan for a single currency. If my right hon. Friend is asking me whether it is conceivable that the hard ecu could become a single currency, the answer is that a hard ecu could not become a single currency unless Government and Parliament decided on that. We do not believe that that is something which has the support of the House or the people of this country at this time. It may be a decision that future generations or future Governments may wish to make, but it is not the policy of this Government.
Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because he has come a long way along the road to making this matter clear—[Interruption.] Of course, it is correct that entry into the ERM, the hard ecu or even the fact that today's date is 23 October could lead at some time—if people wanted it to—to a common currency. I am asking my right hon. Friend to confirm that the Government are irrevocably opposed to a common currency, whether it is Mr. Delors' common currency or anybody else's. [HON. MEMBERS: "Single currency."] I beg the House's pardon—I mean a single currency. I want to know whether the Government are irrevocably opposed to a single currency, whether it is Mr. Delors' single currency or anybody else's.
Mr. Lamont: The Government are opposed to a single currency. The hard ecu has tremendous attractions for developing co-operation on an evolutionary basis and on the basis of a parallel which recognises the reality of commerce becoming more integrated in Europe. But that would not become a single currency unless a future Government so desired
Mr. Spearing rose——
Mr. Leighton rose——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Chief Secretary is not giving way.
Mr. Lamont: I gave a clear answer to my right hon. Friend's question.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney attacked the Government's decision on the ground that we had entered the ERM at too low an exchange rate. I have no doubt that the central rate of DM2·95 strikes the right balance between the need to maintain a firm anchor against inflation and the importance of preserving the competitiveness of British goods on world markets.
The right hon. Gentleman chose to quote some figures. He compared the level of the deutschmark today with the level of 1927—[Interruption.] I should say 1987. The right hon. Gentleman made a selective point but it was not so selective as that. He selected a period when sterling's real rate aginst the deutschmark was at its lowest for the whole of the past 10 years. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the real rate of exchange at which we have chosen to join the ERM is close to the rate of the recent past and of the past decade.
We have heard some wild speeches about the decision to enter the ERM and about the parity. It was said that our decision was akin to the decision to join the gold standard in 1925 at the pre-war parity. Those speeches were wildly off the mark. When sterling returned to the gold standard in 1925 the rate chosen was not that which prevailed in the markets at the time but that which had prevailed before the war. It is fanciful to compare my right hon. Friend's decision with that decision. To have chosen that sort of parity, he would have had to choose a level of sterling to the deutschmark from many years ago.
Mr. Morgan: Does the Chief Secretary accept that the rate of DM2·95 to the pound may be right for today, but that the British rate of inflation will not fall from 11 per cent. to 3 per cent. overnight? It will fall from 11 per cent. this year to 7 per cent. next year, to 4 per cent. the year after that at best. Yet German inflation will fall from 4 per cent. this year to 3 per cent. and then to 2 per cent. So over two and a half years our competitiveness will decline in relation to the deutschmark by 15 percentage points. That will mean that DM2·95 today will be DM3·40 in two years. How many British industries will be competitive at DM3·40 to the pound? That is where we shall be in two and a half years' time.
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman illustrates precisely the reason why we have joined the ERM. He puts forward the theory of constant competitiveness and devaluation. It is precisely because other countries' economies inflate at slower rates than ours that we want the discipline of the ERM influenced by the Bundesbank so that we can compete and our costs and productivity can gradually attain the same levels as in Germany. That is precisely the reason why the Government have joined the ERM.
Much of the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was about the conditions under which the Government have joined the ERM and whether the Government satisfied the conditions that they laid down for themselves. For some time the only issue has been the rate of United Kingdom inflation, but, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it is clear from both the monetary indicators and the real indicators that the economy is slowing down. Both the narrow definition of money and the broad definition of

281
money have slowed sharply. We have good reason for feeling confident that we are about to see an early fall in inflation. Given the relationship that existed in the past between monetary aggregates and inflation, we feel confident that, next year, we shall see a fall in inflation.
Given that the evidence was so clear and the economy was slowing down, was there any point in waiting any longer to join the ERM? I believe that it would have been sheer masochism to delay that decision any longer, especially given the uncertainty in the financial markets. They wanted a decision and that decision will reinforce the Government's anti-inflation policies.
Some people, including the Leader of the Opposition, have criticised the 1 per cent. cut in interest rates. That is a bit rich coming from him, considering that all that he has done in the past year has been to call for interest rate cut after interest rate cut. The moment we made that cut, however, he accused us of having done so for political reasons. There were three good reasons for doing so: first, the state of the economy justified it; secondly, at 14 per cent., interest rates remain high; and, thirdly, those high levels of interest rate are reinforced by our membership of the ERM. Nobody could judge the combination of a 1 per cent. cut in interest rates and joining the ERM as a loosening of policy.
It was noticeable that the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East said little about their own policies except in one respect: we were told that the Labour party wants to introduce credit controls. Now that we have joined the ERM that is the Labour party's one remaining distinctive policy. On the whole, I think that the Opposition would have been better advised not to mention credit controls, as they are widely regarded as outdated, ineffective and irrelevant. Even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East is rather half-hearted in his defence of them.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about a Walden interview with the Prime Minister, but I enjoyed another Walden interview in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was taken apart by Mr. Walden on the subject of credit controls. Again and again Mr. Walden pointed out that there is not much point to credit controls if they do not apply to building societies. Mr. Walden pointed out that the main beneficiaries of credit control are likely to be the offshore foreign competitors of the British banking system. Mr. Walden's most telling argument was that if one restricts the supply of credit through controls the likely consequence is to drive the price—interest rates—up. To deny that is to deny the laws of economics and of supply and demand.
If there are unsatisfied borrowers unable to borrow and lenders willing to lend but prevented from doing so by the Government, how can the result be anything other than an increase in interest rates? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believe that lenders will just shrug their shoulders and take a fall in profits? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that life just ain't like that. That is why some countries use the mechanism that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition confuse with credit controls. They use that mechanism as a method of regulating interest rates. Mr. Walden tried to make that point clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was curiously obtuse on that occasion.
Mr. Walden even pointed out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, even if he did not intend that
282
credit controls should drive up interest rates, that might still be the consequence. Mr. Walden pointed out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not do anything about that unless he passed a law to stop it happening, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had no intention of passing such a law.
During the interview the right hon. and learned Gentleman muttered and mumbled and spoke about a control in the 1970s known as the "corset" which was a form of credit control that did not drive interest rates up. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's memory is not very good and I believe that it is arguable whether the "corset" put up interest rates. One thing is certain, however: the credit controls that existed under the Labour Government of the 1970s may or may not have kept interest rates down, but they certainly kept inflation up. When we had credit controls in the early 1970s of the kind about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was talking, we had inflation in excess of 25 per cent. That was the effect of credit controls.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then gave the game away completely. He threw in the towel and said:
"Having credit controls, there to be used if they are necessary, and that depends on whether demand has already dropped."
Note the words:
"that depends on whether demand has already dropped."
A little later the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to disagree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought that the economy was in a recession and added:
"My judgment is that demand is falling very fast in the economy at the moment."
In other words, strip away the rhetoric and the right hon. and learned Gentleman conceded that, if there ever was a case for credit controls, the time had long since passed. Despite that, Labour Members retain credit controls in their amendment and in their policy, although everybody knows that such a policy cannot, and will not, work and is utterly irrelevant.
I find the attitude of Labour Members in the debate utterly astonishing. What are they criticising? About what are they complaining? We have had many petulant tears, as though a child had seen its rounders bat stolen. We have heard cries of, "They have not done it for the right reason" and, "They do not believe it." It all smacks of sour grapes.
For some time, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has been telling us that we must join the ERM. Indeed, it has been his only policy, other than credit controls. It has been his answer to every question and problem. When asked how he would control inflation, he answered, "We shall join the ERM." When asked how Labour would run the economy without interest rates, he replied, "We shall join the ERM." Asked how he would achieve growth, he replied, "We shall join the ERM." Many of his answers have been contradictory and many have been wrong. They have been the cloak behind which Labour Members have concealed their complete absence of policies. It is a clear case of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party suffering——
Mr. Leighton rose——
Mr. Lamont: I will give way later.
Labour Members are suffering from what Christopher Fildes has called bovine spongiform Euromania, or mad bull disease. It is a disease that lodges in holes in the cerebellum and causes erosion of the powers of reasoning. Sufferers come to believe that membership of the ERM has

283
magical powers and will solve all problems. They also suffer from irrational fear and outbreaks of terror about something called the golden scenario. It is a golden scenario in which the Tories engineer a short boom, falling interest rates, a quick election—and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is returned in time to go back to Ascot. Rational people know that the ERM has more limited powers, that it is a discipline, but that it is a powerful one which involves hard and difficult choices having to be made.
Labour Members are sore because they believed that the Government never would join the ERM. They were content to go on urging us to join, even though they did not know what the ERM was and what its implications were. They thought that it did not matter when they did not bother to explain it to the public. They were content to urge the Government to join, so long as it was their distinctive policy.
Seventy-two hours before the Chancellor announced his decision to join the ERM, the Leader of the Opposition was telling his party in Blackpool that if he were ever in a position to take decisions, one of the first would be to take sterling into the ERM. When it happened, what did we find? Did the right hon. Gentleman lead the cheers? Did he join the welcome? Did we hear the faintest echo, even a whisper of support, from him? No. It was left to one of the luckless Labour media advisers to provide the definitive reaction, preserved for posterity in the pink pages of the Financial Times. I shall give the quote in full because it bears repeating. The spokesman said:
"This has really screwed up our coverage in the media tomorrow. The conference organisers had laid on a particularly spectacular finale with the Red Flag, Jerusalem and auld lang syne to follow a rousing, rallying cry by Dr. Jack Cunningham, the campaign co-ordinator. All that now goes by the board. They have outsmarted us."
How can we explain the modest reception for the sudden implementation of what we were told was the central plank of the economic strategy of the Labour party? The answer is all too simple: for the Labour party, ERM was not a policy but an excuse. For it, joining the ERM was not a policy for reinforcing the anti-inflation process, but a fig leaf to conceal the absence of its policies. For it, the ERM was not the exchange rate mechanism but a slogan designed to cover up the bankruptcy of its own ideas. Read their lips—for members of the Labour party, ERM spells "everything's a real muddle."
Mr. Leighton: In an answer the Chief Secretary said that the hard ecu was evolutionary—evolutionary towards what?
Mr. Lamont: I have dealt with that question and I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is well satisfied with my answer.
Mr. John Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us about the arrangements for accountability for the European monetary fund? Does Sir Michael Butler—[Interruption.] I hear the right hon. Gentleman asking the Chancellor for the answer, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us his own answer. How will the European monetary fund operate and how will it account to the House?
Mr. Lamont: We have made it clear on several occasions that we do not believe in an independent central bank at a European or a national level. The monetary authority would be subject to political control, which would have to be negotiated, but it would not be, in the sense that the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes it, an independent central bank.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks me a lot of questions, but he did not give away one detail about his policy on the matter. I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why on earth, if he is not in favour of a single currency, he is in favour of a central bank in the first place, which is what he was putting forward.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, of all people, has least cause to complain or criticise the Government in their attitude to the ERM. In his famous Walden interview, when he was asked about his economic policy in the current climate, he replied that he would do two things: join the ERM and cut interest rates by 1 per cent. However, his reception and reaction have been strangely muted and his rapture strictly modified, yet he has a profound and lasting influence on my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and all Labour Members who have spoken in the debate have shown that they do not understand what the ERM is about. They do not understand that it is a discipline to lower inflationary expectations, and to give us the benefits of the policies of low inflation countries and that the whole point of the ERM is for inflation to converge towards the level of low inflation countries.
The terms referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford add up to the following: first, devalue the currency, then lock into the new inflationary exchange rate and follow that by subverting the monetary discipline that lies at the heart of the ERM. By doing that, the Labour party would remove the very features of the ERM that make it an anchor against inflation. The truth is that the Labour party does not want an anchor against inflation today any more than it did in the past.
Labour has no credible monetary policy. It has no credible policy on the ERM. We believe that an important step has been taken: one which enhances the credibility of our monetary policy, will help us to defeat inflation and will bring lasting benefit to the people of the country. I commend the motion to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 323.

Division No. 331]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Boyes, Roland

Allen, Graham

Bradley, Keith

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Armstrong, Hilary

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Buckley, George J.

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Caborn, Richard

Barron, Kevin

Callaghan, Jim

Battle, John

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Beckett, Margaret

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Beggs, Roy

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Bell, Stuart

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

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

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bermingham, Gerald

Cohen, Harry

Bidwell, Sydney

Coleman, Donald

Blair, Tony

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Blunkett, David

Corbett, Robin

Boateng, Paul

Cousins, Jim

285

Crowther, Stan

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Cummings, John

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Maxton, John

Cunningham, Dr John

Meacher, Michael

Dalyell, Tam

Michael, Alun

Darling, Alistair

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Morgan, Rhodri

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

Morley, Elliot

Dewar, Donald

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Dixon, Don

Murphy, Paul

Dobson, Frank

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Doran, Frank

O'Brien, William

Douglas, Dick

O'Hara, Edward

Dunnachie, Jimmy

O'Neill, Martin

Eastham, Ken

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Parry, Robert

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Patchett, Terry

Faulds, Andrew

Pendry, Tom

Fisher, Mark

Pike, Peter L.

Flannery, Martin

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Flynn, Paul

Prescott, John

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Primarolo, Dawn

Foster, Derek

Quin, Ms Joyce

Fraser, John

Radice, Giles

Fyfe, Maria

Randall, Stuart

Galbraith, Sam

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Richardson, Jo

George, Bruce

Robertson, George

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Robinson, Geoffrey

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Rogers, Allan

Gould, Bryan

Rooker, Jeff

Graham, Thomas

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Rowlands, Ted

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Ruddock, Joan

Hardy, Peter

Salmond, Alex

Harman, Ms Harriet

Sedgemore, Brian

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Sheerman, Barry

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Short, Clare

Henderson, Doug

Sillars, Jim

Hinchliffe, David

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

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

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

Home Robertson, John

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Hood, Jimmy

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Snape, Peter

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Soley, Clive

Hoyle, Doug

Steinberg, Gerry

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Stott, Roger

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Strang, Gavin

Illsley, Eric

Straw, Jack

Ingram, Adam

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Janner, Greville

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Trimble, David

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Turner, Dennis

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Vaz, Keith

Lambie, David

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Lamond, James

Walley, Joan

Leadbitter, Ted

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Leighton, Ron

Wareing, Robert N.

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Lewis, Terry

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Litherland, Robert

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Wigley, Dafydd

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

McAllion, John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McAvoy, Thomas

Wilson, Brian

McCartney, Ian

Winnick, David

McFall, John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

McKelvey, William

Worthington, Tony

McLeish, Henry

Wray, Jimmy

McNamara, Kevin

Young, David (Bolton SE)

McWilliam, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Tellers for the Ayes:

Marek, Dr John

Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Allen McKay.

Marschall, David (Shettleston)

286

NOES

Adley, Robert

Dover, Den

Aitken, Jonathan

Dunn, Bob

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Durant, Tony

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Dykes, Hugh

Amess, David

Eggar, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Emery, Sir Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Evennett, David

Ashby, David

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Aspinwall, Jack

Fallon, Michael

Atkins, Robert

Fearn, Ronald

Atkinson, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Baldry, Tony

Fookes, Dame Janet

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Forman, Nigel

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Forth, Eric

Beith, A. J.

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bellingham, Henry

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bendall, Vivian

Freeman, Roger

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

French, Douglas

Benyon, W.

Fry, Peter

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gale, Roger

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Gardiner, George

Body, Sir Richard

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Goodlad, Alastair

Boswell, Tim

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bottomley, Peter

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Gorst, John

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bowis, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gregory, Conal

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Brazier, Julian

Grist, Ian

Bright, Graham

Grylls, Michael

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

Hague, William

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Hampson, Dr Keith

Buck, Sir Antony

Hanley, Jeremy

Burns, Simon

Hannam, John

Burt, Alistair

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Butler, Chris

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Butterfill, John

Harris, David

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Haselhurst, Alan

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hawkins, Christopher

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayes, Jerry

Carrington, Matthew

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Carttiss, Michael

Hayward, Robert

Cartwright, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cash, William

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Chapman, Sydney

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Chope, Christopher

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Churchill, Mr

Hill, James

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

Hind, Kenneth

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Holt, Richard

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Colvin, Michael

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

Conway, Derek

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Cormack, Patrick

Howells, Geraint

Couchman, James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Critchley, Julian

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Curry, David

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

Hunter, Andrew

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Irvine, Michael

Day, Stephen

Irving, Sir Charles

Devlin, Tim

Jack, Michael

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jackson, Robert

Dicks, Terry

Janman, Tim

Dorrell, Stephen

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

287

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Price, Sir David

Key, Robert

Raffan, Keith

Kilfedder, James

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rathbone, Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Redwood, John

Kirkwood, Archy

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Knapman, Roger

Rhodes James, Robert

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Riddick, Graham

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knowles, Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Knox, David

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Roe, Mrs Marion

Lang, Ian

Rost, Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Rowe, Andrew

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lee, John (Pendle)

Ryder, Richard

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lilley, Peter

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Livsey, Richard

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lord, Michael

Shelton, Sir William

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Shersby, Michael

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Maclean, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maclennan, Robert

Soames, Hon Nicholas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Speller, Tony

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Squire, Robin

Madel, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Major, Rt Hon John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Malins, Humfrey

Steen, Anthony

Mans, Keith

Stern, Michael

Maples, John

Stevens, Lewis

Marland, Paul

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Marlow, Tony

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stokes, Sir John

Mates, Michael

Sumberg, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Summerson, Hugo

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mills, Iain

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Miscampbell, Norman

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mitchell, Sir David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Moate, Roger

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Thornton, Malcolm

Morrison, Sir Charles

Thurnham, Peter

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Moss, Malcolm

Tracey, Richard

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Tredinnick, David

Mudd, David

Trippier, David

Neale, Gerrard

Trotter, Neville

Nelson, Anthony

Twinn, Dr Ian

Neubert, Michael

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Nicholls, Patrick

Viggers, Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Norris, Steve

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Walden, George

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wallace, James

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Waller, Gary

Page, Richard

Ward, John

Paice, James

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Patnick, Irvine

Warren, Kenneth

Patten, Rt Hon John

Watts, John

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wells, Bowen

Pawsey, James

Wheeler, Sir John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Whitney, Ray

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Widdecombe, Ann

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wilkinson, John

Portillo, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas

288

Wolfson, Mark

Tellers for the Noes:

Wood, Timothy

Sir George Young and Mr. David Lightbown.

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Yeo, Tim

Younger, Rt Hon George

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided:Ayes 300, Noes 227.

Division No. 332]

[10.15 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Curry, David

Aitken, Jonathan

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Day, Stephen

Amess, David

Devlin, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Dickens, Geoffrey

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Ashby, David

Dover, Den

Aspinwall, Jack

Dunn, Bob

Atkins, Robert

Durant, Tony

Atkinson, David

Dykes, Hugh

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Eggar, Tim

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Emery, Sir Peter

Baldry, Tony

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Evennett, David

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fallon, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bendall, Vivian

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Benyon, W.

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forman, Nigel

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Forth, Eric

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Boswell, Tim

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bottomley, Peter

Freeman, Roger

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

French, Douglas

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Fry, Peter

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gale, Roger

Bowis, John

Gardiner, George

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Brazier, Julian

Goodlad, Alastair

Bright, Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

Gorst, John

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Buck, Sir Antony

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Burns, Simon

Gregory, Conal

Burt, Alistair

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Butler, Chris

Grist, Ian

Butterfill, John

Grylls, Michael

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hague, William

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carttiss, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Cartwright, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Cash, William

Hannam, John

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Chapman, Sydney

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Chope, Christopher

Harris, David

Churchill, Mr

Haselhurst, Alan

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

Hawkins, Christopher

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hayes, Jerry

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hayward, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Conway, Derek

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Cormack, Patrick

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Couchman, James

Hill, James

Critchley, Julian

Hind, Kenneth

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

289

Holt, Richard

Page, Richard

Hordern, Sir Peter

Paice, James

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

Patnick, Irvine

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Pawsey, James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunter, Andrew

Portillo, Michael

Irvine, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Irving, Sir Charles

Price, Sir David

Jack, Michael

Raffan, Keith

Jackson, Robert

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rathbone, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Redwood, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rhodes James, Robert

Key, Robert

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kilfedder, James

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Roe, Mrs Marion

Knapman, Roger

Rost, Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Rowe, Andrew

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Knowles, Michael

Ryder, Richard

Knox, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lang, Ian

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lawrence, Ivan

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shelton, Sir William

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lilley, Peter

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shersby, Michael

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lord, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Speller, Tony

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Squire, Robin

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Maclean, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Steen, Anthony

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Stern, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Stevens, Lewis

Madel, David

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Major, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Malins, Humfrey

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Mans, Keith

Stokes, Sir John

Maples, John

Sumberg, David

Marland, Paul

Summerson, Hugo

Marlow, Tony

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mates, Michael

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mills, Iain

Thornton, Malcolm

Miscampbell, Norman

Thurnham, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Mitchell, Sir David

Tracey, Richard

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Tredinnick, David

Moore, Rt Hon John

Trippier, David

Morrison, Sir Charles

Trotter, Neville

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Moss, Malcolm

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Viggers, Peter

Neale, Gerrard

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Nelson, Anthony

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Neubert, Michael

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Nicholls, Patrick

Walden, George

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waller, Gary

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Ward, John

Norris, Steve

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Warren, Kenneth

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wells, Bowen

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Wheeler, Sir John

290

Whitney, Ray

Yeo, Tim

Widdecombe, Ann

Younger, Rt Hon George

Wilkinson, John

Wolfson, Mark

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wood, Timothy

Sir George Young and Mr. David Lightbown.

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Flannery, Martin

Allen, Graham

Flynn, Paul

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Armstrong, Hilary

Foster, Derek

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Fraser, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Fyfe, Maria

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Galbraith, Sam

Barron, Kevin

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Battle, John

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Beckett, Margaret

George, Bruce

Beggs, Roy

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Beith, A. J.

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Bell, Stuart

Gordon, Mildred

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

Gould, Bryan

Bermingham, Gerald

Graham, Thomas

Bidwell, Sydney

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Blair, Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Blunkett, David

Hardy, Peter

Boateng, Paul

Harman, Ms Harriet

Body, Sir Richard

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Boyes, Roland

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Bradley, Keith

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Henderson, Doug

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hinchliffe, David

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Home Robertson, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hood, Jimmy

Buckley, George J.

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Budgen, Nicholas

Howells, Geraint

Caborn, Richard

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Callaghan, Jim

Hoyle, Doug

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Canavan, Dennis

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Illsley, Eric

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Ingram, Adam

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Janman, Tim

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Janner, Greville

Cohen, Harry

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Coleman, Donald

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Corbett, Robin

Kirkwood, Archy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Lambie, David

Cousins, Jim

Lamond, James

Crowther, Stan

Leadbitter, Ted

Cryer, Bob

Leighton, Ron

Cummings, John

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cunningham, Dr John

Lewis, Terry

Dalyell, Tam

Litherland, Robert

Darling, Alistair

Livingstone, Ken

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Livsey, Richard

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dewar, Donald

McAllion, John

Dicks, Terry

McAvoy, Thomas

Dixon, Don

McCartney, Ian

Dobson, Frank

McFall, John

Doran, Frank

McKelvey, William

Douglas, Dick

McLeish, Henry

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Maclennan, Robert

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

McNamara, Kevin

Eastham, Ken

McWilliam, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Madden, Max

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Faulds, Andrew

Marek, Dr John

Fearn, Ronald

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Fisher, Mark

Maxton, John

291

Meacher, Michael

Sillars, Jim

Michael, Alun

Skinner, Dennis

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Morgan, Rhodri

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Morley, Elliot

Snape, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Soley, Clive

Mudd, David

Spearing, Nigel

Murphy, Paul

Steinberg, Gerry

Nellist, Dave

Stott, Roger

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Strang, Gavin

O'Brien, William

Straw, Jack

O'Hara, Edward

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

O'Neill, Martin

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Parry, Robert

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Patchett, Terry

Trimble, David

Pendry, Tom

Turner, Dennis

Pike, Peter L.

Vaz, Keith

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Prescott, John

Wallace, James

Primarolo, Dawn

Walley, Joan

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Radice, Giles

Wareing, Robert N.

Randall, Stuart

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Richardson, Jo

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Robertson, George

Wigley, Dafydd

Robinson, Geoffrey

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Rogers, Allan

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Rooker, Jeff

Wilson, Brian

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Winnick, David

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Winterton, Nicholas

Rowlands, Ted

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Ruddock, Joan

Worthington, Tony

Salmond, Alex

Wray, Jimmy

Sedgemore, Brian

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Sheerman, Barry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Alien McKay.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Short, Clare

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on joining the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European Monetary System; notes the clear evidence that the Government's tight monetary and fiscal policies are reducing inflationary pressures in the economy; and believes Exchange Rate Mechanism membership will reinforce the Government's counter-inflationary strategy and help to strengthen the framework for a sustained improvement in economic performance.

Hong Kong
10.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move,
That the draft British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.
Subject to approval in this House and in another place, the order will come into force on 1 December.
The order sets out the scheme that the Governor of Hong Kong proposes to use to select up to 50,000 key people whom he will recommend to the Secretary of State for registration as British citizens under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990.
The selection scheme that the Governor has presented to the Home Secretary, which is before the House tonight, is a complex one. Comments and suggestions have been received from a wide range of bodies with interests in Hong Kong's continued prosperity and stability, and both Houses examined outline proposals for the scheme during the passage of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act.
During those discussions, the Government made it clear that they intended to listen with an open mind to suggestions for ways in which the scheme might be improved. That is precisely what we have done. I believe that the detailed proposals now before the House represent a thorough, fair and objective means of selecting those Hong Kong residents whom it would be most damaging for the territory to lose and to whom we hope to give confidence to remain.
I have already written to more than 60 right hon. and hon. Members who were fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye during the debates in this House, and to those who served on the Committee, to explain how the scheme now proposed by the Governor differs from the one envisaged in the explanatory notes that the Government made available during the passage of the Act.
For the benefit of others, I should like to say a few words about the scheme and the principal changes that have been made. The broad structure remains as envisaged in the explanatory notes. Subject to approval, the scheme would consist of four classes, each of which would be given a share of the 50,000 places. The general occupational class receives 36,200 places to be allocated among the 20 occupational groups specified in annex 1. Some 7,000 places go to the disciplined services class, covering the nine services set out in article 18 of the order. The sensitive service class—those in the public or private sectors serving the interests of the Crown or involved in other activities of a sensitive nature—will receive 6,300 places, while 500 places are reserved for the entrepreneurs class, in which the Governor will recommend those whom he considers to have made a special contribution to the economy of Hong Kong. The criteria that the Governor will take into account are set out in article 24.
With the exception of those in the entrepreneurs class, the available places will be distributed in tranches, the size of which will be set out in directions by the Home Secretary. About 87 per cent. of the places will be awarded in the first tranche.
If the order is approved, applications for the first tranche will be invited from 1 December with a closing

293
date of 28 February 1991 and will take some two years to process. The rest of the places—some 13 per cent.—will he awarded nearer 1997.
Applicants under the general occupational class and the disciplined services class will be selected on the basis of a points system. The broad criteria against which points will be awarded, and the maximum number of points available for each criterion, remain as set out in the explanatory notes.
Concern was expressed, especially in Committee, about the 150 points available for "special circumstances", in particular the amount of discretion available to the Governor in awarding up to 50 points for individual merit. Article 14 of the order now makes it clear that up to 30 of those points will be tied objectively to occupation-related merit or achievement—for example, local or international awards. A further maximum of 30 will be available for unpaid service with specified voluntary agencies or institutions in the social, medical or educational field and up to 20 points will be awarded for officially recognised and rewarded acts of bravery or gallantry.
Since the whole focus of the scheme is to discourage people who are prone to do so from emigrating, the Governor needs greater flexibility to recognise particularly high rates of emigration within occupational groups. The number of special circumstances points available for that purpose has therefore been increased from 50 to 75.
The final 50 points for modifying age, qualifications or experience to reflect the needs of a particular occupation or group remain unchanged. The total number of points that can he awarded to any individual under the special circumstances heading is still capped at 150.
On the question of age points, we considered very carefully with the Governor whether the criteria should be adjusted to give more points to those over 40, as some suggested during the passage of the Act. We have concluded that the proposed scale should not be changed. Maximum points are justified for those aged 30 to 40 because people in that age group would be moving into key positions in the years up to 1997 and immediately after, and a particularly large number of them are now emigrating. There is also, of course, as I said earlier, some extra flexibility available where age is concerned under the special circumstances heading.
Concern has been expressed in some quarters—particularly in the British business community in Hong Kong—about the number of points which can be awarded to those employed by British firms. We have been urged to increase them. But the award of those points is not designed to guarantee success for all applicants working in British companies. It would be wrong to rig the system in such a way that employees of British firms won places at the expense of others who were better qualified and therefore arguably more key to Hong Kong as a whole.
We have looked at the issue with particular care and believe that it would be a mistake to increase the maximum of 35 points that is available under this heading. Competition for places in the general occupational class will be fierce and there are bound to be groups of applicants bunched around the qualifying mark. In those circumstances, even a handful of points for those serving British firms will ensure that they are placed higher up the list than their counterparts who are, in all other respects, equal.
We have, however, agreed a change in the way in which the points should be awarded. They will be given to current
294
employees of British firms for any previous periods of service with a British firm or firms or with other British institutions. We have dropped the requirement envisaged in the explanatory note that such service should have been continuous.
We have considered very carefully how a "British firm" should be defined for the purpose of awarding those points. Adopting a narrow definition, restricted, for example, to firms with headquarters registered in the United Kingdom, would have rendered ineligible some of the major firms in Hong Kong which are generally regarded as British and which have extensive trading links with this country going back over many years. Looking therefore to the wider interests of Hong Kong, we have used the term "British undertaking" in the order and defined it as a company or firm which the Governor is satisfied has a close connection with the United Kingdom. In reaching his decisions, he will be assisted by a committee in which our senior British trade commissioner in Hong Kong is expected to play a leading part.
As a result of discussions in Committee which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will recall as he was interested in this, arrangements will be made for the steering group to advise the Governor on the use of special circumstances points on the basis of information from which the names of individuals have been removed.
As I have said, this is a complex order because selecting 50,000 people for British citizenship from a pool of many tens of thousands who could claim to be "key" to Hong Kong's future prosperity and stability is a complex task. The fact that so many different people from so many different walks of life will be eligible to apply demonstrates that this is not, as some had earlier suggested, a narrow, elitist scheme. It is one based on merit and achievement. The criteria are both fair and objective and the scope for bias or corruption has been, as far as humanly possible, eliminated.
The principal aim behind the scheme is to rebuild confidence in Hong Kong. To this end, those recommended by the Governor will, if acceptable, be registered on the Home Secretary's behalf by a team of officials based in Hong Kong. I hope that those selected under the scheme, and other British citizens in Hong Kong whose passports need renewing, will take advantage of the arrangements that are being made to issue British citizen passports in Hong Kong. Those will be standard machine-readable passports and identical to full passports issued elsewhere.
This scheme will, I believe, serve Hong Kong well and, by extension, the interests and responsibilities of the People's Republic of China and of the United Kingdom—as we both have a duty and a concern to maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong in the years immediately ahead. I therefore commend the order to the House.
10.38 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: The Opposition will not divide the House on this order tonight. We opposed the scheme and the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 because the proposal is flawed in concept, and we set out our position in some detail in the Standing Committee. However, if we are to set up such a scheme, it can operate only on a points system. We must understand that any points system will result in difficulties and will undoubtedly in some cases result in significant unfairness.

295
I visited Hong Kong briefly after the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill received its Royal Assent earlier this year at the invitation of the Hong Kong Government. I repeat the assurance that I gave there and in Standing Committee: a Labour Government would honour all passports issued under the Act. We shall review the way in which the scheme has been operating when we come to office as the present Government have said they will. All passports granted under the scheme will be honoured by us.
The Minister said that some changes were made after the scheme was originally opposed. By and large, those changes are an honest attempt to improve the way in which the scheme operates. I believe that the Minister has made a valiant effort to try to meet some of the criticisms that were made, although, as I said, I do not believe that he has succeeded in doing so completely.
The Minister referred to article 14, which deals with special circumstances. Although the Committee and civil servants in Hong Kong did their best to eliminate discretion on the part of the Governor by allocating a set number of points for the various qualifications set out under the scheme, it is the case, and it is bound to be the case, that judgments will have to be made as between one applicant and another. As a result of that, it is inevitable that some people will feel hard done by. It is particularly difficult to follow the Government's route on British firms. We have a responsibility to the entire colony in Hong Kong, not just to British firms. France in particular has favoured French firms, but we should remember that the entire colony, not just British firms, is the responsibility of Britain.
We should understand that the new Act was never designed as a safety net for the majority of the population of Hong Kong. It was never designed to ensure that the whole population would be able to leave or to get out in the event of some danger, although many people at the time thought that that was what it was supposed to do. The Act was an attempt to keep in the labour market those with skills that were in short supply in the colony, and, by definition, those who could migrate quite easily. People in that position could usually find jobs elsewhere. For that reason, the scheme can never be entirely fair because it tends to favour people who already have choices.
It is unlikely that those people would come to the United Kingdom, as I suspect that they could get rather better jobs doing the same thing in different parts of the world. I do not think that that is a particularly real fear in respect of people who are likely to qualify under the scheme. But, because of their mobility, those who qualify under the scheme can in many cases qualify for other schemes being operated by various other countries. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that, if someone already has citizenship of another country, the points system will operate in such a way as to make it less likely—in fact, very unlikely—for him to qualify under our scheme.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: Perhaps it will be convenient if I answer that point now. There are negative points for those who have nationality of another country—minus 200—which makes it almost certain that they would not be able to achieve British nationality as well. The scheme is weighted heavily against them, although they will be able
296
to enter it should they wish to do so. The knowledge that they would be "minused" in that way would encourage few of them to do so.
Mr. Darling: I am grateful for that assurance, especially as, in the four days that I was in Hong Kong, several people seemed to be under the impression that they would probably qualify for our scheme as well as other schemes on offer. Some of the people who might have applied would have liked Britain as their first choice, rather than Australia or Canada. It is important that we do not end up simply giving a large number of people passports while other people receive none at all.
The people who are likely to qualify under the scheme already have other choices available to them. Anyone who thinks that the Act or the scheme has anything to do with expanding the opportunity for people in Hong Kong to go elsewhere should the need arise should realise that the additional choices are being given to people who, for the most part, already have choices.
There is no doubt that the number of people who will be seeking passports will vastly outnumber the number of passports that are available. Because of that, there is a grave risk that there will be a sense of unfairness. With the best will in the world, any points scheme is discriminatory, and a large number of people will be disappointed. Those who operate the scheme have made every effort to avoid that possibility, but, none the less, it remains.
Under article 14—I dwelt on the matter at some length when we considered the Bill in Committee—the Governor still has much discretion. It is regrettable that the Government have sought to exclude judicial review. Individuals may feel aggrieved because their applications have been refused. They may feel that, in effect, they gave points to others who applied and were accepted, and who on the face of the applications seemed to be in exactly the same position as themselves. The risk of that happening has been reduced by spelling out the number of points that are available for certain qualifications, but it is one that remains.
It is regrettable that the scheme still maintains points for an applicant's wage level. That criterion is a classic example of the unfairness of the scheme. It attempts to equate additional value to society with higher remuneration. That is made clear in annex 3. It counters the Minister's claim that the scheme recognises merit and achievement. There are many in Hong Kong who have much merit and have achieved a great deal, but they will never qualify under the scheme because they are not at the top of the wage structure and have not achieved some other pre-eminence. Judicial review might have been an opportunity to set people's minds at ease. It might have provided an opportunity to put right some decisions that went wrong.
The Opposition do not believe that the Act and the scheme will determine the future of Hong Kong. It is obvious that the people want to stay there and will leave only as a last resort. The colony has always had a high turnover in its population, however, and that is likely to continue. The determining factor in the success of Hong Kong will be the relationship with China and China's internal development. The opportunities for investment in China and the entire Pacific basin are there to be taken. Britain could help to provide for confidence in the region through British companies. Britain does not enjoy an especially high reputation in that part of the world. The

297
Government, through their various agencies, could do far more to show that Britain is still committed to Hong Kong to 1997 and thereafter. As in many other parts of the world, we find that Japan, France, Germany and the United States are all bidding for work in Hong Kong. British companies are in evidence, but the Government could do much more to encourage those that are firmly rooted in Britain and other parts of Europe to realise that there are tremendous opportunities in the Pacific basin if Hong Kong is used as a base. That encouragement would do much to build confidence in the colony if it believed that the Government and people of Britain still cared about it.
The future of Hong Kong lies in the hands of the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry and not so much in those of the Home Office. I have never accepted that the Act was a matter of immigration. I know, however, that those who wished to parade their own prejudices and venom in society latched on to the measure. They recognised that it gave them the opportunity that they sought. I believe that the Act relates to the confidence of Hong Kong and that it is not merely a vehicle for the granting of passports. There is much more to it than that.
I make yet another plea to the Government to think again about those who do not qualify under the scheme. I realise, of course, that the Act provides that an annual report has to be laid before the House. I urge the Government to reconsider the position of those with no effective nationality. They may well be in an extremely difficult position in 1997. I have much in mind also the concern that was expressed on Report, especially for the wives of British citizens who do not have automatic rights in respect of this country. It would be nonsensical if people were obliged to return to Britain to live here for three years to ensure that their spouses qualified. That is something that must be kept open for review.
If we regarded Hong Kong as an asset to build upon rather than as a liability, we could do far more for the colony and the entire region than I suspect that we shall do under the scheme. A positive attitude on the part of the United Kingdom in Hong Kong and in China is essential if the Hong Kong agreement is to be fulfilled.
10.49 pm
Mr. Norman Tebbit: At this stage in our consideration of this legislation there is no point in attempting, even if it were not for the fact that it would be out of order, to go over the general principles of the Act. It is curious, however, that we can scarcely discuss details without reflecting upon the Act as a whole. Some of the provisions that are before us may appear to be erratic or peculiar, but they are based upon an Act which is both erratic and peculiar in the literal meanings of those words. So having swallowed the camel we must not strain at the gnat of the order.
I do not propose to detain the House long this evening but it is a great pity that my hon. Friend the Minister could not bring us some news when he introduced this statutory instrument of the further reaction from Peking to the legislation. It would have been comforting for those of us who opposed the Bill to be told that we were wrong in our assessment of the reaction of the Chinese Government and that the British Government were right. Unhappily the reverse is true. The Chinese Government have made it clear that they regard the legislation as an insulting
298
interference in their affairs and have made it plain that it is an obstacle, rather than an assistance, to the further improvement of relations between Great Britain and the People's Republic of China. That is sad, but I guess that we shall have to live with it now, as the legislation has been passed.
I have to reflect somewhat lightheartedly on the sheer joy of seeing the various valuations that are placed on certain individuals in Hong Kong. Who am I, above all, to disagree with the view that a qualified kindergarten teacher qualifies for exactly as many points as someone who has a bachelor degree in law? It seems to be one of the better assessments of social work that we have had for some time, although I realise that not everyone would agree with me on that.
The instrument contains one curiosity which I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister can explain. If he turns to page 17 he will find that if one is a journalist with a bachelor degree other than in journalism or communications one scores 45 points. Does that mean that if one is a practising lawyer with a bachelor's degree one is given 10 points but if one is a journalist with a bachelor's degree in law one is given 45 points? If so, that is curious and extraordinary in the extreme. It underlines the remarkable nature of this complex legislation, built upon a piece of bad legislation which is a minefield and a trap for anyone trying to find their way through it with common sense.
My hon. Friend the Minister might reflect on one person who, as far as I can see—although I have not checked out the numbers in detail—would probably have qualified under most of the criteria in the statutory instrument. He was a distinguished business man in Hong Kong. In fact, he was the chairman of the Hong Kong stock exchange. I take it that the fact that he has now been convicted of criminal offences will disqualify him. What an extraordinarily good thing that he was not given his British passport before he was convicted.
10.53 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The order is not amendable and therefore there is a limit to the value of criticisms of any part of it. I want to use this opportunity, however, to ask the Minister about the effectiveness of the scheme at present and his perceptions of the response in Hong Kong to its provisions.
On the face of t, the scheme is not serving the purpose for which it was dreamt up. The prevalent anxiety in Hong Kong is about a breakdown in law and order. Those anxieties were referred to by Sir David Wilson in his speech to the Legislative Council two weeks ago, and I should be astonished if the Minister was unaware of them. It has been admitted that 150,000 members of the Triad organisation are no longer the subject of special attention by a division of the Hong Kong police, and that is causing great anxiety. Public service recruitment has been frozen and the staff targets for the police—a disciplined service specially referred to in the order—have not been met and have fallen short by about 50 per cent. Can the Minister say whether that is due to emigration? Are there any other reasons for that shortfall?
What is most alarming, as the Minister will be aware, is that Sir David Wilson has predicted that emigration will rise to 62,000 this year. It does not appear that the

299
Government's efforts to stabilise the population are meeting with the sort of success that can be the only justification for the scheme set out in the order.
In common with he right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), I shall not enter into the merits of the Bill. The Minister is aware that I opposed it in principle in the belief that if the population retained in the colony was to be sufficient to guarantee the economy more people should have been eligible under the Government scheme.
We are entitled to know what value the Government place upon the scheme on the basis of the evidence of recent months since the Bill's enactment. It is difficult to agree with the Minister that bias will not enter into the consideration of entitlement under the scheme. Bias is built into the scheme. Indeed, the Minister spoke of the consideration given to whether there should be an adjustment of the points awarded on age. It is clear that the scheme leans heavily towards the 30 to 40-year-old group. It is therefore biased against some people who may
300
have given great service to this country and to the colony for substantially longer than those in the aforementioned group. That older generation may feel a great sense of grievance.
The categories specially favoured by points will be the subject of great debate. The Minister has already drawn attention to a particular common commercial group and for every person satisfied there will be many more who are dissatisfied.
The scheme has contributed to the growing unrest in the colony and it has resulted in the increase in the numbers seeking to emigrate. That unrest must be contributing to the downturn in the growth of the colony's economy. This year it witnessed an economic growth of 2·5 per cent., the lowest in the Pacific basin. Inflation has also risen to nearly 10 per cent. and it is clear that we are judging the scheme against an unhealthy state of affairs.
In this short debate, I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to say something about how he sees the scheme contributing to the future of Hong Kong on the basis of the experience gained so far.
10.58 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As I have watched the events in the middle east unravel on the television screen in the past few months, I have wondered why a small enclave, Kuwait, clinging to the fringes of an alien and hostile country ruled over by a dictatorship, should command such concern here and elsewhere in the world when the liberty of its citizens is threatened. In comparison, we offer no hope or promise to the people of Hong Kong, over which this country has far more say, that should the alien power behind them decide to invade and perpetrate the crimes now perpetrated in Kuwait, we and the rest of the world will go in to defend the remnants of their liberty. Had we given those people that assurance when we last debated this issue, we should not now need to be discussing the points scheme. I have always opposed the points scheme and moves to remove the elite from Hong Kong. After all, they are the very people who may have been able to develop a system of resistance to an alien force that might decide to move into that territory.
Even now we are not meeting the understandable and natural fears of the majority of the people there. While there is still time, let us consider what more we might offer them by way of consolation, in view of our concern, as the member of an international body, for the plight of small, unprotected or difficult-to-protect groups who have strong ties with our way of justice and law and who have strong economic ties with us.
There is still time for us to discuss ways, in addition to the points scheme, of giving those people a greater sense of security and reassurance about the future. Let them, too, feel that should what has happened in Kuwait happen to them, we and world bodies would adopt the same attitude and protect their liberties. Then, perhaps not so many of them would wish to flood away from that country. After all, it is our creation. It reflects our way of life and our belief in freedom. Their energy and exuberance have created there a prosperous and free state. If they felt that we were prepared to back what we have helped to create there, in precisely the same way as we are saying to the people of Kuwait, "We shall come in and restore your liberty," that would reassure the people of Hong Kong. for they would feel that we were prepared to do for them what we are prepared to do for the people of Kuwait.
11.2 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: We should not lose this opportunity to congratulate whoever devised this devilish scheme. I was a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and we funked the task of going into the matter in too much detail. We said:
"We appreciate the difficulties of defining coherent categories of suitable people apart from public servants … to whom a right of abode or an assurance of a right of entry for settlement might be offered."
Lord MacLehose said, when giving evidence to the Committee:
"There are people in the Home Office who are frightfully ingenious at keeping people out and I think they are perfectly capable of thinking of a formula for letting them in."
That led us to the conclusion:
"We believe such assurances could be provided to a significant number of Hong Kong BDTCs in key positions."
We would not go further than that. But it looks as though the Home Office or somebody else has come up to the expectations of Lord MacLehose and has devised a
302
devilishly ingenious scheme. So ingenious is it that few of us can think of anything to say when faced with the statutory instrument.
But having congratulated whoever devised the scheme, I wonder whether we might hear from the Minister whether the purpose of this devilish scheme, which was to give some reassurance to the very groups of people in Hong Kong who are expected—because, in earlier figures, they were shown to be doing so—to leave Hong Kong as 1997 approaches, is being effected. We did not have such a statement from the Minister earlier, and I hope that, when he replies, he will feel able to give it.
We said in our report, which was accepted by the Government, that although between the years 1980 and 1986 the average yearly outflow was about 20,000, in 1989 it was 42,000 and this year it was expected to be 55,000. The whole purpose of the scheme, devilish or otherwise, was to try to stop that haemorrhage of great talent from Hong Kong and anchor the people there so that they would continue the success of Hong Kong, making it a great and happy place when eventually the takeover took place.
We know that this is the second draft of the scheme and there has been much discussion in Hong Kong about the scheme's detail. It would be encouraging to hear from the Minister that the number of those leaving is already beginning to turn down. If the scheme is not having that effect, something more will have to be done. We do not want to have to keep coming back to the House at such a late hour to consider even more devilish schemes, which is the way that the gentlemen in the Home Office, who are so skilled at devising such proposals, will be forced to proceed if what we have done so far shows absolutely no signs of success. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give us some reassurance on that, because, apart from reassuring us, he will comfort the people of Hong Kong who are probably just as puzzled as most of us appear to be by the way in which the categories have been worked out and the numbers allocated.
11.7 pm
Mr. Peter Lloyd: A number of points have been raised and I shall try to answer each of them in turn as best I can.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) talked about British firms and wondered whether any extra points should be given for British firms in Hong Kong. He shakes his head, which means that I must have missed his point entirely, and I would be grateful if he would tell me what he meant.
Mr. Darling: I was commenting on the fact that I thought that the Minister said that he had devised a formula that would make it slightly more favourable for people employed by British firms. I was simply making the point that Britain is responsible for the whole colony; people there work for firms that are owned by many countries—it is an international community. I do not think that favouring British firms has as much merit as the Minister was hinting at. We have responsibility for the whole colony, not just for people employed by British firms or, as he said, firms that might have some connection with Britain.
Mr. Lloyd: I did understand the hon. Gentleman. In my opening remarks I said that we had broadened the definition of British firms so that many firms in the colony

303
would be accommodated. Secondly, I said that we had decided not to increase the number of points for British firms beyond 35 so that it would act merely as a tie breaker between those who were equally qualified. As it is a British passport and British nationality being given, it seems right that British firms should, when everything else is equal, be the ones to benefit, not least because, as the hon. Gentleman said, firms of other nationalities in Hong Kong are generally taking steps to look after their own employees in that way. Therefore, we are doing little more than evening up matters.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of those who already had choices being given more choices. That is the basic intention of what we are doing. It is those with choices who are leaving. Those who do not have choices are staying in Hong Kong. We are trying to ensure that those who have the choice to leave have another choice to take up British passports and nationality, and stay in Hong Kong, which British nationality will give them the confidence to do.
The hon. Gentleman also said that pay levels should not be taken into account. He is mistaken in his belief as to how widely they are to be taken into account. There is only one group to which they relate—business men and managers. It is only one measure among many that will go to make up the number of points that they can score. As ability to earn is one of the characteristics of a successful business man it would be wrong, in fact one would be blind, not to take it into account, at least for some of the points that he may earn.
Mr. Timothy Raison: This is the provision that I find offensive. It seems to me the most dangerous example of one law for the rich and one for the poor that I have ever seen. I hope that when this matter is reconsidered we can get away from this provision. It does not make a spectacular difference, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just said, but if it were on the statute book it would be a very unhappy state of affairs.
Mr. Lloyd: That is very misguided of my right hon. Friend. Of course, in the business sector, one of the indicators of success is the amount that people earn. If my hon. Friend does not want to face that, or believes that we should not face it when we determine the key people who should be anchored, he is facing the problem in a blind way, as it cannot and should not be ignored. Those are the sort of people whom we want to anchor in Hong Kong. As I told the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, those are the people who find it easiest to emigrate. That is why the provision is in the Bill, and it is right that it should be.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central also mentioned special circumstances points. As I said in my opening remarks, we have tried to make them as objective as possible. The hon. Gentleman says that it is not quite objective enough for him, but if he reads the rules carefully he will understand that, although the Governor has the opportunity to change the balance of special circumstances points, according to the needs of a certain class or category, nevertheless he has to apply them similarly to everyone in that category. So, as far as the category is concerned, the points are applied objectively.
Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is not quite correct. Article 14(2), on special circumstances, states:
304
"The Governor may allocate up to 75 points to an applicant if he considers that there is an exceptionally high propensity to emigrate amongst those serving in the relevant occupation or amongst a particular group of persons serving in that occupation."
I do not want to push the matter to the extent of saying that the "particular group" could be people called Lee, or Lloyd, or something like that, but it gives the Governor a pretty enormous discretion to specify a particular group.
Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend entirely misses the point. The whole purpose of the scheme is to anchor those people in Hong Kong who have a particular propensity to emigrate; and enabling the Governor to take into account the greater propensity of a particular group to emigrate underlines the object of the points system.
Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I know that the Act is based upon partiality and favouritism. The amount of discretion in exercising partiality and favouritism which is extended to the Governor is quite enormous. He can even decide, according to the order, not to give points for a particular qualification if he does not like it; he can add qualifications which are not included if he likes them. That is part of the Act.
Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend does not want to understand the system, because if he did he would say that of course the Governor has the discretion to apply different points, but he has it only to apply them to different groups. They have to apply equally to those people in those groups. Therefore, he does not select one person as against another; he recognises the reality of the position that a particular group is in.
Mr. Tebbit: How does one define a qualifying group? Could it be of Wykehamists or Old Etonians?
Mr. Lloyd: I think that if it was plain that he was doing that and that he was exercising his discretion unreasonably—my right hon. Friend will remember our debate on Report—that would clearly be a matter on which judicial review could be sought. My right hon. Friend takes his case to the point of absurdity where the Governor would be exercising his discretion not reasonably but unreasonably.
Mr. Lawrence: In which countries will the judicial review be sought?
Mr. Lloyd: Of course, it will be in Hong Kong where common law applies and the possibility of judicial review exists, as it does here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford made great play about the way in which the points are made up in the appendix to the rules. He forgets that lawyers and journalists are in separate groups and are not comparable. Points for professional and vocational qualifications are earned only for occupation-related qualifications. He mentioned lawyers in particular. A bachelor degree in law will be a preliminary qualification worth 10 points, but the degree holder will have other qualifications to add. My right hon. Friend should look at how the system will work as a whole rather than picking out and making a misinterpretation of how the Governor will be able to use the system.
Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lloyd: No, because I should like to answer some more points.
Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend has not answered my points.
Mr. Lloyd: I most certainly have, and if my right hon. Friend reads Hansard he will see that that is so, especially if he reads it in the light of his earlier remarks.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) wondered whether the scheme was already working. Of course it is not because it is not yet available. If the orders are approved it will come into effect on 1 December. The emigration rates indicate the plans that were made by people who were worried about staying in Hong Kong 18 months to two years ago. We shall not see the effect of the scheme until it is well under way and British citizenship is being granted. If the hon. Gentleman wants an example of how such citizenship can work, I suggest that he looks at the figures for Singapore. It issued some 25,000 passports to citizens in Hong Kong and very few of them have moved from there. The passports have succeeded in anchoring those people for the present. I have no doubt that British passports will do that even more effectively in Hong Kong.
Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister saying that anticipation of the possibility of being one of the fortunate 50,000 is in itself of no importance and is not an anchor? I thought that that was part of the Government's argument.
Mr. Lloyd: I am saying that somebody who has decided that he really must emigrate because he did not want to stay in Hong Kong 18 months or a year ago would not withdraw his application, especially if he thought it might be successful in Canada or Australia, on the offchance that the Bill might become law and the order might be approved. We shall see the effect of these only in the coming years and they certainly will not affect decisions that were made 18 months to two years ago.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also asked whether members of the police force were emigrating and said that recruitment to the police was difficult. The indications are that people are leaving the police force to go into the private sector rather than emigrating. However, it is to address the problem of retaining high-grade staff in the police and the other disciplined services that we have included a special category in the Act and in the rules.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland talked about the bias in the rules. Naturally, the whole purpose of a points system is to give additional points to people with qualities, experience or characteristics that are particularly valuable, in this case to Hong Kong.
306
However, I do not accept what he says about bias between people. People in the same situation are treated in the same way and get a similar number of points. There is no way that under the discretion allowed to the Governor he can apply the rules other than in that manner, even if he wanted to do so which, of course, he would not. He would like the system to work in a manner that benefited Hong Kong. That is also the intention of the Act and the rules.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said that she would not support a points system and would use some other method to show Hong Kong that we were concerned for it and would try to assist its stability in the years ahead. She did not say what her method would be but drew a parallel with Kuwait. Other than sending the Desert Rats to China, I am not sure what she had in mind.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) called our scheme devilishly ingenious. It is honest, straightforward and practical. I refer my hon and learned Friend to what I said to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who wondered why the scheme was not yet having an effect. I told him that we have not even passed the Orders in Council on which the scheme depends. The decisions that are being seen by the number of people leaving—which has, indeed, increased—were made a year, 18 months or even two years ago.
The figures cited by my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland suggest that there is an increasing problem in Hong Kong—the problem of emigration. We badly need an Act and some rules to contribute towards the anchoring of at least some of those people in Hong Kong, especially the most able. That is why I have every confidence in the order. The Bill was passed by a large majority on Second Reading, and the principle was accepted without a Division on Third Reading. I am therefore confident that the House will back the order now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.

TELEVISING OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones be discharged from the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House and Mr. Tom Sackville be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
11.22 pm
Mr. Jerry Hayes: It is no exaggeration to say that health care in West Essex district health authority is probably worse than I have ever known it. We have some of the worst and longest waiting lists in the country; we are expected to have a deficit of some £2 million next year. Yet some people will still say that the problem is due to mismanagement by the district health authority.
I wish to refute that. Way back in 1984, plans were presented to reduce the deficit to the tune of £1 million a year. This debate is all about what happened on 24 September this year: that is the date on which my constituents—and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), who have a keen interest in the matters—were betrayed by North-East Thames regional health authority. That is the date on which the capital programme to centralise the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow bit the dust, along with the £40 million development plan involving a community hospital—St. Margaret's hospital, Epping—and others in Hertfordshire and Essex, despite the region's promises.
Let me briefly run through the chronology of events. In 1984, the major capital scheme was approved in the region's strategic plan for 1993. It was realised that it was ridiculous to have three accident and emergency departments in one district: it did not work, it was not efficient, it was not good for patient care or health, and it led to the haemorrhaging of over £1 million a year. West Essex health authority took the bull by the horns, and presented a sensible capital development plan.
On 19 April, Mr. Michael Chapman was appointed chairman of the health authority. He had the following brief:
"Persuade the public of the need to centralise acute services at Harlow …Develop the concept of community hospitals".
That was an heroic task: it was not easy at all. The proposed closure of the Honey Lane hospital was challenged by judicial review by Epping Forest district council, and its application was defeated. The hospital—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—was closed in July.
In October 1986, a regional report confirmed the cost of the scheme, compiled with current service planning and financial criteria, as £40·6 million. In early 1987, informal public consultation meetings were started by Mr. Chapman, and action committees to save the local hospitals in Epping and Bishop's Stortford had already been formed by local people. On 10 July 1987, Mr. Chapman made a presentation to the Herts and Essex hospital action committee meeting. All parliamentary candidates were present. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford quite properly publicly supported the draft plans. On 11 June 1987—how could we forget—there was a general election. On 18 September, approval was given in principle and documents were approved by West Essex district health authority. That was followed by staff meetings at all sites. There were more than 50 meetings, and they included meetings with the Essex family practitioner committee, all the district councils,
308
some of the town and parish councils and all general practices. There were community health council public meetings with both West Essex and East Hertfordshire district health authorities, plus other voluntary organisations. The district chairman, the general manager and a member of the consultant medical staff attended all meetings.
It was not a painless process. There was a great deal of local outrage and upset. At a public meeting in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, the district chairman stated that we had a national health service and that the money from the sale of the local hospital—and it was the second to be closed—was to be used for the good of all the people in the West Essex district health authority area, at the district general hospital in Harlow.
In January 1988, the document that had been approved in principle was submitted to the Minister. It was supported by the community health councils—and that was not an easy task, even though an independent report prepared for the West Essex community health council favoured a two-site solution. It was supported by all the consultant medical staff of the district.
On 12 May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton)—then Minister for Health—publicly announced at Harlow approval for the scheme to proceed. A project team was appointed with commercial project managers to ensure value for money. It was the first occasion when outside project managers had been appointed for a district general hospital scheme in the North-East Thames regional health authority area.
On 15 December, a by-election was held in Epping Forest. In the run-up to the election, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest publicly supported the centralisation plans, even though that involved a change in the use of St. Margaret's hospital. Part of the overall plan was new buildings for the community hospital in Epping. I say with respect to my hon. Friend that that involved considerable political risk.
Mr. Steve Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me briefly to intervene. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), I am here because of my concern about the very parlous state of the finances of our health authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) was right to say that it caused me a great deal of embarrassment during the by-election to stick by the capital programme, which I took to be the right programme. I believed that then and I believe it now.
My hon. Friend will agree that while the decline in capital values in the property market generally has undoubtedly had an effect on the region's finances—and that was inevitable—it is a crude response simply to abandon all the carefully thought out programmes for which many of us have fought hard. Although I have, on occasions, been critical of the district for failing to meet its expenditure targets from time to time, to suggest that it will be in a position to think not only about what it will do without the new capital programme, but to deal with a revenue cut of the size being contemplated of £2 million is to demand too much even of the most vigorously effective health authority.
Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend makes his point well. The region is saying that falling land values prevent the spending of the money. The truth of the matter is that £20 million worth of that money was raised through land sales in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is not the region's money. My hon. Friend the Minister will rightly say that that is the way in which the health service is financed regionally, but this is money which belongs to my hon. Friend's constituents and to the West Essex district health authority and it should be spent for the district.
It is not just my hon. Friend who took political risks and who is severely embarrassed. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden also played a major part.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: My hon. Friend has missed out one date in his chronology, and that is June 1985, when the Government took a decision that Stansted airport was to be developed into London's third airport. Those of us who said that there may be a need for further hospital facilities to be maintained in Bishop's Stortford were pushed aside on the basis that a major district general hospital at Harlow would be the right way to deal with the needs of the airport and the growing population that would come with it. The Government have willed the appearance of the airport, albeit built with private money, but what will they do now about the demand for health services in the area that will accompany it when the district general hospital is cancelled?
Mr. Hayes: It is not just my hon. Friend who is concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, despite considerable local difficulty, did his best for the Herts and Essex hospital. But part of the deal in the considerable risk that he took was that there should be a community hospital in the heart of Essex. That was all part of the deal and my hon. Friend will tell the House what happened.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Not only was there a promise of an up-to-date modern community hospital to take care of the 95 per cent. of the hospital needs of Bishop's Stortford, but it must be remembered that a second hospital in Bishop's Stortford, which had been contributed by the townspeople of Bishop's Stortford, had been sold. Therefore, in addition to the £20 million from Epping Forest, some £7 million, plus interest, I hope, is owing to the people of Bishop's Stortford as a result of the sale of that hospital. I have come to the conclusion that all the money will be sucked out of our district. We shall never get a fair deal for our people while the district remains in the North-East Thames regional health authority or any other London-based region. Our constituents will not get the level of hospital service that other places expect and enjoy while we administer the district through a London-based hospital system that absorbs all our money and retains it in the capital.
Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friends make their points well. This is not a health authority riven with difficulty and division, with politicians fighting each other. This is a health authority where consultants, community health councils, staff, patients and everyone else have pulled together, with the encouragement of Ministers and the regional health authority. That is why there is so much outrage and anger that the plan should have been cancelled.
310
It may be helpful if I continue the chronological order of events because it is only right and proper that that should be put on record. In 1989, after long negotiations with Epping Forest district council, planning and other problems were overcome and the site of Waltham Abbey was ready for sale. On 16 March 1989, the district chairman wrote to the regional chairman expressing concern at the sale price and the regional difficulties being experienced with the capital programme.
The sale proceeded at £20 million, with the first payment balancing the region's capital programme for that year. Assurances were given that the money would be made available in west Essex when needed. In April 1989, improvements were made to the plans contained in the consultation document because the designers were able to deliver a functional solution with the cost advantage of a shorter building period.
In June 1989, further savings were identified and agreed with the design team. From April to December 1989 there were weekly meetings between the design team and sub-groups with the consultants and other staff, and at the end of the briefing stage a full report on the major capital scheme was submitted to the region in December 1989.
On 6 February this year, the region reaffirmed the capital scheme and gave instructions to proceed with the plans and design work. On 17 September, plans and costings were submitted to the region—and all were within budget and on time.
Here comes the rub. On 24 September, the regional health authority cancelled all its capital schemes where contracts for building had not started. In addition to the major capital scheme, those affected included schemes for the Epping community hospital and for Bishop's Stortford hospital.
Can that be called poor management on the part of the district health authority, which followed Government policy to the letter and was encouraged by Ministers? All of us involved, quite properly, lobbied Ministers and secured their active support and encouragement, as well as that of the region—and then we were told that the money had been spent elsewhere.
My constituents and those of my hon. Friends are angry and outraged. The health service is not just about statistics. It is also to do with relieving pain and suffering, and with offering speedy operations where they are needed. When constituents have to wait two or three years for a hernia operation, a year or more for a cataract operation, and much longer in other cases—and that situation will not improve unless there is a resolution to the problem—they have every right to be angry and outraged.
Perhaps these are only the opening shots in a war—although I hope that it will not be a terribly long war. Later this week, my hon. Friends and I will be meeting my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister, so I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to say too much tonight. However, the very least that we expect——
Mr. Wells: Is an apology.
Mr. Hayes: Never mind an apology, although my hon. Friend is right to seek one. We want some money—and what is more, we want our money. We want the money that was raised locally through sensible land sales to provide decent health care, which has been denied to us

311
and of which we have been robbed by North-East Thames regional health authority—and that is totally unacceptable.
11.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I was relieved to hear at one point in the very effective speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) that he did not intend that there should be any political infighting. He congratulated the members of West Essex health authority on the ground that they were not the prisoners of political faction and had attempted over many years, and were attempting now, to run their area health service effectively and without regard to party political considerations. I hope that we shall be able to approach the undoubted problems affecting the delivery of health care in my hon. Friend's district in the same spirit, both this evening and at my meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and other hon. Friends later this week.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and my hon. Friends who represent neighbouring constituencies. They have not only raised the matter on the Adjournment; they are to raise it with me in a meeting later this week and, perhaps more important, this is merely the latest stage in a long campaign that they have waged to ensure that the problems of their health district have remained very much to the fore in my mind and in the minds of my predecessors and present colleagues at the Department of Health.
Sometimes, when I reply to an Adjournment debate, I approach the subject fresh and with a newly prepared brief——
Mr. Norris: This one is dog-eared.
Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the brief on this issue is becoming somewhat dog-eared. The ground has been well ploughed and, although this is the first occasion on which I have had to answer a debate on this subject, it is certainly not new to the officials who have been discussing it with me today. The effect of my hon. Friend's campaigns over the years has been to ensure that those in the Department who are responsible for these matters are fully aware of the strength of local feeling on them.
As some of the interventions in the debate have illustrated, although our main purpose was to concentrate on the capital programme in West Essex, that is not the only issue that arouses public concern—or, indeed, the only issue that health service managers in the area must address. There are also difficult questions associated with the revenue budget of West Essex, and it is perhaps unrealistic to expect to approach either topic in isolation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow underlined the fact that the approval in principle for the Princess Alexandra hospital dates back to 1985. That programme was clearly intended as a major investment in improving the delivery of health care in the West Essex district. For that reason alone, one might have expected the project to be popular with and looked forward to by local people and consequently that any decision to postpone or shelve the proposal would arouse real concern.
312
I recognise that that concern is compounded by the fact that we are not talking merely about another health service investment—the kind of investment of which there are many currently in train in the health service—to improve the delivery of health care in the district. The proposal was the cornerstone of the district's and the region's strategy for the delivery of health care in West Essex over the intervening period of five years.
It was the approval in principle of the Princess Alexandra scheme that provided the framework for the concentration of acute services on a single site—moving away from the wasteful delivery of such services across three sites in what is by no means the largest district in the NHS, although it is certainly not the smallest. Clearly, the prospect of being able to deliver acute services from a single site, and in a more efficient manner, was particularly important in the context of planning the future of West Essex, given the pressures—to which several of my hon. Friends have referred—on its revenue budget. Both the region and I are fully aware of the real and understandable public upset voiced by my hon. Friends this evening.
It is important to consider the implications of what the regional health authority decided on 24 September and where we go from here. The first decision that the authority made is wholly incontestable. It decided that its capital programme at 24 September was undeliverable because it was too ambitious; the programme was over-committed It also decided that, against an over-committed programme, the only sensible action was to shelve any scheme for which it had not signed a fixed contract and to reappraise the remaining schemes in the programme. I am sure that that was the correct decision. Any other decision would have involved leaping to ill-considered conclusions about the relative priorities of schemes which had been included in the over-committed programme.
The regional health authority is now committed to that complete reappraisal of the capital programme with the objective of developing a new approach to the planning of new national health service building which, against the pressure on the capital programme, will ask all district health authorities in the region to achieve acute sector rationalisation quicker and with less reliance on capital investment. That is being encouraged throughout the health service. It is not unreasonable to require that people in charge of a capital programme should satisfy themselves that they are using the capital as efficiently as possible. That is an entirely proper pressure for a region to place on those who espouse a particular capital scheme.
I have already said that I understand that that decision was hardly likely to be popular in West Essex or in the other districts affected by the region's decision of 24 September. However, I do not believe that the region had any realistic choice once it found itself in that position. It is unrealistic to expect the NHS investment programme to escape unscathed the implications of falling land values. That pressure applies right across the economy, and the NHS cannot expect to be exempt from it.
Any institution with a capital programme must face up to the implications of the falling values of the assets that it has for disposal. The region is entitled to some credit for having faced up to the implications instead of trying to hold out unrealistic prospects which it would later have to dash. It is far better to face up to the implications, address the issues and make a series of rational and ordered decisions than to try to fudge the decisions away.

313
The region's decision will give it the headroom to make decisions about proper priorities within the scheme once the deficit caused by the existing contracts on the over-committed programme has been cleared. We expect that deficit to be cleared by 1993.
Reference has been made to the £20 million raised by the sale of the Honey lane site. It is important to understand the principle that the NHS does not regard the resources raised by the sale of capital assets as district-specific. It would make the NHS quite unreasonably inflexible if we were to resile from the principle that capital raised by the sale of assets is a resource which should be redistributed through a proper mechanism within the NHS.
It is also fair to point out that, against the £20 million which has been raised from a site within West Essex, we must weigh the £11 million capital investment programme; nearly £2·5 million for refurbishment at the Princess Alexandra; over £1 million for the elderly day hospital at Saffron Walden; and a further £3·3 million for various projects for mentally handicapped patients. It is not as if it is £20 million out and nothing back.
With regard to the prospects for the capital programme, the district has made clear its belief that the Bishop's Stortford community hospital project may well be able to be financed in conjunction with a developer.
314
Therefore, hopes for that scheme have not been entirely dashed by the pressures that apply across the rest of the investment programme.
I recognise the disappointment which people understandably and properly feel about the implications of the region's decision about the future of the Princess Alexandra hospital. We must consider how best to develop realistic and deliverable plans to achieve our objectives for improving health care within West Essex.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Dorrell: No. I have only a minute left and I prefer to make a final point.
The analysis which determines that the single-site delivery of acute services is the most efficient use of resources has not been abandoned. The task that now falls to all those who are willing and able and want to consider the future delivery of health care to the people of West Essex within the resources that are likely to become available and within a realistic timescale is to consider the new circumstances and how best that objective can be delivered with regard to the most efficient use of capital in the context of West Essex. That is the——
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  ATC Radar, Edinburgh (Jamming)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of the inquiry by the Civil Aviation Authority into the jamming of air traffic control radar at Edinburgh airport on 19 June during a mock attack on Rosyth dockyard.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Edinburgh approach radar was subject to interference for a period of 90 seconds on 19 June 1990, caused by an RAF aircraft participating in a routine exercise. There was no risk to the safety of any civil or military aircraft during this period.

  The air traffic control authorities at Edinburgh airport have now agreed procedures with the military exercise planners to prevent such interference occurring in the future.

  Pipes and Cables
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will seek to amend the Highways Acts to enable the more effective servicing of pipes and cables through deposit in common ducts below streets.

  Mr. Chope
  No such amendment is required, since highway authorities already have the necessary powers.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet taken a view on whether there should be stations at Southwark and Bermondsey on the proposed Jubilee line extension to docklands.

  Mr. Freeman
  I told the House on 24 July—Official Report, columns 373–74—that it was the Government's policy that stations should be built at Southwark and Bermondsey; I also said that further analytical work was to be carried out to confirm that the case for these stations was positive. The House will wish to know the outcome of this work. The appraisal showed that on current costings the economic case for the stations was positive—and was indeed as strong as that for the line itself, provided that, in Southwark's case, direct passenger access was provided between it and British Rail's Waterloo East station. The Government are therefore prepared to approve construction of both stations provided the cost of the project as a whole can be held within agreed cost limits. There is no question of London Transport or the Government seeking to withdraw provision for Southwark and Bermondsey stations from the Bill.

  Low Bridges (Accidents)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving(a) buses and (b) other commercial vehicles at low bridges occurred in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1989, 28 buses and 664 other commercial vehicles were involved in accidents in which low railway bridges were struck.

  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has planned in the event of an emergency or accident occurring during the transportation of nuclear waste from Torness power station to Sellafield.

  Mr. Chope
  Scottish Nuclear Limited ensures that comprehensive emergency arrangements are in place to respond to any incident involving the transport of radio-active materials from Torness power station to Sellafield.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision whether or not to order a reopening of the inquiry into the loss of the MV Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The new material is now being examined by the marine accident investigation branch. Once it has concluded its investigations, a report will be sent to the Secretary of State. After consideration of that report, he will then decide whether or not the formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire should be reopened.

  London Underground
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to help offset the shortfall of £40 million faced by London Underground in the current financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  London Transport, of which London Underground Limited is a subsidiary, is responsible for running its business within its means. I understand that it is making plans accordingly.

  Minibus Passengers
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce legislation which would require that all passengers in minibuses be strapped in by safety belts.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have no present plans to do so. Currently, very few minibuses are fitted with belts on any seats other than front seats. We are, however, anxious to see the much wider availability of seat belts on minibuses, so that passengers can wear them if they so choose. At our request, the European Commission has agreed to bring forward proposals by the end of 1991 requiring the fitting of seat belts to all seats in minibuses and coaches.

  London Underground (Extension)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to accede to the request by London Transport and Hackney council for permission to deposit a private Bill in November to enable the east London line extension to the tube system to proceed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Road Congestion
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the background papers detailing the ways to eliminate congestion on inter-urban roads which are summarised in paragraphs 10 to 16 of the 1989 White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity".

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: A wide range of relevant material is already available for instance in the Department's publication "Transport Statistics 1979–1989" and in the Department's submissions to the Select Committee on Transport.

DEFENCE

  Warship Visits
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Royal Navy warships visiting the United States of America over the next two months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our normal practice to comment on future deployments of Royal Navy warships.

  Air-to-air Missiles
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all decisions have been taken on the advanced short-range air-to-air missile.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We have recently endorsed staff requirement (air) 1234 for an advanced short-range, air-to-air missile and, in accordance with our norrmal procurement policy, we shall be seeking competitive proposals from industry. We are proceeding in accordance with the family of weapons memorandum of understanding and we shall seek bids which are compliant with its terms.

  Gulf Crisis
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed the Gulf crisis with the United States Secretary for Defense; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend last met Mr. Cheney on 15 October. A range of subjects of mutual interest was discussed, including the Gulf crisis.

  British Forces (Gulf)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on co-ordination in the Gulf between British and Syrian forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Arrangements have been agreed which would enable British forces in Saudi Arabia to 98
  operate effectively with Saudi, American or other forces as necessary. 7 Armoured Brigade will, however, be positioned alongside the United States Marines in north-east Saudi Arabia.

  Military Hospitals
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the specialties available to national health service patients at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following specialties are generally available to NHS patients at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich, subject to Army operational and management considerations:

  Anaesthetics and Resuscitation

  Dietetics

  Dermatology1

  Ear, Nose and Throar

  General Medicine

  Tropical Medicine and Cardiology

  Genito-urinary Medicine

  General Surgery

  Gynaecology

  Intensive Care

  Neurology1

  Neuro-surgery

  Nuclear Medicine

  Oncology

  Ophthalmology

  Oral Surgery

  Orthopaedics

  Pathology

  Plastic Surgery

  Psychiatry

  Radiology

  Rheumatology and Rehabilitation

  Urology

  1 Visiting consultant's clinic only.

  Some of these specialties may not be available during the current Gulf deployments.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service personnel and (b) civilians are currently employed at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The peacetime establishment of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital is 174 officers, 395 other ranks and 149 civilians. Current commitments in the Gulf and management considerations may, however, affect the established staff levels.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the service hospitals covered by the surgeon general's recent review.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All eight of the service hospitals in the United Kingdom are included in the Surgeon General's review. They are:

  Royal Navy

  Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar

  Royal Naval Hospital, Stonehouse

  Army

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital, Woolwich

  Cambridge Military Hospital, Aldershot

  Duchess of Kent Military Hospital, Catterick

  Royal Air Force

  Princess of Wales RAF Hospital, Ely

  Princess Mary RAF Hospital, Halton

  Princess Alexandra RAF Hospital, Wroughton.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the estimated annual running costs of
  99
  the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90; and what is the current estimated average cost of in-patient stays for (a) service and (b)National Health Service patients.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated annual running costs of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich, for the years 1987–88 to 1989–90 were:

  £ millions

  1987–88

  26·9

  1988–89

  26·6

  1989–90

  21·1

  Note: It is not possible to differentiate the costs between service and civilian patients.

  The estimated average cost of in-patient stays at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich in 1989–90 was £2,400.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich was opened for use; and how many beds it currently provides.

  Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Number of in-patients

  Service personnel

  3,522

  4,170

  3,738

  3,780

  4,120

  4,583

  4,219

  4,667

  4,232

  4,600

  Service dependants

  1,066

  1,142

  1,223

  1,307

  1,386

  1,421

  1,227

  1,129

  1,129

  1,163

  National health service

  2,505

  3,131

  2,898

  3,181

  4,024

  4,690

  4,623

  4,722

  5,346

  6,430

  Others

  177

  160

  291

  319

  304

  412

  241

  203

  303

  231

  Total

  7,270

  8,603

  8,150

  8,587

  9,834

  11,106

  10,310

  10,721

  11,010

  12,424

  Number of out-patients

  Service personnel

  11,403

  17,338

  17,240

  19,284

  17,233

  18,565

  15,853

  14,395

  13,959

  10,924

  Service dependants

  3,929

  5,317

  4,222

  4,540

  4,138

  3,839

  2,858

  2,497

  2,429

  1,998

  National health service

  13,456

  17,449

  17,597

  19,083

  16,142

  17,399

  15,777

  13,697

  14,813

  15,821

  Others

  407

  1,252

  596

  873

  731

  846

  1,280

  402

  398

  250

  Total

  29,195

  41,356

  39,655

  43,780

  38,244

  40,649

  35,768

  30,991

  31,599

  28,993

  Note: Others includes far east prisoners of war and Gurkhas.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he received the surgeon general's review of the future of service hospitals in the United Kingdom; and when he expects to announce a decision on its recommendations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The findings of the Surgeon General's review of service hospitals in the United Kingdom are under consideration at official level and recommendations will shortly be submitted to Ministers. An announcement will be made as early as practicable after a decision has been taken.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the overall bed occupancy rate at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich, for the most recent four quarters for which figures are available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Bed occupancy figures, which are based on actual occupancy at midnight each day, are recorded on an annual basis. The occupancy rate for 1989–90, the last year for which figures are available, was 69 per cent., excluding bedded day patients.

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the exact date of the conclusion of the explosive propellants and related products agreement between Royal Ordnance and his Department in 1988.
  100
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Queen Elizabeth military hospital was opened by HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother on 1 April 1977. A total of 274 beds are normally available, but this figure is currently subject to alteration due to operational requirements.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service personnel, (b) service dependants and (c) national health service patients have been treated as either (i) in-patients or (ii) out-patients at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich during each of the most recent 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The table shows the number of service personnel, dependants and other NHS patients who have been treated as in-patients and out-patients at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My noble Friend the Lord Trefgarne and the then chief executive of Royal Ordnance plc signed the agreement on 28 July 1988.

  Al Yamamah Agreement
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, 19 July,Official Report, column 654, he will state the exact dates in 1985, 1986 and 1988 when the formal understandings on the Al Yamamah agreement were concluded.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The dates are 26 September 1985, 17 February 1986 and 3 July 1988 respectively.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any military assistance has been provided to any Cambodian groups engaged in resistance to the Phnom Penh regime.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 7 November 1989,Official Report, column 543.

  Service Personnel (Training)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel received pre-release training in each year since records began.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 October 1990]: Detailed records of the numbers receiving resettlement training have not been maintained since 1985, but we estimate that about 11,000 personnel do so each year. Pursuant to my answer to the hon. Member of 25 July 1990, Official Report, column 298, I should make it clear that the figure of £974 spent per head on pre-release training was based on data from financial year 1984–85. An up-to-date figure is not available.

WALES

  Council House Evictions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people aged 65 years or over have been evicted from council houses during 1989 in each district council area in Wales; and what proportion of the total number of evictions involved persons over the age of 65 years in each case.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Hospitals (Radioactive Waste)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of hospitals in Wales which are licensed to dispose of radioactive waste.

  Mr. Grist
  A list of premises authorised to dispose of radioactive waste is provided in the DOE/Welsh Office/Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution publication "List of premises in England and Wales currently authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to dispose of radioactive waste", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Since publication, one further hospital in Wales, Withybush hospital, Haverfordwest has been authorised and one, Royal' Alexandra hospital, Rhyl has had its licence revoked because the work has transferred to Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, Bodelwyddan.

  Health Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans there are to recruit consultant surgeons to eliminate waiting times for operations in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The responsibility for the recruitment of additional consultant surgeons to meet service needs lies with the district health authorities. Manpower approval has been granted, on the basis of district health authority bids, for the recruitment of additional consultants in specialities with problem lists. These include six posts in trauma and orthopaedics, five in general surgery and four in ophthalmology.

  Separately the Welsh Office undertook as part of its treatment centre initiative to fund six additional consultant posts, of which 4·5 whole-time equivalent posts are already in place. Furthermore £1·1 million has been allocated under the 1990–91 waiting times initiative and which includes funding for at least four consultant posts.
  102
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he plans to meet health authorities in Wales to discuss with them the waiting times for surgery.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to meet DHA chairmen soon to discuss a number of issues, including waiting times.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet community health councils in Wales to discuss with them their views concerning his plans for changes in the national health service.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to do so. The Association of Welsh Community Health Councils has already made known its views on a number of the proposed reforms.

  More routine opportunities for CHCs to raise for discussion matters of interest of concern are offered by the regular biannual meetings between the Association and the Director for the NHS in Wales. The latest of these meetings was held on 17 October 1990.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the reasons for the rise in waiting times for patients needing operations for ear, nose and throat problems.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the "Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin 1990; No. 2" which illustrates a variable performance in the light of developing demand and activity levels. During 1989 ear, nose and throat in-patient and day care throughput increased by 5·3 per cent., out-patient throughput rose by 2·2 per cent., with new out-patient attendances up by 8 per cent. In addition, at 31 March 1990: the number of urgent in-patients waiting fell by 54 per cent. over the previous year; and numbers of non-urgent in-patients rose by 8 per cent. and of out-patients fell by 15 per cent. Urgent cases waiting one month or more fell by 47 per cent. over the previous year; non-urgent cases waiting one year or more rose by 45 per cent; and out-patients waiting three months or more fell by 44 per cent.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of designated intensive care beds in(a) each district health authority in Wales and (b) in each district general hospital in Wales and against each of these (i) the number of such beds which are currently subject to temporary closure, (ii) the number which have been proposed or are being considered for temporary closure and (iii) the number which have been proposed or are being considered for permanent closure.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on Monday 22 October. No intensive care beds are proposed for permanent closure in applications currently before the Secretary of State. The temporary closure of beds is a matter for district health authorities.

  Menai Straits
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will instruct Welsh Water plc to take steps to protect the public from any possible danger of contamination of the waters in the Menai straits as a result of untreated sewage being carried out from the pathology laboratory at Ysbyty Gwynedd via Pen Rhos Garnedd.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies I gave him on 18 and 22 October.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General how long the London area of the Legal Aid Board takes to authorise solicitors to appropriate costs which have been agreed and paid in legal aid cases and where only the authority of the Legal Aid Board is needed for solicitors doing legal aid work to transfer such moneys from a client account to an office account.

  The Attorney-General
  This information is not collected at present and the Legal Aid Board has no immediate plans to collect it.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General how long the London area of the Legal Aid Board takes to pay damages to legally aided litigants where those damages have been deposited with the board.

  The Attorney-General
  This information is not collected. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, perhaps he would write to the Lord Chancellor.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average time taken by the London area of the Legal Aid Board to pay legal aid bills of costs for which allocaturs and bills have been sent to them.

  The Attorney-General
  Information is not available in the form requested. The Legal Aid Board monitors the payment of bills according to time targets set out in its annual report. A comparison of the performance of the London area office with the targets is set out in the table.

  Time taken between receipt and payment of bills

  Legal Aid Board

  4 weeks

  6 weeks

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Target (per cent, of bills paid)

  82

  95

  London area office performance for September 1990

  69

  90

THE ARTS

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much was spent by his Ministry on official hospitality in 1989–90.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The Office of Arts and Libraries spent £5,741 on official hospitality in 1989–90.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Duty-free Sales
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what he estimates would be the net effect on excise duty, value added tax, corporation tax and national insurance revenues, at 1989 figures, of elimination of EC-related duty free sales; and to what extent that effect has taken into account possible substitution of duty free sales by duty paid sales;

  (2) what would be the estimated effect on the United Kingdom balance of payments at current prices and current duty and value added tax rates in other EC member states of elimination of the duty-free system;
  104
  (3) what will be the effect on the United Kingdom balance of payments, at 1989 figures, of elimination of EC-related duty-free sales, taking into account the level of United Kingdom excise and value added tax rates by comparison with other EC member states and the likely effect of elimination of EC-related duty-free sales on United Kingdom demand for dutiable goods;

  (4) by what percentage United Kingdom domestic demand for alcoholic, tobacco and perfume products is estimated to fall, at current prices, and on the basis of current EC member state duty and value added tax differentials if duty-free status were ended.

  Mr. Ryder
  No decision has been taken on the future of duty-free sales. The economic effects of abolition have been addressed by some outside observers. These effects are being considered within Her Majesty's Government.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how statistics on trade between Britain and other EEC countries will be collected after 1992.

  Mr. Maples
  With the abolition of most frontier controls on goods at internal Community frontiers by the end of 1992, the present Customs documentation, which is the current source of infra-Community trade statistics, will disappear. However, both the European Commission and the United Kingdom Government will still need accurate and timely statistics on this trade and new methods are being set up to collect the data. The system for recording trade with other countries will continue unchanged.

  The European Commission has prepared revised proposals for the framework of systems to operate in all member states. The overall schemes are relatively complex, but the aim is to provide linked systems which control the collection of VAT on goods traded between member states and generate intra-EC trade statistics. By linking the systems it has been possible to reduce the burdens on small and medium-sized traders. The proposals specify the systems for a transitional period to run from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1996 when the Commission expects the basis of levying VAT to change. and the definitive systems for the period starting on 1 January 1997.

  The Commission's amended proposal for an EC Council regulation on the statistics relating to the trading of goods between member states has been published in the Official Journal. The main features of the proposed transitional system to operate from 1 January 1993 are: that detailed monthly trade figures—including value, volume, eight-digit commodity and country—will be collected from larger traders above a threshold yet to be set; that no separate statistical returns will be required from small and medium traders, but estimates will be made using information from two boxes expected to be added to all VAT returns giving value totals of intra-Community imports and exports; that businesses not registered for VAT will be excluded from any collection.

  The Council regulation sets out only the framework of the new systems. It has not yet been agreed with member states and amendments are possible before it is adopted by the Council. Many of the details of the new system will be specified later in Commission implementing regulations. One of the most important components of these will set the level of the statistical threshold. In some of its publicity the Commission has suggested that it may propose one which

  105
  requires the largest 20 per cent. of traders to provide detailed monthly returns. In the United Kingdom these traders account for around 96 per cent. of the value of intra-EC trade. Such a threshold would ensure that adequate data are available for macro-economic statistics. Also with coverage as high as 96 per cent. it would allow the collection of detailed statistics for most industries. This new threshold would almost certainly replace the present, mainly low-value consignment, thresholds which mean that there is currently no commodity detail for over 1 per cent. of trade.

  Corporation Tax
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much industrial and provident societies have paid in corporation tax for each year since 1982.

  Mr. Maude
  The amounts of corporation tax paid by industrial and provident societies during financial years 1986–87 to 1989–90 are shown in the table. Figures for earlier years are not readily available and could be prepared only at disproportionate cost. Figures for the most recent years are now published in Inland Revenue statistics.

  Financial year

  Amount of corporation tax (£ million)

  1986–87

  590

  1987–88

  624

  1988–89

  821

  1989–90

  651

  Whisky
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Scotch whisky industry about the consequences of abolishing duty-free sales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Scotch Whisky Association has made representations on behalf of the Scotch whisky industry about the effects of abolishing duty-free sales within the European Community. In March my right hon. Friend the Chancellor replied to a letter written on the subject by the association.

  The European Commission has made it clear that as a consequence of the completion of the single market duty-free shopping for intra-Community travellers should cease. The Scotch Whisky Association has pointed out that ending duty-free sales within the Community could adversely affect sales of Scotch whisky and remove a useful shop window for promoting its goods.

  The Government will examine all the arguments carefully before reaching a decision.

  Kleinwort Benson
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the Government's privatisations involved the services of the investment banking group, Kleinwort Benson; and what moneys were paid by the Government to that group for services.

  Mr. Maude
  The table shows the privatisations and in which positions Kleinwort, Benson acted for the Government. Moneys paid to Kleinwort, Benson for their services are a confidential commercial matter.
  106

  Role of Kleinwort, Benson in privatisations

  Company

  Date of sale

  Position

  BP1

  1979

  Underwriter

  1983

  Underwriter

  1987

  Underwriter

  British Aerospace

  1981

  Adviser

  Lead Underwriter

  1985

  Joint Lead Underwriter

  Cable and Wireless

  1981

  Adviser2

  Lead Underwriter

  1983

  Adviser2

  Lead Underwriter

  1985

  Underwriter

  Britoil

  1982

  Underwriter

  1985

  Underwriter

  Associated British Ports

  1983

  Adviser3

  Joint Underwriters

  Enterprise Oil

  1984

  Adviser

  Underwriter

  British Telecom

  1984

  Adviser

  Joint Lead Underwriter

  British Gas

  1986

  Underwriter

  British Airways

  1987

  Underwriter

  Royal Ordnance

  1987

  Adviser4

  British Steel

  1988

  Underwriter

  Water and Sewerage Companies

  1989

  Underwriter

  Regional Electricity

  1990

  Adviser

  Notes:

  1Sale of Government shares (not privatisation)

  2With Bank of England

  3Early stages

  4Initial study

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in 1989–90.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The amount spent by the Treasury on official hospitality was £55,169 in 1989–90.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his written answer of 17 October on increases in mortgage payments, when he expects most mortgage borrowers to feel the effects of the recent reduction in mortgage rates.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: It will depend on the practices of the lenders concerned. Where lenders have reduced their mortgage rates, new borrowers in most cases have been affected already. Existing borrowers not on annual schemes will in most cases have their mortgage payments adjusted from November.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to have sufficient data to update his reply
  107
  to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 20 June, Official Report, column 558, on changes in mortgage payments.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: We expect to have sufficient data in the course of November.

  Bank Directors
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will list on what occasions Ministers in his Department met directors and/or non-executive directors of banks between Monday 1 October and 10 am on Thursday 4 October, inclusive.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: No.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Infertility
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if' he will publish the most recent figures available showing the number of clinics in Northern Ireland offering(a) IVF, GIFT and other procedures and (b) GIFT and other procedures but excluding IVF; and if he will also publish the total number of (i) single, (ii) twin, (iii) triplet, (iv) quadruplet, (v) quintuplet and (vi) sextuplet pregnancies following GIFT procedures in each category of clinic.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: There is one specialist infertility clinic in Northern Ireland offering IVF, GIFT and other procedures. The information requested on pregnancies is not available.

  Technology Development Group
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if his Department made any investigation into the operations of the Technology Development Group (TDG Limited) of London in advance of its intended purchase of the Lear Fan factory in Northern Ireland in 1989.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The Technology Development Group (TDG) was a shareholder in SRC Composites Ltd. (SRC). The Industrial Development Board always conducts a rigorous investigation of inward investment projects and it was in the initial stages of the appraisal of SRC that the decision not to assist the project was taken in the light of Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice. It was therefore not necessary to conduct an in-depth investigation into TDG as part of this project.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others including one with the 108
  Amir of Kuwait. I also attended the arrival of the President of the Italian Republic, President Cossiga. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending the state banquet given by Her Majesty the Queen in honour of President Cossiga.

HEALTH

  Cancer
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the increases registered in cancer mortality rates in the London borough of Tower Hamlets since 1985.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of deaths from major forms of cancer to residents of the London borough of Tower Hamlets have fluctuated over the years since 1985. The data do not show evidence of an overall upward trend in cancer mortality rates in the borough over these years.

  Paracetemol
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to restrict the sale of paracetemol and products containing paracetemol to pharmacies only and to require such products carrying health warnings on the labelling.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. I am advised that paracetemol in recommended dosage is not harmful to the normal population. There are limits on the strength and pack size of paracetemol products which may be supplied without the supervision of a pharmacist. The labelling of all such products is required by law to show clearly that they contain paracetemol. The recommended dosage is shown with a warning that it should not be exceeded and that if symptoms persist a doctor should be consulted.

  Births
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the number of booked home deliveries in each health authority for each of the last five years;

  (2) if he will list the number of born before arrival cases for each health authority for each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of legal actions taken against(a) obstetricians, (b) hospital midwives, (c) general practitioners in attendance at birth and (d) community midwives over the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision each health authority makes for the training of student midwives in home births.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting—UKCC—is responsible for establishing the standards of training necessary for midwives and for ensuring that the standard of midwifery training programmes meet European Community requirements.
  109
  EC directives on the training of midwives require that each student midwife will conduct 40 deliveries during training. There are no specific requirements on where the deliveries should take place.

  Each school or college of midwifery reaches agreement locally on the appropriate clinical experience for its midwives. All schools and colleges must be recognised by the relevant national board—of nursing, midwifery and health visiting—which must also ensure that training courses meet UKCC and EC standards.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the emergency aid currently being given to eastern European countries is from the overseas aid budget for the current year or is in addition to it.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The £500,000 of emergency aid provided to Romania, channelled through WHO, was drawn from the overseas aid budget. Economic assistance to eastern Europe is separate from and additional to the overseas aid budget for developing countries.

  Aid Policy
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy for targeting aid overseas in such way that it is not wasted and that it is monitored on the ground to allow maximum flexibility.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Each year the Government review overall aid policy, and the direction of multilateral and bilateral country programmes. This process is carried through into regular discussions with recipient countries on their development plans and priorities and on what assistance the United Kingdom is best able to provide. We have developed rigorous and effective systems for project management. All proposals are subject to technical, economic and financial appraisal before funds are committed. Projects are monitored during implementation, and completion reports are prepared. These provide a basis for further evaluation if required.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Khmer Rouge
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning Chinese supplies of tanks, helicopter gunships, and training of pilots, to the Khmer Rouge.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are aware that China provides a variety of military hardware to the Cambodian resistance. We have no evidence that the Chinese have supplied helicopters or the associated training.

  Lorry Drivers (Spain)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the position of British lorry drivers stranded in Spain by the Spanish drivers' blockade.
  110
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The strike is now over and we understand that vehicles are moving freely across the border in both directions. During the strike our consular staff in Spain visited the scene regularly to give general advice and financial assistance to drivers.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he is giving relatives of lorry drivers caught in the French-Spanish blockade; and whether a helpline or information number is available for families.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The strike has now ended and vehicles are moving freely across the border in both directions. During the strike no helpline as such was set up. However, the consular department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was in regular touch with the relatives and employers of the drivers involved.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the crisis in the Gulf.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs intends to make a statement shortly.

  USSR (Visas)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will make representations to the Soviet authorities to grant an exit visa to Elena Morgulis of Sverdlovsk so that she can join her husband and son in Israel.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We can certainly raise Mrs. Morgulis's case with the Soviet authorities. We have asked her family to provide further details in order to make our representations most effective.

  South Africa
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding the progress towards ending the policy of apartheid.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had constructive discussions on 14 October with President de Klerk which focused on progress towards negotiations on a new constitution for South Africa and a peaceful end to apartheid. My right hon. Friend welcomed recent positive developments in South Africa and expressed the hope that negotiations will begin soon with all parties concerned.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the fourth nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference decisions were discussed at the informal Foreign Ministers Council at Aslo-Venice on 6 and 7 October.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution will be made to the eastern section of Germany, up to the end of 1990, from the European Community PHARE programme on economic assistance to eastern Europe.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The European Community has made available 35 million ecu—£25 million—to the former GDR up to the end of 1990 from the EC PHARE programme. No further PHARE funds will be made available to the former GDR from 1991.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions will be made to environmental protection in eastern Europe under the PHARE programme, following the most recent European Council decision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  From the 1990 PHARE budget of 500 million ecu—£350 million—for economic aid to eastern Europe, a total of 100·5 million ecu—£70 million—has been earmarked for environmental protection.

EMPLOYMENT

  Inflation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the average annual increase in earnings, and the increase in inflation in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Average annual increases in earnings in the whole economy and in the retail prices index in the last 10 years are as follows:

  Whole economy average earnings index

  Retail prices index

  Percentage increase

  Percentage increase

  1980

  20·7

  18·0

  1981

  12·9

  11·9

  1982

  9·4

  8·6

  1983

  8·4

  4·6

  1984

  6·1

  5·0

  1985

  8·5

  6·1

  1986

  7·9

  3·4

  1987

  7·8

  4·2

  1988

  8·7

  4·9

  1989

  9·1

  7·8

  Printworkers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the incidence of industrial-related cancer found in printworkers.

  Mr. Forth
  Although some studies in the past have shown an apparent higher risk among printworkers of various cancers, in particular lung cancer, it has not been established that these excess cancers were attributable to occupation. An independent study part funded by the Health and Safety Executive and which is to be published early next year has found no excess risk for bladder cancer and suggests that the excess risk of lung cancer in printworkers apparent early this century has become less evident in recent years.

  Craft Businesses (Conference)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contribution was made by his Department to the European conference on craft businesses and small enterprises held in Avignon on 11 to 14 October.

  Mr. Forth
  Three officials from my Department and one from the Office of Arts and Libraries attended this conference, together with 14 representatives of the craft sector in the United Kingdom. The conference was financed by the European Commission with a contribution from the French Government, who hosted the event.

  Pregnant Women (EC Directive)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a list of those he has consulted on the proposal for a new EC directive on the protection of pregnant women stating the date on which he sought these views, the date on which the text of the draft directive was made available in English to those being consulted and the date by which responses have to be received; and whether he will make a copy of the draft directive available to hon. Members.

  Mr. Forth
  The organisations and individuals consulted were as follows:

  ACAS

  All 24 members of the Advisory Committee on Women's Employment

  Aims of Industry

  Alliance of Small Firms and Self Employed People Ltd

  Allied Bakeries Ltd

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  Association of Chief Ambulance Officers

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Directors of Public Health

  Association of Directors of Recreation & Tourism

  Association of District Councils

  Association of Exhibition Organisers

  Association of Independent Businesses

  Association of Independent Tour Operators

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Automobile Association

  Avon Cosmetics Ltd.

  Barclays Group plc Staff Union

  Barrow-in-Furness Council

  BAT Industries

  Bayer UK Ltd.

  BEC

  BICC plc

  Britannia Airways Ltd.

  British Airways plc

  British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions

  British Broadcasting Corporation

  British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association

  British Coal

  British Computer Society

  British Council

  British Dental Association

  British Gas plc

  British Glass Manufacturing Confederation

  British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association

  British Institute of Management

  British Junior Chamber

  British Medical Association

  British Occupational Hygiene Society/Institute of Occupational Hygienists

  British Oxygen Company

  British Paper and Board Industry Federation

  British Rail

  British Security Industries Association

  British Steel plc

  113

  British Telecommunications plc

  British Tourist Authority/English Tourist Board

  Brook Street London Operations Centre

  Building Employers Confederation

  Building Societies Association

  Business and Professional Women

  Cable and Wireless plc

  Catering Managers Association

  Central Office of the Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales)

  Central Office of the Industrial Tribunals (Scotland)

  Chemical Industries Association Ltd.

  Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association

  Child Poverty Action Group

  Cinema Exhibitors' Association

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Confederation of British Industry

  Contract Cleaning and Maintenance Association

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Council of Managerial and Professional Staffs

  Council on Tribunals

  Declan O'Dempsey

  Department of Economic Development, Northern Ireland

  District Nursing Association

  Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union

  Electricity Association

  Employment Appeal Tribunal

  Engineering Employers Federation

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Euro Bureau

  Euroinfocentre

  European Information Centre

  Faculty of Advocates

  Fawcett Society

  Federation of Bakers

  Federation of Managerial, Professional & General Associations

  Federation of Medium and Small Employers

  Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services

  Fire Brigades Union

  Food & Drink Federation

  Forum of Private Business

  Freemans plc

  General Council of the Bar

  General Council of British Shipping

  Gingerbread

  Glaxo Holdings plc

  Guild of Cleaners & Launderers

  Hairdressing Training Board

  Halmark Cards

  Health and Safety Commission

  ICI Group HQ

  ICL

  Ilford Ltd

  Incomes Data Services Ltd

  Independent Broadcasting Authority

  Independent Midwives Association

  Independent Television Association

  Industrial Relations Services

  Industrial Society

  Institute of Directors

  Institute of Economic Affairs

  Institute of Employment Rights

  Institute of Management Consultants

  Institute of Personnel Management

  Institute of Radiation Protection

  Institute of Safety & Public Protection

  Institution of Environmental Health Officers

  Institution of Occupational Safety & Health

  Institution of Professionals, Managers & Specialists

  IOH Services Ltd

  John Lewis plc

  John Menzies GB Ltd

  Kodak Ltd

  Kirby College of Further Education

  Labour Relations Agency

  Ladybrook Nursery

  L'Arome (UK) Ltd

  114

  Law Centres Federation

  Law Society

  Law Society of Scotland

  League of Jewish Women

  Linklaters & Paines

  Linton & Hirst Ltd.

  Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board

  Local Authorities Employers' Organisation

  Logica

  London Boroughs Association

  London Underground Ltd.

  Low Pay Unit

  Lord O'Hagan

  Mr. W. Manser

  Maternity Alliance

  Mebon Ltd.

  Mecca Leisure Ltd.

  Merseyside Chamber of Commerce

  Michelin Tyres plc

  Midland Bank plc

  Nacanco Ltd.

  National Alliance of Women's Organisations

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  National Association of Local Government Women's Committees

  National Association of Master Bakers, Confectioners & Caterers

  National Chamber of Trade

  National Council for Civil Liberties

  National Council for One Parent Families

  National Council of Hotel Associations

  National Council of Women

  National Engineering Construction Employers Association

  National Farmers Union

  National Federation of Retail Newsagents

  National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd.

  National Licensed Victuallers Association

  National Market Traders' Federation

  National Power plc

  National Union of Journalists

  Nera

  New Ways to Work

  Newspaper Society

  Nicholson Chamberlain Colls Group

  Norton Rose

  Nuclear Electric

  Office of Wages Councils

  Osborne Clarke

  Pannell Kerr & Forster

  People's Dispensary for Sick Animals

  PepsiCo.

  Personal Managers Association

  Pilkington plc

  Police Federation of England and Wales

  Post Office

  Radio Rentals

  RCN Society of Occupational Health Nursing

  Redland Aggregate Ltd

  Reed International

  Retail Consortium

  Richard Shops

  Road Haulage Association

  Robert Dyas Ltd

  Royal Automobile Club

  Royal College of Nursing of the UK

  Royal College of Physicians

  Royal Environmental Health Institution of Scotland

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents

  Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  Scottish Council for Single Parents

  Scottish Courts Administration

  Scottish Grocers' Federation

  Showman's Guild of Great Britain

  Spreechly Bircham

  Society of West End Theatre

  Suttons Seeds Ltd

  Townswomens Guilds

  Trades Union Congress

  TSB Group plc

  115

  The Union of Independent Businesses

  United Cinemas International

  Vine Products and Whiteways

  Welsh Women's Aid

  Whitbreads

  W H Smith Ltd

  Women's National Commission

  Working Mothers Association

  Wyatt Company

  The consultation letter was issued on 24 September and organisations were asked to respond by 7 November.

  The official text of the draft directive is not yet available. An unofficial text was received by my Department on 3 October. A copy has been sent to any organisation on request, and one has now been placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if there are any plans to give preferential treatment to training and enterprise councils in depressed areas as a means of aiding economic regeneration.

  Mr. Jackson
  The level of resources agreed with each training and enterprise council will take account of a variety of factors such as the numbers of young people, levels of unemployment and of working population, past performance and any special needs identified in the TEC's corporate and business plans.

ENERGY

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he has of the number of outstanding applications from retired miners who are seeking compensation for their industrial deafness.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation; this Department does not keep a record of such figures.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the next operational safety review team from the International Atomic Energy Agency will visit a British nuclear facility; what is the cost to the United Kingdom nuclear programme of such visits; and if he will make a statement on the operation of OSART to date.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The International Atomic Energy Agency's operational safety and review team—OSART—missions comprise experts drawn from IAEA states, and are designed to subject various features of the operational safety of nuclear power stations to a form of peer review. The United Kingdom commends the valuable contribution which the missions make to improving operational nuclear safety worldwide.

  An OSART mission visited Nuclear Electric's Oldbury on Severn station in July last year and reported favourably on the operational safety of the station. There are no plans at present for Nuclear Electric to receive a further OSART mission but the matter is being kept under review. However, I understand that the Scottish Office and Scottish Nuclear Ltd. have been exploring the possibility of an OSART mission to Hunterston B, which might take place around 1996.
  116
  Operators are responsible for providing appropriate subsistence to members of OSART missions. Other costs are borne by the IAEA.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the Government have plans to review their policy on fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment to fossil fuel power stations, in the light of the estimate in the ECOTEC report that the detrimental effects of acid rain cost £17 billion.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are committed to the reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions of 60 per cent. against 1980 levels, by the year 2003 set out in the EC large combustion plants directive. Flue gas desulphurisation will play an important part in meeting these reductions.

  Oil and Condensates
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the amount of oil and condensates produced by each platform in the United Kingdom continental shelf for each month since March 1989.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department does not record the amounts of oil and condensate production on a platform by platform basis. I have placed in the Library a table showing the amounts of production on a field-by-field basis for each month from March 1989 until August 1990, the latest month for which figures are available.

  Exploratory Drilling
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the rate of exploratory drilling in the North sea and other United Kingdom continental shelf sectors has increased since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; and if he will provide statistics relating to this matter on a monthly basis for the period September 1989 to September 1990.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The table sets out the numbers of exploration wells started in each of the months from September 1989 to September 1990. Although more wells were started in August and September 1990 than in earlier months, this cannot be attributed to the event referred to, since they had been planned well in advance.

  Number

  1989

  September

  11

  October

  9

  November

  6

  December

  12

  1990

  January

  6

  February

  4

  March

  11

  April

  10

  May

  11

  June

  14

  July

  15

  August

  21

  September

  19

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many back-dated claims have been granted to claimants of severe disability premium since the Compton ruling; and what is the total amount paid out in back-dated claims thus far.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 15 October 1990.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Raison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claims for war pensions is accepted by his Department.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the year to 30 June 1990, a total of 73 per cent. of claims for a war disablement pension and 53 per cent. of claims for a war widows pension were accepted.

  Discretionary Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the proportion of applications to the discretionary fund which were successful, partially successful and unsuccessful for each category of award—CCG, BL, CL—and by those aged (a) under 18, (b) 18 and over but under 25, (c) 25 and over but under 60 and (d) 60 years and over for each of the first two complete years of the fund's operation.

  Mr. Scott
  The tables show the proportion of applications that were successful and unsuccessful in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Information on partially successful applications is not separately available, and such cases are included in the successful category. Information is not available on separate age groups under the age of 60 years.

  Percentage successful

  Percentage unsuccessful

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Budgeting loans

  Under 60 years

  62

  59

  38

  41

  60 years and over

  57

  42

  43

  58

  Crisis loans

  Under 60 years

  90

  92

  10

  8

  60 years and over

  90

  89

  10

  11

  Community care grants

  Under 60 years

  48

  40

  52

  60

  60 years and over

  65

  66

  35

  34

  Social Fund Loans
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentages of income support claimants aged under 60 years are repaying social fund budgeting loans and/or crisis loans by deductions from their benefit payments in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; and what is the average repayment in terms of a proportion of their income.
  118
  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the number of social fund loans being recovered from income support recipients aged under 60 at the end of August 1990 and the percentage of recipients in that age group that the figure represents.

  Number of recoveries

  Percentage of income support recipients under 60

  Greenock

  2,163

  19·6

  Port Glasgow

  1,062

  32·4

  Strathclyde

  57,866

  28·2

  Scotland

  83,681

  24·0

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Haslar Prison
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are now held at Haslar prison and of the total, how many are persons seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 14 October, the latest date for which this information is readily available, there were eight prisoners held at Haslar prison and 91 detainees held under Immigration Act powers. There is no central record of how many of those detained had sought political asylum.

  Electoral Rolls
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has any plans to review the sale of electoral rolls by local authorities to commercial undertakings in the light of experience; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has received any complaints about the sale of electoral rolls to companies;

  (3) if he has received any evidence suggesting that the sale of electoral rolls is breaching confidentiality and providing some help to criminals.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Representation of the People Regulations 1986 provide for the publication and supply of the electoral register, including the supply of copies at a prescribed fee. These provisions reflect the fact that the register is a public document which needs to be in wide circulation for electoral purposes; and the conclusion that its use by commercial organisations could not effectively be prevented. I am aware that sale of the register is unpopular with some members of the public, who may not always fully appreciate the reasons for it: we have received a number of complaints on the subject. Since the information contained in the register is already in the public domain, however, sale of the register cannot be held to constitute a breach of confidentiality; and we have no evidence to suggest that the register is used for criminal purposes. There are no current plans for a review of the position.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many staff are currently employed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board;

  (2) what staff increases have occurred in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board since its inception.
  119
  Mr. John Patten
  The numbers of staff in post each year since the board's inception are given in the table:

  Number

  1964–65

  11

  1965–66

  30

  1966–67

  40

  1967–68

  58

  1968–69

  58

  1969–70

  65

  1970–71

  65

  1971–72

  79

  1972–73

  99

  1973–74

  99

  1974–75

  106·5

  1975–76

  119·5

  1976–77

  116·5

  1977–78

  126

  1978–79

  132·5

  1979–80

  156·5

  1980–81

  155

  1981–82

  163

  1982–83

  163

  1983–84

  182

  1984–85

  189

  1985–86

  203·5

  1986–87

  214·5

  1987–88

  267

  1988–89

  312

  1989–90

  332

  Present

  380·5

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the rate at which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board resolves cases.

  Mr. John Patten
  The measures being taken to improve the board's position and performance are fully described in the Government reply (Cm 1153) to the second report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 1989–90 (HC 92).

  In summary, the 60 extra staff requested by the board have been recruited to the board's Glasgow office; the scheme has been amended to allow for more streamlined decision taking; a major computer project was started in March, and a thorough review of the board's staffing and procedures is under way.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time it takes for a case to be considered and resolved by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and what was the equivalent time in 1984.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information in this form is not available. Percentages of cases resolved by the board within certain periods of registration are shown in its annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were referred to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in the last 12 months for which records are available and for each of the preceding years going back to 1984.

  Mr. John Patten
  Applications received by the board in each year ended 31 March since 1984 are as follows:

  Year

  1984–85

  34,900

  1985–86

  39,700

  1986–87

  42,300

  120

  Year

  1987–88

  43,000

  1988–89

  43,385

  1989–90

  53,655

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of administering the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. John Patten
  The administrative cost of the board in 1989–90 was £9 million.

  Prisoners (Injuries)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons' report into the effectiveness of the prison services policy and procedures for the prevention of suicide and self-injury.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I understand that Judge Tumim aims to submit his report in November.

  War Plans
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those county councils in Wales that have submitted county and district war plans to date.

  Mr. John Patten
  County and district war plans have been received from all county councils in Wales.

  Emergency Control Centres
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities in Wales have developed emergency control centres; how many staff have been trained in connection with the centres; and what is the total cost of establishment and maintenance and staff training and employment in connection with each emergency control centre.

  Mr. John Patten
  Emergency centres conforming to current Home Office specifications have been established by two county councils and seven district councils in Wales. Information on staff training relating specifically to emergency centres is not held centrally.

  These centres have been developed over a number of years and details of the expenditure incurred could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Home Office has no record of maintenance costs for these premises. However, in 1989–90 the total cost per county of the time spent by grant-aided staff on all emergency centre-related activities was as follows:

  County

  Cost £

  Clwyd

  24,770

  Dyfed

  9,637

  Mid Glamorgan

  7,280

  South Glamorgan

  1,608

  West Glamorgan

  28,485

  Gwent

  9,255

  Gwynedd

  21,667

  Powys

  10,918

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the population have registered to vote in each of the years since 1979 for which figures are available.
  121
  Mrs. Rumbold
  A table showing the number of registered electors in England and Wales, and Scotland, the approximate corresponding eligible population at the previous mid-year and the percentage of the population registered to vote, is given in appendix B to "Electoral statistics 1990" published by HMSO on behalf of the 122
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (series EL No. 17), a copy of which is in the Library. The table is accompanied by a commentary which suggests reasons for the variation from year to year in the proportion of the population registered to vote.

  Emergency Planning Officers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) emergency planning officers and (b) clerical support staff for emergency planning officers are currently employed by each county council in Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is as follows:

  As at 30 September 1989

  Emergency planning officers

  Clerical support staff

  Clwyd

  10

  3

  Dyfed

  7

  2

  Mid Glamorgan

  6

  2

  South Glamorgan

  5

  3

  West Glamorgan

  7

  2·25

  Gwent

  9·5

  2

  Gwynedd

  7

  3

  Powys

  5

  1

  Immigration Cases (Malpractice)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations have taken place of malpractice by civil servants dealing with immigration cases over the last 12 months; and what is the nature of any proceedings that have resulted from the investigations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Officers of the Metropolitan police are investigating possible criminal offences by individuals involved in immigration cases, and one former employee of the immigration and nationality department has been charged with conspiracy to contravene the Immigration Act 1971. Other cases of malpractice not involving criminal acts have been dealt with under the appropriate civil service disciplinary code.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the role of his Department in relation to the length of life sentences, including any input into decisions regarding the length of tariffs(a) prior to the introduction of the 1983 changes in parole policy and (b) since then.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the Secretary of State may release a life sentence prisoner only if recommended to do so by the parole board and after he has consulted the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge if available. The period of detention served by a life sentence prisoner is, and always has been, a matter for the Secretary of State to decide.

  Until 1983 the date of the first review of a life sentence case under the parole board machinery was decided in the light of advice from a joint committee of the board and the Home Office, which included two senior officials of the Department. Since then that date has been set following consultation with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local authorities are receiving funding under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966; and 124
  how much money was made available to each such authority during the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The following local authorities received grant (at the rate of 75 per cent. of salary costs) under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 in the financial year 1989–90:

  £

  ENGLAND

  County councils

  Avon

  914,668

  Bedfordshire

  1,935,580

  Berkshire

  1,602,587

  Buckinghamshire

  919,734

  Cambridgeshire

  1,189,965

  Cheshire

  23,254

  Cleveland

  568,855

  Derbyshire

  1,431,533

  Devon

  11,255

  Essex

  16,362

  Gloucestershire

  248,541

  Hampshire

  364,676

  Hereford and Worcester

  13,246

  Hertfordshire

  1,285,235

  Humberside

  214,088

  Kent

  486,445

  Lancashire

  5,054,529

  Leicestershire

  2,940,916

  Northamptonshire

  1,106,610

  North Yorkshire

  13,497

  Nottinghamshire

  1,997,871

  Oxfordshire

  816,952

  Shropshire

  66,897

  Staffordshire

  616,642

  Suffolk

  107,400

  Surrey

  86,866

  Warwickshire

  949,638

  West Sussex

  186,470

  Wiltshire

  215,445

  West Midlands FCDA

  66,737

  West Yorkshire FCDA

  76,540

  METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton MBC

  941,881

  Bury MBC

  230,259

  Manchester City C

  2,289,058

  Oldham MBC

  2,190,110

  Rochdale MBC

  1,024,028

  Stockport MBC

  47,905

  Tamesidc MBC

  575,986

  Trafford MBC

  276,422

  Merseyside

  Liverpool City C

  162,946

  South Yorkshire

  Doncaster MBC

  18,993

  Rotherham MBC

  265,879

  Sheffield MDC

  2,028,167

  Tyne and Wear

  Newcastle City C

  376,583

  North Tyneside MBC

  48,034

  Sunderland BC

  74,028

  West Midlands

  Birmingham City C

  5,797,159

  Coventry City C

  2,811,273

  Dudley MBC

  936,302

  Sandwell MBC

  1,853,833

  Walsall MBC

  1,597,646

  Wolverhampton MBC

  2,247,810

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford City MC

  6,322,274

  Calderdale MBC

  1,006,667

  125

  £

  Kirklees Metro C

  2,407,428

  Leeds City C

  1,695,972

  Wakefield MDC

  157,204

  Non Metropolitan Districts

  Blackburn BC

  90,904

  Bristol City C

  56,508

  Derby City C

  52,628

  Gloucester City C

  20,100

  Gravesham BC

  28,847

  Hyndburn BC

  4,444

  Ipswich BC

  23,509

  Leicester City C

  207,404

  Luton BC

  29,550

  Middlesbrough BC

  19,100

  Milton Keynes BC

  12,032

  Nottingham City C

  113,365

  Oxford City C

  24,130

  Pendle BC

  13,673

  Peterborough City C

  37,623

  Preston BC

  4,209

  Reading BC

  12,073

  Redditch BC

  10,620

  Rugby BC

  9,842

  Slough Corp

  34,798

  Scunthorpe CC

  11,834

  Southampton City C

  34,935

  St Albans DC

  15,454

  Wycombe DC

  45,362

  London Boroughs

  Inner London

  Camden

  424,671

  Greenwich

  455,939

  Hackney

  1,499,707

  Hammersmith

  142,900

  ILEA

  21,941,375

  Islington

  527,806

  Kensington & Chelsea

  162,496

  Lambeth

  262,171

  Lewisham

  332,541

  Southwark

  270,503

  Tower Hamlets

  291,460

  Wandsworth

  309,424

  Westminster

  73,648

  Outer London

  Barking

  246,230

  Barnet

  949,002

  Bexley

  13,047

  Brent

  4,646,852

  Croydon

  1,093,806

  Ealing

  4,711,527

  Enfield

  470,294

  Haringey

  2,988,487

  Harrow

  568,947

  Havering

  36,407

  Country

  Electorate

  Quota

  Seats

  Change

  Table 1

  England

  36,388,575

  67,174

  541·71 (542

  + 19

  Scotland

  3,936,704

  67,174

  58·60 (58)

  -14

  Wales

  2,207,542

  67,174

  32·86 (33)

  -5

  Northern Ireland

  1.130,602

  67,174

  16·83 (17)

  —

  Table 2

  England

  36,388,575

  54,676

  665·53 (666)

  + 143

  Scotland

  3,936,704

  54,676

  72·00 (72)

  —

  Wales

  2,207,542

  54,676

  40·37 (40)

  + 2

  Northern Ireland

  1,130,602

  54,676

  20·68 (21)

  + 4

  126

  £

  Hillingdon

  374,464

  Hounslow

  1,889,641

  Kingston

  1,210

  Merton

  441,369

  Newham

  2,877,460

  Redbridge

  853,644

  Richmond

  66,446

  Sutton

  16,920

  Waltham Forest

  1,540,411

  London Boroughs Grants Unit

  18,142

  Wales

  South Glamorgan County Council

  238,197

  Cardiff City Council

  17,720

  COLLEGES AND POLYTECHNICS

  City of London Polytechnic

  3,520

  Lancashire Polytechnic

  98,179

  Luton College of Further Education

  59,082

  Leeds Polytechnic

  15,716

  Notes:

  1 Some payments include backdated claims and therefore do not cover solely local authorities' expenditure for the single year in question.

  2 The table also shows the grant paid to three polytechnics and one college of further education, which by virtue of section 211 of the Education Reform Act 1988, may claim section 11 grant direct.

  Electoral Statistics
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish in the Official Report the tables given in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the Home Office memorandum submitted to the Home Affairs Committee in connection with its report intituled "Redistribution of Seats" (second report Session 1986–87), revised in respect of the latest available figures, showing the total numbers of electors in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested, based on figures for the 1990 electorate, is given in the tables. The tables illustrate two different ways in which equal standards of parliamentary representation throughout the United Kingdom might be achieved, by the introduction of a single electoral quota for the United Kingdom. Table 1 is based on a total of 650 seats; table 2 is based on a total of 799 seats, maintaining the present number of seats in Scotland.

  Police Personnel
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the ratio of police personnel to the population in the United Kingdom; and what is the comparable figure for the other countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible for policing in England and Wales where the police population ratio was 1:404 as at 31 December 1989. Ratios for other European Community countries are not held centrally although the Home Affairs Committee (seventh report volume I table II) published relevant information about population and police numbers. In comparing one country with another one must, of course, have regard to a variety of matters including the responsibilities of particular police organisations and the policing style which is adopted.

  Northumbria Probation Service
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources have been made available to the Northumbria probation service as a result of the extra demand caused by the dispersal of prisoners following events at Strangeways prison in April 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  Chief probation officers in the north of England, including Northumbria, were notified in July of action they should take to deal with this problem. They were advised that if the extra necessary resources could not be found locally, the Home Office would consider the funding of temporary additions to staffing levels. No such applications have been received.

  Northumbria Police Authority
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources have been provided by his Department to the Northumbria police authority to meet the extra demands caused by dispersal of prisoners following events at Strangeways prison in April 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Police authorities are able to claim the reimbursement of certain extra costs incurred by the police in undertaking tasks which would normally be carried out by the prison service. No such claim has yet been received from the Northumbria police authority.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if his Department will provide figures for each month from May 1990 onwards for the number of remand prisoners and newly sentenced prisoners being held in the police cells in Northumbria police authority area who would normally be housed in Strangeways or Armley prisons;

  (2) if his Department will provide figures for each month from May 1990 onwards for the number of remand prisoners formerly imprisoned in Strangeways prison, Manchester, who are now being held in police cells in the Northumbria police authority area.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The average numbers of convicted and unconvicted prisoners, who have been held in police cells in the Northumbria police authority area each month since May 1990, are given in the table. All would normally have been held in Strangeways.
  128

  Convicted

  Unconvicted

  May

  36

  13

  June

  51

  7

  July

  39

  4

  August

  31

  12

  September

  18

  23

  October

  33

  22

  This information is not collected in a way that enables the number of newly sentenced prisoners or those held in Strangeways before the April riot to be readily identified separately.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 2 May, 25 June and 2 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. and Mrs. V. Stringer, 18 Underwood close, Mr. and Mrs. E. Iddon, Walesside house and Mr. and Mrs. R. Graham, 1 Falmer close;

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 30 April, 25 June and 2 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. I. Neill, 6 Calverley avenue.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that these letters went astray within the Home Office. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton has already forwarded to me a copy of his letter of 30 April on behalf of Mrs. I. Neill, and I have replied to him today. If he would make available copies of the other correspondence I will ensure he receives responses straight away.

  Football (Arrests)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has regarding the number of arrests inside London football grounds this season.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Arrest figures for Football League matches will not be collated until the end of the season.

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how observations from interested persons or organisations should be submitted for consideration by Lord Colville in his report on the operation in 1990 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  Mr. Waddington
  Written observations should be submitted to Lord Colville, c/o Room 647, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT no later than Friday 21 December 1990.

  Harmondsworth Detention Centre
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet established an independent body to monitor the welfare of detainees and to advise on the running of Harmondsworth detention centre, as recommended by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons.
  129
  Mr. Waddington
  I have appointed 11 members to this body, which is to be known as the Harmondsworth visiting committee. Its inaugural meeting took place on 25 September 1990. I am confident that the committee is well equipped to represent the interests of detainees at Harmondsworth.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Shipstones Brewery, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet the chair of Greenall Whitney Brewers to discuss the closure of the Shipstones brewery in Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Secretary of State has not received an invitation to meet the chairman of Greenall Whitley Plc, and will not be seeking such a meeting. Any decision to cease production at the Shipstones brewery in Nottingham and in Warrington is one for the commercial judgment of the company.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the future of the British information technology industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department regularly receives representations about many areas of industry, including the IT sector.

  Cash Flow Statements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to amend the Companies Acts to require all public limited companies to publish a cash flow statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. In July 1990, the Accounting Standards Committee issued an exposure draft proposing that the statement of source and applications of funds which is presently required by "Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 10" should be replaced by a statement of cash flow. I understand that the Accounting Standards Board will be taking up this issue when the period allowed for comment on the exposure draft has expired.

  Accountancy Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to investigate and identify any accountancy firms which market off-balance sheet financing schemes.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to his questions on 4 and 5 April,Official Report, columns 621 and 802.

  Companies (Fixed Assets)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will propose legislation to require all public companies to show market values of their fixed assets.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to extend the existing requirements.

  Industrial Cost Accounting
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to reduce the influence of historic cost accounting on the financial statements of large limited companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his question on 19 March,Official Report, column 432.

  Company Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he plans to introduce any legislation to require shareholders to be informed of the company's policy for controlling pollution.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. It would be burdensome to require companies to provide such information. Companies are best placed to decide, in the light of their individual circumstances, whether such information is likely to be of interest to their members. Interested members may in any case put questions on this subject at the annual general meeting.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to introduce legislation to require companies(a) to state their environmental policies in their annual report and (b) to inform their shareholders of the number of times they have violated any anti-pollution laws.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. It would be unreasonably burdensome to require companies to provide such information. Companies are best placed to decide, in the light of their individual circumstances, whether such information is likely to be of interest to their members and other users of their reports and accounts. Interested shareholders may in any case put questions on these subjects at the annual general meeting.

  Steel Industry
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the steel industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am confident that the United Kingdom steel industry will continue to perform well now that all of it is in the private sector.

  Companies House
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the names of persons and their organisations who are presently members of the Companies House users group.

  Mr. Redwood
  The current members of the Companies House users' group are Mr. Norman Roberts, FCCA—the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants; Mr. J. M. Steward—the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; Mr. T. Robinson—Institute of Credit Management; Miss J. Henry and Mr. R. Paton—the Law Society; Mr. G. A. Corderoy—Law Services Association; Mr. R. D. Gilbert—the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators; Mr. B. Palmer—Credit Reporting Agencies; Mr.K. G. Goodchild—the Committee of
  131
  London and Scottish Banks; Mr. M. Ryden—Financial Analysts; Mr. M. R. Chettleburgh and Mr. D. Ordish—the Association of Company Registration Agents; Mr. C. Bostle—City Business Libraries; Ms. F. Harrison—National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; Ms. R. Higgs—Trades Union Congress; Mrs. A. Ronay—Association of British Chambers of Commerce; Mr. T. Williams—the Insolvency Service; and Mr. P. Mitchenson—Trade Protection Agencies.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many postal sales inquiries were satisfied by(a) Companies House, Cardiff and (b) Companies House, Edinburgh for each year from 1983 to 1989, respectively.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of postal searches satisfied by Companies House for the periods were:

  Cardiff

  Edinburgh

  1984

  21,000

  5,000

  1985

  30,000

  7,000

  1986

  37,000

  5,000

  1987

  45,000

  7,000

  1988

  47,000

  9,000

  1989

  60,000

  7,000

  The service was not introduced until December 1983.

  Company Records
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many microfiches on average are required to carry the records of a single registered company: and what is the material cost of reproducing a single microfiche for the purpose of supplying the record to an inquirer.

  Mr. Redwood
  The average number of fiches duplicated per search is 4·5. The average material cost—the cost of the duplicate film only—is 8·5p per search; 1·9 per fiche.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet his European counterparts to discuss regional policy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  An informal meeting of EC Regional Policy Ministers has been called at Turin on 23 and 24 November 1990. The United Kingdom will be represented at ministerial level.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from the textile industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department has received a number of representations from the textile industry; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has arranged to meet representatives of the industry on 29 October.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to discuss City regulation.
  132
  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to discuss a range of topics concerning the regulation of financial services as frequently as is necessary. No date has been fixed for the next meeting of this sort.

  Shares
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the proportion of shares owned by individuals, as opposed to shareholders in general, in 1979 and in 1990.

  Mr. Redwood
  The stock exchange survey of share ownership carried out in 1981, estimated that in that year 28·2 per cent. of shares were held in the personal sector. Figures for 1979 and 1990 are not available. The value of individuals' holdings has risen substantially over the last decade.

  Animal Skins (Export)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of the countries to which United Kingdom-produced animal skins are exported; and what has been the value of that trade in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The only information available is for total United Kingdom exports of raw hides, skins and furskins—SITC division 21. It is published by country in "Overseas Trade Statistics", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. These data do not distinguish between United Kingdom-produced goods, and goods previously imported into the United Kingdom.

  European Regional Fund
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what payments were made to the United Kingdom from the European regional fund in 1987, 1988 and 1989; and what is the estimate for funds to be received in 1990.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: United Kingdom payments receipts from the European regional development fund in 1987, 1988 and 1989 were valued at £321 million, £351 million and £386 million, respectively. Payments in 1990 are expected to exceed £400 million.

  Industry Council
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Government Minister attended the European Community Industry Council meeting on 21 September.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The Industry Council meeting on 21 September was postponed until 15 October, and I attended that meeting.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the European Community Industry Council meeting held on 21 September.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The Council meeting on 15 October discussed industrial

  133
  policy, state aids, steel and textiles, and considered Commission communications to the Council on industrial co-operation with eastern Europe and on the Community aerospace industry.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the annual sums of money committed since the inception of the European regional development fund to each recipient local authority by eligible standard planning region and the annual amount paid to each from the fund.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EC Stocks
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of European Community intervention on stocks of beef.

  Mr. Curry
  A note setting out the volume of poublic intervention stocks and stocks under aided private storage in the EC and the United Kingdom, which includes figures for beef, is deposited in the Library of the House and is updated on a monthly basis.

  Live Animals (Exports)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total numbers of exports of live animals and birds, broken down by species group and point of destination, between(a) the European Community, (b) elsewhere in Europe and (c) further afield, for the last year.

  Mr. Curry
  The total number of live animals exported from the United Kingdom to the European Community, elsewhere in Europe and further afield during 1989 are listed by species in the table.

  United Kingdom exports of live animals in 1989 by area of destination

  Number of animals (unless otherwise stated)

  EC

  Rest of Europe

  Other countries

  Bovine animals

  328,951

  30

  536

  Sheep

  589,120

  146

  70

  Goats

  104

  1

  90

  Swine

  109,142

  178

  5,463

  Poultry

  10,376,354

  1,133,728

  2,088,451

  Horses

  5,655

  716

  1,028

  Asses, mules, hinnies

  31

  49

  —

  Domestic rabbits

  1,791

  96

  1,865

  Pigeons

  178

  99

  719

  Other, chiefly for human consumption

  5,922

  —

  70

  Other (tonnes)

  1,272

  19

  77

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of inspections of the conditions of live animals and birds being transported live for export in the last year; and what was the number and type of further action which occurred as a result of such inspections.
  134
  Mr. Maclean
  During 1989, 801,840 animals (farm animals for slaughter, further fattening or breeding and horses and ponies for breeding, riding or recreational purposes) were exported from Great Britain following veterinary inspection for fitness to travel at export lairages near the ports of departure. A total of 8,030 animals were found at inspection to be unfit for the export journey. These were detained, and given veterinary treatment where necessary, until considered fit to travel to an alternative destination in this country.

  In addition veterinary inspections are carried out at premises of origin, in accordance with the health requirements of importing countries, for most breeding livestock, horses and ponies, poultry and other mammals and birds. Records are not kept centrally of the number of these inspections.

  Condemned Meat
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any representations about the sale of condemned meat in butchers' shops and supermarkets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am aware that there is concern about allegations of illegal trade in unfit meat. I deplore those who seek to pass off such material for human consumption. However, there is already legislation in this area under which action may be taken. The Food Act makes it an offence to sell, hold for sale or prepare for sale for human consumption any material which is unfit for that purpose; the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 requires slaughterhouses and knackers' yards to be licensed by local authorities and there are other detailed controls over the movement and treatment of unfit meat and offal. Nevertheless, we have instituted a full review of the existing controls to see if any improvements are desirable, with particular attention to collection of casualty stock from farms.

  Enforcement of the legislation is, of course, a matter for local authorities. However MAFF veterinary officers can and do assist and work closely with local authorities in such cases.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has regarding the number of fox and mink farms in the United Kingdom; and what provisions exist for inspection of such farms.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not collected on the number of fox farms in the United Kingdom.

  Officers of the state veterinary service make visits to fur farms 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.

  There were 50 licensed mink farms in the United Kingdom on 20 February 1990. Licenses run for no longer than a year and no licence is issued or renewed without an inspection by the appropriate agriculture department.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Ministry's inspectors will conduct a veterinary inspection of the fox fur farm run by Grange Farm Poultry Products in Ovenden Wood, Halifax; and if he will make a statement.
  135
  Mr. Maclean
  This farm has already been visited as part of a welfare monitoring exercise. It is not the Ministry's policy to divulge specific details of such inspections but I understand that there was no evidence of a breach of the welfare legislation at the time of the visit.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make it his policy to prohibit the breeding of foxes for use by the fur trade; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what regulations exist on the size and type of cage housing foxes and minks on fur farms; and if there are any proposals to enforce minimum standards.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no specific regulations on the size and type of cages for fur animals, other than the provisions of the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975 which require cages to be constructed in such a manner as to prevent escapes. All fur farmers are, however, bound by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to animals on agricultural land.

  A recommendation on fur farming has recently been adopted under the Council of Europe convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. This recommendation will come into operation within 12 months and will set minimum welfare standards for fur farms. These include the enrichment of the environment by objects that provide suitable stimuli for the fox to gnaw and to play and a secluded area, such as a nest box and shelf. The recommendation is to be reviewed within five years taking account of further research into the welfare requirements of animals kept for fur.

  The Farm Animal Welfare Council has reviewed fur farming and did not recommend that the practice be banned. The Government do not intend to introduce a unilateral ban in this country but will continue to work for welfare improvements on an international basis if further research indicates that these are necessary.

  Methane
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the matter of the control of methane discharge from agricultural activity was discussed at the European Agriculture Council on 15–16 October in Luxembourg.

  Mr. Curry
  This topic was not on the agenda for this Council and was not discussed.

  British Lamb (Compensation)
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest position in his negotiations with the French Government to secure compensation for losses suffered by British interests as a result of actions by French citizens in the lamb war; and if he will describe the detailed compensation proposals and the principles on which the compensation is to be based.

  Mr. Curry
  The French Government have confirmed that compensation for losses arising as a direct result of French producer action will be forthcoming, as was the case for similar incidents in 1986. The Department stands ready to assist traders in preparing individual claims for submission to the French Government.

  Fishing Vessels (Fuel)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to bring forward a temporary scheme to alleviate the price of fuel for fishing vessels while the Gulf crisis continues.

  Mr. Curry
  No. Other industries and the general public are having to adapt to the higher fuel prices during the Gulf crisis without subsidies. There is no reason to treat the fishing industry differently.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has done into the possibility of hidden subsidies being given by national Governments of some EEC member states to their fishing industry on fuel costs for fishing vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department has not investigated any oil subsidies to the fishing industry. Member states are required to notify the European Commission of any such aid. The Commission has responsibility to ensure that it is informed of all state aids and that these aids are compatible with the treaty. If evidence can be produced of fuel subsidies by any member Government of the EC to their fishing industry, I shall pursue the matter vigorously.

  Quotas
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on consultation with interested parties, including fishing organisations, before quota swap agreements with other European Community countries are confirmed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We consult the principal industry organisations, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Also potential quota swaps with other member states are discussed with interested producer organisations and at regular quota management meetings at which representatives from all Fisheries Departments and from the non-sector may be present.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the overfishing of plaice above quota level by Dutch fishermen for the past two years; and what are the implications of this for English east coast fishermen;

  (2) what action he proposes to take at the next Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting, to restore confidence in (a) the Dutch Government enforcing quotas on plaice and (b) the overall regulating and monitoring of each country's plaice quota.

  Mr. Curry
  Enforcement of Dutch quotas is a matter for the Dutch authorities and the European Commission. Recent events have indicated the seriousness with which this issue is regarded in the Netherlands.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to establish whether the BSE infective agent present in pig and poultry feed is subsequently present in pig and poultry excretions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: Research into scrapie has found no evidence that the agent is present

  137
  in the faeces of infected animals. Studies are planned which will determine the infectivity of the gut both from confirmed cases of BSE and from animals experimentally exposed to the disease.

  Nevertheless the Government have already taken steps to ensure that BSE-infected material does not enter the food chain. These include the compulsory slaughter and destruction of all animals suspected of having the disease and a ban on the use in human and animal food of those bovine offals most likely to harbour the BSE agent.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Further Education Qualifications
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress made in reforming qualifications for those aged 16 to 19 years.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on progress made in reforming qualifications for those aged 16 to 19 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) is currently consulting on principles which would govern A-level and AS syllabuses from 1994. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications is in the lead in the reform of vocational qualifications.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest number of schools to have applied for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Seventy-two proposals for grant-maintained status have been published following parental ballots. Of these, 66 have so far reached me for decision: I have approved 53, am minded to approve another one and have rejected 12.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the benefits grant-maintained schools gain from opting out.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Grant-maintained schools have many advantages: they are run by local people who know the schools; they can make their own decisions about how to make the best use of resources, including their share of LEA expenditure on centrally provided services; their governors and heads have greater autonomy than is provided by local management of schools, and they are proving very popular with parents.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools became grant-maintained in September.

  Mr. Eggar
  Fifteen schools became grant-maintained at the beginning of the autumn term. Altogether 44 grant-maintained schools are now operating. Applications for grant-maintained status from another nine schools have already been approved.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications for grant-maintained school status have been received in each local education authority in England.
  138
  Mr. Eggar
  To date, applications for grant-maintained status have been published by the governing bodies of 72 schools. My right hon. Friend has approved 53 applications; he is minded to approve one application and has rejected 12. He will make decisions on another six applications shortly. Proposals for grant-maintained status are awaited from a further six schools where parents have voted in favour of an application. The number of applications received from schools in each local education authority is as follows:

  Authorities

  Number of applications

  Avon

  1

  Barnet

  2

  Bedfordshire

  1

  Berkshire

  2

  Birmingham

  3

  Bolton

  1

  Brent

  1

  Bromley

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  Calderdale

  2

  Cheshire

  1

  Derbyshire

  2

  Devon

  1

  Dorset

  3

  Dudley

  2

  Essex

  1

  Gloucestershire

  5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  Hertfordshire

  4

  Hillingdon

  1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  Kent

  5

  Kirklees

  2

  Lancashire

  3

  Leicestershire

  1

  Lincolnshire

  8

  Liverpool

  1

  Newham

  1

  Norfolk

  I

  Northamptonshire

  2

  Shropshire

  1

  Solihull

  1

  Southwark

  1

  Surrey

  1

  Sutton

  1

  Tameside

  1

  Wigan

  1

  Wolverhampton

  1

  No schools in the remaining authorities in England have applied for GM status.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in how many schools parents and governors have conducted a ballot on grant-maintained status; and what proportion of these ballots have been in favour.

  Mr. Eggar
  Parental ballots have been held at 107 schools in England. At 79 schools, 74 per cent., parents have voted in favour of an application for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he intends to take to increase the number of grant-maintained schools; and what he sees and the principle benefits that will flow to such schools as a result.

  Mr. Eggar
  From 1 November all maintained primary schools with fewer than 300 pupils will become eligible to
  139
  seek grant-maintained status. The result will be a tripling of the number of schools currently eligible and an important extension of parental choice. It is for parents and governors to decise whether to seek grant-maintained status for their schools. I am sure that in coming to a decision they will want to talk to existing grant-maintained schools. The first grant-maintained schools have been operating for over a year. Pupils have benefited from the greater flexibility which is available to governors and staff. The schools are spending more money on books, equipment and teachers and are developing exciting new ways of making the best use of resources.

  Bradford CTC
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total amount of grant aid provided in the current year to the most recent practicable date for the city technology college in Bradford.

  Mr. Eggar
  The total grant paid to Bradford city technology college from 1 January 1990 to 30 September 1990 is £4·513 million. This figure covers capital, transitional and recurrent grant.

  Table A

  1990–91 budgets: Discretionary exception and school budgets

  LEA ranked by discretionary exceptions percentage of PSB

  Rank

  Discretionary exceptions per cent.

  Discretionary exceptions £000

  Number of schools

  Average discretionary exceptions per school £

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  Cumbria

  1

  28·79

  37,605

  361

  104,000

  Haringey

  2

  28·67

  16,498

  90

  183,000

  Newcastle

  3

  28·27

  21,030

  107

  197,000

  Barking

  4

  28·17

  12,508

  67

  187,000

  Coventry

  5

  26·97

  22,121

  131

  169,000

  Derbyshire

  6

  26·89

  68,649

  527

  130,000

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  26·43

  42,587

  314

  136,000

  Hounslow

  8

  26·25

  15,358

  78

  197,000

  South Tyneside

  9

  26·23

  10,702

  78

  137,000

  Avon

  10

  26·13

  58,857

  434

  136,000

  Westminster

  11

  26·09

  11,651

  51

  228,000

  Kirklees

  12

  25·96

  27,095

  203

  133,000

  St. Helens

  13

  25·94

  13,350

  95

  141,000

  North Yorkshire

  14

  25·86

  43,087

  463

  93,000

  Oldham

  15

  25·72

  16,546

  114

  145,000

  Wolverhampton

  16

  25·58

  18,489

  130

  142,000

  Wakefield

  17

  25·40

  20,968

  171

  123,000

  Barnsley

  18

  25·33

  14,393

  124

  116,000

  Devon

  19

  25·32

  54,804

  517

  106,000

  East Sussex

  20

  25·16

  34,183

  259

  132,000

  Kingston

  21

  25·10

  8,238

  46

  179,000

  Durham

  22

  24·67

  37,597

  344

  109,000

  Merton

  23

  24·58

  9,885

  62

  159,000

  Nottinghamshire

  24

  24·54

  65,781

  512

  128,000

  Humberside

  25

  24·52

  58,145

  429

  136,000

  Isle of Wight

  26

  24·49

  7,034

  67

  105,000

  Oxfordshire

  27

  24·25

  32,474

  289

  112,000

  North Tyneside

  28

  24·15

  13,237

  91

  145,000

  Northumberland

  29

  24·14

  17,851

  204

  88,000

  Bury

  30

  24·08

  10,804

  87

  124,000

  Somerset

  31

  23·99

  25,955

  273

  95,000

  Bromley

  32

  23·87

  15,101

  101

  150,000

  Birmingham

  33

  23·75

  64,915

  423

  153,000

  Doncaster

  34

  23·62

  20,555

  163

  126,000

  Staffordshire

  35

  23·47

  60,397

  509

  119,000

  Gateshead

  36

  23·38

  12,026

  104

  116,000

  Norfolk

  37

  23·36

  40,248

  462

  87,000

  Lancashire

  38

  23·09

  78,055

  712

  110,000

  Sheffield

  39

  23·04

  28,178

  224

  126,000

  Enfield

  40

  23·03

  16,129

  87

  185,000

  Education Budget
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the primary and secondary education budget local authorities are retaining for central administration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will consider taking action against local authorities that hold back funds from schools in order to finance central bureaucracy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The published budget statements for 1990–91 indicate that the amount which local education authorities are planning to retain for central administration varies from 2 per cent. to 8 per cent. of the funds available for spending by primary and secondary schools. The average is 3·8 per cent.

  I am arranging for the details of each local authority's spending on central administration and on other items to be printed in the Official Report. I believe it is essential that as much as possible of the schools budget of local authorities should be given directly to the schools to manage themselves; and I shall be making further proposals to that end later this year.
  141

  LEA ranked by discretionary exceptions percentage of PSB

  Rank

  Discretionary exceptions per cent.

  Discretionary exceptions £000

  Number of schools

  Average discretionary exceptions per school £

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  Cornwall

  41

  22·90

  23,660

  288

  82,000

  Bexley

  42

  22·89

  12,514

  86

  146,000

  Trafford

  43

  22·76

  10,566

  100

  106,000

  Dorset

  44

  22·66

  29,875

  258

  116,000

  Warwickshire

  45

  22·53

  25,310

  283

  89,000

  Richmond

  46

  22·50

  6,906

  50

  138,000

  Cleveland

  47

  22·49

  36,460

  264

  138,000

  Cheshire

  48

  22·44

  55,632

  547

  102,000

  Salford

  49

  22·40

  13,785

  113

  122,000

  Tameside

  50

  22·37

  12,518

  103

  122,000

  Barnet

  51

  22·25

  15,951

  112

  142,000

  Knowsley

  52

  22·19

  10,472

  82

  128,000

  Wiltshire

  53

  22·18

  28,074

  339

  83,000

  Ealing

  54

  22·03

  15,675

  105

  149,000

  Sandwell

  55

  21·95

  19,587

  144

  136,000

  Surrey

  56

  21·90

  45,602

  439

  104,000

  Shropshire

  57

  21·80

  23,696

  258

  92,000

  Wigan

  58

  21·70

  18,123

  153

  118,000

  Gloucestershire

  59

  21·70

  25,793

  305

  85,000

  Harrow

  60

  21·67

  10,056

  64

  157,000

  Sutton

  61

  21·51

  8,130

  58

  140,000

  Rotherham

  62

  21·51

  15,381

  135

  114,000

  Brent

  63

  21·28

  14,876

  90

  165,000

  Dudley

  64

  21·23

  14,791

  111

  133,000

  Solihull

  65

  20·77

  11,289

  87

  130,000

  Buckinghamshire

  66

  20·70

  31,211

  341

  92,000

  Rochdale

  67

  20·69

  11,279

  101

  112,000

  Sunderland

  68

  20·64

  15,941

  125

  128,000

  Redbridge

  69

  20·61

  9,898

  71

  139,000

  Bedfordshire

  70

  20·47

  29,172

  292

  100,000

  Bolton

  71

  20·14

  13,891

  124

  112,000

  Liverpool

  72

  20·14

  27,287

  275

  99,000

  Essex

  73

  19·82

  70,591

  696

  101,000

  Walsall

  74

  19·60

  15,326

  131

  117,000

  Kent

  75

  19·59

  65,607

  736

  89,000

  Leeds

  76

  19·24

  35,235

  336

  105,000

  Bradford

  77

  19·00

  25,806

  255

  101,000

  Northamptonshire

  78

  18·79

  28,182

  339

  83,000

  West Sussex

  79

  18·66

  24,939

  285

  88,000

  Lincolnshire

  80

  18·64

  23,732

  363

  65,000

  Havering

  81

  18·44

  11,419

  94

  121,000

  Suffolk

  82

  18·31

  26,683

  339

  79,000

  Berkshire

  83

  17·49

  28,341

  339

  84,000

  Sefton

  84

  17·00

  12,626

  123

  103,000

  Notes to Table A

  1990–91 budgets: Discretionary exceptions and school budgets

  Column 1.

  Rank. Each local education authority is ranked in order of the percentage of planned Potential Schools Budget retained as central spending on discretionary exceptions. Highest percentage is ranked as 1.

  Column 2.

  Discretionary exceptions as a percentage of the Potential Schools Budget.

  Column 3.

  Discretionary exceptions. Planned spending in £000s.

  Column 5.

  Average discretionary exceptions per school. Total discretionary exceptions (column 3) divided by the number of primary and secondary schools in the local education authority (column 4), expressed in £s.

  Calderdale, Hampshire and Waltham Forest have not yet published their budget statements.

  Table B

  1990–91 Budgets: Total LMS spending

  Lea

  General schools budget (GSB)

  Mandatory capital

  Exceptions specific grants

  Potential schools budget (PSB)

  Discretionary exceptions

  Aggregated schools budget (ASB)

  ASB as per cent of PSB

  Limited exceptions as per cent of GSB

  000's

  000's

  000's

  000's

  000's

  000's

  Per cent

  Per cent

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  (7)

  (8)

  Avon

  254,188

  19,233

  9,730

  225,225

  58,857

  166,368

  73·87

  9·66

  Barking

  48,959

  2,763

  1,801

  44,395

  12,508

  31,887

  71·83

  9·36

  Barnet

  82,118

  6,806

  3,613

  71,699

  15,951

  55,748

  77·75

  7·55

  Barnsley

  64,857

  5,563

  2,480

  56,814

  14,393

  42,421

  74·67

  9·76

  Bedfordshire

  166,429

  16,573

  7,327

  142,529

  29,172

  113,357

  79·53

  8·89

  Berkshire

  186,750

  17,114

  7,598

  162,038

  28,341

  133,697

  82·51

  7·10

  Bexley

  63,996

  7,162

  2,161

  54,673

  12,514

  42,159

  77·11

  9·99

  Birmingham

  311,649

  22,506

  15,784

  273,359

  64,915

  208,444

  76·25

  8·85

  Bolton

  76,989

  3,896

  4,128

  68,965

  13,891

  55,074

  79·86

  6·39

  142 143

  Lea

  General schools budget (GSB)

  Mandatory capital

  Exceptions specific grants

  Potential schools budget (PSB)

  Discretionary exceptions

  Aggregated schools budget (ASB)

  ASB as per cent of PSB

  Limited exceptions as per cent of GSB

  000's

  000's

  000's

  000's

  000's

  000's

  Per cent

  Per cent

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  (7)

  (8)

  Bradford

  167,098

  18,612

  12,637

  135,849

  25,806

  110,043

  81·00

  6·62

  Brent

  82,980

  8,003

  5,072

  69,905

  14,876

  55,029

  78·72

  7·57

  Bromley

  72,167

  6,723

  2,192

  63,252

  15,101

  48,151

  76·13

  9·61

  Buckinghamshire

  175,552

  18,842

  5,945

  150,765

  31,211

  119,554

  79·30

  7·74

  Bury

  49,301

  2,333

  2,092

  44,876

  10,804

  34,072

  75·92

  8·88

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  198,894

  30,447

  7,296

  161,151

  42,587

  118,564

  73·57

  9·20

  Cheshire

  272,323

  17,840

  6,531

  247,952

  55,632

  192,320

  77·56

  7·81

  Cleveland

  176,430

  8,830

  5,490

  162,110

  36,460

  125,650

  77·51

  8·54

  Cornwall

  123,669

  16,840

  3,508

  103,321

  23,660

  79,661

  77·10

  8·58

  Coventry

  103,753

  16,435

  5,285

  82,033

  22,121

  59,912

  73·03

  8·31

  Cumbria

  148,681

  13,874

  4,196

  130,611

  37,605

  93,006

  71·21

  7·84

  Derbyshire

  281,816

  17,013

  9,504

  255,299

  68,649

  186,650

  73·11

  10·00

  Devon

  259,039

  34,716

  7,859

  216,464

  54,804

  161,660

  74·68

  9·31

  Doncaster

  91,707

  2,739

  1,959

  87,009

  20,555

  66,454

  76·38

  9·06

  Dorset

  150,463

  14,480

  4,149

  131,834

  29,875

  101,959

  77·34

  9·91

  Dudley

  80,360

  7,836

  2,863

  69,661

  14,791

  54,870

  78·77

  8·93

  Durham

  165,830

  7,523

  5,911

  152,396

  37,597

  114,799

  75·33

  9·13

  Ealing

  75,718

  2,130

  2,431

  71,157

  15,675

  55,482

  77·97

  9·70

  East Sussex

  152,548

  12,762

  3,920

  135,866

  34,183

  101,683

  74·84

  9·92

  Enfield

  97,756

  24,679

  3,055

  70,022

  16,129

  53,893

  76·97

  7·89

  Essex

  394,215

  25,729

  12,349

  356,137

  70,591

  285,546

  80·18

  9·45

  Gateshead

  59,287

  5,592

  2,267

  51,428

  12,026

  39,402

  76·62

  9·65

  Gloucestershire

  132,498

  9,273

  4,351

  118,874

  25,793

  93,081

  78·30

  5·80

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Haringey

  66,430

  5,319

  3,561

  57,550

  16,498

  41,052

  71·33

  9·87

  Harrow

  52,453

  3,947

  2,101

  46,405

  10,056

  36,349

  78·33

  9·52

  Havering

  71,544

  7,247

  2,378

  61,919

  11,419

  50,500

  81·56

  9·79

  Hounslow

  70,621

  8,297

  3,821

  58,503

  15,358

  43,145

  73·75

  9·21

  Humberside

  262,351

  19,380

  5,812

  237,159

  58,145

  179,014

  75·48

  10·00

  Isle of Wight

  32,386

  2,704

  962

  28,720

  7,034

  21,686

  75·51

  9·63

  Kent

  377,100

  32,624

  9,493

  334,983

  65,607

  269,376

  80·41

  8·74

  Kingston

  38,856

  4,847

  1,185

  32,824

  8,238

  24,586

  74·90

  9·76

  Kirklees

  118,125

  7,934

  5,822

  104,369

  27,095

  77,274

  74·04

  9·17

  Knowsley

  51,385

  2,008

  2,178

  47,199

  10,472

  36,727

  77·81

  9·69

  Lancashire

  389,891

  35,985

  15,820

  338,086

  78,055

  260,031

  76·91

  9·74

  Leeds

  211,636

  21,099

  7,425

  183,112

  35,235

  147,877

  80·76

  6·73

  Lincolnshire

  146,545

  16,601

  2,648

  127,296

  23,732

  103,564

  81·36

  8·86

  Liverpool

  146,077

  7,391

  3,197

  135,489

  27,287

  108,202

  79·86

  8·82

  Merton

  52,327

  11,317

  792

  40,218

  9,885

  30,333

  75·42

  7·86

  Newcastle

  83,105

  5,551

  3,160

  74,394

  21,030

  53,364

  71·73

  9·58

  Norfolk

  185,345

  9,534

  3,518

  172,293

  40,248

  132,045

  76·64

  9·47

  North Tyneside

  59,694

  2,782

  2,097

  54,815

  13,237

  41,578

  75·85

  9·82

  North Yorkshire

  181,033

  7,862

  6,529

  166,642

  43,087

  123,555

  7414

  9·94

  Northamptonshire

  168,620

  13,062

  5,593

  149,965

  28,182

  121,783

  81·21

  9·24

  Northumberlaned

  82,352

  4,970

  3,423

  73,959

  17,851

  56,108

  75·86

  6·82

  Nottinghamshire

  289,244

  12,839

  8,384

  268,021

  65,781

  202,240

  75·46

  9·55

  Oldham

  72,835

  3,114

  5,380

  64,341

  16,546

  47,795

  74·28

  9·90

  Oxfordshire

  155,280

  15,969

  5,389

  133,922

  32,474

  101,448

  75·75

  9·53

  Redbridge

  56,517

  7,801

  701

  48,015

  9,898

  38,117

  79·39

  8·34

  Richmond

  35,893

  3,919

  1,282

  30,692

  6,906

  23,786

  77·50

  9·61

  Rochdale

  65,145

  6,739

  3,893

  54,513

  11,279

  43,234

  79·31

  8·22

  Rotherham

  77,711

  4,004

  2,187

  71,520

  15,381

  56,139

  78·49

  7·29

  Sandwell

  102,615

  8,086

  5,300

  89,229

  19,587

  69,642

  78·05

  10·00

  Salford

  72,487

  8,191

  2,762

  61,534

  13,785

  47,749

  77·60

  8·07

  Sefton

  81,776

  7,265

  246

  74,265

  12,626

  61,639

  83·00

  5·85

  Sheffield

  138,252

  10,135

  5,835

  122,282

  28,178

  94,104

  76·96

  9·96

  Shropshire

  121,021

  7,889

  4,456

  108,676

  23,696

  84,980

  78·20

  9·36

  Solihull

  61,559

  5,040

  2,173

  54,346

  11,289

  43,057

  79·23

  8·98

  Somerset

  125,560

  12,579

  4,788

  108,193

  25,955

  82,238

  76·01

  9·75

  South Tyneside

  49,393

  6,896

  1,698

  40,799

  10,702

  30,097

  73·77

  7·14

  Staffordshire

  286,997

  17,662

  12,033

  257,302

  60,397

  196,905

  76·53

  8·14

  St. Helens

  59,191

  5,915

  1,812

  51,464

  13,350

  38,114

  7406

  8·98

  Suffolk

  171,625

  20,527

  5,389

  145,709

  26,683

  119,026

  81·69

  7·93

  Sunderland

  85,708

  5,878

  2,580

  77,250

  15,941

  61,309

  79·36

  7·21

  Surrey

  235,802

  21,794

  5,748

  208,260

  45,602

  162,658

  78·10

  5·92

  Sutton

  47,324

  8,341

  1,184

  37,799

  8,130

  29,669

  78·49

  8·59

  Tameside

  62,562

  3,778

  2,833

  55,951

  12,518

  43,433

  77·63

  9·00

  Trafford

  64,027

  15,690

  1,908

  46,429

  10,566

  35,863

  77·24

  6·94

  Wakefield

  92,050

  6,396

  3,088

  82,566

  20,968

  61,598

  74·60

  9·81

  Walsall

  90,437

  7,392

  4,857

  78,188

  15,326

  62,862

  80·40

  7·99

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  126,498

  8,834

  5,321

  112,343

  25,310

  87,033

  77·47

  7·46

  144 145

  Lea

  General schools budget (GSB)

  Mandatory capital

  Exceptions specific grants

  Potential schools budget (PSB)

  Discretionary exceptions

  Aggregated schools budget (ASB)

  ASB as per cent of PSB

  Limited exceptions as per cent of GSB

  000's

  000's

  000's

  000's

  000's

  000's

  Per cent

  Per cent

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  (7)

  (8)

  Westminster

  53,080

  5,565

  2,864

  44,651

  11,651

  33,000

  73·91

  8·88

  West Sussex

  152,463

  14,308

  4,519

  133,636

  24,939

  108,697

  81·34

  7·91

  Wigan

  91,278

  4,393

  3,385

  83,500

  18,123

  65,377

  78·30

  9·52

  Wiltshire

  144,302

  12,139

  5,563

  126,600

  28,074

  98,526

  77·82

  9·90

  Wolverhampton

  82,331

  5,872

  4,180

  72,279

  18,489

  53,790

  74·42

  9·48

  Averages

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  77·23

  8·76

  1990–91 Budgets: Discretionary exceptions as percentage of potential schools budget

  LEA

  Unlimited items

  Limited items

  Central Admin

  Home to school transport

  School meals

  Transitional items

  Other unlimited items

  Total unlimited items

  Repairs and maintenance

  Other limited items

  Total limited items

  Total discretionary items

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  (9)

  (10)

  (11)

  (12)

  (13)

  (14)

  (15)

  (16)

  (17)

  (18)

  Avon

  3·06

  1·86

  5·15

  3·23

  1·93

  15·23

  2·78

  8·12

  10·90

  26·13

  Barking

  8·20

  0·33

  4·20

  3·37

  1·75

  17·85

  5·16

  5·16

  10·33

  28·17

  Barnet

  4·67

  0·42

  547

  1·94

  1·09

  13·59

  1·29

  7·36

  8·65

  22·25

  Barnsley

  2·56

  0·18

  7·20

  3·07

  1·18

  14·20

  0·44

  10·70

  11·14

  25·33

  Bedfordshire

  3·70

  2·04

  3·31

  0·00

  1·04

  10·08

  2·91

  7·47

  10·38

  20·47

  Berkshire

  2·55

  2·08

  0·48

  3·33

  0·86

  9·30

  1·97

  6·22

  8·19

  17·49

  Bexley

  4·38

  0·35

  4·02

  0·81

  1·63

  11·19

  3·30

  8·40

  11·70

  22·89

  Birmingham

  4·01

  0·38

  6·11

  1·69

  1·48

  13·66

  2·96

  7·13

  10·09

  23·75

  Bolton

  1·81

  0·45

  8·48

  1·46

  0·82

  13·01

  1·38

  5·76

  7·13

  20·14

  Bradford

  3·64

  0·50

  5·36

  0·00

  1·35

  10·85

  0·65

  7·49

  8·14

  19·00

  Brent

  4·53

  0·29

  5·58

  0·00

  1·90

  12·30

  0·00

  8·98

  8·98

  21·28

  Bromley

  4·24

  0·98

  2·49

  2·20

  3·00

  12·91

  2·42

  8·55

  10·97

  23·87

  Buckinghamshire

  4·28

  2·82

  1·04

  2·72

  0·82

  11·69

  2·44

  6·57

  9·01

  20·70

  Bury

  4·35

  0·34

  6·97

  0·00

  2·65

  14·32

  1·47

  8·29

  9·76

  24·08

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  4·39

  2·49

  4·48

  1·91

  1·80

  15·08

  3·99

  7·36

  11·35

  26·43

  Cheshire

  4·74

  1·49

  4·41

  2·10

  1·12

  13·86

  3·38

  5·20

  8·58

  22·44

  Cleveland

  5·15

  0·47

  6·85

  0·00

  0·73

  13·20

  3·08

  6·21

  9·29

  22·49

  Cornwall

  3·43

  2·74

  5·00

  0·00

  1·47

  12·63

  2·69

  7·58

  10·27

  22·90

  Coventry

  5·41

  0·27

  4·90

  4·58

  1·29

  16·45

  1·14

  9·37

  10·52

  26·97

  Cumbria

  3·49

  2·76

  6·03

  4·93

  2·66

  19·87

  0·96

  7·96

  8·92

  28·79

  Derbyshire

  2·59

  1·31

  8·41

  2·59

  0·95

  15·86

  2·57

  8·46

  11·03

  26·89

  Devon

  2·75

  2·55

  4·06

  3·52

  1·29

  14·18

  3·90

  7·24

  11·14

  25·32

  Doncaster

  2·05

  0·12

  7·79

  2·71

  1·40

  14·07

  2·44

  7·11

  9·55

  23·62

  Dorset

  4·45

  2·13

  0·60

  2·78

  1·38

  11·35

  3·71

  7·60

  11·32

  22·66

  Dudley

  3·39

  0·20

  3·86

  2·15

  1·33

  10·93

  1·79

  8·51

  10·30

  21·23

  Durham

  3·94

  2·06

  6·32

  1·00

  1·41

  14·73

  1·24

  8·70

  9·94

  24·67

  Ealing

  6·04

  0·54

  3·98

  0·00

  1·15

  11·71

  1·81

  8·51

  10·32

  22·03

  East Sussex

  2·16

  1·10

  6·35

  3·55

  0·87

  14·02

  3·45

  7·69

  11·14

  25·16

  Enfield

  5·25

  0·19

  2·99

  2·38

  1·20

  12·01

  4·01

  7·01

  11·02

  23·03

  Essex

  3·92

  2·34

  1·44

  0·80

  0·86

  9·37

  2·79

  7·67

  10·46

  19·82

  Gateshead

  2·77

  0·31

  3·88

  3·82

  1·48

  12·26

  2·37

  8·76

  11·13

  23·38

  Gloucestershire

  3·29

  2·37

  3·90

  3·50

  2·18

  15·24

  0·00

  6·46

  6·46

  21·70

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Haringey

  5·42

  0·00

  7·50

  2·62

  1·74

  17·28

  0·80

  10·59

  11·39

  28·67

  Harrow

  5·53

  0·67

  3·25

  0·00

  1·46

  10·91

  1·60

  9·16

  10·76

  21·67

  Havering

  2·21

  0·67

  1·74

  0·33

  2·17

  7·13

  2·55

  8·76

  11·31

  18·44

  Hounslow

  4·69

  0·24

  5·70

  3·67

  0·83

  15·13

  1·68

  9·43

  11·12

  26·25

  Humberside

  3·30

  1·21

  4·12

  2·29

  2·53

  13·46

  4·31

  6·75

  11·06

  24·52

  Isle of Wight

  4·29

  2·81

  2·88

  2·76

  0·90

  13·63

  1·81

  9·05

  10·86

  24·49

  Kent

  3·59

  2·28

  1·46

  1·51

  0·90

  9·74

  2·18

  7·66

  9·84

  19·59

  Kingston

  6·77

  0·46

  4·08

  0·00

  2·24

  13·54

  2·06

  9·49

  11·56

  25·10

  Kirklees

  3·54

  0·73

  7·12

  3·36

  0·84

  15·59

  1·41

  8·96

  10·38

  25·96

  Knowsley

  4·81

  0·11

  4·89

  0·00

  1·82

  11·64

  4·04

  6·51

  10·55

  22·19

  Lancashire

  3·39

  1·08

  5·16

  0·71

  1·15

  11·86

  2·82

  8·41

  11·23

  23·09

  Leeds

  3·63

  0·72

  3·76

  1·75

  1·60

  11·46

  1·16

  6·62

  7·78

  19·24

  Lincolnshire

  2·56

  2·81

  1·62

  0·00

  1·45

  8·44

  4·11

  6·09

  10·20

  18·64

  Liverpool

  3·83

  0·22

  5·74

  0·00

  0·84

  10·63

  0·84

  8·67

  9·51

  20·14

  Merton

  7·43

  0·19

  1·29

  4·00

  1·45

  14·35

  1·81

  8·41

  10·22

  24·58

  Newcastle

  5·50

  0·33

  6·16

  3·57

  2·00

  17·57

  1·67

  9·04

  10·70

  28·27

  Norfolk

  3·71

  3·04

  5·31

  0·00

  1·11

  13·17

  2·70

  7·49

  10·19

  23·36

  North Tyneside

  4·63

  0·13

  6·81

  0·89

  0·98

  13·45

  2·40

  8·30

  10·70

  24·15

  North Yorkshire

  3·72

  2·98

  4·82

  2·46

  1·08

  15·06

  0·00

  10·80

  10·80

  25·86

  Northamptonshire

  3·53

  1·95

  2·22

  0·00

  0·71

  8·41

  1·97

  8·42

  10·39

  18·79

  Northumberland

  2·72

  3·47

  2·86

  6·01

  1·49

  16·54

  1·34

  6·26

  7·60

  24·14

  146 147

  LEA

  Unlimited items

  Limited items

  Central Admin

  Home to school transport

  School meals

  Transitional items

  Other unlimited items

  Total unlimited items

  Repairs and maintenance

  Other limited items

  Total limited items

  Total discretionary items

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  (9)

  (10)

  (11)

  (12)

  (13)

  (14)

  (15)

  (16)

  (17)

  (18)

  Nottinghamshire

  4·78

  1·04

  6·32

  1·42

  0·67

  14·23

  2·30

  8·01

  10·31

  24·54

  Oldham

  4·53

  0·07

  6·42

  2·52

  0·97

  14·51

  1·92

  9·29

  11·21

  25·72

  Oxfordshire

  5·09

  2·14

  4·77

  0·00

  1·21

  13·20

  1·89

  9·16

  11·05

  24·25

  Redbridge

  4·71

  0·51

  2·58

  0·94

  2·06

  10·80

  2·58

  7·24

  9·82

  20·61

  Richmond

  6·70

  0·36

  2·74

  0·00

  1·46

  11·26

  2·38

  8·86

  11·24

  22·50

  Rochdale

  2·36

  0·32

  7·18

  0·00

  1·00

  10·86

  2·78

  7·05

  9·83

  20·69

  Rotherham

  3·41

  0·58

  5·95

  2·33

  1·32

  13·59

  1·57

  6·35

  7·92

  21·51

  Sandwell

  3·52

  0·36

  5·88

  0·00

  0·70

  10·45

  3·60

  7·90

  11·50

  21·95

  Salford

  2·94

  0·01

  4·35

  3·67

  1·93

  12·90

  0·41

  9·10

  9·51

  22·40

  Sefton

  4·23

  0·35

  4·73

  0·00

  1·25

  10·56

  2·38

  4·06

  6·44

  17·00

  Sheffield

  3·25

  0·17

  6·68

  0·00

  1·69

  11·78

  2·40

  8·86

  11·26

  23·04

  Shropshire

  2·29

  2·23

  5·34

  0·00

  1·52

  11·38

  3·56

  6·86

  10·42

  21·80

  Solihull

  2·31

  0·51

  5·00

  1·62

  1·17

  10·61

  2·15

  8·02

  10·17

  20·77

  Somerset

  3·28

  3·41

  4·91

  0·00

  1·07

  12·67

  1·77

  9·55

  11·32

  23·99

  South Tyneside

  3·70

  0·04

  6·59

  5·29

  1·96

  17·58

  0·00

  8·65

  8·65

  26·23

  Staffordshire

  4·08

  1·29

  4·77

  3·50

  0·76

  14·39

  2·41

  6·67

  9·08

  23·47

  St. Helens

  3·29

  0·57

  5·50

  4·99

  1·27

  15·61

  1·48

  8·85

  10·33

  25·94

  Suffolk

  2·62

  2·53

  1·16

  0·94

  1·72

  8·98

  2·03

  7·30

  9·34

  18·31

  Sunderland

  2·83

  0·25

  6·52

  1·86

  1·18

  12·64

  1·99

  6·01

  8·00

  20·64

  Surrey

  5·64

  1·80

  5·38

  1·54

  0·83

  15·19

  1·11

  5·60

  6·71

  21·90

  Sutton

  3·81

  0·61

  3·15

  2·17

  1·02

  10·76

  1·74

  9·02

  10·75

  21·51

  Tameside

  2·27

  0·39

  5·05

  2·59

  2·01

  12·31

  1·82

  8·25

  10·07

  22·37

  Trafford

  3·20

  0·49

  5·62

  2·35

  1·54

  13·19

  1·32

  8·25

  9·57

  22·76

  Wakefield

  2·69

  0·35

  7·64

  1·99

  1·80

  14·46

  3·02

  7·91

  10·94

  25·40

  Walsall

  3·16

  0·30

  5·90

  0·00

  0·99

  10·36

  0·91

  8·34

  9·24

  19·60

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  3·55

  1·90

  4·87

  2·35

  1·47

  14·13

  1·99

  6·41

  8·39

  22·53

  Westminster

  7·77

  0·45

  4·76

  0·00

  2·55

  15·53

  1·08

  9·48

  10·56

  26·09

  West Sussex

  1·82

  1·46

  4·91

  0·66

  0·79

  9·64

  2·36

  6·66

  9·02

  18·66

  Wigan

  3·48

  0·32

  5·44

  0·22

  1·83

  11·30

  0·96

  9·45

  10·41

  21·70

  Wiltshire

  3·71

  2·41

  3·09

  0·00

  1·69

  10·89

  2·78

  8·50

  11·28

  22·18

  Wolverhampton

  4·79

  0·38

  5·15

  3·45

  1·02

  14·79

  1·54

  9·25

  10·79

  25·58

  Averages

  3·77

  1·39

  4·61

  1·71

  1·32

  12·81

  2·29

  7·68

  9·97

  22·77

  Notes to Table B

  1990–91 Budgets: Total LMS spending and percentages of potential schools budget

  Column 4

  Potential Schools Budget. The amount potentially available for allocation through the LMS formula. Equal to the General Schools Budget (Column 1) less mandatory exceptions (Columns 2 and 3).

  Column 6

  Aggregated Schools Budget. The amount planned to be allocated through the LMS formula. Equal to the Potential Schools Budget (Column 4) less discretionary exceptions (Column 5).

  Column 8

  Limited excepted items as percentage of General Schools Budget. This measures planned spending on limited discretionary exceptions against the limit of 10 per cent. of the General Schools Budget placed on the total of these items.

  Column 12

  Transitional exceptions. Planned spending on activities subject to compulsory competitive tendering (mainly building cleaning and grounds maintenance). This spending will be allocated through the formula following the expiry of initial contracts.

  Column 13

  Other unlimited exceptions. Planned spending on advisers and inspectors, dismissals and premature retirements, and governors' insurance. Each item averages under 1 per cent. of the Potential Schools Budget.

  Column 14

  Total unlimited exceptions. The total of Columns 9 to 13.

  Column 16

  Other limited exceptions. Planned spending on all limited items other than structural repairs and maintenance (Column 15). Mainly insurances, pupils with statements of special educational need, special units, educational psychologists, education welfare officers, peripatetic teachers, pupil support, LEA initiatives, supply teaching, teachers' safeguarding allowances and contingency funds. Each item averages under 1 per cent. of the Potential Schools Budget.

  Column 17

  Total limited exceptions. The total of Columns 15 and 16.

  Column 18

  Total discretionary exceptions. The total of Columns 14 and 17.

  NB.—Where percentages are totalled, slight differences may occur due to rounding.

  Calderdale, Hampshire and Waltham Forest have not yet published their budget statements.

  Comparisons: problem areas

  Comparisons between authorities will indicate variations due to policy decisions (for example, whether to delegate or retain funds centrally) and the diversity of LEAs' areas (for example, a rural county is likely to have higher home to school transport costs than a London borough). But there will also be differences which are due purely to LMS treatment or accounting practices adopted. The following are the areas most significantly affected:

  1. The scope of the General Schools Budget. There is no detailed legal definition of what items are to be included in the GSB. Circular 7/88 indicates the general principle that it should include not only direct institutional costs of schools but also indirect costs for services used by them or attributable to them.

  2. Capital spending. The GSB includes spending on capital works. This item is large and will fluctuate widely from year to year and from LEA to LEA. Use of the Potential Schools Budget as the base line, rather than the GSB, largely removes any distortion.

  3. Central administration. Although accounting principles recommend that all administration costs should be allocated to front-line services, authorities are free to use a variety of bases for such allocation. Judgment is required—to decide for instance what proportion of costs of central departments such as finance and personnel is attributable to education, and what proportion of the Chief Education Officer's salary relates to LMS schools. There is a large range for spending on central administration—2 per cent. to 8 per cent. of the PSB—but it is unclear how much this range reflects real differences in central bureaucracy and how much merely different accounting judgments.

  148 149
  Transitional excepted items. There are two possible methods of treating costs of contracts already let for activities subject to competitive tendering. Some LEAs have allocated funds through the formula but schools remain bound by existing contracts; others have retained the costs as an excepted item for the duration of these contracts. Different treatment will not affect schools' freedom but will distort comparisons.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress made in teacher recruitment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the level of teacher recruitment at the start of the new school year.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress made in teacher recruitment.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress made in teacher recruitment.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department's September survey of teacher vacancies showed that LEAs and schools were very successful in filling teaching posts this summer. Teachers are broadly available in sufficient numbers to fill posts. Nevertheless, it is clear that there continue to be difficulties in certain parts of the country and in certain subjects. We shall continue with our range of measures to improve teacher supply.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his estimates of the number of unfilled teaching posts in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in London at the beginning of the autumn term of the current year.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend published on 5 October the results of the Department's survey of teacher vacancies at the beginning of September. A copy is in the Library. On 3 September LEAs in Greater London reported 311 unfilled posts in primary schools, and 245 unfilled posts in secondary schools. This is very much fewer than the vacancy levels reported in January. These results reflect the good work and determination of authorities to fill their vacancies and show that our measures to improve teacher recruitment and retention are working.

  Church Schools
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy towards the provision of free transport to and from voluntary aided church schools by local education authorities.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Government's view on the provision of school transport for pupils attending denominational schools was given in a circular letter on school transport and choice of school that was sent to all local education authorities in December 1981. That advice remains current. A copy of the letter is in the Library of the House.

  Scottish Education
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the University Funding Council to discuss the funding of Scottish education.
  150
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman and members of the UFC from time to time. Our discussions range over various matters bearing on the council's funding of universities throughout Great Britain. Other aspects of Scottish education are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  School Premises Regulations 1981
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to review the School Premises Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend announced on 2 October that the DES and the Welsh Office are to conduct a review of the School Premises Regulations.

  Schools (Maintenance)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current backlog in repairs and maintenance of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current backlog in repairs and maintenance of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department keeps no detailed data on the state of school buildings, which are the responsibility of local education authorities and governors of voluntary aided schools.

  A realistic estimate of the cost of remedying deficiencies, based on a survey of school buildings in 1986, is about £2 billion at 1990 prices. Some £2·6 billion at 1990 prices is estimated to have been spent on school building between 1986–87 and 1989–90, mostly on new school places and reorganisation schemes to remove surplus capacity. A substantial proportion will, however, have gone towards remedying deficiencies.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to improve the physical condition of schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The physical condition of maintained schools is the responsibility of local education authorities, shared in the case of voluntary aided schools with governing bodies. It is for them to decide their spending priorities. We are making significant resources available. Annual capital guidelines for capital expenditure on schools and colleges in England are £485 million this year compared with £352 million under the old system of allocations for 1989–90. Local authorities are free to spend above that level by using capital receipts and other sources of income including revenue. In addition, £109 million of grant is available for voluntary schools compared with £86 million available last year.

  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the backlog in repairs and maintenance in schools.
  151
  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters and other representations from local education authorities, hon. Members and others about the repair and maintenance of school buildings.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will arrange to visit maintained schools in Bradford in need of renovation and repair.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend plans to visit Bradford on 31 October when he will be shown round Thornbury County first school before going on to open the new city technology college.

  Education, Inner London
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment has been made so far by his Department of changes in the provision of education in inner London following the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  The new inner London LEAs are making progress towards developing a more effective education service in inner London. They have recruited teachers to fill classroom vacancies, and many are consulting on the reorganisation of school provision.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the operation of local management of schools; and whether he has any plans to change the operation of local management of schools for the future.

  Mr. Fallon
  Eighty-seven local education authorities introduced schemes of local management of schools in April. Most head teachers and governors welcome the prospect of greater autonomy in the running of their schools. We are monitoring and reviewing all aspects of local management of schools and will consult later this

  1990–91 Budgets: Discretionary exceptions and school budgets

  LEA ranked by discretionary exceptions per cent, of PSB

  Rank

  Political control

  Discretionary exceptions per cent.

  Discretionary exceptions £000

  Number of schools

  Average discretionary exceptions per school £

  Amount available at schools if LEA at average discretionary exceptions per cent. £

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  (7)

  Cumbria

  1

  NOC

  28·79

  37,605

  361

  104,000

  22,000

  Haringey

  2

  LAB

  28·67

  16,498

  90

  183,000

  38,000

  Newcastle

  3

  LAB

  28·27

  21,030

  107

  197,000

  38,000

  Barking

  4

  LAB

  28·17

  12,508

  67

  187,000

  35,000

  Coventry

  5

  LAB

  26·97

  22,121

  131

  169,000

  26,000

  Derbyshire

  6

  LAB

  26·89

  68,649

  527

  130,000

  20,000

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  CON

  26·43

  42,587

  314

  136,000

  19,000

  Hounslow

  8

  LAB

  26·25

  15,358

  78

  197,000

  26,000

  South Tyneside

  9

  LAB

  26·23

  10,702

  78

  137,000

  18,000

  Avon

  10

  NOC

  26·13

  58,857

  434

  136,000

  17,000

  Westminsyter

  11

  CON

  26·09

  11,651

  51

  228,000

  29,000

  Kirklees

  12

  LAB

  25·96

  27,095

  203

  133,000

  16,000

  St. Helens

  13

  LAB

  25·94

  13,350

  95

  141,000

  17,000

  North Yorkshire

  14

  NOC

  25·86

  43,087

  463

  93,000

  11,000

  Oldham

  15

  LAB

  25·72

  16,546

  114

  145,000

  17,000

  Wolverhampton

  16

  LAB7

  25·58

  18,489

  130

  142,000

  16,000

  Wakefield

  17

  LAB

  25·40

  20,968

  171

  123,000

  13,000

  Barnsley

  18

  LAB

  25·33

  14,393

  124

  116,000

  12,000

  Devon

  19

  CON

  25·32

  54,804

  517

  106,000

  11,000

  152
  year on proposals, including proposals to increase the proportion of resources available for schools to manage themselves.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding school budgets under the local management of schools proposals.

  Mr. Fallon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 15 October 1990,Official Report, column 642.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he had made of the impact of the financial controls associated with local management of schools on small first schools and primary schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list giving the amount of holdback each local education authority is making in the context of local management of schools, with an indication showing the political control of each such authority; if he will give details of the action he is taking to reduce the amount of holdback; and if he will further set out in the list the amount that would be available for schools if the authority was at the average level of holdback.

  Mr. Fallon
  The following table provides the relevant information. My right hon. Friend is considering the scope for increased delegation of resources to schools and expects to consult later this year.
  153

  LEA ranked by discretionary exceptions per cent. of PSB

  Rank

  Political control

  Discretionary exceptions per cent.

  Discretionary exceptions £000

  Number of schools

  Average discretionary exceptions per school £

  Amount available at schools if LEA at average discretionary exceptions per cent. £

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  (7)

  East Sussex

  20

  CON

  25·16

  34,183

  259

  132,000

  13,000

  Kingston

  21

  NOC

  25·10

  8,238

  46

  179,000

  17,000

  Durham

  22

  LAB

  24·67

  37,597

  344

  109,000

  8,000

  Merton

  23

  LAB

  24·58

  9,885

  62

  159,000

  12,000

  Nottinghamshire

  24

  LAB

  24·54

  65,781

  512

  128,000

  9,000

  Humberside

  25

  LAB

  24·52

  58,145

  429

  136,000

  10,000

  Isle of Wight

  26

  L/D

  24·49

  7,034

  67

  105,000

  7,000

  Oxfordshire

  27

  NOC

  24·25

  32,474

  289

  112,000

  7,000

  North Tyneside

  28

  LAB

  24·15

  13,237

  91

  145,000

  8,000

  Northumberland

  29

  LAB

  24·14

  17,851

  204

  88,000

  5,000

  Bury

  30

  LAB

  24·08

  10,804

  87

  124,000

  7,000

  Somerset

  31

  CON

  23·99

  25,955

  273

  95,000

  5,000

  Bromley

  32

  CON

  23·87

  15,101

  101

  150,000

  7,000

  Birmingham

  33

  LAB

  23·75

  64,915

  423

  153,000

  6,000

  Doncaster

  34

  LAB

  23·62

  20,555

  163

  126,000

  5,000

  Staffordshire

  35

  LAB

  23·47

  60,397

  509

  119,000

  4,000

  Gateshead

  36

  LAB

  23·38

  12,026

  104

  116,000

  3,000

  Norfolk

  37

  CON

  23·36

  40,248

  462

  87,000

  2,000

  Lancashire

  38

  LAB

  23·09

  78,055

  712

  110,000

  2,000

  Sheffield

  39

  LAB

  23·04

  28,178

  224

  126,000

  1,000

  Enfield

  40

  CON

  23·03

  16,129

  87

  185,000

  2,000

  Cornwall

  41

  NOC

  22·90

  23,660

  288

  82,000

  500

  Bexley

  42

  CON

  22·89

  12,514

  86

  146,000

  1,000

  Trafford

  43

  CON

  22·76

  10,566

  100

  106,000

  —

  Dorset

  44

  CON

  22·66

  29,875

  258

  116,000

  —

  Warwickshire

  45

  CON

  22·53

  25,310

  283

  89,000

  —

  Richmond

  46

  L/D

  22·50

  6,906

  50

  138,000

  —

  Cleveland

  47

  LAB

  22·49

  36,460

  264

  138,000

  —

  Cheshire

  48

  NOC

  22·44

  55,632

  547

  102,000

  —

  Salford

  49

  LAB

  22·40

  13,785

  113

  122,000

  —

  Tameside

  50

  LAB

  22·37

  12,518

  103

  122,000

  —

  Barnet

  51

  CON

  22·25

  15,951

  112

  142,000

  —

  Knowsley

  52

  LAB

  22·19

  10,472

  82

  128,000

  —

  Wiltshire

  53

  NOC

  22·18

  28,074

  339

  83,000

  —

  Ealing

  54

  CON

  22·03

  15,675

  105

  149,000

  —

  Sandwell

  55

  LAB

  21·95

  19,587

  144

  136,000

  —

  Surrey

  56

  CON

  21·90

  45,602

  439

  104,000

  —

  Shropshire

  57

  NOC

  21·80

  23,696

  258

  92,000

  —

  Wigan

  58

  LAB

  21·70

  18,123

  153

  118,000

  —

  Gloucestershire

  59

  NOC

  21·70

  25,793

  305

  85,000

  —

  Harrow

  60

  CON

  21·67

  10,056

  64

  157,000

  —

  Sutton

  61

  L/D

  21·51

  8,130

  58

  140,000

  —

  Rotherham

  62

  LAB

  21·51

  15,381

  135

  114,000

  —

  Brent

  63

  NOC

  21·28

  14,876

  90

  165,000

  —

  Dudley

  64

  LAB

  21·23

  14,791

  111

  133,000

  —

  Solihull

  65

  CON

  20·77

  11,289

  87

  130,000

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  66

  CON

  20·70

  31,211

  341

  92,000

  —

  Rochdale

  67

  LAB

  20·69

  11,279

  101

  112,000

  —

  Sunderland

  68

  LAB

  20·64

  15,941

  125

  128,000

  —

  Redbridge

  69

  CON

  20·61

  9,898

  71

  139,000

  —

  Bedfordshire

  70

  NOC

  20·47

  29,172

  292

  100,000

  —

  Bolton

  71

  LAB

  20·14

  13,891

  124

  112,000

  —

  Liverpool

  72

  LAB

  20·14

  27,287

  275

  99,000

  —

  Essex

  73

  CON

  19·82

  70,591

  696

  101,000

  —

  Walsall

  74

  LAB

  19·60

  15,326

  131

  117,000

  —

  Kent

  75

  CON

  19·59

  65,607

  736

  89,000

  —

  Leeds

  76

  LAB

  19·24

  35,235

  336

  105,000

  —

  Bradford

  77

  LAB

  19·00

  25,806

  225

  101,000

  —

  Northamptonshire

  78

  NOC

  18·79

  28,182

  339

  83,000

  —

  West Sussex

  79

  CON

  18·66

  24,939

  285

  88,000

  —

  Lincolnshire

  80

  CON

  18·64

  23,732

  363

  65,000

  —

  Havering

  81

  NOC

  18·44

  11,419

  64

  121,000

  —

  Suffolk

  82

  CON

  18·31

  26,683

  339

  79,000

  —

  Berkshire

  83

  NOC

  17·49

  28,341

  339

  84,000

  —

  Sefton

  84

  NOC

  17·00

  12,626

  123

  103,000

  —

  (Key:—CON = Conservative; LAB = Labour; L/D = Liberal Democrat; NOC = No overal control).

  154

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects his proposals for new long-term negotiating machinery on teachers' pay to be operative.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he intends to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to establish new permanent pay negotiating machinery for teachers.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the average earnings for teachers in(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) higher and further education in each major EEC country for the latest year for which statistics are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Some information on EC teachers' salaries in 1985 is published in a detailed research report "The Conditions of Service of Teachers in the European Community", published by the European Commission in 1988 (pages 133 to 160). A copy is available in the Library.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding teachers' pay.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend receives frequent representations from the teacher unions and others about teachers' pay and conditions.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the response from interested parties to his proposals for local authority discretion in teachers' pay bargaining, announced on 23 July.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in response to his proposals for a new pay negotiating machinery for teachers.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from the teacher unions and others commenting on aspects of his proposals to establish new pay determination machinery for teachers.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding local management of schools and children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations concerning provision for pupils with special educational needs in schools covered by schemes of local management. In response we have confirmed our concern that appropriate and effective provision should be made for pupils with special educational needs. The introduction of LMS does not alter authorities' responsibilities for pupils with special educational needs and should have no adverse effect on provision for such pupils.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether formula funding arrangements under 156
  local management of schools will take account of resources needed in schools to prevent statementing; when calculating special needs provision.

  Mr. Fallon
  Local management of schools offers local education authorities the flexibility to take account of the resources needed in schools to support all pupils with special educational needs.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent developments there have been in the city technology college programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The CTC programme is making substantial progress. Four colleges opened last month bringing the total of operational colleges to seven. Seven more are planned to open in 1991. My right hon. Friend has this month initiated consultation on proposals from the Wolfson Foundation and Cable and Wireless plc for a further college to serve the city of Bristol. If established the Bristol CTC will open in 1992.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what interest has been expressed by parents in the establishment of city technology colleges.

  Mr. Fallon
  Parents are expressing their confidence in the city technology college programme by seeking places for their children in overwhelming numbers. All the colleges which are open have been oversubscribed in applications for places, both in initial and in subsequent years.

  Student Accommodation
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on student accommodation.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on student accommodation.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths).

  School-Business Links
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have links with local businesses.

  Mr. Fallon
  A recent survey by the Department indicated that around 90 per cent. of secondary schools and 54 per cent. of primary schools have links with local businesses. The findings of the survey were published in August as a DES Statistical Bulletin, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what initiatives he is pursuing to ensure schools have closer links with industry.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department is working with other Government Departments, links bodies and employers in
  157
  a range of initiatives designed to further the growth of links between schools and industry. In particular, we are taking forward an initiative to support local education business partnerships which will have a broad balance of membership from local business, education and community interests. The Department also selectively funds individual projects and organisations, publishes and distributes information and guides to good practice, and encourages the incorporation of economic and industrial dimensions into the school curriculum.

  Language Learning
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that young people have an effective grounding in a modern foreign language.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what importance he places on langague learning.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are concerned to increase both the number of pupils continuing to study a modern foreign language until age 16 and beyond, and their standards of language competence. That is why the national curriculum includes a modern foreign language as a foundation subject to be studied by all pupils aged 11 to 16 in maintained secondary schools. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales will be publishing shortly their proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study for modern foreign languages in the national curriculum, together with the final report of the working group for modern foreign languages, on whose recommendations my right hon. Friends' proposals are based. We aim to start implementing the attainment targets and programmes of study in schools from autumn 1992.

  Student Loans
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the operation of the student loans scheme and access funds.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the operation of the student loans scheme and access funds.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the operation of the student loans scheme and access funds.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling).

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received in the current year about student loans.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We have received a substantial number of representations about the introduction of student loans and related aspects of the Government's student support policy.

  Hackney (Financial Aid)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further financial assistance he intends to give the London borough of Hackney.
  158
  Mr. Eggar
  We shall give careful consideration to Hackney local education authority's bids for funding for capital expenditure and for activities within the combined grants for education support and training programme for 1991–92, alongside those received from other LEAs.

  Research Councils
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total amount of money currently allocated to each of the research councils; and what was the comparable figure in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The figures are as follows:

  £ million (cash)

  1979–80

  1985–86

  1990–91

  AFRC

  29·5

  52·7

  86·2

  ESRC

  16·8

  23·6

  36·2

  MRC

  68·0

  122·3

  185·7

  NERC

  36·6

  67·9

  136·0

  SERC

  175·6

  298·4

  437·4

  In real terms the total allocation to the research councils increased by 26·5 per cent. over the period.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on public funding of playgroups and nurseries for under-fives.

  Mr. Eggar
  Playgroups and other forms of sessional and day care are the responsibility at national level of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, my Department makes an annual grant, currently £179,000, to the Pre-school Playgroups Association for activities contributing to the educational improvement of playgroups. In 1991–92 the Department will support under the grants for education support and training arrangements a total of £2·5 million of expenditure by local education authorities on improving the planning and co-ordination of provision for the under-fives; this includes work in educational settings and the educational component of playgroups.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase the number of nursery education places for three and four-year-olds.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on local authority provision for the under-fives.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase the number of nursery education places for three and four-year-olds.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase the number of nursery education places for three and four-year-olds.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government believe in a diversity of provision for the under-fives, and considers that local authorities are best placed to determine the extent and range of provision in their area. Over the last decade, the
  159
  numbers of under-fives attending nursery or primary classes in England have increased by nearly 35 per cent. Provisional data for 1990 show that in the last year the numbers rose from 548,000 to 577,000 and the age participation rate from 45 per cent. to 47 per cent.

  Parental Choice
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has considered the implications for his policy on parental choice of the Greenwich judgment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend is aware of the Greenwich judgment, and will be looking closely at its effect on the pattern of school admissions.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Advisory Board for the Research Councils to discuss the science budget for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend met and discussed the science budget with the board on 24 July 1990.

  Primary Schools, Staffordshire
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil at primary schools in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79 at constant prices.

  Mr. Fallon
  Staffordshire spent some £1,050 per nursery and primary pupil in 1988–89. At 1988–89 prices the figure for 1978–79 was some £820. This represents an increase of some 28 per cent.

  Surplus School Places
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current number of surplus places in schools.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the number of surplus places in schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The latest estimate is that in January 1989 there were approximately 830,000 surplus primary school places and 950,000 surplus secondary school places in England. Local education authorities have removed about 100,000 surplus places over each of the past five years, although this reduction has been offset to some extent by the need to provide additional places in areas of population growth. We have repeatedly enjoined LEAs to do more to save money by rationalising their school provision.

  Erasmus Project
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students in the academic year 1990–91 have applied and how many have been accepted to take part in the Erasmus project.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students in the academic year 1990–91 have applied, and how many have been accepted, to take part in the Erasmus project.
  160
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 15 October 1990,Official Report, col. 640.

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to help small rural schools implement the national curriculum.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are giving local education authorities specific grant support for the introduction of the national curriculum. Grants will support some £120 million LEA expenditure in England this financial year, rising to nearly £170 million expenditure next financial year. This is in addition to general revenue support grant funding for local authority spending. It is for individual authorities to decide, in the light of local needs and priorities, how much to spend to help small rural schools to deliver the national curriculum.

  Teacher Supply
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on teacher supply.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current level of teacher supply.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the current level of teacher supply.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend published on 5 October the results of the Department's survey of teacher vacancies at the beginning of September. A copy is in the Library. The results show that LEAs and schools were very successful in filling teaching posts this summer and that teachers are broadly available in sufficient numbers to fill posts. Nevertheless, it is clear that there continue to be difficulties in certain parts of the country and in certain subjects. We shall continue with our range of measures to improve teacher recruitment and retention.

  School Books
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the supply of books in schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from educational publishers and from some schools and LEAs about the supply of books, including school books, to support the introduction of the national curriculum. In response to these representations, my right hon. Friend has announced a new activity within the grants for education support and training programme for 1991–92 which will support £15 million expenditure on books for the national curriculum. The representations are also being taken into account in considering the 1991–92 local authority grant settlement.

  Haringey (Education Quality)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the quality of education in Haringey; and if he will make a statement.
  161
  Mr. Fallon
  Her Majesty's inspectorate routinely provides reports on education provision in Haringey as part of its normal inspection programme. The London borough of Haringey also provides information to the Department as requested from time to time on a number of aspects of educational provision.

  Seven-year-olds (Testing)
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his deliberations about standardised testing for seven-year-olds.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his deliberations about standardised testing for seven-year-olds.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding standard assessment tests for seven-year-olds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes).

  AIDS
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the chairman of the Medical Research Council to discuss research into AIDS.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend is kept fully informed about the progress of the council's programme of research into AIDS, and received a presentation on this in March.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to reform teacher training.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Government's aim is constantly to improve the quality of teacher training. Recent innovations have included the introduction of revised criteria for the approval of initial teacher training courses; shortened BEd courses; extended PGCE courses in shortage subjects; the licensed teacher scheme for mature entrants to teaching; and school-based articled teacher schemes, starting this autumn. The effectiveness of these arrangements is being kept under review and further improvements will be introduced as necessary.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on progress on the implementation of the national curriculum.
  162
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implementation of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Eggar
  There is welcome evidence from Her Majesty's inspectorate that most schools are making satisfactory or good progress in implementing the national curriculum. My right hon. Friend is taking steps to ensure that the new requirements are phased in gradually over a number of years, subject by subject, to make implementation more manageable for teachers.

  Mature Students
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what impact the access funds have had on mature students.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is too early to say. The access funds scheme has only just started.

  Classrooms (Toxic Substances)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ban the use of typewriter correcting fluid and other similar toxic substances in school classrooms.

  Mr. Fallon
  Many substances which have useful applications in schools may be toxic if they are misused. For this reason the national curriculum requires that all young people should be educated about the dangers of solvent and other substance misuse in science and technology; and the Department of Education and Science has issued guidance to LEAs and schools on the safe handling of volatile substances. My right hon. Friend has no powers to take further steps.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to launch a full survey on disabled access to(a) colleges of further education, (b) colleges of higher education and (c) universities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Education, Outer London
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on trends in educational standards in outer London boroughs.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following table indicates trends in public examination results for school leavers in the outer London boroughs since 1982. The national curriculum assessment system, when fully in place at all key stages, will, when combined with improved methods of collecting and reporting data on examination results, provide a fuller and more accurate picture.
  163

  Outer London local education authorities maintained schools Percentage of school leavers at a range of levels of achievement

  No graded result

  5 + grades A—C/1 GCSE/O/CSE

  1+ A-levels

  Local education authority

  1982–84

  1984–86

  1986–88

  1982–84

  1984–86

  1986–88

  1982–84

  1984–86

  1986–88

  Barking and Dagenham

  17·9

  18·3

  18·3

  11·8

  9·7

  11·8

  9·2

  6·9

  8·3

  Barnet

  8·4

  5·8

  8·4

  36·5

  39·9

  41·5

  27·9

  30·0

  30·7

  Bexley

  8·0

  8·2

  10·0

  26·4

  26·9

  27·8

  15·6

  16·2

  17·0

  Brent

  14·2

  14·1

  11·5

  17·3

  18·0

  19·1

  12·6

  12·8

  13·1

  Bromley

  8·5

  9·3

  6·6

  30·3

  30·1

  32·0

  19·3

  20·3

  20·3

  Croydon

  10·2

  9·2

  10·8

  25·7

  24·9

  22·7

  16·1

  14·7

  13·6

  Ealing

  12·8

  12·2

  14·5

  20·1

  19·8

  19·1

  13·6

  12·9

  12·9

  Enfield

  10·8

  9·8

  9·3

  22·2

  24·3

  24·8

  14·6

  17·5

  17·7

  Haringey

  20·9

  19·4

  15·6

  15·0

  16·8

  17·3

  9·7

  10·9

  12·4

  Harrow

  5·9

  5·5

  5·2

  37·3

  38·9

  38·3

  26·0

  27·1

  15·4

  Havering

  6·0

  8·8

  10·2

  26·8

  26·3

  23·3

  17·5

  16·9

  13·6

  Hillingdon

  9·3

  9·0

  7·3

  22·3

  22·7

  20·0

  14·6

  14·6

  13·3

  Hounslow

  14·1

  16·4

  14·4

  21·9

  20·9

  21·5

  17·2

  14·7

  13·1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  7·6

  8·6

  9·4

  33·7

  35·8

  34·1

  23·5

  22·1

  20·1

  Merton

  13·5

  12·1

  14·6

  26·0

  26·2

  23·4

  16·3

  15·9

  13·9

  Newham

  24·7

  23·6

  21·7

  11·7

  11·7

  14·3

  8·3

  7·4

  9·0

  Redbridge

  9·4

  10·6

  12·2

  26·8

  25·3

  26·6

  19·2

  18·0

  19·7

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  13·2

  10·8

  8·5

  23·9

  24·1

  29·6

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Sutton

  7·5

  5·7

  5·9

  34·6

  31·3

  34·9

  23·8

  22·6

  25·3

  Waltham Forest

  15·3

  16·3

  15·9

  16·1

  13·7

  11·3

  11·6

  9·5

  8·2

  ENGLAND (ALL)

  10·4

  10·0

  10·0

  23·3

  23·7

  24·4

  14·3

  14·0

  14·2

  Notes:

  A large proportion of 1+ A-level achievers are also counted in 5+ grades A-C/1.

  Richmond-upon-Thames provides all A-level teaching through a tertiary system. Other local education authorities have adopted alternative modes of tertiary provision and this may well have a bearing on A-level figures.

  The above data is based on a 10 per cent. survey. Since figures from small local education authorities are subject to relatively large levels of sampling error, figures are taken over a three year period.

  Source: Statistics of Education—School Leavers (DES) 1984–88.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to meet local authority associations to discuss progress of the Education Reform Act.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend meets the local authority associations from time to time to discuss various aspects of the Government's educational reforms and other issues.

  GCSE
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what average grade has been achieved by pupils sitting GCSE in recent years in each of the core and foundation subjects established by the Education Act.

  Mr. Fallon
  The table shows, for 15-year-old pupils in England in 1988–89, the percentage of those attempting each national curriculum subject who gain a grade A-C or D-G. The only year for which information is available in this form is 1988–89.

  15-year-old pupils

  Attempting (000s)

  Gaining grades A-C

  Gaining grades D-G

  (per cent.)

  (per cent.)

  English

  557·11

  50·4

  48·0

  Mathematics

  532·26

  39·9

  52·9

  Science

  496·52

  41·3

  53·7

  Technology

  194·83

  38·4

  53·3

  Modern foreign language

  302·89

  49·8

  48·1

  Geography

  262·03

  45·4

  49·2

  History

  218·38

  47·6

  46·8

  164

  15-year-old pupils

  Attempting (000s)

  Gaining grades A-C

  Gaining grades D-G

  (per cent.)

  (per cent.)

  Art

  59·71

  45·0

  51·9

  Music

  31·58

  55·7

  40·4

  P.E.

  26·05

  31·7

  61·7

  Truancy
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to reduce truancy.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend is providing funds, through education support grant, for projects designed to improve attenance in designated schools in a total of 31 local education authorities. Last year the Department published a survey report by Her Majesty's inspectorate which reviews school attendance and calls attention to examples of good practice in schools and local education authorities.

  My right hon. Friend is considering the need for additional measures to secure improvements in the vital area of school attendance.

  Schools (Fire Damage)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of schools, and of what type, which have been extensively damaged by fire during the last 12 months and on the comparable figure for 1980.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department does not maintain records of the number of schools damaged by fire.
  165
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance is given to local education authorities in respect of the desirability of insurance against fire of school premises and the type of security provided against fire and arson in school premises; and what plans he has to review the guidance.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department does not issue guidance to local education authorities on the desirability of insurance against fire of school premises. Guidance on precautions against fire, including arson attacks, is published in the Department's building bulletins. This guidance is under constant review.

  School Discipline
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has received indicating trends in the level of school discipline.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend has received no recent evidence about trends in the level of school discipline. The report of the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Elton, did however include the findings of a large-scale survey of school discipline. That survey, conducted in nearly 500 schools in autumn 1988, identified persistent low-level disruption as the most common disciplinary problem.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was education spending per pupil in 1990–91, 1984–85 and 1979–80; and if he will set out the figures by reference to primary schools and secondary schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The latest available figures on outturn recurrent spending in schools relate to 1988–89. The table shows school-based spending per pupil in that year, compared with spending in 1979–80 and 1984–85. The spending returns group nursery schools with primary schools.

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  £

  £

  1979–80

  430

  605

  1984–85

  765

  1,085

  1988–89

  1,100

  1,690

  The figures are in cash terms. They do not include spending on central LEA services such as transport and administration, or any capital spending.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average size of secondary and primary school classes in 1979–80, 1984–85 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information for 1990–91 is not yet available. The average class sizes in 1979–80, 1984–85 and 1989–90 in maintained primary and secondary schools in England were as follows:

  11979–80

  11984–85

  11989–90 provisional

  Primary2

  25·4

  24·9

  25·9

  Secondary2

  20·9

  20·4

  20·0

  166
  1 January 1980, 1985 and 1990 respectively.

  2 Includes middle schools as deemed

  The average class sizes relate to those taught by one teacher during a selected period on the day of the schools census in January and do not necessarily represent the pattern of classes for the academic year as a whole.

  Further Education
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the percentage of young people who stay on at school after age 16 years; and what steps are being takken to increase the number.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have achieved a substantial increase in the number participating in post compulsory full-time education. In 1989–90 35 per cent. of 16-year-olds were attending school compared with 28 per cent. in 1979–80. In addition, 20 per cent. were in full-time education in FE colleges compared with 14 per cent. in 1979–80. Our examination reforms and the Education Reform Act will raise standards and give more young people the qualifications and motivation to stay on at school.

  Schools (Political Bias)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many complaints have been made in each year since the bringing into force of section 45 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department's records do not distinguish between complaints made under sections 44 and 45 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Since the 1986 Act came into force, the Department has received a total of 37 complaints about political indoctrination in schools. Some have named a particular school or LEA; others have simply expressed concern about the availability of teaching materials alleged to be biased. The total number of complaints received each year is set out in the table.

  Complaints in which LEA or school is named

  Other complaints

  1986

  2

  1

  1987

  7

  1

  1988

  7

  0

  1989

  0

  8

  1990 to date

  1

  10

  Total

  17

  20

  Higher Education
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the number of students entering higher education in the academic year 1990–91.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department's projection published in April was that, at over 208,000, the number of home students entering full-time higher education this autumn would be more than 4 per cent. above last year's record level. That projection, which my right hon. Friend has said may be too low, is currently being revised in the light of the latest information.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how far the access funds made available to education establishments in the current year are to be used to replace housing benefit to students; and how access funds will be administered with the academic and financial years beginning at different times.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The purpose of the new student support system, comprising maintainence grants, loans and access funds, is to make it unnecessary for students to rely on social security benefits. Access funds are paid at the discretion of the educational institutions concerned to help students with particular difficulties to meet their living costs.

  Funds provided in the current financial year are for the current academic year, and up to 15 per cent. of an institution's allocation may be paid to students in the summer term.

  Education Support Grants
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which teacher unions he consulted over the introduction of grants for education support and training, how long unions were given to respond to consultation; and how many unions have responded to any GEST proposals.

  Mr. Fallon
  The grants for education support and training (GEST) programme, which brings together the existing education support grants and LEA training grants, was introduced following a review undertaken as part of the efficiency unit's scrutiny programme. Copies of the scrutiny report, and a statement setting out the Government's initial response, were sent on 12 February to a range of organisations, including the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, the National Association of Head Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, the National Union of Teachers, the Professional Association of Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association. The same unions were also sent copies of the draft circular issued on 20 July 1990 inviting local education authorities to submit applications for funding in 1991–92 under the revised GEST arrangements. In neither case was a specific deadline set for comments. Comments on the draft circular were received from the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association.

SCOTLAND

  Greater Glasgow Health Board (Contracts)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what variation orders have been issued by Greater Glasgow health board in respect of the contracts for domestic, catering, portering and associated services provided by private contractors.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. Variation orders are not applicable to staff employed by private contractors.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the turnover of staff in each of the premises where domestic, catering portering and associated services have been subjected to competitive tendering in Greater Glasgow health board.
  168
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not collected for each of the premises. The board would consider staff turnover if there were concerns over the delivery of a particular service.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific provisions are made for training in the contracts for domestic, catering, portering and associated services that have been subjected to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Tender specifications require service providers to satisfy health boards as to their ability to recruit, retain and train staff to enable the service to be delivered to the required standard.

  Prisoners (Convictions)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of those serving prison sentences of more than two years were convicted of crimes not involving violence or child molestation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not available in the form requested. Provisional figures for receptions to Scottish prisons in 1989 indicate that the proportion of those received with sentences of more than two years who were convicted of crimes not involving violence or child molestation was 36 per cent.

  Passenger Transport
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the numbers of passengers per annum carried by(a) bus, (b) rail, (c) private car and (d) aircraft in Scotland in each of the years from 1984 to date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the tables:

  Million passengers

  Bus

  Air

  1984

  727

  6·9

  1985

  726

  6·9

  1986

  702

  7·2

  1987

  706

  7·8

  1988

  712

  8·5

  1989

  1

  9·2

  1 Bus passengers statistics for 1989 are not currently available.

  Million passengers

  Rail

  1984–85

  64·1

  1985–86

  57·1

  1986–87

  53·1

  1987–88

  54·1

  1988–89

  54·0

  1989–90

  51·8

  It is not possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the number of passengers per annum carried by private car.

  Pensioners
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the number of male and female retirement pensioners in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland.

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

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the numbers of apprenticeships for people in(a) Shettleston constituency, (b) Glasgow district, (c) Strathclyde region and (d) Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The table provides information on the number of manufacturing apprentices, and other trainees in Scotland in March 1989, the latest available date. Figures for Glasgow district and Strathclyde region are not readily available and have not been provided due to disproportionate costs. Figures for Shettleston constituency are not available.

  Manufacturing apprentices and other trainees

  Apprentices

  Other trainees

  Total

  March 1989

  Scotland

  4,900

  2,300

  7,200

  Education Bursaries
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the monetary value in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 of(a) a full-time further education bursary and (b) a part-time further education bursary; and if he will make a statement explaining the reasons for any variations in value for each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) Regulations 1988 prescribe the conditions subject to which bursaries may be provided by education authorities. Authorities have discretion whether or not to offer bursaries to individuals resident in their areas and to regulate the value of bursaries. Bursary awards may vary according to the particular circumstances of the individual and to the level of support which the education authority is prepared to provide. Information on monetary values of bursary awards is not available centrally.

  Glasgow East End
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will appoint a member of the Glasgow east end strategy group to the Greater Glasgow health board as it is constituted now or will be after April 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Members of health boards are not appointed as representatives of particular organisations or sections of the community but for the personal contribution which they can make to their board's work.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of houses in the east end of Glasgow which are below minimum required standards.
  170
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The minimum required standards are set out in the tolerable standard for housing in section 86 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Each local authority provides the Scottish Development Department with annual estimates of the number of houses in its district as a whole which are below the tolerable standard. However, information is not provided for particular areas within those districts.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what efforts his Department is currently making to attract and create jobs in the east end of Glasgow.

  Mr. Lang
  Locate in Scotland actively pursues the attraction of inward investment for Scotland as a whole, including the east end of Glasgow.

  However, jobs are created by market forces not by Governments. The Government, through the Scottish Development Agency, continue to support the East End Executive, which provides a range of services, including business advice and training, with the aim of stimulating and protecting employment in the area.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been spent in the east end of Glasgow by(a) the Scottish Development Agency, (b) Greater Glasgow health board, (c) the Scottish Special Housing Association, (d) the Housing Corporation, (e) Scottish Homes and (f) the MSC since the ending of the GEAR project in March 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  The information relating to Greater Glasgow health board and the MSC is not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  The expenditure figures for the remaining organisations are as follows:

  £ millions

  Scottish Development Agency (1 April 1987–31 March 1990)

  6·7

  Scottish Special Housing Association (1 April 1987–31 March 1989)

  4·5

  Housing Corporation in Scotland (1 April 1987–31 March 1989)

  10·9

  Scottish Homes (1 April 1989–31 March 1990)

  10·75

  (1 April 1990–31 March 19911)

  12·7

  1 Estimated.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of Government money spent in the east end of Glasgow during the lifetime of the GEAR project and since then.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the projects in the east end of Glasgow in which the Scottish Development Agency is currently involved.

  Mr. Lang
  The table gives details of projects currently under way, and of those not yet under way but in respect of which agency funding has been committed. Other projects under consideration, but not yet committed, are not included.
  171

  Project title

  Description

  Claythorn Street, Gallowgate

  The construction, on a derelict site, of 15 flatted dwelling units for sale.

  Kerr Street, Bridgeton

  The construction, on a derelict site near Bridgeton Cross, of 82 flatted dwelling units for sale.

  Laird Business Centre, Dalmarnock

  The redevelopment of the former DRG Lairds Packaging factory in Carstairs Street to provide some 140,000 square feet of small office, workshop and storage space for rent.

  Paton Street/Duke Street

  The redevelopment of a site adjacent to Duke Street railway station to provide 20 flatted dwelling units for sale and two shop units for rent.

  Urban Programme Community managed projects East End of Glasgow

  1990–91

  Project Title

  Employees

  Urban Programme Funding

  Managing Organisation

  Full time

  Part time

  Capital

  Current

  Dalmarnock Youth Project

  Dalmarnock Youth Committee

  2

  1

  0

  38,167

  Barrowfield Youth Project

  South Camlachie Community Council

  1

  0

  0

  18,866

  Reidvale Adventure Playground

  Reidvale Adventure Play Association

  4

  0

  98,425

  50,656

  Centre for Disabled—Bridgeton

  West GEAR Disability Forum

  1

  1

  129,400

  13,443

  East End Money Advice and Information Centre

  East End Advice Centre Management Committee

  3

  1

  35,945

  35,427

  Alcohol Counselling/Lodging Houses, GEAR

  Glasgow Council on Alcoholism

  2

  0

  0

  2,351

  Orr Street Day Centre, GEAR

  Calton Elderly Working Party

  0

  0

  0

  1,780

  Dalmarnock Neighbourhood Office

  Dalmarnock Community Council

  0

  0

  0

  56,992

  Bridgeton Community Hall

  Bridgeton Centre Executive Committee

  4

  0

  0

  56,202

  Dalmarnock After School Care

  Dalmarnock Women's Health Group

  1

  0

  0

  18,156

  Barrowfield Family Flat

  Barrowfield Family Flat Management Committee

  2

  0

  0

  35,407

  GEAR Community Arts Project

  GEAR Community Arts Project Council

  2

  1

  0

  33,033

  Rape Crisis Centre Support Project (Womens Support)

  Strathclyde Rape Crisis Centre

  1

  0

  2,820

  36,547

  Bridgeton Unemployed Group

  Bridgeton Unemployed Group

  0

  0

  0

  1,557

  Dalmarnock Community Centre

  Dalmarnock Community Association

  3

  1

  0

  9,242

  Gallowgate Tenants Hall

  Gallowgate Tenants Hall Steering Committee

  2

  3

  0

  45,855

  East End Resident Advisors

  East End Management Unit

  2

  0

  0

  26,215

  Glasgow East End
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the community projects using central Government finance currently existing in the east end of Glasgow, the authority or body involved, the number of employees in each and the total cost of each such project.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The information relating to community projects in the east end of Glasgow currently in receipt of central Government finance through the urban programme is as follows:
  173

  Project Title

  Employees

  Urban Programme Funding

  Managing Organisation

  Full time

  Part time

  Capital

  Current

  Dalmarnock Project Coordinator

  Dalmarnock Community Council

  4

  2

  0

  66,652

  Dalmarnock Neighbourhood Advice/Resources Project

  Dalmarnock Community Council

  2

  0

  0

  21,048

  Lilybank/Cuthelton Neighbourhood Project

  Lilybank/Cuthelton Area Working Group

  11

  1

  136,467

  118,196

  Base for Whiterose Tenant Management Co-operative

  Whiterose Co-op

  0

  2

  0

  26,972

  East End Drugs Initiative

  East End Drug Forum

  8

  2

  34,734

  263,739

  Shettleston Resource Centre and Community Hall

  Shettleston Housing Association/Shettleston Community Council

  2

  2

  0

  55,634

  Disabled Transport Project

  Haghill Area Profile Group (Good Neighbours Club)

  0

  0

  0

  4,785

  Money Advice Worker, Haghill

  Haghill Area Profile Group

  2

  1

  3,448

  32,913

  Bluevale Neighbourhood Centre, Haghill

  Bluevale Community Association

  5

  4

  0

  74,921

  Project Co-ordinator Haghill

  Haghill Area Profile Group

  2

  1

  0

  40,959

  Haghill Hall Development Officer

  Haghill Hall Committee

  1

  0

  0

  33,334

  Helenslea Hall

  Helenslea Hall Management Committee

  1

  1

  0

  40,297

  Buses
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many bus services were operating in(a) the city of Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde region and (c) Scotland in 1984; and what are the current totals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in the bus manufacturing industry in Scotland in 1984; and what is the current total.

  Mr. Lang
  No reliable information has been compiled and the cost of doing so would be disproportionate.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of male and female sufferers of Alzheimer's disease in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland.

  Numbers and percentage rates of unemployed claimants

  September 1990

  July 1990

  Males

  Females

  Young Males

  Young Females

  Shettleston

  Number

  3,467

  899

  1,017

  405

  Percentage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow district

  Number

  36,735

  10,684

  10,680

  4,774

  174
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No estimates have been made on the basis specified.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the percentage rate of unemployment among(a) adult males, (b) adult females, (c) young males and (d) young females in (i) the Shettleston constituency, (ii) Glasgow district, (iii) Strathclyde region and (iv) Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Unemployment percentage rates are only available for(a) all unemployed males and (b) all unemployed females in (i) Strathclyde region and (ii) Scotland.

  Where rates are not available for the requested areas we have given the appropriate level of unemployment. The most reliable figures on unemployment among young people are available only on a quarterly basis, and hence the July 1990 figures are shown. Young people are defined as being between 18 and 24 years old.
  175

  September 1990

  July 1990

  Males

  Females

  Young Males

  Young Females

  Percentage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde region

  Number

  83,390

  27,091

  25,091

  11,035

  Percentage

  13·1

  5·8

  —

  —

  Scotland

  Number

  143,881

  51,197

  42,292

  20,217

  Percentage

  10·0

  4·8

  —

  —

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the numbers of long-term unemployed males and females in(a) Shettleston constituency, (b) Glasgow district, (c) Strathclyde region and (d) Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The table provides long-term unemployment figures, for both males and females, for Shettleston, Glasgow, Strathclyde and Scotland, for July 1990, the latest date for which the most accurate figures are available. The long-term unemployed are defined to be those persons who have been unemployed claimants for in excess of 52 weeks.

  Number of long-term unemployed claimants

  July 1990

  Male

  Female

  Shettleston

  1,790

  333

  Glasgow district

  18,353

  3,946

  Strathclyde region

  36,443

  8,388

  Scotland

  57,487

  14,615

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of Legionnaire's disease there have been in Glasgow royal infirmary since 1982; how many people have died as a result; and if he will make a statement on the current situation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Between January 1982 and September 1990 there have been 21 cases of Legionnaires' disease at Glasgow royal infirmary, resulting in eight deaths. In 1990, up until September, there have been two cases resulting in one death. I have called for a full report from Greater Glasgow health board on the cases contracted in 1990 and this is awaited.

  Disability
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the numbers of(a) disabled males and females, (b) blind males and females, (c) deaf males and females, (d) dumb males and females and (e) geriatric males and females living in (i) Shettleston constituency, (ii) Glasgow district, (iii) Strathclyde region and (iv) Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the number of persons in particular disability categories is not held centrally in the detailed form requested.

  More general information on the numbers of disabled people in Scotland with different levels of severity of disability, is contained in the report of a survey of disability in Great Britain carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and published by HMSO in 1988: a copy of this is available from the Library.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which hospitals in Scotland possess or are about to possess video telemetry equipment for investigation and possible surgery in cases of epilepsy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am aware of only two hospitals which have this equipment—the royal infirmary, Edinburgh and the royal infirmary, Dundee. It is for health boards to decide on their equipment needs.

  Fishery Protection Aircraft
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will replace the fishery protection aircraft; and what type of aircraft he intends to purchase.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Following the loss of one of the fisheries protection aircraft in May, my Department has leased a Cessna Caravan II to assist in providing aerial surveillance of fishing grounds until a permanent long-term replacement aircraft can be acquired. Consideration of options for permanent replacement is not complete, and therefore no decision has yet been taken.

  Taxis
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to amend the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 in respect of applications for tariff increases for the taxi trade where emergency situations affect the price of fuel.

  Mr. Lang
  The 1982 Act already allows for adjustment of taxi fare scales. As part of the current review of the Act we shall be considering whether, in exceptional circumstances, more accelerated procedures for fare adjustment are needed.

  Public Service Vehicles
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average age of a public service vehicle in 1984 in Scotland; and what it is at the present time.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland the average age of public transport vehicles was 5· years in 1984 and 6·8 years in 1988, the latest date for which figures are available centrally.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public service vehicles were registered in Scotland in 1984; and what is the current total.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At 31 December 1984, 14,315 public transport vehicles were licensed in Scotland. At 31 December 1988, the latest date for which information is available centrally, the figure was 15,569.

  Passenger Transport
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in the road passenger transport industry in Scotland in 1984; and what is the current total.

  Mr. Lang
  According to census of employment information, the number employed in the road passenger transport industry in Scotland was 19,432 in September 1984. The latest available figure, for September 1987, is 19,506.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the numbers of males and females living in sheltered housing accommodation, and on the waiting lists for such accommodation in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office does not make such estimates. Information on the public sector provision of sheltered housing is collected annually from district councils and published by the Scottish Development Department; the 1989 figures are contained in table 12 of Statistical Bulletin HSU No. 11: "Housing Trends in Scotland, quarter ended 30 June 1989", which was published in January 1990. A copy of this was sent to the hon. Member on publication, and further copies are available in the Library.

  AIDS
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of male and female cases of(a) AIDS and (b) drug users in each health board area in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cumulative total of people diagnosed with AIDS who have been reported to the Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit to 30 September 1990 is 178, of whom 157 are males and 21 are females. Of the number of males, Greater Glasgow, Lothian and Tayside health boards have 53, 79 and 10 cases, respectively. The remaining male cases, fewer than 10 in each instance, are in the Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Fife, Forth Valley, Grampian, Highland and Lanarkshire health board areas. In Lothian 12 female cases have been reported with the remainder in Argyll and Clyde, Fife, Greater Glasgow, and Tayside, respectively. In accordance with established practice, where the number of cases in individual health board areas is under 10, separate figures are not published so as not to jeopardise medical confidentiality.

  Because of the illicit nature of drug taking it is very difficult to be precise about the number of drug misusers. Information is not available centrally for each health board area, but current estimates of the number injecting drug misusers in Strathclyde, Lothian and Tayside regions are as follows:

  Number

  Strathclyde (mainly Glasgow)

  8,000 to 12,000

  Lothian (mainly Edinburgh)

  2,500 to 4,000

  Tayside (mainly Dundee)

  1,500 to 2,000

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to make car wheel clamping illegal in certain situations in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans.

  British Rail
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many passenger miles of track were operated by British Rail in Scotland in 1984; and what is the current total.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  British Rail operated 1,707 route miles of track for passenger traffic in Scotland in 1984 and currently operates 1,697 route miles.

  Kingston Bridge, Glasgow
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to consider repairs to the Kingston bridge in Glasgow as a special case necessitating additional allocation of Government funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for the local authority to identify its needs in the production of its transport policies and programme statement and financial plans. These will then be taken fully into account in determining capital allocations.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make regulations in respect of independent schools which take into account the principles given in consultation document No. 8 to the Children Act 1989 produced by the Department of Health.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Section 87 of the Children Act 1989 on the welfare of children living in independent residential schools does not extend to Scotland. The recently published report of the child care law review (copies of which are in the Library) recommends that similar duties should be placed on proprietors and similar responsibilities on local authorities in Scotland. I have invited views from a wide range of organisations and individuals before deciding what action to take on the recommendations.

  Primary Schools, Central Region
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to respond to the proposals by the Central regional council for the reorganisation of primary school education in the Denny and Dunipace area, including provision of a replacement school for Dunipace primary school; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No proposals for the reorganisation of primary school education in the Denny and Dunipace area have been referred to my right hon. and learned Friend. Central regional council has, however, lodged an appeal with him against a condition of a planning permission granted by Falkirk district council for
  179
  the construction of a new primary school at Tygetshaugh, Denny. Arrangements will shortly be made for a public local inquiry into that appeal and objections to a related compulsory purchase order.

  Community Projects
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the community projects, using central Government funds, which currently exist in(a) Glasgow and (b) Strathclyde, the authority, agency or associations involved, the number of those gainfully employed in each and the total cost of each scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will intervene in the matter of the refusal of grant funding to the multiple sclerosis therapy centre in Glasgow by Greater Glasgow health board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 October 1990]: This is a matter for the health board. I understand that the grant paid by Greater Glasgow health board to the multiple sclerosis therapy centre was explicitly for one year only.

  Breathalysers
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what advice his Department will be offering to publicans and hoteliers considering installing do-it-yourself breathalyser kits in their establishments;

  (2) what record the Scottish Home and Health Department has of licensed establishments which have installed any form of do-it-yourself breathalyser kits;

  (3) whether the Scottish Home and Health Department has received any representatives for the Licensed Trade Association about the possible installation of do-it-yourself breathalyser kits in licensed premises.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: The Department has not received any representations from the Scottish Licensed Trade Association about the installation of do-it-yourself breathalyser kits and has no record of licensed premises which have installed such kits.

  The Government have campaigned vigorously against drinking and driving and are strongly opposed to any arrangements which might encourage drivers to drink up to the legal limit in the assumption that it will still be safe for them to drive. The safe course for any driver is not to drink at all. My advice to anyone considering acquiring such kits would therefore be that they will do nothing to contribute to road safety and may simply mislead individuals into thinking that they are fit to drive.

  School Boards
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount of money spent by the Scottish Office separate from that used by regional and islands' councils, on publicising school boards since their creation.
  180
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: The total expenditure on public information about school boards since the first boards were established in October 1989 is £107,300. This relates to expenditure on publicity for school board by-elections held in late 1989 and early 1990.

  Dounreay Research
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of research(a) under way and (b) planned at Dounreay into the safe destruction of PCBs, pesticides and solvents; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: I understand that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Dounreay has a research project into the electrochemical incineration of certain substances including PCBs and pesticides. Should the project be developed on a commercial basis it will become subject to control by the relevant regulatory authority.

  Further information about the project may be obtained by the hon. Member if he writes to AEA Technology at Dounreay.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications have been lodged with the valuation and community charge tribunals about the community charge; and what were the comparable figures for objections to domestic rates.

  Mr. Portillo
  Some 4,230 community charge appeals have so far been lodged this year with valuation and community charge tribunals. Figures for appeals against the rateable values of domestic properties were not separately recorded, but the volume of appeals against all types of rating proposals in the past five years are set out in the table:

  Number

  1985

  152,362

  1986

  172,528

  1987

  182,335

  1988

  150,647

  1989

  178,078

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if local authorities facing major losses of business rate income in their area in the course of a year will be required to make good the shortfall of increased poll tax in the following financial year.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The cost of any non-domestic rates which are written off by charging authorities as irrecoverable will, subject to audit, be borne by the national non-domestic rate pool. The cost of failure by an authority to collect rates efficiently will fall on the authority. Conversely, if the authority collects more than the amount assumed when its contributions to the pool were fixed, its cash flow will benefit.
  181
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assumptions on poll tax collection rates he intends to use in setting central Government grant levels for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: No assumptions about community charge collection rates are needed when setting central Government grant levels.

  Barkby Thorpe Landfill Site
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the reasons for the postponement of the public inquiry into the Barkby Thorpe, Leicester, site, stating(a) who applied for the deferral and (b) how long the deferral will be.

  Mr. Atkins
  The inquiry was postponed at the request of the appellants, supported by the local planning authority, to allow gas generation from the appeal site to be monitored and the results to be analysed. It is not yet clear how long this will take.

  Coastline Review
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to instigate a comprehensive review of the coastline of England and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have no plans at present to instigate a review of the coastline.

  Atmospheric Pollution
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any recent representations seeking wider controls on atmospheric pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  I regularly receive representations regarding atmospheric pollution and its control.

  YT Trainees
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had on behalf of YT trainees with special needs who have to pay the poll tax out of their youth training wage; what reply he has sent; if he will now reconsider the imposition of the tax in these cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received a number of letters suggesting that YT trainees with special training needs endorsements should be made exempt from the community charge. It is a fundamental principle of the community charge that almost all adults should make some level of contribution. Many YT trainees, including those with special needs, are eligible for substantial reductions through the community charge benefit scheme as are others with low incomes. There is no justification for an exemption in this case.

  Local Authority Superannuation Funds
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will clarify the position of local authorities who delegate superannuation fund investment decisions to external fund managers.

  Mr. Portillo
  Government officials have had discussions with local government representatives, regulatory bodies 182
  and those representing fund managers. I intend to propose amendments to the Local Government Superannuation Regulations expressly to authorise authorities to delegate superannuation fund investment decisions to outside managers subject to certain conditions. I am circulating proposals to local authorities in England and Wales and other interested parties for their comments. Subject to the necessary statutory and parliamentary procedures I would intend the amended regulations to come into force before the end of the year.

  Environmental Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he, or officials of his Department, have been invited to participate in the conference on environmental assessment: theory and practice, to be held in London on 8–9 November, organised by International Business Communications.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: A member of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has been invited to address the conference.

  Disabled Facilities Grant
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the operation of the test of financial resources for a mandatory disabled facilities grant, under the provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: Since the test of financial resources for the new disabled facilities grants came into effect on 1 July, my Department has received five representations from hon. Members and six representations from local authorities and others.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on families choosing to discontinue the domiciliary care of an elderly or disabled member because of an inability to meet the financial contribution required as a result of the test of financial resources necessary for the provision of a mandatory or discretionary disabled facilities grant.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: None.

  Humberside
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the final report from the Local Government Boundary Commission regarding the future of the county of Humberside.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The commission's programme of work is for it to determine with the resources at its disposal. I understand that the review is taking rather longer that was hoped. Although the commission is making good progress in dealing with the representations it has received, this review is not expected to be completed before the end of the year. I regret that I cannot give a firmer forecast.

  Advertising (Complaints)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints have been received by his Department and by the Advertising Standards
  183
  Authority and Independent Broadcasting Authority regarding environment-friendly claims by product manufacturers in both 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has not directly received any complaints about specific environment friendly claims by product manufacturers. I am informed that the Independent Broadcasting Authority does not keep complaints in this form, but the figures for the Advertising Standards Authority are as follows:

  Number

  1989

  194

  1990

  1100

  1 January to October.

  Rents into Mortgages Scheme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action his Department is taking to promote the trial rents into mortgages scheme for Basildon new town tenants;

  (2) what is the length of the experimental period of the trial Basildon new town corporation rents into mortgages scheme.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have invited the Commission for the New Towns to operate an experimental rents-into-mortgages scheme for its tenants at Basildon. This is an important and exciting experiment which marks a new stage in our commitment to extending opportunities for home ownership.

  It will be aimed at tenants who would like to buy their home and can pay their full rent, but cannot afford the right to buy. The Commission will offer tenants the opportunity to buy their home for an initial payment
  184
  which much be at least the amount which they could borrow on a mortgage, with repayments equivalent to their rent. This initial payment will attract discount in accordance with the right-to-buy rules; tenants paying half the right-to-buy price will get half their right-to-buy discount.

  The Commission will retain a charge over that part of the value of the property not covered by the tenant's payment and discount. The charge must be redeemed on the resale of the property or the death of the purchaser, but the purchaser will be free to make further payments to redeem or reduce the charge at any time. The amount needed to redeem the charge will be the appropriate proportion of the property's value at the time of redemption, less a discount of 20 per cent.

  There is no set end-date for the scheme. Its progress will be monitored regularly.

  Rents into Mortgages Scheme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what monitoring he is undertaking of the response of Basildon district council following the announcement of the trial rents into mortgages scheme for Basildon new town tenants;

  (2) what powers he has to prevent local authorities from campaigning against rents into mortgages schemes.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend has no powers to prevent local authorities from campaigning on any question. Local authorities must, however, have regard to the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity, which says that publicity material should be"objective, balanced, informative and accurate".

  I understand that Basildon district council has passed a resolution which gives a guarded welcome to the scheme.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford

RNIB: Funding
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the grant to the Royal National Institute for the Blind for transcription into embossed literature has been reduced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we acknowledge the valuable work carried out by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. That is why it has received significant funding from the Department of Health for many years. The reduction this year brings the grant to £200,000 from £250,000 last year. We believe that the institute is now in a very strong financial position compared with many organisations seeking funding from the department and that there is wide scope for it to generate alternative sources of income.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, do the Government accept the fundamental principle that visually handicapped people should have access to the printed word on the same basis as sighted people? Can she confirm—or, indeed, perhaps she will deny it—that it is the Government's intention to reduce the grant to nil over a period of five years by reducing it in the sum of £50,000 a year?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot comment on the noble Lord's last point regarding funding for future years as obviously these figures are revised on an annual basis. However, I accept the first point he made about the intention to help non-sighted people. Nevertheless, I must point out that the grant to the Royal National Institute for the Blind is paid under the Section 64 general scheme of grants. That is a cash-limited budget for which the total available funding in 1990–91 is £15.6 million which, incidentally, is the same amount as the RNIB receives as net voluntary income.
I should also point out that part of the £50,000 reduction in the RNIB's grant has been used to increase the core grants to the two regional associations for the blind which provide training for rehabilitation workers with visually impaired people. It is proposed to use the remainder to fund new projects in support of people with a sensory impairment. Therefore there is no overall loss.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, the Minister said that the grant has been reduced from £250,000 to £200,000 this year. However, in actual fact the grant has been frozen at £250,000 for six years and now there is this further reduction. If, for example, the
1238
grant had gone up in real terms in line with inflation, can she say how much the RNIB would have lost over the past six years?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can say that if the £250,000 grant awarded in 1984–85 had been maintained at that level, to date it would be worth £348,000 at this year's prices. However, I should point out that it is not our policy to revalue grant automatically in line with inflation. The main criterion used in determining grant level is whether the financial circumstances of the organisation concerned may be regarded as justifying the need for central government support.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether any other sources of funding are available for embossed literature of this kind?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords; indeed my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has initiated discussions between his officials and the RNIB about producing social security information in braille at an agreed cost to be met from funds from the Department of Social Security. The institute had a similar contractual arrangement with the Department of the Environment to produce community charge leaflets in braille, and has recently succeeded in attracting sponsorship from British Telecom for the production of telephone bills in braille.
The RNIB has hitherto borne the cost of producing such material. There is considerable scope for the institute to enter into such contractual and sponsorship arrangements with other government departments and commercial organisations.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the general public must be thinking what a parsimonious Government we have who would reduce services for blind people? The grant was originally awarded to the Royal National Institute for the Blind not out of the generosity of this Government; it was granted in 1920. We are talking about a reduction from £250,000 to £200,000. Indeed, I was looking through the press reports today—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can the noble Baroness ask a question?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister also aware that there must be people in this Chamber whose friends earn more than the total grant which has been given to the RNIB? It is not fair. Therefore, does she agree that, as the Government wish all children in schools to be able to read, blind children also need to be able to learn to read in schools? In the circumstances, will she further agree to speak to her right honourable friend the Prime Minister and ask her to look seriously at these matters?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the grant to the Royal National Institute for the Blind is, as I understand it, the twelfth largest grant in the scheme. As I have already pointed out, the £50,000 has not been pocketed by anyone; indeed, it is actually going to

1239
other organisations concerned with visual impairments to assist the excellent work which is being carried out in the field. I must reiterate that one of the main criteria we use in determining core grants under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968—which introduced the scheme in question —is whether the financial circumstances of the organisation concerned may be regarded as justifying the need for central government support.
The main purpose of core funding is to provide a period of financial stability for an organisation which has difficulty in raising funds through public donations and other sources. Once an organisation has established its fund-raising capacity and has a sound financial basis, the department would not usually expect to continue to provide support.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some useful transcribing is being done in some of our prisons; for example, Wakefield? Will she see that that work is extended because it helps the rehabilitation of prisoners as well as helping the blind?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am aware that some of that work is done in some of Her Majesty's prisons. I shall explore further what the future of that work is.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the RNIB is the largest producer of braille in Europe? Is she further aware that the organisation often produces small items such as student examination papers, for example, for which it is unlikely to receive funding from commercial institutions? Therefore, will the Government reconsider their decision and return the grant to at least its original amount?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have acknowledged the valuable work done by the RNIB. I have pointed out that the saving in funding will be used for the blind and that there are many demands on that source of funding from many worthwhile organisations. On the question of educational needs, of course local education authorities are responsible for providing resources for special materials, including braille textbooks for children with special needs.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, was the RNIB consulted about whether the £50,000 lopped off its budget should be spent on some other purpose? Secondly, the Minster referred to the RNIB's economic viability. Is she aware that every 1 per cent. increase in inflation adds £400,000 to the RNIB's costs, and that it is now running at a deficit of £500,000? In view of the representations from all parts of the House, does she recognise the fact that this is the first time for 70 years that the grant has been cut and that that is a matter that should be reconsidered by her right honourable friend?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have considered the funding arrangements seriously. We consider seriously all applications we receive for Section 64 funding. If the noble Lord were in my place now he would realise what a difficult task it is. We do our best in the circumstances. Reverting to the earlier part of
1240
his question, we reassessed the needs of the RNIB in the usual way, which, as I understand it, involves consultation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it not be a good thing if we all doubled our subscriptions to that admirable charity? Would not that raise more than £50,000?
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will tell her noble and learned friend that the visually handicapped do not wish to depend upon charity. In a previous reply she mentioned the efforts made by government departments to have their literature transcribed into braille. That is what the departments should be doing. Is she aware that when her department produced its glossy leaflet on the reforms of the NHS it forgot to transcribe it into braille until it was reminded by the RNIB? If the RNIB is to rely upon sponsorship for general literature, which is what the grant covers, there is a risk that commercial sponsors will wish to have some say in the literature that is transcribed.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the more people who are involved in and aware of the problems faced by those who are visually impaired, and the more sources of help that can be offered, the better.

Current Account Deficit
2.48 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the deficit so far on the United Kingdom current account for 1990, and what is the accumulated deficit since June 1987.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the current account deficit for the first nine months of 1990 is estimated at £13.6 billion. The accumulated deficit since June 1987 is estimated at £51.7 billion.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that deficits on that stupendous scale for this year, which are heading beyond the Chancellor's forecast of £15 billion and which, under this Government, are far and away the highest of those under any government in history, are alarming? Now that we have entered the ERM at what may be a perilously high exchange rate, which puts the squeeze on exporters, what alternative policies do the Government have to eliminate those enormous deficits in the year ahead?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord's last question first, I am surprised to see that a supporter of his party is already flinching on the subject of the ERM. The evidence is that the trade figures that arrived yesterday were the lowest for three years. When that is combined with the more interesting figure which shows that for the quarter the volume of car exports rose by 23 per cent., it will be seen that the trend is in the right direction.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the credit balance earned by invisible exports in the past and at present is a major

1241
contributor to our balance of payments? Does he also agree that those who cast doubt on the City should bear this fact in mind?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is particularly true that during a period of restructuring in British manufacturing the City of London has made an enormous contribution to the exports of this country, both visible and invisible. It is also important to remember that in the past 12 months the increase in the rate of exports was the highest since 1973.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I welcome the reduction in the deficit this year. However, it is still, even at that rate, running at over £10 billion a year. Would the Minister care to give the Government's view as to whether their plan is not to relax the tight monetary control until the deficit is eliminated altogether or whether, as with interest rates and inflation, when we join the ERM the intention will be to take the prospective reduction of the deficit into account?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asks an interesting question. The Government's policy is to curb inflation so that a beneficial effect will occur throughout the economy.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that in the past quarter the volume of exports from this country fell by 1 per cent?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the volume of exports, less oil erratics, rose by 8 per cent. on the previous year.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is not an answer to my question. Will the noble Lord confirm that during the last quarter the total volume of exports from this country fell by 1 per cent?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the volume between quarter two and quarter three fell by the difference between £26.103 billion and £25.594 billion. I do not know whether that constitutes 1 per cent. I believe it is slightly less.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the figures he has given conceal the fact that our deficit on visible trade has now accumulated to over £70 billion? The earlier contribution from invisibles to which the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, referred has now virtually disappeared. Over the past three months it is reckoned just about to break even and make no contribution.
Is the noble Lord further aware that the accumulation of this massive deficit on visible trade balance since 1986 can be roughly correlated to the 20 per cent. decline in competitiveness due almost entirely to an overvalued rate of exchange? Will he taken note of the CBI's observation this morning—although it changes its mind once every three weeks —that the overvalued exchange rate will present industry with a very serious problem?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will use good news as well as bad news to support his claim that the British economy is in terminal decline. I resist that claim. To give one
1242
example, in the fourth quarter of 1989, a shortfall of £600 million was expected in invisibles. In fact, a surplus of £594 million occurred.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I welcome this desirable result for the recent quarter. However, in order that we may understand the longer-term trends, will the noble Lord indicate the extent to which he believes that the import figures have been affected by the reduction in consumer demand in this country and by the higher level of sterling?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the figure I mentioned earlier, car imports into the United Kingdom fell by 13 per cent. at the same time as car exports rose by 23 per cent. Clearly, a reduction in home demand contributed to that figure. We believe that a reduction in demand is essential to a reduction in inflation.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to check his reply to my noble friend Lord Hatch? It seemed to me that in his figures he announced a decrease of nearer 4 per cent. than 1 per cent.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my education did not provide me with the benefit of producing the exact percentage of the differential between the two. I suspect that it is a small figure, whichever it is.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that these huge deficits are being financed by capital inflows? Can he say what will happen and what instruments he will have to hand if foreign capital ceases to flow into this country because of a lack of confidence in the Government and their handling of the economy?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House will be grateful to know that it will not be in my hands but those of the Chancellor. However, the instruments are already being used to reduce inflation and to continue to make the United Kingdom an attractive investment opportunity for outside capital.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, arising from the Minister's reply to me when he cast aspersions on our commitment to the ERM, does he accept that the commitment is complete but does not involve believing that the measure was taken at the right time, when the divergence of inflation is very high; at the right rate, which is perilously high; or for the right reason, which is to disguise the political cut in interest rates?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asks three questions, none of which appears on the Order Paper. I point out to him that both Japan and Germany have not done too badly with a high and strong currency.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may call attention to the fact that we have taken 20 minutes over the first two Questions. That is our allowance for the whole of Question Time. I suggest that the remaining two Questions should pass rather more quickly.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I suggest we go on to the next Question.

Privatisation Proceeds and Oil Revenues
2.57 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much money has so far accrued to the Treasury from (a) their privatisation programme and (b) oil revenues.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, net privatisation proceeds in the years 1979–80 to 1989–90 amounted to £28 billion. North Sea oil revenues over the same period totalled £67 billion.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that no Chancellor in our history before 1979 received the benefits of huge sums of money from completely new sources? Bearing in mind that those have been received by successive Chancellors, can the Minister tell us why we are in such a serious financial and economic situation? Where have those huge new financial resources been deployed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean. The opportunity to achieve those finances was available if a previous government had decided to engage in a policy of privatisation. Perhaps I may take two figures. It is worth remembering that expenditure both on the health service and on social security has increased by one-third in real terms during that time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say what was the reduction in the national debt over the same period?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have a figure for the reduction in the national debt. However, I can tell my noble friend that the public sector borrowing requirement in 1979–80 was some £9.9 billion, which is the equivalent of £19.9 billion today. The current figure for public sector debt reduction is some £7.9 billion for 1989–90.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is easy to reduce an overdraft if one disposes of the collateral?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there appears to be a view that North Sea oil is different to any other form of revenue. However, in my dealings with the Treasury, I have found that revenue is revenue.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the principal purposes of the Government's privatisation receipts has been classified as negative expenditure, whatever that may mean? They have been used for political purposes purely to pretend that Government expenditure as such has kept within its defined limits. As regards the oil tax, is the noble Lord further aware—this is an extension to the Question of my noble friend—that the extra revenue derived this year from the increases that have taken place in the price of oil will net the
1244
Treasury some £2 billion? Will the Government therefore at last honour their manifesto obligation and restore child allowance to its proper level?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, goes rather wider than my brief. I fear that the noble Lord also assumes the best figure on the best day. It is worth remembering that the oil price in mid-July was 18 dollars and 45 cents a barrel. It rose to 40 dollars and 33 cents a barrel on 11th October and is trailing today at 26 dollars and 65 cents a barrel. I do not believe that that will equate to an extra £2 billion.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case, nevertheless, that the Government will benefit substantially from the increase in petrol prices? Is the Minister aware that I received a helpful letter from the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in which he stated that, so far as the Treasury can calculate, the Government will benefit to the sum of well over £100 million this year and to well over £200 million next year? How will that money be spent? Is it to be spent in the current spending round?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for drawing that fact to my attention. I should point out that we have a commitment in the Gulf. That commitment will cost a great deal of money, but at this moment it is hard to put a price on it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as the Minister queried the figures that I produced, will be bear in mind that the increase in the price of petrol from £1.50 per gallon to £2.40 per gallon—that is not unreasonable—will yield an extra £1.35 billion, and that £245 million will be contributed by increases in VAT? If the noble Lord cares to add that figure to the increases in corporation tax that have been levied, he will find that the figure of £2 billion that I mentioned is not all that unreasonable.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is suggesting that those prices will hold for 12 months. I believe that there is no evidence to suggest that that is the case.

Energy Funding
3.4 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What funds they provide to the different sectors of energy production included in the non-fossil fuel requirement.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government provide no funds directly to operators of generating capacity contracted for under the non-fossil fuel obligation. There are powers in the Electricity Act to contribute to the costs of reprocessing and waste management of nuclear fuel and decommissioning of nuclear plant, but no payments have been made or are presently expected. The extra costs incurred by regional electricity companies in meeting the NFFO are recouped from all electricity suppliers through the fossil fuel levy. In

1245
1989–90, the Government spent around £132 million on civil nuclear R&D and over £17 million on renewables R&D.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench. However, I express some regret that my former combatant who is sitting near the Woolsack appears to have left the fray. The noble Lord has missed the point of my Question. I asked him directly to separate from the figures with which he has been supplied the research and development money provided by the Government for nuclear energy and that provided for renewables such as wind, wave and thermal power, and the other forms of renewables which the Government have admitted are important in order to provide a variety of generating sources for electricity.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the exact figures appear on a long list. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point. I should have thanked the noble Lord at the beginning of my remarks for his welcoming comments. This is a complicated schedule. If the noble Lord wants those details, I shall have to write to him.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the Minister not give the simple breakdown of what R&D money is provided for nuclear energy and what is provided for renewable energy?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I believe I have given the figures. I certainly would need notice before providing any more. I said that some £132 million was available for nuclear research and development and £17 million for the research and development of renewables.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that under the terms of the Electricity Act 1989 the assets of the main fossil fuel generators, National Power and PowerGen, were written down to make way for privatisation? Does he also accept that renewable energy is, by its very nature, capital intensive? In view of those two facts, which I believe the Government have admitted, is it not the case that in the future it will be extremely difficult for renewable energy to compete with fossil fuels?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not think that that will be the case. Under the NFFO these matters are recognised. No suggestion has been made to us that renewable forms of energy will have a difficult time.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend not recognise that the scope for renewables is widely exaggerated? Wind power requires an enormous amount of space, geo-thermal power has only two or three sites available and wave power is still a long way off.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments. At no time in the foreseeable future will renewables other than nuclear amount to more than 3 per cent. of total generation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that renewables are certainly expensive and difficult to start up, but that nuclear power is
1246
almost impossible to stop? On balance, it would be better to spend the money on starting up more forms of energy than on starting up a form of energy which cannot be stopped and is extremely damaging to the environment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not agree with those comments. I do not think that nuclear power is extremely damaging to the environment. The Government's policy is to have a broad spread.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, compared with other countries in the European Community, we are a long way behind in the consideration of renewables?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not think that that is the case. We have information that the programme in this country is well respected throughout the world.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell his noble friend behind him that the scope for renewables, far from being exaggerated, has been greatly underplayed, not least because renewables have been under the thumb of the atomic energy lobby? I know that the noble Lord has not had time to look at the matter that I am about to refer to in detail. However, will he look at what happened to the research in this country on wave energy that was carried out in 1982 but was then abandoned and taken up successfully by other countries? Will the Minister look particularly at the work of Professor Salter of Edinburgh University which has been in cold storage in this country for eight years and yet has been successfully employed elsewhere? Finally, will the Minister look at the figures he has given and ask himself, and perhaps some of his noble, honourable and right honourable friends, whether this country is moving towards a bright and green future when it spends £132 million on research and development in the nuclear field every year and only £17 million on research into renewables?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, regarding wave power, the Government are updating their earlier wave studies and a review is in hand to examine the prospects for wave energy in the United Kingdom across the whole range, from shoreline to large offshore devices. All interested parties are being consulted, including Professor Salter. The study is due for completion next year.
As to renewables in general, there is no reason why non-fossil fuels other than nuclear should be linked with nuclear. Each technology requires a different level of investment depending on the technology itself and the stage it has reached. Given the speed at which new technologies can develop in the best circumstances it is possible to argue that the level of funding of research and development on renewables is at or near the optimum. I refer the noble Lord to Energy Paper 55 on the subject of renewables.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between nuclear power, which is capable of providing

1247
a base load day and night, and wind and wave power, which will depend on the weather and whose delivery will be variable?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point.

London Underground (Victoria) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 5) Bill [H.L.]

  North Yorkshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  These are two House of Lords Bills which have not yet completed their passage through this House. If your Lordships agree to the Motion they will be carried over to the next Session.
  Moved, That the promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bills, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
  That such Bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bills are the same in every respect as the Bills at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
  That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
  That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

  London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  This is another House of Lords Bill which has not completed its passage. However, in this case the committee was postponed and will sit early in the new Session.
  Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with it, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
  That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
  That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
  That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session;
  That all petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee, shall stand referred to the Select Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no petitioners shall be heard before the Select Committee on the Bill, unless their petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 109 relating to Private Business;
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 110 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 109" were omitted.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

  Environmental Protection Bill
  3.12 p.m.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the

  1249
  purport of the Environmental Protection Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  Bill read a third time.
  Clause 1 [Preliminary]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 2, line 13, after ("and") insert ("the air within").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if in moving Amendment No. 1 I speak also to Amendment No. 33. Both amendments affect similar texts and are designed to remove a possible ambiguity. I beg to move.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend for spotting this drafting deficiency which has evaded us for so long. I accept the amendments.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Prescribed processes and prescribed substances]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 4, line 22, after ("regulations") insert ("(having effect on or after a date specified in a statement issued under section 162(3) below)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 23, 24, 25, 28 and 40. Before I go any further perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for taking the graveyard slot this afternoon. It is always nice for somebody else to stand up while noble Lords are making their getaway after Question Time.
  There is an ultimate and a proximate reason for the amendments. The proximate reason is that Clause 162 provides that nearly all of the Bill shall come into force at a date to be specified by the Secretary of State, without stating what that date should be. We believe that the uncertainty caused by such a provision could well be damaging for the many bodies and individuals who will have responsibility for implementing the Bill. Therefore we propose that a statement should be made by the Secretary of State within two months setting out the dates on which he expects the remaining provisions to be brought into force.
  The ultimate objective of the amendments will be very clear to the Government. However, it may not be entirely clear to some noble Lords who are not used to the way in which we sometimes approach these matters from this Dispatch Box. That is to be found in Amendment No. 40, which, in addition to providing for the phased implementation of integrated pollution control in a manner already indicated by the Government, provides that Part VII of the Bill—that concerned with the dismemberment of the Nature Conservancy Council—shall not be brought into effect before 1st April 1992.
  Noble Lords would expect me to spend most of my time dealing with that last point because it is a point which I threatened to bring back during the somewhat
  1250
  inchoate debate which took place last Wednesday. A number of noble Lords, including myself, were very dissatisfied with the position with regard to Part VII of the Bill. I shall not go over the detail of last Wednesday's debate; I would not be thanked for it. However, I ought to repeat where we stand on Part VII and why the immediate implementation of the Bill is virtually an impossibility, quite apart from its innate undesirability.
  This measure has been brewing for approximately 15 months. It was in July 1989 that the then Secretary of State, on the same day as the Nature Conservancy Council announced its own reform procedures, decided to break up the Nature Conservancy Council. Since that time there has been constant prompting in an effort to understand whether there was any other reason than a yielding to the interests of those who might wish to frustrate nature conservation in Scotland and Wales—I must put it in those terms—for bringing about this major change on which there had been no consultation and for which there was no self-evident reason.
  Throughout that period no satisfactory explanation has been given of the Government's motives for dismembering the Nature Conservancy Council. The only indication of support for the Government has been in the appointment of the chairman and more recently some of the members of the new country councils. I repeat that we on these Benches have no objection to the nominations that have been made, although they are incomplete, and we shall be looking for more names with an active interest in nature conservation. That is not the burden of our complaint.
  The burden of our complaint is that the change is unnecessary; that it is likely to result in a decrease in standards; and, as we learnt only last Wednesday, that it will be enormously expensive. The expenditure of nearly £10 million a year from 1991 to 1992 simply on the reorganisation without a single improvement in the quality of our nature conservation work resulting from that expenditure is a distraction from the two purposes of public intervention in nature conservation. It is damaging in budgetary terms to other aspects of nature conservation. It is also likely to cause significant disruption in the years to come. That is a view which has been taken by the vast majority of bodies interested in nature conservation, not only in England but also in Wales and in Scotland where only a small minority have indicated approval for the move that is proposed in Part VII of the Bill.
  Finally, having considered whether there is any reasonable motive for the Government's actions and not found any, having considered whether it could possibly be justified to spend that amount of money on reorganisation rather than on a service, we come to the issue with which Amendment No. 40 is concerned. That issue is whether it can possibly be implemented by 1st April 1991, which we understand to be the Government's proposed implementation date although it is not on the face of the Bill.
  The answer, as I am sure any noble Lord who sat through the debate last Thursday will agree, is no. We have no chief executive. The advertisement for the

  1251
  chief executive is to be issued, if this has not been done in the past few days, before the end of this month. A considerable number of staff will have to be transferred from the existing bodies. If that is the case, and if they are to take up their posts before 1st April 1991, when the chief executive could well have been in post for only a few weeks, it will be imposed on the chief executive, which is not a satisfactory way to arrange such matters.
  We have no firm indication as to where the long-term headquarters of the joint committee will be, although the indication is that it will start off where the NCC is at present; namely, in Peterborough. We have figures for the numbers of staff for the NCC but we have no assurance that the resources will be available to provide for those staff. We have been given an exact figure of £9.18 million for the reorganisation costs. What we have not been given in advance of the autumn financial statement is any indication that any of the tranches of funds which are universally agreed to be necessary will be provided for the new country councils or for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. So we simply do not have a plausible business plan for the new organisations, either for the country councils themselves or for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
  I shall not weary the House with any of the other arguments which have been flooding in, even since our debate last Wednesday. For that reason we seek in this amendment to protect the Government by giving one more year for the implementation of the measure which the Government are forcing on nature conservation in this country. We should prefer to go further. We should like the Government to take back this whole misconceived proposal, think again about it and consult properly with the interests concerned.
  However, we recognise that the role of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber means that in the absence of any government agreement to the arguments that have already been put forward, that suggestion is unlikely to achieve noble Lords' support. Therefore this modest measure of delay, which is combined with a series of measures to provide for greater certainty about implementation of other parts of the Bill, is proposed to your Lordships as a worthwhile improvement to the Government's proposals. I beg to move.
  Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment which has been so ably put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It was suggested that perhaps I ought to table the amendment on the affirmative resolution that I had put down at Report stage. However, in all fairness, although we did not vote on that particular resolution, when we voted last Wednesday most people agreed that that was a test of the opinion of the House. Had we carried that vote, the Government would have accepted the purport of what we were trying to say.
  We are very unhappy, as I am sure that the noble Baroness understands, that the whole process is to be rushed. There are far too many vacancies still to be filled. I do not yet have the updated figures so far as
  1252
  England is concerned. However it seems to me that it is probably England which will come off worst from this whole reorganisation.
  As I understand it, there are 105 jobs yet to be filled in Scotland, 56 places in Wales and at least 15 places so far as concerns the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. We ought to know a lot more about many aspects of the JNCC. The noble Baroness reassured us that the incoming chairman's comments were not as had been reported to us and that he saw a full future for the JNCC. But we want to know whether its research side will be able to continue. Will it be in a position to drive forward Great Britain's research?
  I know that we are attempting to make more use of our universities and other such bodies. That is perfectly acceptable to all the voluntary organisations. But the expertise is there at Peterborough and it would be absolutely daft to dissipate it. We want to know more about that matter. Reports were put in the Library after a great deal of pressure but the report on the total funding from Inbucon has apparently not been put in the Library. We ought to know more about that too. I do not think that any promise was made on that particular report.
  I shall not tie her down, but in response to the debate last Wednesday the noble Baroness said that on the whole she did not have too much argument to find with Sir William Wilkinson's projects and that the £9.18 million was accepted. As we know, that money will now be found but there were two further charges of £10 million. The Government did not argue too much about them, although we do not know whether the amount will in fact be forthcoming. We are pretty sure that it will not. However, Sir William's view as to the future needs of nature conservation throughout Great Britain is of that order.
  We ought to know much more about this matter before we give a Third Reading to this Bill. The situation is unsatisfactory. The Government will undoubtedly look to outside bodies in the future. The body which I represent and which had a small grant from the Department of the Environment has already been asked, "Can't you get the money from the RSPB or the Royal Society for Nature Conservation?". In fact we do receive most of our money from those bodies. We only get a small amount from the DoE, though we are grateful for it and it enables us to keep going a small secretariat of about three staff.
  The whole idea is to achieve a common approach from conservation bodies. We believe that on the whole we have been successful in doing that. It takes a load off Ministers, who receive delegations from one or two bodies rather than from dozens. However, the membership of those bodies is enormous. There are now 800,000 paid-up members of the RSPB alone. The government White Paper puts the figure at around 4 million, although I suspect that it is greater. There are large numbers of people in this country who are very concerned indeed about the future of nature conservation and countryside matters.
  I shall not go into any more detail about our feelings on how the situation could have been made so

  1253
  much better. I have been accused of not being a supporter of devolution. I am very much in favour of devolution. I voted for the devolution Bills for Scotland and Wales when they were brought forward in the other place. I am not so sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, voted in the same way when they arrived in this House. I believe in devolution.
  I believe that a great opportunity has been missed. We could have gone further and taken in aspects of forestry, agriculture and many other matters. The opportunity has been lost. However there is still a chance that we can go on and allow time for these appointments to be made. We can look at other measures which need to be put in place. Let us hope for all our sakes that this reorganisation works. We desperately want it to work but it needs time. That is why I support these amendments. They are full of common sense. Let it be done today rather than have to wait for the Government to return in three or four months' time when they know darned well that they cannot make the appointments and must ask for a further six months or put the matter off again for another six months.
  That causes untold problems for the staff. They do not know where they are. It was suggested at Report that this measure might be for the convenience of the staff. There is no question of that. Those people are committed conservationists and nature lovers. They want this Bill to work. They do not like the way that the reorganisation has been done but they are determined to make it work. However, they need time. To provide the kind of expertise which is required is bound to take time. It is only sensible to put the matter off for at least another 12 months. I support this amendment.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this group of amendments. Having listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Ross, who put their names to this amendment, I find myself puzzled as to the nature of their objections.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made it perfectly clear that he understood that the Government's motive behind the changes in Part VII of the Bill was to reduce the amount of conservation work in Scotland and Wales. I paraphrase what he said. He made it clear that in his view Scotland and Wales will lose out as a result.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ross, took a different view. His view was that those who will suffer are those concerned with conservation in England. I believe that the two noble Lords who put their names to the same amendment might have put their heads together to put forward arguments in support of the amendment and against the Government.
  With the greatest respect to the noble Lords, neither of them is right. It is clear that the needs of conservation are not the same in the three countries. There are areas in all three countries which have no parallel in the others. There are areas which require specific treatment by people who are familiar with
  1254
  those areas. That may be asking a lot of those who hitherto have had responsibility for the whole of Great Britain.
  In this House and elsewhere we have rehearsed at great length strong arguments for splitting up the bodies into country commissions, with the joint committee. At this stage of the Bill it does not lie in the competence of this House, or within the conventions of this House, to seek to reopen that argument. Therefore the noble Lords have chosen the well-worn device of seeking to delay its implementation.
  I believe that they have one point which they can legitimately make. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made it. Some of the details on how this will be done were made public only last week in the extremely helpful statement made by my noble friend Lady Blatch at the beginning of the last day of Report stage. However, it does not appear to me as though the movers of the amendment have taken on board what my noble friend said in her statement. Both have made great play of the fact that the additional costs incurred by implementing Part VII will be £9.18 million. That is the figure that my noble friend mentioned. She went on to talk about the publicly financed staff in the agencies, including the 86 in the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
  I believe that it is worth reminding the House of the words that my noble friend used. She stated:
  "That is 294 more than the present staffing levels. I should add that within those figures we are allowing the consolidation of a number of existing temporary posts as well as the creation of some new ones required by reorganisation. That means that far from there being a major increase in bureaucracy, there will be extra permanent posts in scientific grades and additional provision for policy and think tank work, particularly within the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, compared with current levels of activity". [Official Report, 17/10/90; col. 896.]
  If words mean anything, that means that there will be an increase in the amount of conservation work which will be done under the new system compared with what has been done under the old. It will be carried out in a different way. It will be carried out by organisations with greater understanding of specific problems in their own countries. But it will be an increase in conservation work.
  If the noble Lord says, "Yes, but there are bound to be costs and change and some disruption in the process of change", that may well be right. Anyone who has had experience of substantial reorganisations knows that inevitably there are short-term costs. But what do we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ross? He stated that we should have brought in far more change; that we should have brought in agriculture, forestry, and goodness knows what else.
  Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, that is the whole argument. I do not think that the noble Lord has been present half the time. That is the real argument: that it was all arranged on the back of an envelope about two years ago between the then Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Perhaps he would talk to the CPRE, the RSPB, the RSNC or any of those bodies. They would like to see the NCC (as it was) organised in a more

  1255
  federal style. They would also like the forestry interests and others to join in. That is what is so important. That aspect has been missed out.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that if we wait for the best of all possible worlds nothing happens in the meantime. It is a classic example of the best being the enemy of the good. There is nothing to prevent the development and evolution of policy over the years ahead. There is much in this Bill which deals with both forestry and agriculture; I am not sure therefore that the argument that the noble Lord has put is entirely sound. There is nothing to prevent major new relationships between the world of forestry, agriculture and conservation being developed in the future when the country committees have settled down and the joint conservation committee has undertaken the role that has been spelt out in the Bill.
  The arguments that have been advanced in favour of the amendment so far—there may be a number of other noble Lords who will wish to try to make more sense of them—seem to have great contradictions. Furthermore, the main argument that all is now chaotic and that only if one leaves more time will order emerge does not seem to bear any relation to the facts.
  I agree with both noble Lords on one point. It is perfectly clear that the staff, and in particular the professional staff who are engaged in this conservation work—I remember meeting large numbers of them when I visited the Peterborough headquarters some years ago—are immensely impressive and dedicated. Of course they will do their best to make sure that this change is conducted with the minimum of disruption and the maximum continuity of work. However, I simply cannot think of anything that will be more disruptive to the processes of change which are now going on than that this House, supported by another place, should suddenly decide that the whole matter must be put back a year or more. That would create dismay among the staff. They would be driven to ask themselves, "Do we honestly know what we are up to?".
  I detect in this group of amendments another opportunity for those who have never made any secret of their total opposition to the reorganisation provided for in Part VII to have another go on Third Reading. I hope very much that noble Lords will not be fooled by it. Some perfectly fair questions have been asked in amplification of the statement that my noble friend Lady Blatch made last week. However, the idea that somehow we should now put the concept back and make sure that nothing will happen until 1992 would be the gravest mistake. I hope that the House will not accept these amendments.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that we ought not to be debating this on Third Reading. We ought to have done so much earlier but the information was not available. The noble Lord seated that the best is
  1256
  possibly the enemy of the good. The truth of the matter is that we have the worst. Those of us who are critical are not opposed to devolution. We are not opposed to some of the excellent reforms that no doubt will come. We are opposed to the way in which the change has been handled. We now have to debate on Third Reading matters that ought to have been dealt with at Committee stage.
  I should briefly like to refer to some of the issues. I debated whether it was worth taking part in this debate because we have made so little progress in getting our views across. The noble Baroness has tried to be extremely helpful. I think she will agree that the House was kind to her when she was placed in an awkward position when we last debated the matter. She was very kind in making three reports available in the Library. The fact that they were not in the Library when she said they would be was not her fault. Why they had to wait until then to become available I do not know because some had been produced in June. The reports that were made available did not answer our questions. The vital Inbucon report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred, giving all the figures and the costs, was not available and is still not available. The three reports that were made available are very interesting. One was on the staffing of the joint committee and another was on common services. There was also a particularly interesting report on information systems. As someone who is very involved in the whole question of geographic information systems, I found it a valuable document. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for making it available. We saw in it some of the excellent quality of the Civil Service work being done in that area. The fact remains, however, that those involved had to make bricks without straw.
  It is interesting to note that the inspector responsible for the review of staffing for the joint committee scientific and secretarial support unit said:
  "In the absence of clearly defined objectives for the support unit we concluded that staffing could be almost as little or as great as one desired".
  In those circumstances, how could the Civil Service produce a meaningful scheme? When it took evidence from the chief scientist in the Nature Conservancy Council it rejected many of his suggestions. It chose a different level of rank. The document produces a most unsatisfactory result.
  The most serious matter of all was the absence of the Inbucon report. Even at this late stage, as the Bill is returning to the Commons, I feel that the Government should make the report available. It will give the figures upon which the noble Baroness based her attack on the Nature Conservancy Council figures. Those figures are justified by the Inbucon report and not by her statement. She stated that the first £10 million was okay and that the third £10 million was okay but that the middle £10 million was unnecessary. I dispute that view. The Inbucon report shows that the chairman was justified in his statement. Those who produced these reports were working to

  1257
  instructions from the Civil Service. They were doing a difficult job as requested by their Ministers but they were not given a free hand to judge what was the best.
  I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that no one is complaining about a large measure of devolution, but we are concerned that it is not the right measure. The Government are behind-hand as regards a timetable. Hardly any members of staff of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland have been appointed. How do the Government expect this system to start working on the date they have chosen? There is to be consultation with landowners and others but many more people will have to be consulted than has been estimated. Indeed, 20,000 have a right to be consulted, which is where some of that extra £10 million will go.
  It is perhaps vain to expect the Government to do very much at this stage but I think it is a tragedy that an opportunity which could so easily have been taken has been missed. I fear that the wishes of the Secretary of Stab; for Scotland will not be carried out unless the Nature Conservancy Council for England is denuded of some of the staff it needs. I am told that the Scots are having difficulty in nominating suitable candidates for the post. However, it is a fairly futile business to list all the things which the Government ought now to be doing. When we come finally to the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, we shall pass it with a heavy heart.
  The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may draw one or two points to the attention of the House. Amendment No. 5 appears to try to group Part VII of the Bill with Part II. Clause 32(2) refers to Schedule 2. I am especially concerned with paragraph 16, which deals with the transfer of staff. We do not necessarily need to link the transfer of staffs in waste disposal provisions with the transfer of staffs which may be involved in Part VII. I do not think that any of the amendments will improve the situation.
  3.45 p.m.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I should like to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I have learnt from a number of unconnected sources that a majority of staff within the NCC at the moment would welcome a delay so that they might see the finished proposals for staffing and be aware of the picture as a whole before they had to implement them. It is the feeling of a very large number of staff, including some senior members, that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be up and running by 1st April. Amendment No. 40, which I support, would be welcome to them.
  It was at the end of July 1989 that this House first debated, in the form of an Unstarred Question asked in the last few days of July, the proposed break-up of the NCC. On that occasion we posed a number of questions. Now, 15 months later, some of them still remain unanswered despite all the debates we have had. I shall not again go over the question of staffing but I must put to the Government a few of the questions of which still need to be answered before the Bill passes from this House.
  1258
  The first question was referred to earlier by my noble friend. What objection did the Government have to the proposals of the Nature Conservancy Council for devolution? I have spelt out this question on three occasions myself but I have not yet had anything approaching an answer or indeed any reference to it. I hope that the noble Baroness who is to respond will be able to answer that question. We have never said that we did not want to see powers devolved to Wales and Scotland. We simply objected to the way it was being done and to the lack of consultation. To this day there has not been consultation in England. There was a passing gesture to consultation in Scotland in the shape of a very thin document which went out quite quickly. But it was useless from the point of view of consultation. I do not know what has happened in Wales. I know that there has been no consultation in England.
  We have heard that the names of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland have not yet been announced. It is asking a good deal of this House to have confidence in the new body in Scotland if it has no idea who, apart from the chairman, will be on that body. We have seen some of the names for Wales. As far as I can tell—I am perfectly willing to admit that I may be wrong, and if so I shall apologise to those concerned—there is not in the Welsh list what one might call a practising nature conservationist. I know that there are still gaps and that this may be remedied. Perhaps we may be told that today too.
  There is the question of the appointment of the chief officers for all the councils. Is it true that the chief officer of the JNCC will be of a lower grade than the chief officers of the country councils? That is something we should have known and had a chance to talk about. If it is true, what will then be the status of the JNCC in relation to the other councils when it comes to interdepartmental discussions or inter-council discussions? Can the noble Baroness answer that question?
  Finally, last week the noble Baroness gave us the figures for expenditure. My noble friend referred to that matter but did not specifically ask a question. Will the capital costs of the new JNCC headquarters, if there is to be one, come out of the £10 million transitional costs or is there to be a new establishment for the JNCC? If so, where is it to be? That is also very important. Is it to be an offshore island of Scotland or Wales, or will it be somewhere everyone can reach? We know nothing about that.
  I am very dissatisfied with the answers we have received to a large number of questions. In Great Britain as a whole nature conservancy has been badly served by the Government's handling of this proposal. As my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, today we must pass the Bill: many of us will do so with a heavy heart.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will resist the amendment as so many other amendments have been resisted throughout the passage of the Bill. In the first stages amendments were designed to prevent the devolution of decision-making as regards conservation in Scotland

  1259
  and Wales. Later they were designed to try to frustrate the details. And now, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, there is a last-ditch amendment to delay the proposals.
  I know that noble Lords opposite are sincerely convinced—at least I take it they are—that this devolution of decision-making to Scotland and Wales will damage conservation in the United Kingdom. They tell us that, and they have a right to their opinion. However, I wish that they had consulted their Scottish colleagues: many are well versed in this matter. I do not know a single one who believes that it is a bad idea to devolve to Scotland and Wales that area of decision-making. Noble Lords opposite should try to understand that when they talk in a grandiose way of political devolution and how that will solve all the problems—the noble Lord, Lord Ross referred to this—one must first want decision-making locally where that is a good plan.
  Nature conservancy is an area ideally suited to devolution. It has close links with the devolution of decision-making already being carried out in Scotland and Wales covering access to countryside, preservation of the beauty of the countryside and so on.
  Mention has been made of 800,000 members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, many of them Scots. Anyone who has talked to Scottish members of the RSPB individually will find that their views are no different to those of other people living in Scotland who are not members of the society. They want what is best for nature conservancy.
  We need this measure; we need it urgently. I am convinced that there is no better way to improve nature conservancy and to kindle enthusiasm for it in Scotland—and, I am sure, in Wales—than devolving decision-making in the way proposed. That is good for nature conservancy in the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Oppositions have a duty to oppose. They have done that very effectively. They have examined this part of the Bill very closely; that is quite right. However, I beg your Lordships not to allow this measure to be delayed.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have had an important debate on a very important group of amendments. At Committee stage in July the then Minister my noble friend Lord Hesketh gave an undertaking to publish our proposals for implementing the Bill once it is enacted. That we shall do. Since then, however, our timetable for implementation has also become clearer and I hope that the following details will be helpful to your Lordships.
  I am pleased to say that the timetable for bringing into effect Part I of the Bill is quicker than that outlined in Amendments No. 2 and 40. Large combustion plant will indeed come under integrated pollution control from 1st April 1991. It is also correct, as the noble Lord's amendments state, that other categories of process will do so from 1st April 1992. But there is an important proviso in our
  1260
  implementation programme that all new processes and substantial changes to existing processes will also be brought within IPC from April 1991.
  Part I also covers local authority air pollution control. Our discussions with the local authority associations and professional institutions confirm that they are ready to begin implementing their new powers under Part I of the Bill from April 1991. Indeed, our implementation timetable would bring all processes for local authority control within the system by April 1992. Amendment No. 40 suggests that that should be the earliest start date. I cannot therefore accept Amendment No. 40 on which all the others in this grouping hinge.
  Amendment No. 5 would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to specify the date, or dates, on which he will direct every waste disposal authority in England and Wales to set up a LAWDC. Our intention is that, as provided for in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, the Secretary of State will first write to every disposal authority giving notice of his intention to direct. At this point he will be seeking the views of local authorities about whether they wish to set up a LAWDC or make alternative arrangements. It may be that some authorities do not wish to have a LAWDC and would rather privatise, or an authority may have already made alternative arrangements for the disposal of its waste. Only when those representations have been received and considered will the Secretary of State issue directions and then only in the case where an authority has not applied for an exemption.
  It must be right that those authorities which wish to make alternative arrangements should be given time to put them in place. The amount of time needed will be a matter for discussion. If the authorities do not make good progress the Secretary of State will however retain the option of directing them to set up a LAWDC. It is not our wish to impose unreasonable deadlines on authorities. Instead, we propose to work with them to establish individual timetables for the creation of LAWDCs, catering for their own circumstances.
  Part IV of the Bill is a little simpler. The Clause 89 duty, referred to in Amendment No. 23, will come into effect from 1st April 1991, along with most of the provisions of Part IV. The code of practice issued under Clause 89(7) will also take effect from that date. The duty and the provisions of the code would then apply to the public land of local authorities, the Crown, designated statutory undertakers, some other landowners, and the land of educational institutions.
  Orders may also be made to bring under the duty land of designated statutory undertakers to which the public does not have access. We intend to bring in railway embankments in urban areas, but not until 1st April 1992. There will be a separate category in the code for such embankments, which would also not apply until that date.
  We also wish Part V of the Bill to be implemented as soon as possible. Subsection (2) of Clause 162 provides that certain provisions—paragraphs 7, 13, 14 and 15 of Schedule 5—will come into force two

  1261
  months after Royal Assent, and it is our intention that the remaining provisions, with the exception of the charging scheme in Clause 101, will be implemented at the same time through the commencement order. The charging regime will come into effect on 1st April 1991 to coincide with the commencement of the financial year.
  We shall not be quite so quick in respect of Part VI of the Bill. This will be brought into effect by October 1991, fully in line with the requirements of the EC directives on which this part of the Bill is based.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving notice to me last week that he would be putting forward amendments to delay the implementation of Part VII of the Bill. Amendment No. 28, taken together with Amendment No. 40, would have the effect of delaying the implementation of the reorganisation proposals until ha April 1992. I have to say that the Government do not share the noble Lord's view that such a delay would be beneficial. We are convinced of the conservation benefits that will flow from these new arrangements and are eager to see them fully implemented as quickly as possible.
  We have spent a long time in this House considering this part of the Bill, and the Government have been at pains to take on board suggestions from your Lordships wherever possible. At the same time, a huge amount of effort has taken place outside this House to prepare for the implementation of this part of the Bill in April next year. A delay to April 1992 would destroy overnight much of that effort. The delay proposed by the amendment would have a major effect on staff. The Government have, from the outset, done all that they can to allay the fears of the staff about their future. For instance, very shortly after the initial announcement was made my noble friend Lord Hesketh gave an assurance, now enshrined in Clause 137 of the Bill, that all those staff employed by the existing agencies would be offered a job in one of the new agencies on terms no worse than they currently enjoy. A delay in implementation would have a deleterious effect on staff morale by creating a climate of uncertainty both about the future of the proposals and the effect on staff. The effect of the amendment would also be to cause delay and confusion in the work programmes of the NCC—the work to be taken over by the successor bodies and the new programmes those bodies wish to develop. I need hardly say that such delay and confusion would be to the detriment of nature conservation as a whole.
  The new agencies will be ready to take over their responsibilities from 1st April next year. Over the past 15 months the Government and the agencies concerned have undertaken a great deal of detailed work to ensure that the new agencies are up and running on 1st April. Working parties have been established in each of the three countries to take matters forward. A joint steering group had responsibility for directing the course of the working parties, monitoring progress and taking decisions where necessary. Priority was given to establishing agreed structures and organisations for the three new agencies. That has been done. Work is currently under
  1262
  way on the staff transfer schemes. I understand that details of placements have already been made available to staff on an informal basis.
  Much work has already been done. Following Royal Assent it is our intention to bring the new agencies into effect as soon as possible so that they can continue this work, and to ensure that they are in a position to assume their full responsibilities as from 1st April next year. No useful purpose would be served by delaying the implementation of these proposals until 1992; indeed, to do so would only lead to chaos or, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding so cloquently said, order, counter-order, disorder.
  I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he spoke to the amendment. It was much more his dislike of the Bill that motivated the amendments than sensible implementation of the changes.
  I shall return specifically to points raised in the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, strongly contested the assertion that there would be any improvement on the figure of £9.18 million being spent. There will be considerable improvement. The new agencies will be able to deliver conservation in a more effective and sensitive way. They will be attuned to local needs. Furthermore, the sum will allow more than 100 temporary posts at the NCC in the regions, mostly of the grass-roots kind, to be made permanent. That point was very eloquently made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, and reinforced by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. That too should make the services provided more effective.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to vacancies. He said that the proposals cannot go ahead because the vacancies will not be filled. There will be a number of vacant posts when the staff transfer schemes are agreed next month. That is natural as there will be more posts, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said. There will be several hundred more posts in the new agencies. It is our view that the five months that will elapse between Royal Assent and the implementation date is a good time for inroads to be made in making those posts available to the agencies.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ross, said that England would be the loser. I must rebut the assertion that the NCC in England will suffer. I believe the comment was made in reference to something said by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. The NCC's existing regional network in England will be retained intact, and indeed strengthened. We are allowing many temporary posts to be made permanent. The NCC in England will also have an excellent chairman in my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, a Member of this House, as well as other experienced and expert members. I announced the list of members last week, and the noble Lord should be impressed by it. England, like Scotland and Wales, will obtain a better and more sensitive service from the new agencies.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to the Inbucon Report. That report is the property of the NCC and therefore it is for the NCC to publish it. The noble Lord referred to the three tranches of £10

  1263
  million. We had no difficulty in agreeing the first and third tranches, but I must make clear that the middle tranche of £10 million was a subjective judgment of whether or not the NCC was properly funded. It related specifically to underfunding. I made the point that from the inception of the NCC, or from the time that the Government inherited the NCC, the annual grant was £8 million. It now stands at £44 million. That does not include the extra sum I made known to the House last week. We must recognise that sums of that kind are finite. Therefore, it must be a balanced judgment of any government as to how much money will be made available. We said that adequate funds will be made available.
  Lord Shackleton: My Lords, perhaps I could ask the noble Baroness whether the Inbucon Report will be made available.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the report is not the property of the Government; it is the property of the NCC. That is my understanding. If I am misleading the noble Lord in any way I shall write to him.
  Lord Shackleton: My Lords, does that mean that the Government will have no objection if the report is published?
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that must remain a matter for the NCC.
  My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding was absolutely right, especially regarding the increased capacity to cover UK and international work and Great Britain data needs through the JNCC. I remind the House that the JNCC will, for the first time, bring Northern Ireland into the equation. Northern Ireland will be represented on the JNCC and therefore UK nature conservation issues may be properly addressed by the JNCC.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is showing signs of frustration about receiving answers to her questions. She has received answers; I am sure that the noble Baroness is not satisfied with the answers, but the answers have nevertheless been given. Perhaps I could attempt an answer this afternoon. I promised before the debate that I would try to do that.
  The main reason for rejecting the federal idea referred to by the noble Baroness was that it failed to meet two criteria the Government had set for reform and which the Government believed to be important: first, clearer accountability to Ministers; and secondly, improved sensitivity to local circumstances. A federal model would still mean Peterborough in control thereby continuing to muddy the waters between the responsibilities of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. There would continue to be a strong feeling, particularly in Scotland but also in Wales, that people in those countries were not to be trusted with bodies to look after conservation in their own areas. That is a view we find both patronising and unjustified. For one moment of relief I recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and my
  1264
  noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. They firmly support the ability of Scotland to have a stronger say in its own affairs.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that he was surprised that we had made little progress. I am surprised that he should think that. The Government accepted virtually all the recommendations made in the Carver Report chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. We have said that many times during the debate. Not only did the Government take on board many of the report's recommendations; in the short period of my involvement with the Bill I believe that the Government have positively responded to many of the concerns raised by noble Lords.
  The final point I shall address—if I have missed any points I shall write to noble Lords—was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The noble Baroness was concerned about membership, and the particular skills the membership brings to the Welsh Conservancy Council. Virtually all the members announced so far have an interest in nature conservation, and some are employed in that field full-time. My understanding is that, for example, Miss Janet Barber, who is head of conservation for the Worldwide Fund for Nature, is to be a member of the NCC for England. That was one of the announcements I made last week.
  In regard to the chief executive, I understand that he or she will be appointed at a higher grade—the equivalent of Grade 4 in Civil Service terms. That is higher than envisaged in the Bloomfield Report because we are aware of the sensitivity of the work and the need for the postholder to act as a sort of head of science. We agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of this post for the JNCC. In other words, the post will be seen as a head of the science profession throughout the agencies. That answers, I believe, the point raised by the noble Baroness about the relationship of the post to other agencies.
  Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, that is an important statement in response to the point so ably put by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. It means that whoever is the chief executive of the JNCC will be appointed for his knowledge of science and that the JNCC will be involved in continuing scientific research for Great Britain as a whole. It will be a national role. Am I right in that assumption?
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's agreement on the importance of this post. The postholder will be more senior than the chief scientists in the agencies but less senior than the three chief executives. We believe that that is the right balance. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees.
  We have brought forward proposals of which we are proud to protect the environment. We wish to see the proposals implemented smoothly, effectively and quickly. I hope that this review of our implementation timetable is of assistance to noble Lords. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Baroness for the very comprehensive way in which she has responded not

  1265
  only to the amendments themselves but to the debate. However, I am bound to say, having listened carefully, that I am not convinced that a case has been made out against the amendment.
  Before dealing with contributions from noble Lords I owe the House an apology. Indeed, I probably owe an apology to the Government: they were possibly misled by the layout of the final Amendment No. 40. It is not that the wording was wrong but that the last phrase,
  "and subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) above different days may be appointed for different purposes"
  was supposed to be justified to the left-hand margin (which I believe is the technical term) and therefore, as it says, to refer to paragraphs (a) and (b). The importance of that is not that the wording is changed but that it becomes clearer that there is a great deal of flexibility left in our amendments. The only lack of flexibility, in effect, is the very limited flexibility in Claus, 2(1) in Part I and the lack of flexibility, on which of course we insist, in Clause 128(1) in Part VII.
  That should reassure the noble Lord, Earl Balfour, who seems to think that there is a necessary connection in the amendments between Part II and Part VII. There is not. The date in Part II is left open but the Secretary of State has to announce it within two months. I think that answers virtually all the points made by the noble Baroness when she gave the House worthwhile and welcome extra information about implementation dates; the point being that although the matter has to be addressed within two months there is flexibility for different days being appointed for different purposes.
  I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness say that she does not want to impose unreasonable deadlines on local authorities for the institution of local authority waste disposal companies. I have to say that that is rather like a deathbed conversion. The Government have been imposing unreasonable deadlines on local authorities ever since I have been involved with these matters in this House or in the local authority sphere. I can remember the deadlines imposed for compulsory competitive tendering last year and the previous year. At that time I would have welcomed the sort of statement from government Ministers that we have now heard.
  The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, disputed my argument that there could be lower standards of nature conservation in some parts of the country. He cannot deny that there will be different standards in different parts of the United Kingdom; otherwise there is hardly any point in devolving the powers to country agencies. The question of whether there will be lower standards of nature conservation in one part of the country or another is not proven. I do not believe anyone can say for certain that it will be the case. However, there is not much doubt that those who have been most strongly pressing for devolution to Scotland are also keen on land-owning interests and forestry interests. Let us come out into the open. There are many people in Scotland who would like to see
  1266
  nature conservation coming second to the interests of large-scale land holdings and to the interests of the forestry industry.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way on that point. What he says is simply not the case. People from all over Scotland have found it extremely difficult to have instructions emanating from Peterborough relating to the remote areas of Scotland and based on spasmodic visits to those parts; instructions which are based on a distant view and on theory rather than on understanding the problems of local people in Scotland. This is by no means a landowners' issue. It is a matter on which the people of Scotland feel very strongly indeed.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not deny that the noble Baroness talks to more individuals in Scotland than I do. That does not justify her claim to speak for the people of Scotland as a whole, which is what she did last week and has done again today. The fact is that however many people she may have spoken to individually and however conscientious she may be in doing so, the bodies concerned with nature conservation in Scotland have been almost unanimously opposed to these measures. To me, that is more convincing evidence than that produced by the noble Baroness.
  I come back to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. He rightly pointed to the fact that there will be more professional staff. The question that arises is not the number of professional staff, nor indeed the competence of professional staff—I am not in any way attacking the competence of the professional staff—but whether their remit and the objectives which they are set will enable them to work as effectively as they should be working; whether much of their time will be spent, as many believe, in negotiations between one country agency and another rather than in original work; and whether the bureaucracy, which everybody agrees will be added to the staff complement of the nature conservation business in this country, will in fact help to further the cause of nature conservation.
  There has to be a very good reason for spending £9.18 million on reorganisation and employing 274 extra staff. To say that some of them will be scientific staff rather than administrative staff does not detract significantly from the point of the argument. The argument for this rushed implementation will not stand up, and I am interested to see that the Minister has not given us any further information about the date proposed by the Government. The details have emerged at virtually the last stage of our consideration of the Bill. Therefore, I believe that the House should take a position on the matter.
  4.19 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall he agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 153.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Attlee, E.

  John-Mackie, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Birk, B.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Longford, E.

  Broadbridge, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  McNair, L.

  Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Carter, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Mulley, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  David, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Northfield, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Oram, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Peston, L.

  Ennals, L.

  Phillips, B.

  Ewart-Biggs, B.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Richard, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Fisher of Rednal, B.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Gallacher, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Ross of Newport, L. [Teller.]

  Gladwyn, L.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Serota, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  [Teller.]

  Stallard, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Grey, E.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Tordoff, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Varley, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Whaddon, L.

  Hunt, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Winstanley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Constantine of Stanmore, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Alport, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Astor, V.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Auckland, L.

  Dilhorne, V.

  Balfour, E.

  Eccles, V.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Beloff, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Elibank, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Elles, B.

  Blyth, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Boardman, L.

  Elliot of Morpeth, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Elton, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Flather, B.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Foley, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Brookes, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Byron, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Caldecote, V.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Haden-Guest, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

  Carnock, L.

  L.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Carver, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Havers, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Henley, L.

  Clitheroe, L.

  Hesketh, L.

  Colnbrook, L.

  Hives, L.

  1268

  Holderness, L.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Hood, V.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Hooper, B.

  Orkney, E.

  Hunter of Newington, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Pender, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Piatt of Writtle, B.

  King of Wartnaby, L.

  Porritt, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Pym, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Reay, L.

  Kitchener, E.

  Rees, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Renton, L.

  Layton, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Long, V.

  Ridley, V.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Lyell, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Lytton, E.

  St. Davids, V.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  St. John of Fawsley, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  MacLehose of Beoch, L.

  Seebohm, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Shannon, E.

  Mancroft, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Manton, L.

  Shaughnessy, L.

  Mar, C.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Margadale, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Marshall of Leeds, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Strange, B.

  Merrivale, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Mersey, V.

  Swinfen, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Terrington, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Tranmire, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Mountbatten of Burma, C.

  Ullswater, V.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Vinson, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Munster, E.

  Walpole, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Wise, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Wyatt of Weeford, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Young, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  4.27 p.m.
  Clause 14 [Prohibition notices]:
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 17, line 19, leave out ("exercise its powers") and insert ("perform its duties").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a short point and I hope that the Government will be favourably disposed towards it. Under certain circumstances there is a duty on the enforcing authorities to serve prohibition notices. The powers that are set out in Clause 14 merely represent subsidiary powers as far as that basic duty is concerned.
  At present the Secretary of State can give directions only to enforcing authorities concerning the exercise of their powers under Clause 14. Consequently the reference in the Bill to the word "powers" is wrong. Instead there should be reference to the word "duties". If that does not apply, then the Secretary of State will simply have no authority to direct the enforcing authorities to perform their duties to serve prohibition notices. I beg to move.
  Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the explanation he has given of this amendment. We agree that, because Clause 14 places a duty by the use of the word "shall"

  1269
  on an enforcing authority to serve a prohibition notice in the circumstances described at subsection (1), the reference to "powers" in subsection (4) is incorrect. In the circumstances, we are happy to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
  Clause 36 [Grant of licences]:
  Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 40, line 46, leave out ("or (6)") and insert (", (6) or (7)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple technical amendment, consequential on the amendments made in Committee which added the Nature Conservancy Council as a statutory consultee on waste licensing. The amendment adds a reference to the NCC in the subsection which allows 21 days for representations to be made. I commend the amendment to the House.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 42 [Supervision of licensed activities]:
  Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 46, line 35, at end insert:
  ("(1A) Where, at any time during the subsistence of a licence, if appears to the waste regulation authority that pollution of water is likely to be caused by the activities to which the licence relates, it shall be the duty of the authority to consult the National Rivers Authority as to the discharge by the authority of the duty imposed on it by subsection (1) above.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7, and with it goes Amendment No. 8 which is consequential. With these two amendments are grouped Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. Perhaps I may explain.
  The four amendments taken together fulfil the purpose of one amendment which I tabled in Committee. My concern and the concern of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell was, and is, that the National River's Authority should be made aware of any problems at landfill sites which might pollute water. In this country we have been very fortunate—or perhaps we have been quite vigilant—in that no major public water supply has been lost so far by contamination from waste sites. Of course, there have been various other causes of pollution, but that is another matter.
  The problems of long-term potential pollution from percolation from waste-filled sites will require continued vigilance by site operators and waste regulation authorities, so it is very important that the National Rivers Authority is brought into the process of co trot as soon as possible.
  My amendment in Committee identified that gap and inadequately tried to fill it. I was particularly concerned about potential pollution from closed landfill sites; my amendment would have required the WRA to inform the NRA where there was any possibility of pollution of water from such sites. I am pleased to say that the amendments now before us go even further. In the first place, what will now be
  1270
  required is consultation about the steps to be taken to deal with the problem, not merely that the NRA should be informed.
  I hope it is not putting the cart before the horse if I mention that the two later amendments, Nos. 14 and 15, deal with potential water pollution from closed landfill sites where there is no longer a licensee. But the first two amendments go further. They cover sites while they are still the subject of current licences. That would include closed landfills where the authority had not yet issued a certificate of completion that the site was safe and accepted the surrender of the licence, but it would also include any danger of pollution to water from current licensed waste activity not limited to landfill. So the whole thing is much broader than it was.
  At present, the duty on the WRAs in the Bill is to consult with the NRA about licensed sites only when a licence is issued or modified, but there could well be pollution where the answer was not a modification of the licence. So that gap is filled.
  Should any licensed activity seem likely to cause pollution of water, then it would be necessary for the WRA and the NRA to put their heads together as to what should be done.
  This series of amendments taken together—and I am afraid I have spoken to them collectively—therefore provides complete provision for statutory consultation between those two bodies in all circumstances in which there might be any threat to water from waste.
  If any noble Lord requires, I could go into more precise detail as to the effect of the amendments in reply to the debate, but I hope I have said enough to explain their purpose and their effect. Accordingly, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
  The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am always interested in the amendments that my noble friend Lord Renton puts down, and I feel that he gives a great deal of thought to them. I should be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says in respect of the amendments. If they are acceptable, would it be possible to include the river purification boards of Scotland as well?
  Lord Reay: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Renton has brought forward these amendments, for which he has given us a very full explanation.
  In offering the Government's support, I am redeeming a pledge which was given in Committee and repeated by my noble friend Lord Arran at Report stage on 10th October, col. 377 in Hansard. We agreed that the Bill should provide for waste regulation authorities to consult with the National Rivers Authority in cases where closed landfill sites might threaten water pollution.
  In fact, as my noble friend explained, the amendments before us now provide for consultation about sites in all cases where there might be any prospect of pollution of water by waste sites. This covers any case where there is still a licence and waste

  1271
  is still being treated or deposited, as well as sites where deposit has stopped, the licence has been surrendered and the site is closed.
  My noble friend Lord Balfour asked me a question, to which I understand the answer is "Yes". I am sure that this important safeguard will be welcome to your Lordships' House, and I commend the amendments to your Lordships.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 46, line 36, leave out ("that duty") and insert ("the duty imposed on it by subsection (1) above.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 48 [Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected]:
  Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 54, line 19, leave out ("does") and insert ("shall").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
  Here we come back to the question of local authorities who have made remarkable progress—and there are a number of them—in stimulating reclamation and recycling. In this part of the Bill we are concerned to see that waste should be properly handled and wherever possible sorted and recycled.
  Having looked carefully not only at this Bill and its provisions but also at the Government's White Paper on the whole issue, I must say that I have come to the conclusion that there is positive encouragement to local authorities as well as to other organisations and enterprises to join in this endeavour.
  What has created the concern of boroughs like Richmond-upon-Thames is the fact that, under the provisions of the Bill, if they were to become waste disposal authorities as well as being waste collection authorities, they would have to cease doing some or all of the desirable things that they now do. That certainly seems to be a step backward. When we debated the issue at a previous stage, I was glad to note that there was considerable support from both sides of the House to rectify that apparent anomaly.
  Since then, I have received a most helpful letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I hope that she will allow me to refer to it because it gives me the impression that there may be ways in which local authorities which are disposal authorities and have already made progress in that area could continue to undertake some or all of those current activities. I should be much obliged if she would elucidate that point when she replies. There is a little uncertainty in what she said in the letter because she referred to the fact that the restriction on their activities in that regard could be limited to heavier types of equipment. The Bill does not make a distinction between types of equipment, so I should be glad if she would explain that point too.
  Richmond is concerned and somewhat demoralised about those possible developments. It has it in mind to continue on the good path along which it is going.
  1272
  Having already established many collecting centres for different kinds of waste—bottle banks and other kinds of banks—it now proposes to develop a major recycling centre, to allocate greater space to the provision of equipment for recycling and to investigate other recyclable materials in addition to the half dozen which it already recycles—a most commendable continuing initiative. I therefore hope that, when the noble Baroness replies, she will be able to indicate that, even if it becomes a waste disposal authority, it will be able to continue more or less unimpaired in those directions.
  However, as I understand it, there is the possibility that the borough may not be designated a waste disposal authority and that the West London Waste Authority may well continue. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness would indicate whether that will be the case, because that would resolve this issue, although it would not resolve the issue of principle.
  The proposition in Amendment No. 11, which is being taken with this group of amendments, is that, because of the importance of not discouraging any local authority or any other body or enterprise in this country from engaging in effective recycling, the provisions of Clause 48(7), which would debar the disposal authorities from some of those activities, should be deferred for five years. During that period they should continue to develop those desirable activities and at the end we could find some way in which they might be merged progressively with those of others or perhaps continued for a longer period.
  I therefore strongly commend to your Lordships the principles underlying the amendment on this basic issue. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to encourage effective reclamation and recycling wherever and by whomever it is done. The Government recognise that boroughs such as Richmond-upon-Thames have succeeded admirably in that endeavour. We must find a way round the difficulties which certain clauses of the Bill seem to present in their continuing in that direction. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I feel some concern about this amendment because Clause 48(6) states:
  "A waste collection authority may, subject to subsection (7) below, provide plant and equipment",
  whereas Clause 48(7) states:
  "Subsection (6) above does not apply to an authority which is also a waste disposal authority".
  If the phrase used is "shall not", I believe that it will mislead. Equally, as Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are grouped together, I believe that Amendment No. 11 should come before Amendment No. 10.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to add my support to this amendment which bears my name as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was good enough to send me a copy of her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. However, I was not at all convinced by the case that she put for the Government's

  1273
  proposals, although I understand that her personal predilection would be for the recycling activities of those councils to continue.
  Understanding the letter of the noble Baroness was not made any easier by the fact that it refers in three places to Clause 47 when I believe that it should refer to Clause 48. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the use in the letter of the phrase "heavier equipment" which is not repeated in the Bill. The Bill refers to plant and equipment used for the sorting and baling of waste. There is no dispensation for equipment, whether it is light, heavy or anything else. That point must be explained with regard to the relationship between the letter and the Bill.
  Of more substantial importance is the reassurance given in the letter that Richmond will be able to continue using bottle banks. It is not just a matter of bottle banks. My borough, Haringey, has sites for the collection of office waste paper, as I think do many other boroughs. This is not at all a party matter. Boroughs of all political shades attempt to do the same thing nowadays. These are generally recognised to be useful recycling activities which local authorities can undertake but which will not make money. That is the most important point. If it is suggested that, as a result of the Bill, they will have to go over to an outside contractor, whether it is a privatised contractor or a waste disposal company, there will be a complicated financial relationship between the local authority, which has in the past been willing to put money into recycling activities, and the contractor, who has to make money out of his contract. Despite everything that the Government have said, it still therefore appears that their action to take away the recycling powers of authorities which are both collection and disposal authorities cannot be justified. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is exactly right in the conclusions that he draws from that.
  Neither am I reassured by the Government's undertaking to reconsider the abolition of the statutory waste disposal authorities. That may well be a welcome concession and it may well be that the boroughs and the statutory waste disposal authorities will want to take it up, but we do not know that and it is not in the Bill. If the statutory waste authorities are to be dismantled, the undesirable effects of the Bill, if it is not amended, will continue to be felt.
  We need much more assurance than we have been given by the Government. If we are not to pursue the amendments, we must be told categorically that London boroughs such as Richmond and boroughs throughout the country which will become collection and disposal authorities will continue to have the right to carry out the valuable recycling activities that they do at present. Failing that, I do not think that the Government's words match up to their deeds.
  Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 to Clause 48(7) are intended to allow those authorities which are both collection and disposal authorities a period of grace of five years before new arrangements for the provision of baling and sorting equipment must be made. We debated this matter on Report in the course of our discussions on an
  1274
  amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I am aware that there remains a great deal of confusion in the minds of authorities on the effects of the provisions in the Bill concerning powers to provide equipment for recycling. I am therefore pleased to have this further opportunity to try to clarify the position.
  There is a restriction in Clause 48(7) on those authorities which are both collection and disposal authorities. These are authorities in Wales and districts in some of the metropolitan areas of England. The restriction is that such authorities may not themselves provide plant and equipment for the sorting and baling of waste that they retain for recycling, but they may arrange for its provision with a contractor. The restriction applies only to plant for sorting and baling of waste. It does not apply to the provision of receptacles to collect the waste for recycling, such as bottle banks or the range of other recycling banks that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, described to your Lordships' House as being provided by Richmond.
  Further, there are two ways in which such an authority can arrange for the provision of that equipment which it is, itself, prevented from providing. As a disposal authority, the authority may arrange for whichever contractor is engaged to dispose of or recycle its waste to provide this plant in the course of its contract. Alternatively, the authority may apply to the Secretary of State, in the course of the submission on its plans to set up a LAWDC or to privatise its operations, for his agreement to the authority keeping the ownership of such plant and equipment and letting management contracts to run it. Therefore, perhaps I may stress that there are no restrictions on the provisions of receptacles for recycling. There are restrictions on the provision of heavier equipment to sort and bale waste for recycling, but there need be no difficulty in arranging for this to be provided by the private sector or operated by the private sector under management contract.
  I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whether Richmond would become a waste disposal authority. When the Government first consulted on the proposals for creating LAWDCs, it was proposed that the four statutory disposal authorities in London would be abolished—one of which covers Richmond —because the main point of their function would be transferred to the LAWDC. However, we received representations from the authorities concerned that they' would nevertheless have a useful role to play and that they should not be abolished. We have therefore agreed to reconsider the case for each of the authorities to remain in being when the Secretary of State considers the authorities' proposals to create LAWDCs or to privatise their operations. Whether it remains sensible to retain the authorities will depend to a significant extent on the plans for the operational work and the role that the remaining authorities would play. We do not have a closed mind on the matter. We shall reach a decision in consultation with the authorities concerned and their constituent boroughs.

  1275
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked me about sites for collection of waste paper. My understanding is that these will not be affected: boroughs can still provide any equipment for the separate collection of waste for recycling. He also raised the issue as to whether recycling would survive if it depended on the contractor to decide whether to provide the equipment. Such a decision will not be taken by the contractor. The waste disposal authority will be the contractor's customer and as such that authority will ask the contractor to provide the equipment at his site. The authority will continue to pay the contractor directly for those services it wishes him to provide. Therefore it will not be a matter of the contractor having to make recycling profitable. So provision of such facilities through the private sector should not affect the viability of recycling. My noble friend Lord Balfour asked a question about the wording in this connection. My understanding is that it would make no difference. Therefore, his suggestion is unnecessary.
  I hope that what I have said will assist your Lordships and the authorities and that it will help dispel the fears surrounding these provisions. We cannot accept the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord which would delay the introduction of the Bill's provisions for five years. I also hope that I have said enough to reassure your Lordships that the fears of the authorities on this matter are not in our view well founded. We are convinced that there is no threat in these provisions to the provision of recycling facilities by any authority. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
  Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the very full answer he has just given. I am to some degree reassured by the fact that, as the Government see it, there is greater flexibility in these provisions than might have appeared to be the case from a simple reading of the Bill. In addition, it is in the power of the Government to apply those provisions flexibly. I hope that they will do so.
  I am encouraged by the fact that the Government have said that they do not in any way want to impede measures already taken, or clearly about to be taken, to improve the whole question of reclamation and recycling. Without any question, we would have preferred that the prohibition contained in Clause 48(7) should not be there or, if it is there, that a longer period of time should be given. However, we divided on this issue on Report and I do not propose to put it to the House again. I merely wish to repeat my request to the Government that they do not in any way discourage these very real and successful efforts made by many authorities in the matter of recycling. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
  Clause 54 [Special provisions for land occupied by disposal authorities: Scotland]:
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 62, leave out lines 22 to 27 and insert ("if the requirements of subsection (2A) below are satisfied.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. At the beginning of my remarks I feel that I should point out to your Lordships that there is a printing error in the Marshalled List. On page 3 at line 1 it reads:
  "(b) by another person, that it is with the current of the waste disposal authority".
  The word "current" should be substituted by the word "consent", so that the line will read:
  "by another person, that it is with the consent of the waste disposal authority".
  Amendment No. 12 is a paving amendment for the following amendment (Amendment No. 13) and I shall, therefore, address my remarks to it. It follows from the interesting discussion we had during the Report stage on the position in Scotland. Noble Lords may remember that my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Balfour supported me in my suggestion that the difference was not sustainable. The Minister at that time, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, said that he would consider what had been said and offered the opportunity for discussions. It is in the light of those discussions—for which I thank him and his officials —that I have tabled these amendments.
  The major point of concern is that in Scotland local authority operations will not be subject to waste management licensing. The implications of this are far reaching. For example, there will be no requirement that an incinerator or a landfill site, run by a local authority in Scotland, should be managed by a "fit and proper" person. Moreover, if that management pollutes the environment, whether through neglect or misadventure, no criminal offence is committed. That position is unique. It contrasts with every other waste disposal operation in Great Britain, whether private or public.
  During the discussions to which I referred, we were not able to see entirely eye to eye on two issues. Therefore the amendment does not—nor, indeed, could it—completely close the loophole which I have mentioned. For example, the amendment does not require that the management has to be technically competent or fit and proper. Similarly, it does not address the other issue that there will be no inspection or monitoring of costs for Scottish local authority facilities; nor will financial provision have to be made for long-term pollution control. Despite not having to meet those costs, under the terms and provisions of Clause 45 local authorities will nevertheless be able to compete with the private sector—which will have to bear all the costs. I understand that my noble friend Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne will be responding to this amendment. I hope that he will be able to address a few of his remarks to those two points and that he will be able to give me some assurances.
  Amendment No. 13 provides that immunity from prosecution will arise only where a council resolution

  1277
  authorising the deposit of waste has suitable conditions and those conditions have been complied with. It means that the council resolution will have some of the force of a waste management licence which would bring it into line with the regime that is to operate in England and Wales. I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has gone a long way towards meeting one of the defects that he had pointed out. I hope that the Government will look upon the amendment with some sympathy.
  The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for their contributions to the debate. Local authority disposal operations will not be subject to the licensing provisions of the Bill. They will however be subject to a separate system of controls under Clause 54. Those controls are similar to the licensing controls. They are adapted to reflect the different status of the authorities. Let me assure your Lordships that the Bill provides a formidable array of controls. Moreover, it is neither practical nor desirable to specify everything on the face of the Bill. I am sure that some of your Lordships believe that the Bill is long enough as it stands.
  It should be clear from what I have said that authorities will face substantial inspection and monitoring costs in respect of their own sites and will need the expertise to satisfy the requirements of other specialist interests—planning, nature conservation, water quality and health. My noble friend Lord Lucas has misjudged the attitudes of local authorities. My experience of them leads me to doubt whether any of them would prefer to pass their costs on to the community charge payers who elect them rather than to the waste producers. However, I can assure my noble friend that as we implement the Bill we shall bear in mind the need to ensure that the full costs of collection and disposal will be charged for industrial and commercial waste and that the management of all local authority sites is in the hands of fit and proper persons.
  One thing that we cannot do by regulations is to create a criminal offence. I am willing to accept my noble friend's amendments on that point. The absence of a criminal offence was intentional, as the usual way of dealing with local authorities which fail in their duties is through the default procedures under the Local Government Acts. However, there are precedents for a criminal offence to apply to local authorities and the possibility of prosecution will provide another weapon in the armoury against pollution from disposal operations.
  To prevent the House forming a misleading impression of local authorities' competence and diligence in this field I should like to stress two points. First, the Hazardous Waste Inspectorate reports that the worst-run sites in Scotland—as well as the best —are in private hands. There is a general need to raise standards, but local authorities are certainly not the main laggards in that respect. Secondly, local
  1278
  authorities are in practice well aware of the costs of running their own disposal operations and are increasingly entering into contracts with private companies to take their waste. The confidence of the private sector in Scotland in its own future is illustrated by the fact that one of the largest landfill sites in Europe was opened recently near Glasgow. I am glad to assure the House that that site is designed to the highest standards. Over the past four years the proportion of municipal waste going to private sites has grown from about 7 per cent. to about 20 per cent. and there is no reason to suppose that that trend will not continue. In the light of what I have said, I am happy to accept the amendments.
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for his support and I am rather more grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his acceptance of them. I was glad to hear what he had to say about the cost implications and the technical competence of those employed in waste disposal activities within the local authority. I am sure that that information will be broadcast widely. I accept, as he does, that there is always a need to raise standards whether in the public or private sector. The amendment will help to do that in Scotland.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 62, line 40, at end insert:
  ("(2A) The requirements mentioned in subsection (1) above are, where the deposit is made, or the treating, keeping or disposing is carried out—

  (a) by the waste disposal authority that, as respects the land or as the case may be the mobile plant, conditions have been specified by the waste regulation authority by virtue of subsection (2) (b) above and (in so far as current) are complied with;

  (b) by another person, that it is with the consent of the waste disposal authority and in accordance with any conditions to which the consent is subject.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 61 [Duty of waste regulation authorities as respects closed landfills]:
  Lord Renton moved Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 69, line 33, at end insert:
  ("(4A) Where, at any time during the period of its responsibility for any land, it appears to a waste regulation authority that the condition of the land is, by reason of the relevant matters affecting the land, such that pollution of water is likely to be caused, it shall be the duty of the authority to consult the National Rivers Authority as to the discharge by the authority of the duty imposed on it in relation to the land by subsection (6) below.")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 69, line 35, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("subsections (4) and (4A)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 82 [Summary proceedings by persons aggrieved by statutory nuisances]:
  Lord Byron Lord Byron moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 92, line 9, at end insert ("and may also impose on the defendant a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, an identical amendment was brought before your Lordships' House on Report, although not moved following an indication from the Minister that she would reconsider the point. Clause 82 deals with summary proceedings for statutory nuisances brought by individuals. It replaces Section 99 of the Public Health Act 1936. Section 99 is used regularly by tenants of private and public landlords to tackle housing conditions which are so poor as to make them prejudicial to the health of those tenants and their families.
  Where a landlord is convicted of an offence under that section, the court may, and in most cases will, award compensation to the tenant for any personal injury, loss or damage caused by the offence. The magistrates will also order necessary work to be done. As drafted, the Bill will replace the current criminal procedure with a civil one, although still in the magistrates' court. No offence will be committed until a nuisance order made by the court has been breached, which issue will be determined by a second, later hearing. The power to award compensation to tenants will therefore be severely limited.
  The purpose of the amendment is to restore the current power in relation to proceedings brought by individuals where, by Sections 99 and 94 of the 1936 Act, the existence of a statutory nuisance amounts to an offence and a court may fine a defendant and make an award of compensation in favour of the tenant under Section 35 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. The amendment will reproduce those arrangements in the Bill. Thus, under Clause 81, where the court is satisfied that a nuisance exists, the court shall make an order and, if the amendment is accepted, may impose a fine. The court may also in those circumstances make an award of compensation in favour of the tenant under Section 35 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act. That is possible only if, as is currently the case, a criminal offence has been committed.
  It is the power to award compensation which will be lost, or at least substantially diminished, unless the amendment is accepted. There is no doubt that as the law stands at present the nature of proceedings under Section 99 is criminal and the offence is that of permitting the nuisance to exist. Magistrates' courts throughout England and Wales, especially in the metropolitan areas, are familiar with the criminal proceedings brought by individuals under Section 99 and would similarly be able to apply the law as set out in Clause 82 if the amendment were accepted.
  The issue raised by the amendment is of great importance to tenants and other individual occupiers. Under the present arrangement, where a defendant is convicted in proceedings brought under Section 99 of the 1936 Act, the power to award compensation is used widely by the courts. In many of the busy magistrates' courts in metropolitan areas it is now common for awards of between £1,500 and £2,000 to be made in favour of individuals aggrieved by nuisance.
  As presently drafted, the clause will reduce substantially the sums available for compensation in the event of the court choosing to exercise its discretion. This is because no offence is committed other than under Clause 81(5) where a nuisance order made at the first hearing has been breached and a tenant has proved the breach at the second subsequent hearing, once the time allowed for the work has expired. The time usually available for works in nuisance orders currently made depends on the nature of the works ordered. It could perhaps be eight weeks if the works are simple and up to six months for substantial works. The tenant having brought the matter back to court, there may be conviction at the second hearing. The individual may then seek to persuade the court to exercise its discretion to make an award of compensation in his favour.
  However, in contrast to the present arrangements, the courts can have in mind only any personal injury, loss or damage flowing from the offence: that is, any such loss occurring as a result of the breach of the order. The court will have no choice about that. It will be unlawful to relate an award of compensation to any period of time before the commission of the offence. Evidence relating to injury and loss during the period before conviction in which the premises are prejudicial to health and nuisance will be inadmissible.
  There are other reasons for and other major advantages to the present criminal process. Briefly, these are that the conviction and the discretion of the court to impose a fine allows the court to show its disapproval to the community. Further, landlords who allow premises to become dangerously unhealthy —and unhappily this also includes landlords in the public sector—take criminal proceedings seriously. The response to what is initially a civil claim may simply be to treat the matter as a commercial risk.
  Finally, the powers to fine and make an award of compensation are entirely discretionary. It is therefore hard to identify any objection in principle to the amendment. Furthermore—and perhaps the most powerful point—there is no case for a change in the law. Proceedings by individuals for statutory nuisance have been criminal in nature for over 50 years. Lawyers, advisers and all other organisations involved in this type of matter all favour the retention of the existing criminal procedures. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish to add my support to the amendment, to which I have been pleased to put my name. Perhaps I may make it clear that in this matter, as in so many others, we are concerned that all landlords should behave responsibly to their tenants. That includes both public and private sector landlords. If frequently in this House I represent the views of local authorities and local authority associations, let it not be thought that I support the views of those local authorities which fall down on their responsibilities to provide decent conditions in public sector housing.
  I have been impressed by the number of people active in housing, housing law and tenancy law who have written to me expressing the view that the decriminalisation—to use an unpleasant word—of the

  1281
  Public Health Act 1936 was undesirable. I say that in full recognition of the way in which the Government have acceded to our other proposals in this part of the Bill. The Government have accepted that there should be a reasonable period of notice to a local authority or landlord when proceedings are started under this part of the Bill. They have also conceded the important point that if the nuisance is proved, the costs should necessarily be awarded to the applicant.
  The Government having made those concessions, it is difficult to see why they now resist this concession or rather this continuation of existing tenants' rights. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byron, that it is difficult to see why the courts should have authority to award compensation for acts after the issuing of an order, but not for the earlier period when the nuisance was taking place.
  Not am I impressed by the Government's arguments that they have not had time to think about the ramifications—that is the word used in the Minister's letter to the noble Lord, Lord Byron—for other types of nuisance. In her letter, of which she was good enough to send me a copy, the Minister cites the report of the working party on noise which came out last Thursday. I have never seen a report of a working party acted on so rapidly as is now proposed. The Minister says that because the noise review working party said that the making of a noise should not be a criminal offence, therefore the amendment should be withdrawn. If only the Minister would undertake to act as rapidly on all other working party reports, then perhaps we would consider withdrawing the amendment.
  However, these ramifications are not the particular concern of these amendments, which are designed to restore rights under the 1936 Act which worked. It would be a great shame from the tenants' point of view if those rights were taken away.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I too wish to support the amendment for the reasons which have been given. Those reasons are so strong that I have an instinctive feeling that my noble friend Lady Blatch will accept the amendment. If that happens, we can then be delighted that the first attempt to improve government legislation by my noble friend Lord Byron since he joined these Benches will have succeeded.
  If the Minister accepts the amendment one should also take note that it will be the fifth Back-Bench amendment in succession that the Government have accepted. That too is a matter for pleasure and congratulations.
  Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Renton, believes that we have to cross the Floor of the House to get our amendments accepted, I am afraid that he will be disappointed. I too wish to support the amendment. I, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, believed that the Government had covered these points. I received many letters, as he did. I cannot believe that the Law Society would issue a press release, as it did funnily enough just after midnight on Sunday. I did not know that the Law
  1282
  Society issued press releases on a Sunday. I do not believe that a noble body like the Law Society would issue such a press release if it were not concerned about the situation that would obtain if the amendment were not accepted. Therefore I hope it will be.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I undertook at Report stage to take Amendment No. 162A back and to reconsider it. If I have correctly understood the position, this amendment would make the mere creation of a statutory nuisance an offence where the magistrates' court so directs. I understand that this is how the courts in practice currently interpret the existing legislation in the Public Health Act 1936. I also understand that this interpretation of the existing law carries with it implications for the court's powers to award compensation under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.
  One difficulty the Government have had over accepting this amendment is that it would introduce a criminal penalty provision into Clause 82 when the offence to which it relates is not defined at all. There is another aspect of the matter which has caused us some hesitation. I understand that my noble friend's amendment is aimed particularly at the case of housing tenants who take action under Clause 82. However, Clause 82 enables private individuals to take action in respect of any of the forms of statutory nuisance mentioned in Clause 79(1). To make the creation of a nuisance an offence in itself could have implications for other noise nuisances which ideally we should like time to consider a little more fully.
  My noble friend asks to have reinstated in the Bill rights to compensation which private individuals who take direct action in the courts at present have under the procedures in the Public Health Act 1936. We have listened to the Law Society's case and we are aware of the concern of Shelter, the national campaign for the homeless. I am pleased to say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I can act rapidly in any direction he wishes on this amendment. I have also listened to the cogent case put by my noble friends and I am more than pleased to accept the amendment.
  Lord Byron: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the way she has accepted this amendment and for the time and trouble she has taken over this part of the Bill, to which a number of other amendments have been tabled, some of which have been accepted. This part of the Bill has been brought closer in line with the Public Health Act 1936.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was minded to accept Amendment No. 17.
  Clause 86 [Preliminary]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 96, line 12, leave out ("Her Majesty") and insert ("the Crown Estate Commissioners").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to Clause 86 to put beyond doubt that the litter duty will apply to the Crown

  1283
  Estate Commissioners. Without it there could be uncertainty as to the meaning of land occupied by Her Majesty as part of the Crown estate.
  It is possible that the Bill as drafted would not extend the duty to keep land clear of litter and refuse to land which is vested in the Crown but managed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. This would be an omission. The Government's clear intention is that the duty should apply to Crown land, including land forming the Crown estate and managed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. This amendment removes any possible uncertainty by referring to occupation by the Crown Estate Commissioners. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 89 [Duty to keep land and highways clear of litter etc.]:
  Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 100, line 29, after ("land") insert (", in particular in residential and shopping areas and public parks,").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 20. My noble friend appears to be in a mood to be kind and understanding to amendments moved by noble Lords on the Back Benches. Therefore I express the hope that her mood may continue in considering my amendment. I should apologise to my noble friend in that I intended and tried to move these amendments on Report so that if any tidying up were necessary it could be done on Third Reading. I regret very much and apologise for the fact that I was unable to attend the Report stage of this Bill. Therefore I return to these amendments rather late.
  Your Lordships may recall that in Committee I moved a similar amendment to Amendment No. 20. I should add that Amendment No. 20 is entirely consequential to and dependent on Amendment No. 19. I said in Committee that I found the reply that my noble friend Lord Reay gave less than satisfactory. I said that I wanted to have time to consider what had been said and to return to the matter. That is what I am now doing.
  I do not want to explain yet again what is meant by Amendment No. 20. It suffices to say that I feel strongly that when we pass laws in Parliament we should try to make them as clear and as concise as possible. The words,
  "so far as is practicable",
  leave enormous loopholes as regards people who may have committed an offence. The words allow the people defending the offenders to get the offenders off the hook. The word "practicable" can have a wide interpretation. The difficulty that I faced in Committee was the term "practicable" in connection with the clearance of rubbish on major trunk roads, motorways and other such places. My noble friend said at the time that it would be unreasonable to exclude the words.
  "so far as is practicable",
  1284
  because it is obviously not always practicable for local authorities and people who are in charge of litter clearance operations to carry out their duties in such busy locations.
  I considered whether we could clear the matter up by trying to define a specific area where there is an absolute duty for the occupier of the land or the local authority to keep it clear and free of litter and rubbish. The example I mention in this connection, which occurs particularly in London—I have no doubt it occurs in many other cities too —is that of black rubbish bags being dumped on the pavement and left for unacceptably long periods of time, particularly over weekends. That practice must be unacceptable. It is certainly unsightly.
  In Committee, my noble friend agreed with me when he said:
  "As for the scourge of black bin bags, I can assure my noble friend that I share his disgust that all too often an otherwise clean and tidy street is reduced to squalor by their presence".—[Official Report, 27/6/90; col. 1684.]
  That is exactly the situation that Amendment No. 20 seeks to avoid. Amendment No. 19 seeks to identify the practical area where the terms of Amendment No. 20 can be applied; namely,
  "residential and shopping areas and public parks".
  I believe the terms of the amendment are entirely logical. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some assurance that my suggestion is acceptable. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble friend that the priority for litter clearance should be set on the face of the Bill. That is the only difference between us on this matter. This is a matter for the code of practice. But I am pleased to inform him that the code will make clear that the areas most heavily used and most prone to litter, such as shopping centres, central parks and high density residential areas, will need to be cleared more quickly than other areas. I hope that this will reassure my noble friend that we have the problem under control. I am grateful that he has accepted that there will be occasions when it will just not be practicable for motorways and other highways to be cleaned, which was the subject of his earlier amendments in Committee, but I believe that the concept of practicability must be applied to all aspects of the duty.
  It is possible that the courts would interpret the duty to clear litter and refuse from land as being subject to the test of practicability. However, it is necessary to put this point beyond doubt by including these words in the Bill. The legislation must be seen to impose reasonable duties. We do not wish to see numbers of cases come before the courts which stand no chance of success. Just as the courts would consider practicability without the inclusion of a specific reference to this point, they would also come to a judgment as to whether an authority under the duty was hiding behind the term, "so far as is practicable". Duty authorities will not be able to use this as a defence for any laggardliness in carrying out their responsibilities.

  1285
  I hope that my noble friend is reassured by my comments. We wish to achieve the objectives behind the amendments and we intend to do so by regulations. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I understand and agree to a considerable extent with the points that my noble friend made. I only hope that if when the Bill becomes law Members of your Lordships' House, Members of another place or members of the public find that the amount of litter on our streets increases or rubbish bags are left lying around all over the place they will draw it to the attention of the appropriate authorities. If someone has to be taken to task for that, I hope the appropriate authorities will, in taking the person to task, be armed with a copy of today's Hansard and my noble friend's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
  Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 101, line 19, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59. These are technical amendments. Without them the drafting of the Bill would be defective. We had anticipated that the ex sting Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 would be replaced prior to this Bill being approved. However, the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill which would have altered the 1984 Act was objected to when it returned to the other place for consideration and has now fallen. Therefore it is necessary for the Bill to reflect the existing provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page. 101, line 24, at end insert:
  ("(7 A) Any code of practice prepared and issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (7) above shall include guidance on—

  (a) liaison between local authorities and highway or roads authorities to promote the prompt discharge of litter clearance duties, and

  (b) the clearance of litter resting on or in any hedge, tree or shrub where the highway or roads authority or its agent exercises its powers to cut, lop or fell it where it endangers or obstructs the passage of vehicles or pedestrians.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to the question of keeping our roads and roadsides tidy. Unless that is done, our countryside will never be clean and tidy. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to tell your Lordships that the code of practice will state clearly that when a highway authority cuts the verge it will be under a duty to do so in co-operation with the litter authority so that the rubbish exposed by such cutting is cleared up. At the moment the highway authority often cuts verges without considering the difficult position in which that
  1286
  puts the litter authority whose duty it will be to clear up the litter. I fear that there is a certain element of "I'm all right, Jack" here.
  The second issue raised in paragraph (b) of the amendment deals with the problem of rubbish exposed when the highway authority cuts more than the verge under its duty to maintain a safe highway. On many occasions, I fear, highway authorities do so with excessive zeal, to the detriment of wild flowers which are destroyed by excessive cutting. I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm that the code of practice will state that all areas adjoining the highway that are cut by the highway authority will be kept clean by the litter authority.
  If my noble friend can say that that will be the case I hope that the Minister will tell the House what the public can do to encourage the litter authority to tidy up roads and verges. I am afraid that in my area writing to the county clerk is an unproductive occupation.
  Once again, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for writing to me since Report stage. I hope that she or my noble friend Lord Reay will be able to spell out to the House the contents of that letter. I beg to move.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanley has shown me the Minister's letter to him on the subject. It is certainly encouraging and interesting. Can my noble friend Lord Reay say whether it would be possible for the code of practice to suggest that local authorities have a standing arrangement, rather than a one-off arrangement, on co-operating on grass cutting and the collection of rubbish and whether the existence of that arrangement could be made known to the public? My noble friend Lord Stanley asked how the public would know how they could help. It seems to me that if that arrangement was known to the public they would be able to alert the authorities if the arrangement was not being put into effect. Have those possibilities been considered?
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanley has touched on a subject which is very dear to my heart—the conservation of wild flowers on roadside verges and the cutting and keeping clean of those verges. Many years ago when I was on the other side of your Lordships' House I raised the point but I have not had an opportunity to do so since. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, who was sitting on the Front Bench on that occasion, was overheard to say in rather too loud a voice, "My noble friend rather likes his partridges". That may be true; there is nothing nicer than an English partridge, whether one goes after them for sport or just likes to see them.
  With today's modern farming methods it is important that we should try to conserve areas for insects and grubs on which not only partridges but many other birds feed. Perhaps it could be suggested in the code of practice that local authorities should refrain from cutting roadside verges until later in the

  1287
  year instead of early spring since that would help to preserve wildlife. I hope that my noble friend can take that point on board.
  Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I admire the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for his campaign and I sympathise with the amendment, although not necessarily from a rural point of view. Some of our major motorways could have very beautiful verges. However, it has often struck me that someone arriving in this country at Heathrow and driving along the M.4 will have a rather unfortunate view of England because of the state of the verges. The North Circular Road is even worse than the motorways.
  Someone has to be responsible, and it is significant that a number of local authorities do the job so much better than others. Is there some way that we can bring the matter home to the local authorities? It is not much good trying to work on the motorists because they are the people who throw the litter on to the roads. There is no doubt that the verges could and should be things of beauty; sadly, at the moment, they are not.
  Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 would require the Secretary of State to include advice in the code of practice on the possibility of a liaison between local authorities and highway or roads authorities to encourage the prompt discharge of litter clearance duties.
  I hope that my noble friend Lord Stanley will have been reassured by the contents of the letter which my noble friend Lady Blatch sent him last week on this point. The separation of grass cutting and litter clearance duties between highway authorities and local authorities was an issue which my noble friend highlighted at Report stage. We agree that this is an issue which needs to be addressed, and I am pleased to be able to inform noble Lords that, as a result of my noble friend's representations, the code will now include guidance that authorities should do whatever is practicable to co-ordinate those activities. The arrangements that could be made would not exclude the standing arrangements which my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour asked for.
  The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to include guidance to highway or roads authorities to clear litter from any hedge, tree or shrub, when they exercise their powers to clear the highway from any hedge, tree or shrub which is causing an obstruction.
  We understand the point raised by my noble friend but we do not believe that we need be quite as specific in the code as he suggests. Under the litter duty local authorities will already be responsible for the clearance of litter from any hedge, tree or shrub which falls within the highway boundary. The code will also encourage local authorities to make arrangements to remove litter from any hedge or fence adjacent to a highway where it is accessible and visible from the highway—a point which I am sure that my noble friend will be pleased to see included given the concerns that he has expressed.
  1288
  Since we are already encouraging authorities under the litter duty to co-ordinate their activities with grass cutting by highway authorities where that makes sense, I am sure that such co-ordination could relate to litter made apparent by cutting the branches where that was appropriate.
  The duty to clear will apply whether litter is exposed by grass or tree cutting, or whether it is thrown from a passing car. Whatever the circumstances, the code ensures that there is a clear responsibility for litter clearance on our roadside, and I am sure that all authorities will want to consider carefully how they undertake their duties most efficiently.
  My noble friend Lord Stanley raised other concerns. One related to litter which was exposed on hedges which are not the responsibility of the local authority. As my noble friend Lady Blatch said in her letter to my noble friend, the code will specifically encourage local authorities to enter into private arrangements with landowners for clearing litter from roadside hedges. I hope that that answer deals with the point.
  The noble Lord also asked what a member of the public should do. We hope that members of the public will not leave litter in the first place and that their children will be brought up similarly. However, should there be a situation in which there is litter and a member of the public wishes to take action about it, if the member of the public believes that the duty authority is not meeting its obligations he should take the following action.
  First, he should find out what standards the code imposes. That can be done either by contacting the duty authority or in the case of local authorities by consulting a notice in a public library or town hall about the standards applicable in the relevant area. Having done that, if he is still convinced that the authority is failing in its duty, he should contact the authority and notify it of his intention to apply to the magistrates' court for a litter abatement order. If the authority has not cleared away the litter in question after five days, he can apply again to the court. If satisfied that the complaint is justified, the court can issue a litter abatement order compelling the authority to clear up or face a fine.
  Incidentally, I can assure my noble friend that we shall take every opportunity to publicise the litter provisions of the Bill and I look forward to enlisting his support for that cause. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment now that I have responded to most of his concerns.
  The whole essence of a code of practice is that it should provide a flexible way to specify how duty authorities should discharge their responsibilities for clearing litter. We should not want to specify on the face of the Bill particular matters that it should cover. The code will be laid before Parliament for approval. For the benefit of my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, I should add that the code of practice will urge local authorities not to disturb wildlife. I hope that my noble friend has been reassured by my remarks and feels able to withdraw his amendment.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may say that he has not quite responded to the point that I made. I probably did not make myself clear. Would it be possible for the code of practice to state that there should be a standing arrangement with the local authority which should be made easily known to the public? I do not believe that the procedure outlined by the noble Lord—providing that someone who happens to see litter on the road should go first to the library and then to the court and so on—will be followed very often. If there is a simple arrangement which is widely known to the public, people can simply complain to the litter authority. That would seem a clearer approach and a better one from the point of view of the public.
  Lord Reay: My Lords, I indicated that the code will now include guidance that authorities should do whatever is practicable to co-ordinate such activities. In the code of practice there will be that specific instruction. It will include the possibility of standing arrangements being made but I believe that it should be left to the local authority to decide what in the circumstances they feel to be the best means of going forward. If they wish to do so, they may make those arrangements.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that explanation of what will be in the code of practice. Should I have to take the local authority to task for not doing its job, it might take me a little time and keep me away from your Lordships' House. That may be the object of the Chief Whip but it is another matter.
  I am aware that there is a course of action that I can take and I am grateful to the noble Lord for spelling it out and making a most helpful statement. I hope that all concerned and in particular the local authorities, whether it is the highway authority or the litter authority, when this Bill becomes an Act, take note of their new responsibilities and the responsibilities which will be laid upon them to keep the roads, verges and banks clean and tidy. I hope too that the public will insist that those duties are carried out so as to keep our countryside clean and tidy. That applies in particular to me as a farmer. I have great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
  5.45 p.m.
  Clause 106 [Purpose of Part VI and meaning of 'genetically modified organisms' and related expressions]:
  [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 26:
  After Clause 107, insert the following new clause:
  ("Consultation on GMOs
  —(1) The Secretary of State shall before making any regulations under this Part either—

  (a) consult such persons as appear to him to be appropriate and take account of their views; or

  1290

  (b) where for reasons of urgency he considers such consultation to be impracticable, issue a statement as soon as practicable as to the effect of any such regulations made.

  (2) Any statement issued under subsection (1) (b) above shall be laid before Parliament.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Undeniably there is very considerable public concern about the whole question of GMOs. The case that we have sought to argue, which we hope is also the Government's case, is that the wider the knowledge and the wider the information that can be imparted about these matters the better. Consequently, going to the very heart of this matter is the instrument of consultation. I believe that it is only through that means that public anxiety can be allayed. I concede that it will not be easy, even if one has the most sophisticated means of consultation.
  Having said that, it is clear beyond peradventure that in exercise of the very broad powers given to the Secretary of State under Part VI to establish in regulations activities which are considered harmful for the purposes of this legislation, it is imperative that the clearest possible assurances of effective consultation be contained in the legislation itself. That is the fundamental purpose of the new clause.
  During the Report stage I wanted some specific assurances from the Government that all persons and organisations with a clear interest in the control of genetic modification would be consulted before regulations were made and that those bodies should include local authorities, primarily because of their responsibilities in terms of environmental health but also because they have perhaps the closest contact with the people to whom I referred earlier whose anxieties need to be allayed.
  In response, the noble Baroness, Lady Batch, repeated assurances that had been given earlier in Committee that there would be,
  "full consultations on Part VI regulations".
  My understanding is that local authority associations were pleased to observe that commitment and to be among the consultees. The reason given by the Minister for not importing statutory consultation into the Bill was that,
  "A need could, however, arise to amend regulations rapidly in view of the speed with which biotechnology is developing. Statutory consultation could result in unworkable delay in cases of exceptional urgency, but I stress that such cases are likely to be the rare exception and not the general rule". [Official Report, 15/10/90; col. 694.]
  That is fair enough. It is a cogent argument that urgent situations could arise which would make consultation impracticable in some cases. In subsection (1) (b) of the new clause we seek to ensure that the Secretary of State should be permitted in cases of urgency to avoid consultation, provided that after the regulations have been made a statement is issued as to their effect which is then laid before Parliament. It would be for the Secretary of State to determine when it was impracticable for reasons of urgency to undertake statutory consultation, which would be the preferred course.
  I suggest that it is a perfectly reasonable and workable amendment. It underlines the Government's intention to consult. It provides reassurance for the future in what will undoubtedly be an important and long-standing piece of legislation over many decades. At the same time the Secretary of State will retain the decision-making power as to which cases should not fall within the requirements for consultation.
  The requirement to lay a statement before Parliament should be of considerable assistance to the Government. By doing so the body could explain its actions. It would then provide wider public and parliamentary understanding of the issues. They are often extremely complex. Undeniably it is the most democratic way to proceed. In those circumstances I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, we are much too accustomed to writing into legislation that one body shall consult another. In the presence of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter I dare to repeat the nonsense about having to consult the Treasury. However, we are not told which body is to be consulted. The Secretary of State is merely to,
  "consult such persons as appear to him to be appropriate".
  That gets us nowhere.
  Even though the word "shall" is used the Secretary of State can defeat the whole objective by simply deciding that there are no persons who appear to him to be appropriate for consultation. We should therefore be enacting a dead letter. I say that with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who has put the case before us with his usual clarity and sincerity. I therefore not only expect but hope that my noble friend will not take up too much time in rejecting the amendment.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have given repeated assurances that we will consult and take account of the views of a wide range of bodies and individuals before making regulations under Part VI. The Secretary of State is the sole control authority for Part VI and specific provision is not necessary for him to ensure that those concerned are consulted on regulation proposals. Let me make clear once again that we will consult and take account of the views of bodies and individuals who can help to ensure that any regulations made under Part VI achieve the fundamental objective of protecting the environment against damage from GMOs.
  Amendment No. 26 also addresses those circumstances when, for reasons of urgency, consultations are impracticable. We stressed at Report stage that such circumstances are likely to be a rare exception. All regulations, even those made in an emergency, would be subject to scrutiny and the Government would be required to account for their actions in the normal way.
  In begging me to reject the amendment, my noble friend Lord Renton made an important point on the uncertainty about who should be consulted and who is appropriate. That surely must be a matter of trust for the Secretary of State. I hope that the noble Lord
  1292
  will not press the amendment and will accept, for what I trust will be the final time, the assurance that the objectives about which he is so anxious will be achieved.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I found the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, interesting as always. However, I was disappointed that he should liken what we seek to achieve to any consultation with the Treasury, which is bound to be fruitless. We seek to have worthwhile consultations.
  The argument adopted by the Minister conceded what we say in effect. She said, "Yes, we shall consult. What we want to know is with whom". She stated that it will be for the Minister to define the position. That is fine. But why not agree to the amendment? Why not be absolutely precise? That is what we ask for. We had an illustration from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, of a despicable Minister who was bent upon a course of ensuring that consultation would be avoided at all costs and who would engage in many devices to procure that goal. It is much more difficult for him to do that if he is bound to account to Parliament.
  With this provision he is bound so to account. One constantly hears requests in Committee on both sides of the Chamber that there should be consultation. When I was a Minister I well remember dealing with amendments to that effect made by the other side of the Chamber. Occasionally I conceded the issue. I cannot think of an example where it is more important to concede than where one has such serious anxiety expressed by the public. It is undeniable, not only in this country but also in the European Community, that people are worried and distressed. If those anxieties are not allayed public opinion will play a part in halting progress in this vital field of development.
  With regard to the process of consultation, the Government involve industry, local government, environmental groups and even occasionally trade unions, although that is becoming rarer. That would therefore promote clear flexibility on the part of the Government. It would be helpful. I cannot understand why the Minister continues to resist what is self-evidently a sensible proposal.
  Before I take a certain course the Minister may wish to indicate whether she is absolutely resolute on the matter. A nod of the head will suffice. I thought so; it is very disappointing. Having regard to that fatal nod of the head, I do not propose to divide the House. We are concerned that the Minister should have decided in this way. However, I do not wish to press the matter any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 27:
  After Clause 112, insert the following new clause:
  ("Order on strict liability in certain cases Liability on GMOs
  —(1) The Secretary of State may by Order bring into force the provisions of this section where he considers it appropriate having regard to the application of strict liability within the European Community.
  (2) Subject to subsection (1) above, where any loss or damage is caused by the acquisition, keeping or release of any

  1293
  genetically modified organisms, the person who acquired, kept or released that organism shall be liable for the loss or damage, irrespective of fault on his part, except where such loss or damage—

  (a) was due wholly to the fault of the person who suffered it; or

  (b) was suffered by a person who voluntarily accepted the risk of the loss or damage being caused; or

  (c) as a result of the keeping, acquisition or release of an organism within the terms of a consent issued by the Secretary of State.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Report stage I moved a new clause which effectively adopted the view of the Royal Commission on Environment Pollution to impose strict liability on persons whose GMOs inflict damage subject to certain exceptions—for example, when the person suffering the damage has been wholly responsible for that damage, or where such a person has voluntarily accepted the risk of loss or damage, or where the damage arises from the activities within the terms of consent issued by the Secretary of State.
  What we sought to do at Report is mirrored in subsection (2) of the new clause. Perhaps I may summarise the reasons for urging this course of action to introduce a limited form of strict liability.
  Despite the confidence of the Government—and when they are confident one needs to hang on to one's hat—a considerable body of legal opinion on the issue of GMOs is anxious that there is uncertainty about the application of existing case law. Until Report stage the Government had argued that Rylands and Fletcher applied: that liability for damage would arise in relation to the escape of dangerous things from land without proving negligence. At Report, the Government asserted that we were introducing the wrong vehicle into the proposal. It is a device frequently used by governments even when the proposal is perfectly sensible. We are told that it is inappropriate to amend the rules in civil liability; in this case, in Part VI.
  They went on to assert that the phrase "special use" is appropriate to describe cases where strict liability will operate. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, said on Report that the damage would have to be above that which is normal for strict liability to apply. That was his definition of special use. He went on to say that it would be for the courts to interpret these strange phrases. I find it strange to hear that argument coming from a legislative body which ought to be making the task of the courts easier and not encouraging litigation in order to get a definition of what is in the Bill. That is a rather pessimistic way of legislating. What we seek to do here is to cure that mischief.
  The noble Earl adduced another argument concerning the development of legislation in the European Community. He referred to the draft directive on civil liability for damage caused by waste and went on to refer to the draft convention on damage resulting from dangerous activities, including GMOs. He said that the Government,
  "are actively discussing the principles behind these ideas". —[Official Report, 15/10/90; col. 705.]
  I do not know what "actively discussing" really means. One needs further and better particulars. He said that the Government did not wish to proceed in domestic legislation ahead of the European discussion. If the Government are in effect holding up the European legislation, that argument becomes a little flawed. My information is that the Government are very reticent about the question of strict liability as applied to waste and are not helping to progress the legislation in the European Community.
  Strict liability is not a strange animal unknown to certain parts of the European Community. It is applied extremely successfully in France and in Germany. There is no legal barrier to it being applied here. Certainly, the argument in relation to waste and damage caused by waste and about strict liability applying in such circumstances would be of great benefit to claimants. That is what has happened in the countries I have cited. Why then have there been delaying tactics and obstruction as regards discussions in the Council of Europe? Is it that the Government dislike the whole concept of strict liability and will do everything they can to resist it?
  It was further argued that it would be inappropriate to proceed in other than an international context. The Government pointed to the discussions in the European Community and in the OECD. This amendment cures that worry as well. It would enable the Secretary of State to apply, as appropriate criteria in relation to the introduction of strict liability, the words,
  "having regard to the application of strict liability within the European Community".
  That is a sufficiently broad formulation. It would encompass decisions made by the Community and by the European Court. The amendment would provide a flexible instrument to offer some hope of tightening the law in this area in the future. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has the advantage that many of us do not have of having served on the European Commission. We have to take his suggestion very seriously. It is a fact that in various Continental countries there is much more strict liability—liability without proof of negligence—than we have here. On the other hand, it is a big departure for our system of liability for civil wrongs. It is a departure that ought not to be made by order of the Secretary of State even though that order might require an affirmative resolution of Parliament. Such a departure should be the subject of primary legislation if it is to be done.
  It is a fairly narrow point. One must be careful not to overstate it. Parliament, it could be said, would have the last word even if there were an order of the Secretary of State to be affirmed by both Houses. It is a convention of this House that when another place has passed an order we can discuss it—we do not often do so—but we do not, except for overwhelming reasons, vote against it. This would be such an important change that it should be brought about by primary legislation after full discussion not only in

  1295
  another place but also in your Lordships' House. Therefore, on balance, I do not find myself able to support the amendment.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton raises an important point. I want to emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the Government are not being obstructive in these matters, which was the accusation made. It is because this issue is so important that we believe it makes sense to develop any policy on liability in the wider context. Primary legislation will not be necessary because the power is contained in Clause 154.
  The Government acknowledge the potential utility of strict liability as a means of achieving environmental objectives. It is described in Annex A of the White Paper This Common Inheritance as one of the economic instruments which the Government are evaluating. But the issue is extremely complicated, with implications which stretch far and wide. To give the House a flavour of the complexities, we need to evaluate thoroughly questions such as the link between strict and unlimited liability; the implications of strict liability for the insurability of risk; the possibility of compensation for damage other than to property and person; and many other factors. We are actively considering these matters but we believe that it would be most imprudent to create ad hoc systems of strict liability before all these issues have been properly thought through.
  As my noble friend Lord Arran said during our deliberations on Report, the subject of liability is on the agenda of many of the international organisations, including the Council of Europe, the OECD and the European Community, of which we are a part. I am sure the House will agree that it makes sense to develop policy on liability in the context of the international negotiations. That is why the amendment is not opportune. The power is contained in Clause 154. That will provide the Secretary of State with the power to give effect to Community and other international obligations.
  The noble Lord has had something of that reply before. I have heard his case pressed before. I hope he will accept and take on trust that we are serious in making sure that we have a well thought through policy on liability as it is an important issue. I hope that he will not press the amendment.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, Clause 154 to which my noble friend referred gives power to the Secretary of State to give effect to Community and other international obligations. However, Clause 112, to which this new clause in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, refers, is on an entirely separate matter. It is a very long clause and I shall not take up time in an attempt to summarise it. It deals with consents, limitations and conditions, and especially implied consents for keeping genetically modified organisms under conditions which require reasonable steps to be taken, and so on. However, neither Clause 112 nor Clause 154 can be taken as an indication that Parliament has discussed, as a matter
  1296
  of inserting it in primary legislation, this question of extending to the United Kingdom the strict liability referred to in the new clause.
  I do not know whether my noble friend is saying that under Clause 154 strict liability could be imposed on this country without more ado and without any further discussion in Parliament. If so, I must confess that I find that regrettable.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I ask for the indulgence of the House because I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that the general power given in Clause 154 would allow the United Kingdom Government to honour an obligation and to give effect to that obligation in terms of a policy on liability. Therefore, my understanding is that my noble friend is right in his interpretation that that could be done.
  The general point which I wish to make is this. One reason for rejecting the amendment is that, until we have properly thought through the policy on liability, it would be quite wrong to be precipitous and take an ad hoc approach to a policy. If there is the backing of statute from Europe then that obligation is accepted by the Government. It will not be a choice for the United Kingdom Government but an obligation on their part.
  I am advised that there is no reference in Clause 112 to consent conditions. Clause 154 will enable us to implement the changes in European Community law which affected matters in this Bill. I believe that that is probably consistent with the explanation which I have just given to my noble friend.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised an interesting point. I agree with the Minister that there can be no doubt at all that the normal procedures in relation to Community law must be followed. If it is regulations, they take direct effect as from the date prescribed; if it is a directive, the Government must legislate here. What the Government are doing is absolutely right. They are taking the power under Clause 154 to give effect to Community obligations. I do not believe that there is anything very radical about that. Also, there is the wider power to give effect to international agreements on a wider scale than the Community.
  Having said that, the second point I make is that strict liability is not unknown in the law of England and Wales. We are told by the Minister that the Government are not being obstructive in the EC. My information is that they are not being very helpful. How long will the Government take to make clear their views on something which is not foreign to the law of this country, which is being practised in a number of European member states, which is being undertaken with some success and which is helpful as regards claimants? I do not concede that to import strict liability in this case is such an enormously complex matter. But the Government say that it is. I

  1297
  ask whether that is a device to hold up the discussion and the legislative effect of the proposal which lies on the table of environment Ministers at present.
  We have been given a delightful and charming answer which is characteristic of the Minister. However, it is not very helpful. I was looking for a clear assurance that the Government would seek to expedite the debate taking place in the Council at present
  The Minister imported an argument about insurability and strict liability making that very difficult. However, there is a mixture of arguments there. Strict liability goes to the issue of liability and the question of changing the burden of proof. Questions of insurability relate to quantum. Here we are not talking about unlimited liability. Unlimited liability is a question of quantum. Strict liability is a question relating to the burden of proof and evidence. I do not blame the Minister because she is not a lawyer; but the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whom I wrongly described on a previous occasion as "learned—and I persist in that belief—has indicated that today.
  It is a non-runner as an argument from a legal point of view. I say that to the Minister not churlishly but helpfully. I am sorry that she has rejected the arguments. It would have been better to have had an assurance that the Government will come forward speedily with proposals to take on board strict liability in primary legislation. However, they have not chosen to do that. The arguments in the White Paper merely discuss the complexity and give no assurances at all. I should have thought that this House would seek assurances.
  However, I need not anticipate the Minister's negative nod on this occasion. I am disappointed with her reply but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 128 [Creation and constitution of new Councils]:
  [Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
  Clause 130 [Countryside functions of Welsh Council]:
  Bareness Blatch Bareness Blatch moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 135, line 27, at end insert:
  ("(1A) The Countryside Council for Wales shall discharge those functions—

  (a) for the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in Wales and of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in Wales, both in the areas designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as National Parks or as areas of outstanding natural beauty and elsewhere;

  (b) for encouraging the provision or improvement, for persons resorting to the countryside in Wales, of facilities for the enjoyment thereof and for the enjoyment of the opportunities for open-air recreation and the study of nature afforded thereby;

  and shall have regard to the social and economic interests of rural arms in Wales.
  (1B) The reference in subsection (1A) above to the conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside includes the conservation of its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment needs no introduction. Noble Lords will recall only too well the debate which we had on Report last Wednesday. On that occasion the noble Baroness, Lady White, moved an amendment to somewhat similar effect but it used a form of words which she described as clear, succinct, dignified and worthy of the occasion. Reservations were expressed about parts of the amendment, but much of it was favoured by noble Lords on all sides of the House.
  The government amendment was criticised mainly because of the use of the word "particularly" which it was considered placed undue emphasis on national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty and because of what was considered to be an outdated and misleading use of the word "resorting". I had some sympathy with the views expressed and with the leave of the House I withdrew the amendment and undertook to give the matter further consideration before Third Reading. In view of that undertaking, the noble Baroness, Lady White, also begged leave to withdraw her amendment.
  We have examined carefully the wording of our amendment to see what changes could be made to it to meet the wishes of those noble Lords who favoured the different words. As the House knows, the phrases which caused difficulties in the Government's amendment were deliberately derived from the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Countryside Act 1968 so that the new Countryside Council for Wales and the Countryside Commission would have exactly the same statutory remit for their countryside functions, which will of course remain identical.
  Any significant change would have required identical alterations to the wording of the 1949 and 1968 Acts to bring the Countryside Commission's remit into line with the CCW's. We did not regard it as acceptable to make significant changes at such a late stage in the Bill and decided to re-table the amendments in the form in which they were before your Lordships on Report.
  I realised that that would be a disappointment to many noble Lords and thought it only courteous to write to the noble Baroness, Lady White, and other noble Lords who spoke in the debate on the amendment last week to explain my reasons for re-tabling the amendment in the same form. As a result of discussions with a number of noble Lords, we again reconsidered the implications of the alternative wording. We concluded that we could meet at least some of their wishes. Accordingly, we tabled alternative amendments, principally starred Amendment No. 29, instead of those I originally tabled.
  The first part of the replacement amendment uses the same wording as that of the noble Baroness, Lady White, in her revised Amendment No. 30. Both amendments avoid the use of the offending word "particularly" in subsection (1A), paragraphs (a) and (b). In order to maintain consistency between the statutory remits of the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales, we also tabled

  1299
  new Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 which will change the wording of the Countryside Commission's functions to bring them into line with the wording of Amendment No. 29.
  I regret to say that we are unable to meet the objections of the noble Baroness to the word "resorting" in subsection (1A)(b). In practice dropping the requirement that the council should pay particular attention to national parks amounts to a change of emphasis rather than policy. That is not the case with the other point at issue. Apart from the quaintness of the word "resorting", the main reason advanced for changing it was to extend the CCW's remit to include the provision of facilities etc. for people already living in the countryside. That is not a matter of semantics; it is a question of policy.
  It is not our intention to make significant changes to the functions of the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales in the Bill, and certainly not at this late stage, with no opportunity to study the full implications or even to consult interested parties. I therefore concluded that we should retain the form of words in the second half of the amendment. It has stood the test of time for over 20 years without causing any problems to my knowledge. There may be opportunities in the future to review the functions of the countryside bodies when the views expressed by the House can be considered at an early stage in the legislative process. But that is not the purpose for which we are here today.
  The Bill does not provide the vehicle for a fundamental review of the functions of the councils. That was never the intention of the Government. One of the safeguards for those concerned about the reorganisation has been the Government's undertaking not to interfere with those functions. We shall not depart from that principle now. It must be evident to the House that we genuinely tried our best within the context of the Bill to accommodate the wishes of noble Lords, and we succeeded, I hope, in regard to the use of "particularly".
  I thank my noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Renton and the noble Baroness, Lady White, for their time and the way in which they gave time to me to consider these matters since Report stage. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
  Baroness White Baroness White moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 29, Amendment No. 30:
  Leave out subsection (1A) and insert:
  ("(1A) The Countryside Council for Wales shall discharge those functions—

  (a) for the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in Wales and of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in Wales,

  (b) for encouraging the provision or improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside in Wales,

  and shall have regard to the social and economic interests of rural areas in Wales.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.30 I should explain that it was tabled yesterday when the previous government amendment
  1300
  had been retabled without alteration and before the revised amendment became available this morning. I shall not press my amendment. As the noble Baroness explained, the major drafting problem has now been met. For that, and for the courtesy of the noble Baroness in writing to me and other noble Lords with an interest in the Welsh scene, I am grateful. The noble Baroness showed a degree of sympathy and, if I may say so, good sense which are greatly appreciated.
  However, the noble Baroness confirmed what has been clear for some months past—that the Department of the Environment, with the support of the Welsh Office, has not thought things through. They pressed on with a remit and a pattern of organisation which to my mind will not meet the full needs of a new Countryside Council for Wales and which may therefore not last.
  The departmental stance is explained as a matter not of policy but of law. The noble Baroness wrote:
  "It is an essential feature of reorganisation that the new country agencies"—
  which in Wales means the Countryside Council for Wales—
  "should perform exactly the same functions as at present".
  What is the point of going through all the personal and public upheaval, not to mention the considerable additional administrative expense, in setting up a new organisation in Wales when it is simply to continue to do exactly what it does now?
  It is to be legally constrained, literally word for word, by legislation dating back to 1949 or 1968. The Welsh terms of reference must not be merely compatible with but identical to those obtaining in England. The amendments tabled to Schedule 8 loosen the bonds slightly in both countries. But what becomes of the innovative and potentially exciting experiment in Wales of putting together the nature conservancy element with the wider countryside interests in a single organisation under one roof? What are we to gain?
  The two separate organisations in Wales are entering into matrimony, with no prospect of lawful consummation until the Government—or, one hopes, some other government—can find time to think out a policy. The noble Baroness explained in her letter, and confirmed it in her remarks this evening:
  "We have always emphasised that this part of the Bill [Part VII] is about organisation, not policy, and we do not regard it as the right vehicle in which to make important policy changes".
  In other words, they organise first and then try to find a policy that fits. I, for one, and I am sure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and his colleagues, supposed that we were considering policy as well as organisation. The present official attitude is tantamount to telling the statutory and voluntary environmental organisations in Wales, "You are not to be a pace-setter in countryside affairs as you may have supposed. The smart new suit in the shop window is not for you". It is not for us in Wales. We must make do with the old-fashioned clothes handed

  1301
  down from the generations which legislated in 1949 and 1968, with the slight relaxation proposed by Schedule 8.
  I was the Minister of State at the Welsh Office in 1968. I secured the Welsh Committee of the Countryside Commission, which has functioned ever since. Twenty-two years on I can fairly expect more challenging innovations than a remit to continue doing exactly what we were doing before, but at considerably greater expense.
  The noble Baroness writes that the Government cannot contemplate major changes at this stage of the Bill,
  "with no opportunity for sensible consultation with any interested party".
  Those of us on the voluntary side, not least in the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW), the senior environmental body in the Principality, must smile rather wryly at that. What have we been trying to do since July 1989?
  I conclude with a final quotation from the correspondence of the noble Baroness. It is important to get it on the record. She wrote:
  "There will be later opportunities to reconsider policy, most obviously in the context of the current review of national park policy and in taking forward the new countryside initiatives announced in the environment White Paper. We shall undoubtedly need to look at the remit of the countryside agencies again thereafter".
  At the appropriate moment I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Meanwhile, I repeat my thanks to the noble Baroness for doing her best in difficult circumstances. It is clear to us that those circumstances were created by her senior ministerial colleagues, beginning with Mr. Ridley, who consulted no one either in England or Wales. However, 15 months have passed since that time. They might have been mire rationally employed at least as regards Part VII of the Bill. I can assure noble Lords that those of us in Wales who have sometimes been critical but, broadly speaking, have supported the new Countryside Council for Wales are deeply disappointed to find that it is to go on no differently from before, with the, single major change that it will move its office from Newtown to Bangor.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, as one who spoke in the debate on this subject on the last occasion I express my warm appreciation to my noble friend for the thoroughness with which she has considered this issue and for the helpful way in which she has sought to meet the objections which were put forward. I believe that it is a matter of considerable importance that the words "and particularly" have been removed because, although the emphasis still lies on national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, the very fact that the words have been removed in the way that they have, against the background of comment in this House, will give a clear steer to the new organisation that its responsibilities apply elsewhere and to all the very beautiful countryside of Wales, wherever it may be.
  I listened with care, as always, to the noble
  1302
  Baroness, Lady White, but I feel that she overstated her case and, indeed, was trying to create an argument that is not justified. She used the splendid phrase that we were producing matrimony with no possibility of lawful consummation. I am bound to say that once matrimony has taken place it is not easy to prevent lawful consummation. The fact is that, though the existing statutes may apply, the very fact that marriage has taken place and that the two organisations are brought together to act as a single family substantially changes the position and gives a degree of flexibility and opportunity that did not previously exist. Indeed, I believe I can see some advantages in the council being allowed to proceed under the terms achieved in the Bill before there is a further review, because that will give it an opportunity to go down the road it wishes to pursue with a great deal of flexibility and then to influence any further legislation which may be brought forward.
  I just do not see that the organisation will be greatly constrained at present. I believe that we are taking a major step forward with this Bill. I had intended to rest content—indeed, in practice I shall have to—with the continuation of the use of the word "resorting" in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 29. I thought that I could accept it simply because of its quaintness, to use my noble friend's words, and because it had no other adverse consequences. I am bound to say that the way in which my noble friend spoke to the amendment caused me a moment of anxiety because she appeared to imply that there is a difference in treatment between those who resort to the countryside, and who apparently come to it from outside, and those who live in the countryside and enjoy its amenities. That was the implication of what she said although I do not for one moment believe that it can be true.
  I live in a beautiful valley in a national park. Facilities are provided which I believe I can share and enjoy just as much as anyone who visits the area from outside. My noble friend was in a sense alarming me unnecessarily. The words she used created a distinction that does not exist. It is because I believe that the distinction does, not exist and that we are concerned only with a rather quaint phrase that I am happy not to pursue the matter further.
  In conclusion, I express again my gratitude to my noble friend for the way in which she has approached this matter. I do not believe that the fears expressed opposite are justified. The government amendment is a significant step forward and on that basis I am happy to support it.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not intervene in the debate on Report, and those who remember the length of the debate on the amendment will understand why. I merely intervene now to say that at school I was taught précis and comprehension. It seems to me that my noble friend's amendment is a prime example of the virtues of précis in order to achieve comprehensibility.
  What my noble friend has done, without losing a single thought in the Bill, is to cut 50 words out of the Government amendment. She has done that by

  1303
  removing the ambiguous phrase "resorting to" and the quite unnecessary words "thereof' and "thereby". The government amendment is drafted as though it were a Victorian legal manual or a very imperceptive children's book, Eric, or Little by Little, or Eyes and No Eyes. Certainly that kind of wording has no place in a 1990 Bill and I hope that the Government will accept my noble friend's amendment, which loses nothing of the sense of the government amendment.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I think I should point out that there is much more in this matter than meets the eye. Although it was a simple policy decision that we should establish the Countryside Council for Wales on the breaking up of the NCC, in order to dovetail it with previous legislation—that is, the national parks Act of 1949 and the Countryside Act 1968—it was a very complicated matter.
  At first, I thought the draftsmen were making heavy weather of it. However, with the help of my noble friend Lady Blatch, my mind was drawn, as hers had been, to some of the legal implications. I then realised that it was not so simple after all, and that it had to be done properly. Therefore, I for one support the government amendment to Clause 130 and I welcome the amendments to Schedule 8. They overcome what was agreed among all of us except, at first, the Front Bench, until my noble friend Lady Blatch so splendidly came to our rescue and said that she would reconsider the matter.
  This problem was first referred to by my noble friend Lord Swinton, who cannot be here today but who has asked me to associate him with our thanks to my noble friend Lady Blatch for the vast amount of trouble that she has taken to get the matter right. The point is that having the word "particularly" before the reference to national parks and areas of outstanding beauty seemed to be leaving the rest of the beautiful countryside of Wales unregarded.
  It is rarely that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell but I have to say to him that there is, I hope, no longer an emphasis at all. I see that he is nodding his head, I think in agreement. The truth is that all the countryside of Wales is now free to benefit equally from the activities of the Countryside Council for Wales. Of course the council has to consider the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty but it is equally able to consider other areas, too. Therefore, by deleting the words "and particularly" and introducing the words "both" and "and elsewhere" my noble friend Lady Blatch seems to have got it right. We are grateful to her.
  Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I was present during the discussions on the Government's amendment and on the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady White at Report stage. I did not speak in the debate because at that stage I was not unduly worried by the Government's amendment. I agree that in general it is desirable that there should be consistency in terminology. I was also impressed by the fact that Section 62 of the Wales Act 1978 contained wording almost identical with that contained in the Government's amendment.
  1304
  In listening to the debate and to the Minister's response I found it worrying that the Government seem to be acknowledging that the wording which is now being used in their amendment no longer reflects the changes in circumstances and policy since the early legislation of 1949 and 1978. That seems to be a very difficult position to defend. If the Government insist on perpetuating in this legislation terminology which they acknowledge to be out of date, the only possible government defence is that they have no possibility of introducing the necessary amendments to the earlier legislation because of a very tight timetable. That is further evidence that this legislation has been rushed.
  As the Welsh body will not be an agent of an English one and will operate exclusively in Wales and as there will be no shared responsibility with an English body, can the Government say how the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend will lead to difficulties?
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may take the last point first. My understanding of the legal point is that the functions of the Welsh and English councils must be identical because they are intertwined in legislation reaching back to 1949. It was that hint that I gave. Should there be a review of functions all that has taken place in this debate will form part of the information to be made available to any review. The policy point is that the Government believe that in Wales there will be advantage simply through having a single organisation exercising these two sets of functions.
  I should like to link in the point made by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. We do not share the view that the new bodies will be inhibited from innovation by the statute. There are many examples of innovation carried out by the Countryside Commission even under its present powers. I take the marriage point that in putting two of these bodies together they will spawn innovation and interest within their powers. Therefore, I am not pessimistic about it. In anticipation of the noble Baroness doing what she has said she will do, namely, not press her amendment, I say a very hearty thank-you to her and to all noble Lords who have counselled and recounselled me over the past few days on this amendment. I believe that we have reached a good British compromise on it.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness White: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords. We have reached a stage in this legislation where we cannot carry on the argument indefinitely. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that I cannot see the flexibility when we are told that an essential feature of reorganisation of the new country agencies is that they should perform exactly the same functions as at present. I can see possible legal difficulties. We had a warning last week from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, about a judicial review. That is likely to occur from time to time. If one steps outside something dreadful might happen.
  I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for emphasising the worry of many of us

  1305
  as to the real character of this combination in Wales and what it will prove to be. I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is with us because he is to be the head of one of the two bodies in England. He has family connections in the Principality. He will have no doubt heard that we have our differences between England and Wales. It is unfortunate that we have not managed in this legislation to deal more thoroughly with the matters in hand. Had the noble Baroness been in office some months ago I have no doubt that we could have had a more fruitful experience than at these late stages. As matters stand, it is only sensible to ask leave of the House to withdraw my amendment.
  [Amendment No. 30, as an amendment to Amendment No. 29, by leave, withdrawn.]
  On question, Amendment No. 29 agreed to. Clause 133 [Special functions of Councils]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 137, line 27, at end insert:
  ("(cc) the establishment of common standards throughout Great Britain for the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and the monitoring of the implementation of those standards and of the operation of criteria for such designations").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I moved amendments about the establishment of common standards for sites of special scientific interest at Report stage I was rebuked by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for not going far enough. I hope that he will feel that these Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 tidy up the position at this stage of the Bill and also reflect the justifiable concerns of the committee which the noble and gallant Lord chaired so effectively. I can make the point very simply because we do not want to go over the ground at great length again.
  The establishment of SSSIs on a common basis throughout the whole of Britain is a matter of national importance. I was trying to remember when I had heard noble Lords from Scotland complaining in this Chamber about the excess of SSSIs in Scotland. I say consciously in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that I fear the effect on SSSIs of the fragmentation of the role of the Nature Conservancy Council. It will result in different and lower standards in one part of the nation compared with another.
  As the Carver Committee emphasised, it has been made very clear that in order to have an effective network of SSSIs in the nation as a whole there must be common standards for their establishment and for the monitoring of them to see that they are kept up. It is not as if SSSIs, once established, are somehow sacrosanct. A very large number are privately owned and even those that are not suffer substantial damage. We dc not need to go over that ground again because it has been covered fully in your Lordships' House on many occasions. Monitoring the preservation of SSSIs as well as establishing them on a common basis is essential if the SSSI concept is to survive. That concept of conservation is one of the most valuable and innovative in our country. I strongly recommend these amendments which, as I have said, go some way,
  1306
  though not fully, to completing the Government's acceptance of the Carver Committee recommendations. I beg to move.
  Lord Carver: My Lords, I support this amendment very strongly. I tried to introduce it at Committee and Report stages. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for helping me to try again. The Government must surely agree that it is essential that there should be established common standards for the designation of SSSIs throughout Great Britain and that those standards are the same in England, Scotland and Wales. Perhaps Northern Ireland is slightly different.
  They must also surely agree that it is very important that some body should see that those standards, having been established and agreed, are being implemented in the same way. I cannot understand what other body should be capable of doing that. As is stated in the Bill, it should be a special function of the councils which may be discharged only through the joint committee. When we discussed this and similar subjects at Report stage the noble Baroness repeatedly said that there was a basic disagreement between us and the Government, and that we were trying to turn the joint committee into an executive body. She also said that it was the function of the joint committee to give advice. Neither of those is in fact the case.
  If this amendment were inserted in the place where it is sought to insert it, the Bill would give the councils —not the joint committee—a special function, just as it gives them in the Bill now the establishment of common standards throughout Great Britain for monitoring nature conservation and for research into nature conservation; and it gives them as a special function the commissioning or support. So the function of the joint committee is not just one of advice.
  I ask the Government, if they agree that it is necessary to do this and if it is not to be a special function of the councils through the joint committee: who is going to do it?
  Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to my noble friend Lady Blatch that there are absolutely unarguable reasons why common standards should be applied globally to sites of special scientific and natural history, of wildlife or scenic importance. These principles and standards apply in Africa, the Antarctic and other parts of the world. It is therefore quite absurd to suggest that one can have in a very small island common standards which do not apply in parts of the small island. It makes absolutely no sense in terms of the subject.
  If my noble friend resists the amendment it can only mean that the reasons behind it are political, bureaucratic, nationalistic or something of that kind, which should have no relation to the standards which are applied to sites of scientific interest. Therefore, I should like to support the amendment very strongly because it is rational and makes sense.
  Lord Reay: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to extend the duties and powers of the

  1307
  JNCC. It will not be a surprise to anyone when I say that in the Government's view these amendments seek to bring about an unnecessary extension of the JNCC's powers.
  In the Government's view the duties of the JNCC as set out in subsections (3) and (4)(a) and (b) of Clause 133, which was considerably refined and extended in Committee, are fully adequate to allow the JNCC to issue guidelines for the designation of sites of special scientific interest. Furthermore, clause 133(2)(d) gives the JNCC full scope to establish common standards for nature conservation, which will include SSSIs, and to analyse the resulting information. The NCC is satisfied that Clause 133 as already revised in the light of recommendations in the Carver Report will allow the JNCC to play that role.
  But there is a clear distinction between the special functions conveyed on the councils by Clause 133 for them to exercise through the JNCC and the executive functions of designation and management, for which each council must bear full responsibility within its own country.
  The JNCC will not sit like a big brother, bearing down upon the country councils; nor, looking at it another way, will it provide excuses for the councils to avoid or shirk their unequivocal duties as placed upon them by this Bill. Rather, the JNCC will provide the forum whereby the three councils, together with the independent chairman and the independent members, agree, as they are required to do by Clause 133(2)(d), common standards that take full account of Great Britain and international considerations, which each council will apply in its own country. But it is for each country council, under its own powers in Clause 132, to designate sites in accordance with those standards and to protect them in the light of those standards.
  Therefore, it follows that the first two lines of Amendment No. 31 are unnecessary, and the second two lines, together with Amendment No. 32, run directly counter to the Government's often stated intentions for the respective roles of the JNCC and the three councils.
  The latter parts of Amendment No. 31 and Amendment No. 32 strongly imply an executive function for the JNCC of inspecting SSSIs, issuing reports and generally supervising the notification process. As I have said, such duties would be entirely inconsistent with the intended relationship between the JNCC and the country councils. That relationship stems from the special functions conveyed on the councils to undertake through the JNCC. The councils have clear, unequivocal responsibilities for the advancement of nature conservation in their countries, and proper accountability for the exercise of those responsibilities now, directly through the relevant Secretary of State, to Parliament.
  In those circumstances I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am bound to say that in that response the Minister has pursued government obduracy almost to a theological point.
  1308
  We already have in Clause 133, in the definition of the special functions of councils—that is, those functions which are to be carried out by the JNCC—measures for the provision of advice and dissemination of knowledge, the establishment of common standards for the monitoring of nature conservation and for research into nature conservation and the analysis of the resulting information.
  If we are to take the noble Lord's reply literally, all of those elements which are already part of the functions of the JNCC could be attacked in exactly the same way as he has attacked these two amendments. It could be said that the JNCC was performing functions. It is almost as if there were some sort of atavistic fear of the JNCC actually doing anything at all rather than sitting on the sidelines and smiling, frowning, waving or giving a thumbs down.
  We are now in a really desperate state. We have reached the stage where the Government are totally devoid of sensible arguments. They are totally resistant even to the expert advice of such distinguished nature conservationists as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. I do not think that this House should put up with that quality of response from the Government. It is necessary to take the opinion of the House.
  6.59 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 83.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Buxton of Alsa, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Carter, L.

  McNair, L.

  Carver, L. [Teller.]

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Monson, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  David, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Northfield, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Oram, L.

  Ennals, L.

  Peel, E.

  Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

  Phillips, B.

  Galpern, L.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Rea, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Ross of Newport, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Hooson, L.

  Walpole, L.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  White, B.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham. E.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Arran, E.

  Blatch, B.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Astor, V.

  Borthwick, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Beaverbrook, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Beloff, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Belstead, L.

  Brookes, L.

  1309

  Butterworth, L.

  Long, V. [Teller.]

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Carnock, L.

  Margadale, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Colwyn, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Mountevans, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Munster, E.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Elton, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Flather, B.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Reay, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Renton, L.

  Gray, L.

  Rippon of Hexham, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Haden-Guest, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Hayter, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Henley, L.

  Strange, B.

  Hives, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Holderness, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Huntly, M.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Ullswater, V.

  Johnston of Rockport L.

  Vinson, L,

  Kimball L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  7.5 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
  Clause 140 [Power to prohibit or restrict the importation, use, supply or storage of injurious substances or articles]:
  The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 142, line 15, after ("and") insert ("the air within").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, who spoke to it with Amendment No. 1 earlier this afternoon. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 143 [Public registers of land which may be contaminated]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 145, line 19, at beginning insert:
  ("() define contamination").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 35 to 38.
  I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is not here because we had a useful debate on contaminated land at the Report stage to which he made some quite thought-provoking contributions. If he were here, he would be pleased to know that we have taken account of some of the points that he made in framing the amendments, which are substantially different from the amendments that we proposed on Report.
  It was pointed out, with some justification, that there was a danger in the way that we had framed the original amendments that a register of contaminated land might have to be inspected in totality and that that could be an enormously time-consuming and not always worthwhile procedure. On the other hand, there was fairly widespread agreement that the Government's attitude towards it was as extreme the other way. They took the view that a register of contaminated land should simply be based on documentary research rather than on any element whatsoever of investigation.
  In these amendments we seek to get the best of both worlds —to use documentary research where that is appropriate but to have physical investigation of the site when it is necessary. At the same time we take account of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that it should largely be the responsibility of the purchaser to pay for expensive investigations on contaminated land because any contamination that was found and the cost of investigating it would then be reflected in the purchase price.
  However, in order to achieve that common sense result, as we see it, there must be a better definition of contamination. We therefore include in the provisions for the register of contaminated land in Amendment No. 34 the provision that there should be a definition of contamination. I hasten to add that we are not attempting to put such a definition on the face of the Bill.
  Perhaps I may now deal with Amendments Nos. 35 and 38. The proposal here is that the Secretary of State should initially provide the funds to enable the local authority—which, after all, is maintaining the register and is therefore the obvious body to do this—to carry out the investigation of the contamination when it is necessary but the purchaser should reimburse the Secretary of State with the cost of such investigation. That means that the Secretary of State has the overall control of whether an investigation on site is necessary so that we do not have the position where all the sites would have to be investigated. It also means that the local authority, which maintains the register, has the responsibility—because clearly it has the technical expertise to carry out the investigation or to see that it is carried out—and that the purchaser pays and reimburses the Secretary of State for any costs incurred. In that way we achieve most of the safeguards which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, wanted.
  Finally, in Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 we have provision that the Secretary of State should come forward with proposals about how the investigation and verification of contamination should be carried out. Again, that reflects the desire which we have in this modest, compromise group of amendments to make sure that the Secretary of State can ensure that there are not extravagant and unnecessary investigations but that they can take place when necessary. I beg to move.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the effect of these amendments would be to enable the Secretary of State to create a statutory definition of contamination; they would require local authorities to carry out investigations of contamination on sites entered on registers of potentially contaminated land; and they would enable costs to be recovered from purchasers. No timescale is suggested for these investigations or cost recovery.
  The Government's views on contaminated land were set out fully in our response to the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment which was published in July. Such amendments are neither necessary nor appropriate. We believe that contamination is not capable of precise definition and must therefore remain a general concept. It would certainly be premature to introduce such a definition until levels of background natural contamination are established and the whole question of appropriate criteria by which contamination can be judged have been established.
  The registers proposed under the clause will provide the full history of the potentially contaminating uses of the land. Whether this gives cause for concern will depend on the nature of the possible contamination and the current or future use of the land. Provisions for dealing with sites which represent a risk to human health or the environment have been strengthened elsewhere in the Bill; for example, in Clause 61 under the provision for monitoring of closed landfills and in Clause 79 under "Statutory nuisances".
  Other surveys should be carried out at an appropriate time; for example, when the land is to be sold or when a change of use is proposed the register should refer to these surveys. The cost of investigating all the land on the registers would be enormous. Taking a figure of £15,000 per hectare for investigations and considering the 40,000 hectares of derelict land in England identified in the 1988 Derelict Land Survey, the cost of investigating this area alone would be about £600 million. There might be 10 or a hundred times this area of land covered by the registers. There would also be the major problem in terms of finding the necessary personnel and equipment.
  The amendments also ask the Government to lay down survey and analysis methods in regulations. Techniques in this area are constantly changing and their selection has to be based on site specific conditions such as soil types, combinations of contaminants and hydrogeology. Site investigations need to be carefully designed in terms of both information obtained and use of resources. There are already British Standards Institution publications covering site investigation and a number of guidance documents on the selection of investigation techniques. My department is also sponsoring research on the contaminants likely to be found at particular types of site. It is intended to publish the results of this research in the form of profiles of former uses, including information on the likely origin and nature
  1312
  of resulting contamination. That will greatly assist in the selection of appropriate survey techniques for the individual sites.
  Finally, the recovery of investigation costs would present many difficulties. The "purchaser" would have to pay back the Secretary of State. But what if the land was not sold? What if the costs to be repaid made the land prohibitively expensive? Where land sold formed only part of a site surveyed for contamination there would be difficulties over the amount to be paid back and the balance outstanding. These problems would arise on thousands of sites across the country—a huge administrative burden. At present many investigations of potentially contaminated sites are funded through the derelict land grant scheme and the Government feel that this should continue to provide the main form of support for particular types of contaminated sites.
  The power in these amendments would allow the local authority to deem there to be possible contamination on the site; it would give wide powers to the local authority to incur totally unlimited expenditure; and it would allow it to carry out that investigation and to levy the cost on the owner of the land—again without testing whether the work which was carried out was competitive or reasonable. It may be that at the end of the day contamination would not be found, but the bill would remain the liability of the owner. This power is simply not acceptable. However, the point, the objective and the concern behind the amendment are matters which we take seriously. We hope that the approach which we are making—certainly with the research into profiling—will at least in part reassure the noble Lord and encourage him not to press the amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to hear what the Minister has just said in her closing remarks, although I am bound to say that I do not find it consistent with the Government's insistence that the register of contaminated land should be dealt with purely by what I believe are called "desk sources" rather than by providing a facility for investigation.
  I hear what the noble Baroness says about the detailed drafting of the amendments and the cost which would be incurred if her understanding of the proposal were taken literally. However, I should remind her that all of these amendments fall within the context of an overriding provision that the Secretary of State "may by regulation" provide these safeguards. I should have thought, therefore, that the Secretary of State has the power in framing such regulations to ensure that the horrific consequences which she sees as a result of this proposal do not take place. I believe that this is a confession of failure on the part of the Government; they do not know how to tackle the issue of contaminated land. The provisions of the Bill are to some extent shying away from the problems. However, having said that, I accept that the amendments are flawed and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 34.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 35 to 38 not moved.]
  Clause 149 [Dog registration]:
  Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 149, line 8, leave out from ("amounts") to end of line 9 and insert (", and subject to such exemptions, as they may determine or the Secretary of State may prescribe.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason we are tabling this amendment is that, since the Government kindly redrafted our original amendment dealing with dog registration, my noble friend Lord Balfour has drawn my attention to the fact that the fee should be set by the Secretary of State (Hansard, 17th October 1990 at col. 1016). After consultation with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and, indeed, the Association of District Councils, it was thought correct to table this amendment which would allow the final decision to be made by the Secretary of State after consultation. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend's amend vent relates to making provision for exemptions from the registration or registration fee requirement as may be determined by local authorities or as the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations. I am pleased to accept the amendment on behalf of the Government.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 162 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
  [Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
  Schedule 5 [Further Amendments of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960]:
  [Amendments Nos. 41 to 47 not moved.]
  Schedule 8 [Amendment of Enactments relating to Countryside Matters]
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 192, line 32, after ("England") insert ("for the purposes specified in subsection (2) below;").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 49 to 54:
  Page 192, line 35, at end insert ("for the corresponding purposes specified in section 130(1A) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.").
  Page 192, line 36, leave out from beginning to third ("the") in line 39 and insert:
  ("(2) The purposes for which the functions of the Commission are exercisable are—

  (a)").

  Page 192, line 40, leave out ("and particularly") and insert ("both").
  Page 192, line 43, at end insert ("and elsewhere").
  Page 192, line 44, leave out from beginning to ("encouraging") in line 1 of page 193 and insert:

  ("(b)").

  Page 194, line 47, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 50 and insert ("—

  (i) after the word "recreation" there shall be inserted the words "and the study of nature"; and

  (ii) at the end, there shall be inserted the words "; and the purposes for which the functions of the Council in Wales are to be exercised are the corresponding purposes specified in section 130(1A) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990." ").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments were spoken to with Amendments Nos. 29 and 30. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 15 [Consequential and Minor Amendments of Enactments]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 59:
  Page 224, line 24, leave out ("Sections 14 and 15") and insert ("Section 14").
  Page 224, line 26, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").
  Page 224, line 28, leave out ("(2A)") and insert ("(3A)").
  Page 224, line 30, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").
  Page 224, leave out lines 36 to 39.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. This was a good Bill when it came to your Lordships' House and after 90 hours of debate in this Chamber it is now an even better Bill.
  The Bill is extremely wide-ranging and accordingly has demanded a great deal of your Lordships' time. Nevertheless, I believe that it has been time well spent. During our deliberations we have considered 1,266 amendments from all parts of the House and of those we agreed 471. Many more amendments were withdrawn or not moved, because accommodation of concerns and/or assurances were negotiated informally. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their time and indulgence on those issues.
  The smooth passage afforded the Bill by your Lordships reflects the urgency we all feel about tackling the environmental problems that threaten our future. It is worth reminding your Lordships' House briefly of the significant features of this landmark in environmental legislation.
  First, the Bill establishes an entirely new system of integrated pollution control which for the first time brings a cross-media approach to tackling the potentially most polluting industrial processes in this country. That puts into practice our firm belief that prevention is better than cure. With the introduction of IPC we can once and for all put to rest the myth that this country is dragging its feet on environmental protection. The fact is that we are in the forefront and it is this country that is taking the lead in introducing IPC to the rest of Europe; but the Bill is not just about IPC. It also brings a complete and much needed overhaul of our waste management system. That will lead to higher standards in the industry and greater public confidence that we as a nation are doing all that we can to minimise waste and maximise recycling.
  The Bill includes important new measures to update our laws on statutory nuisance and the handling and disposal of radioactive substances. It brings forward tough new proposals to stamp out the offensive and completely unacceptable face of litter in our cities, towns and countryside. Part VI contains new controls to deal with the potential environmental effects of genetically modified organisms.

  1315
  It would be wrong of me not to acknowledge that the most contentious part of the Bill has been Part VII —the reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council; but, through the acceptance by the Government of the overwhelming majority of the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology under the skilful chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, we now have the right structure for nature conservation in England, Scotland and Wales.
  Before concluding my remarks I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his contribution to the Bill. In his usual characteristic way he has helped the House focus its attention on some of the more intricate provisions of the Bill and has added significantly to the high quality of the debate in this Chamber. I thank him for that, for his courtesy, and, on occasions, for his indulgence. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, and his noble friends are also owed a debt of thanks for their contributions.
  Having acknowledged the contributions of noble Lords opposite it would be remiss of me not to mention the valuable support this Bench has received from my noble friends. Their contributions have on many occasions helped to clarify and improve the intentions of the Bill, and I offer my most sincere thanks to all my noble friends who have taken an active part in our deliberations on the Bill.
  Perhaps I may be forgiven for mentioning some names but not all. I know that that is an invidious thing to do. My noble friend Lord Balfour has the beadiest eye I know. He keeps parliamentary counsel on their toes constantly. I thank him for pointing out the errors of our ways. I give my grateful thanks to my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Renton for their immensely wise counsel to me as a new member of the Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Stanley and I have had a major point of difference about dog registration. I respect enormously his position on that issue and I thank him for his co-operation in at least making his original amendment workable, if it survives, on the statute book. I thank my noble friends Lord Lucas, Lady Carnegy and others for their support.
  I should like to offer my thanks to a number of my Front Bench colleagues without whom my task would have been made considerably more difficult. Noble Lords will recall that at the start of your Lordships' consideration of the Bill it was my noble friend Lord Hesketh who so ably introduced it and steered it through its Second Reading and Committee stages. Despite his heavy workload in his new department, I am indebted to him for his continuing support and encouragement.
  The Bill ranges across Great Britain. I have discovered a saying in the department. When one is dealing with a Scottish amendment one is "kilting" the Bill. We have kilted the Bill with the help of my noble friends Lord Sanderson and Lord Strathclyde, who passed through my department at the speed of lightning, and Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne. I am grateful to them. To be even-handed and unequivocal,
  1316
  dare I say to those Welsh colleagues in the Chamber that we have "leeked" the Bill? I have done that with the help of my noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Renton and the noble Baroness, Lady White, and others. I am grateful to them because that is an important part of the Bill. I shall continue the pun and say finally that we have also "farmed" the Bill for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I had the help of my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who dispatched her part of the Bill with a speed that made me extremely envious.
  I also thank my noble friend Lord Arran for his support. We burned much midnight oil. He managed to say "genetically modified organisms' with precision every time he pronounced the words. I am grateful to him for his enormous support. My special thanks go to my noble friend Lord Reay. He volunteered to stay with me on the Bill. He added that duty to his other duties in his new departments. I am especially grateful to him for the way he has stuck with me throughout the passage of the Bill. My final thanks go to my noble friend Lord Astor, who is a new addition to the Bench. Although he has not taken part directly in the Bill, he has attended briefings and has learnt a great deal about it. I thank him for providing moral support in the background. I have had tense moments during the passage of the Bill. I thank all noble Lords for their indulgence.
  As I said at the outset of my remarks, the Bill has always been a good Bill and is now an even better one to send back to the other place. Taken with our White Paper on the environment, published in September, the Bill lays the foundations for pollution control into the next century and beyond. It offers something for everyone: tighter government controls over major potential polluters and greater responsibility on individual citizens to ensure that we all play a part in building a cleaner, greener Britain for the future. It is with unreserved enthusiasm that I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with the courtesies which have been so ably expressed by the Minister already. To start with her, she has had the extraordinarily difficult task of taking over a complex Bill at Report and Third Reading stages although she was fully occupied on government business when the Bill was in Committee. She could hardly have been expected to take an active part or active interest in it. However, she has done brilliantly, I must tell the House. Not only has she mastered her brief but she has shown the House that she cares about the issues. She has demonstrated great flexibility in listening to and understanding the points made by noble Lords from all sides of the House, even if she has sometimes gone back to the department and found there was nothing she could justifiably do.
  The noble Baroness deserves the sincere congratulations of all noble Lords on what she has done for the Bill. As she made clear, a large government team has

  1317
  dealt with the Bill. It started with the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, and I have enjoyed confronting him across this table on many occasions. He lived up to his reputation in dealing with the Bill. The noble Baroness has been ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and I could not even start to list all the others who have been involved. Despite quite fierce disagreements, there has been no time when we lost sight of the courtesies, and I am grateful for that.
  I am enormously grateful to my noble friends who have taken part, mainly from the Back Benches. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton muzzled himself by becoming Chief Whip in the middle of our proceedings, therefore he was unable to take any further part. I am indebted to my noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Clinton-Davis, who came to help me on the Front Bench later on. I am enormously grateful to those on my Back Benches who understand far more about the issues than I. Perhaps I may single out my noble friends Lady White, Lady David and Lady Nicol as well as others who took part. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, played a significant part in dealing with CFCs and I am grateful to him.
  I think it is fair to say that we worked closely with the Liberal Democrats. We have seen eye to eye on virtually everything we have done and the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Ross, Lord Addington, Lord Ezra and Lord Tordoff, have been welcome.
  The Bill has attracted many expert contributions from all sides of the House. It would not be too surprising if I picked out from the Government Benches the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. I have embarrassed him on more than one occasion on other Bills b' singling out his contribution, but he is a true Conservative independent. He makes a significant contribution to everything to which he puts his mind. He certainly made such a contribution to this Bill with his amendments on dog registration. It would be right to say that the Commons would be ill advised if they were to overturn his amendments. The idea of dog registration and the recognition of the need for it are widespread in this country. Most people want to see a dog registration system; we now have such a system in the Bill and one that will work. We understand that it has the support of large numbers of members of the Government. It may simply be the obstinacy of the Prime Minister that presents any obstacle to it. I hope that that is not the case. If so, I hope that wisdom will prevail and that those provisions will return to the House unscathed next week.
  The other major amendment which may not be welcome to the Government is that which we put in at Report stage about the environmental principles to be followed by firms and generally. These principles, which have been adopted by ethical investors in the United States, are called the Valdez principles. In my view they form a valuable opening set of principles on which all environmental legislation in the coming years will have to be based. It would be a tragedy if they were dropped from the Bill. They do not harm the Government's intentions but contribute to focusing
  1318
  the mind of everyone concerned with environmental protection. I hope that they will receive the support of another place.
  The Minister described the Bill as being an unequivocally good Bill. Although we are glad to see it pass, our position is one of modified rapture. That is not so much for what the Bill does but for the opportunities that have been missed. We have had —I will not quite describe it as the benefit of the Government White Paper—as the Bill has been going through. The White Paper is a grave disappointment, not only because it fails to tackle the wider issues of energy and transport as well as those which are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, but because there are no finite proposals for legislation and it is clear that there will now be no effective further environmental protection legislation in the lifetime of this Government.
  I pledge to the House that the Labour Government which will be elected within about the next 18 months will return to these matters with a keen sense of purpose and of the obligations placed on all of us to protect the environment, not just in our locality, not just in the nation but in the world.
  Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, for the most part the Bill is greatly to be welcomed. When it was first introduced I described it as a bit of a ragbag but it is a major piece of environmental legislation. I too congratulate the noble Baroness and her colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Reay and Lord Arran, and her predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, on the way in which they have piloted the Bill through the House in its many stages.
  I apologise profusely to the noble Baroness. I was told from the Labour Front Bench that a long speech was coming so I went to see my friends who had come to dinner. However, I was only halfway up the stairs when the noble Baroness had already started her speech. I apologise that I was absent for the first few minutes of it. Her appointment to the Front Bench as principal environment spokesman in this House is greatly to be welcomed from these Benches, and long may she stay there.
  I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I find him erudite in everything he says. He deals with the Bill from an Opposition point of view in a thorough and constructive way. I do not believe that I could ever do it as well as he does.
  Changes have been made to the Bill and concessions given, even to me. It is fair to claim that the Bill is an improvement on its state when it first came into this House. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, on his dog registration clauses. Like others who have spoken before me, I hope that they will remain in the Bill.
  Of course, Part VII of the Bill is still a cause of much concern to me and to others outside the House. I believe that it was wrongly conceived in the first place despite the noble efforts, which I recognise—and I pay tribute to them—of the Secretary of State and his senior Minister, David Trippier, who is a friend of mine and who has been very helpful to me. I recognize

  1319
  all the steps they have taken to try to rectify what I considered were mistakes in the first instance. They have tried hard and we must now fervently hope that the legislation will work and the relationship between the various country agencies will proceed on a fully co-operative basis.
  I still cannot believe it is right that SSSIs and nature reserves that are situated on country boundaries should be split in two. Nevertheless that was a matter that we were defeated on and we shall have to live with it. I believe that common sense will prevail in these matters. I accept that there are some sensible people in charge of the various agencies. I am sure that sensible people will also be appointed to the councils.
  I wish to thank my noble friends Lord Ezra, Lord Addington, Lord Tordoff and Lord McNair for the parts they have played in the Bill. I also wish to thank the AMA for the enormous work that it has carried out in letting us have background notes. I also wish to thank the voluntary bodies which have played a part in the Bill. I have been mainly concerned with those voluntary bodies involved in nature conservation. They have played a major role. I also thank our own researcher Mark Williams.
  The noble Baroness may be interested to know that I presented the prizes at my former school in Bedford on Saturday. I said on that occasion, "If I seem to be twitching a little, you might understand why". No one seemed to cotton on to that at the time. If I have twitched a little during this speech, perhaps noble Lords will understand why.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I do not propose to go over the Bill again. However, I wish to pay a personal tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She was thrown in at the deep end and she swam very ably. Ministers in this House are always courteous but the noble Baroness has mastered the supreme courtesy in that she appears to take one's arguments seriously. Even better than that, she always produces what seems to be a sensible answer which shows that she has listened to the points that have been made. I commend her for that. I hope that she remains in her position for a long time.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, we on these Back Benches should pay tribute too. This is the most comprehensive Bill for the protection of the environment that has ever been presented to Parliament. It is a massive and complicated affair. My noble friend Lady Blatch came into it just before the Report stage when much work had already been done in both Houses. We were all amazed at the way she grasped all the complicated and delicate issues. We were amazed, too, at the patience she showed and at her thoroughness. All of us in different parts of the House were able to rejoice at the way she was able to meet our views. It seems to me that success on this Bill will depend not merely upon a few thousand officials of various kinds throughout the country and members of quangos and so on, but also upon the co-operation of the whole of the community including industry and, dare I say it, even agriculture.
  1320
  Co-operation will especially be needed from the great unthinking mass of people who scarcely know what an environment is. We have to help them by our example. Finally, the success of the Bill will also depend upon a matter which is not mentioned in it, and that is by our not becoming even more heavily populated. However, that is a matter for another occasion.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the niceties have passed to and fro and I do not dissent from any of them. I offer my condolences to the noble Baroness who has been thrown in at the deep end here and who has conducted herself with intelligence, at times with wit, and always with great courtesy. However, we are dealing with a Bill. This is the time when we have the responsibility of expressing our opinions about the Bill.
  On Second Reading I recall that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey pointed out, in opening his case, that the Bill was almost certain to be the only environmental protection Bill to be initiated during this Parliament. That fact has not been challenged by the Government. That strongly suggests that no more legislation on this subject will be announced in the gracious Speech next week. If that is so, we shall be left for the next few years with this Bill as the only environmental protection Bill in existence. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh devastatingly pointed out in his opening address on Second Reading, the Bill does not meet the challenge which those of us in this country and abroad are faced with today.
  I pay immense tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, for his winding-up speech on Second Reading. It was a perfect example of what a winding-up speech should be. His speech covered a whole host of points succinctly and directly. The noble Lord said in answer to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton:
  "I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will listen as the Bill goes through its various stages in this House".—[Official Report, 18/5/90; col. 578.]
  I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is entitled to reply. I hope that she or perhaps another member of the Government can reply. I want to know whether the Government have listened to the arguments that have been presented during the various stages of the Bill. What have the Government done to change the Bill according to the arguments evinced on both sides of the House? What do the Government consider they have done to change the Bill? What changes have arisen as a result of the arguments that have been put forward from this and other parts of the House?
  The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said at col. 579 of Hansard of 18th May in reply to my noble friend Lord McIntosh on the point that we should be moving a little faster:
  "I believe that step by step is the best approach. The White Paper will be forthcoming".
  However, we do not have time for the step by step approach. We do not have time for evolution. We do not have time, in Tennyson's words, "to move from precedent to precedent". We are faced with a crisis and

  1321
  we are in the middle of a crisis. We are faced with a challenge. If this Bill which I described as a ragbag on Second Reading is the only measure we have to put forward as a lead from Britain, we are not meeting that challenge.
  On virtually every point that we raised, whether it concerned energy or transport, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said that we should wait for the White Paper. We now have the White Paper. The Government's policy can be summed up as the White Paper plus this Bill. Do the Government really believe, in view of the scientific evidence that has been produced over the past 12 months, that this Bill plus the White Paper will meet the challenge of that evidence? We shall have time to debate the White Paper later. All I can say is that every knowledgeable expert who has looked at the White Paper has shaken his head and said, "Poor Chris Patten. He has lost the battles''. In every crucial case the White Paper makes provision for a possibility, but when it comes to action it is strikingly barren.
  I hope that next week some further legislation will be announced. However, when my noble friend Lord McIntosh stated that there would be no further legislation on this matter, the Government did not, to the best of my knowledge, challenge him. In that case we are left with this Bill plus the White Paper. When the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, replied to the questions put to him by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and others on Second Reading, when he was discussing the point I made about dumping in the North Sea, and when he was replying to my noble friend as regards limiting carbon dioxide emissions, all he could say was that the United Kingdom would consider such matters. That is a phrase which runs right through the White Paper.
  There is to be a conference next week on climate change. We hope that the Government will sign the convention. My friends within the climatic sciences are looking very carefully to see whether it will be signed. However, there is nothing in the White Paper that gives an assurance that that is the policy of the Government.
  When the White Paper and this Bill are put together it is clear that they represent the failure of the Government. It is a failure caused mainly by their philosophy of non-intervention. We have seen that the market forces of which the Government so proudly boast are precisely the forces which have produced the crisis we now face.
  If the noble Baroness is to reply I ask her to tell the House Just where the Government have fulfilled the promise given by her noble friend Lord Sanderson at the end of the Second Reading debate to listen and to change the Bill in response to the arguments put forward from all sides of the House. If the Government are not prepared to listen and to recognise the crisis that is now on our doorstep then Britain is contracting out of the challenge that confronts mankind.
  Baroness David: My Lords, my hostility to Part VII of the Bill is well known. I shall not go over that
  1322
  ground now because it is shortly to be passed, and one can only hope that it will work better than some of us think it will.
  I should like to make one point about the staff of the Nature Conservancy Council. When the proposal for the Council to be split was first announced it was a terrible shock to the staff who had made their own plans for devolution to the regions. I believe that the staff have behaved extremely well. We know how hostile they were to the proposals. A ballot held last week showed that the majority of the staff in England, Scotland and Wales are still opposed to the proposals.
  I join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Baroness for her masterly handling of the Bill, having taken it over at a late stage. However, she showed some misunderstanding on one point at Report stage when the position of the staff of the Nature Conservancy Council was raised. She appeared to consider that because they were offered job security and they would all have the same salary and the chance of a job in the new set-up, that was satisfactory. The staff all care very much about conservation and they are afraid that conservation will not be as good and as successful under the new regime as under the old.
  As well as congratulating the noble Baroness on her handling of this very complex Bill I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord McIntosh, who has carried a great burden on the Front Bench. He has mastered the whole of this Bill with consummate skill. I admire and envy him very much for his ability to do so.
  Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to go into detail as to how I believe that this Bill has changed substantially in its progress through this House. Suffice it to say that 471 amendments have been accepted and a good deal of negotiated accommodation has gone on behind the scenes. Those amendments have come from all parts of the House. Many of them were substantial and others minor.
  I still believe that this is a good Bill. I profoundly disagree with the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. His criticism is that it is the only Bill. It is a substantial Bill and a major piece of environmental legislation. It will be implemented over the next two years, and to say that we are remiss for not having another piece of legislation to follow on in the next few weeks seems to me to be rather hypercritical. It is a good Bill and in my view it will make for a cleaner, greener Britain.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

  Midland Metro Bill
  A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House—
  That the promoters of the Midland Metro Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the agents for the

  1323
  Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.
  House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.

  LOCAL AUTHORITY SUPERANNUATION FUND INVESTMENT DECISIONS
  LOCAL AUTHORITY SUPERANNUATION FUND INVESTMENT DECISIONS
  OIL: EC TRADING CURRENCY
  OIL: EC TRADING CURRENCY
  COUNTRYSIDE INITIATIVES IN WALES
  COUNTRYSIDE INITIATIVES IN WALES
  HOSPITAL BED CLOSURES, GREATER LONDON
  HOSPITAL BED CLOSURES, GREATER LONDON